Cited by 37Avian ecology and behaviorEcology and biodiversity studiesWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Demographic response of Piping Plovers suggests that engineered habitat restoration is no match for natural riverine processes

Open access
Hunt, Kelsi L., Fraser, James D., Friedrich, Meryl J., Karpanty, Sarah M., Catlin, Daniel H.·2018·The Condor

Abstract

Globally, riparian ecosystems are in decline due to anthropogenic modifications, including damming.Reduced frequency and altered timing of flood events decreases sandbar deposition, which reduces habitat for sandbarbreeding birds, including the threatened Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus).In response to limited breeding habitat and small populations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed 255 ha of sandbar habitat on the Missouri River, USA, from 2004 to 2009.During the breeding seasons of 2010 and 2011, historically high flows resulted in the creation of 1,046 ha of suitable sandbar habitat on the Missouri River.We compared the demographic responses of Piping Plovers to this anthropogenic and natural habitat creation.We found that demographic parameters, including nest success (x preflood ¼ 0.45 6 0.02 SE vs. xpostflood ¼ 0.74 6 0.02 SE), prefledging chick survival (x preflood ¼ 0.39 6 0.09 SE vs. xpostflood ¼ 0.65 6 0.03 SE), and hatch-year survival (x preflood ¼ 0.16 6 0.03 SE vs. xpostflood ¼ 0.46 6 0.03 SE), were consistently higher on the flood-created habitat than on the engineered habitat, leading to population growth after the flood.These differences were related to increased sandbar habitat, low nesting densities, and decreased nest and chick predation.As ecosystems are increasingly altered, ecologists seldom have the opportunity to make appropriate comparisons between managed and natural ecosystem processes.Our results suggest that management intervention may not be an appropriate substitute for natural ecosystem processes in riparian ecosystems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1650/condor-17-93.1

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Too little habitat restoration, or restoration of high-risk habitats that attract birds from other locations, may reduce the reproductive output of piping plovers competing for territory.

    “Too little habitat restoration, or restoration of high-risk habitats that attract birds from other locations, may reduce the reproductive output of piping plovers competing for territory (Hunt et al. 2018).”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Hunt et al. 2018

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that reproductive rates fell as density increased despite engineered habitat creation, and that birds arriving later may have been unable to secure territories. It also describes predation risks on small, densely occupied sandbars, but does not establish that high-risk restored habitat attracted birds from other locations and thereby reduced reproductive output. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, second edition. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
  2. Catlin, D. H. (2009). Population dynamics of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) on the Missouri River. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacks- burg, VA, USA.
  3. Catlin, D. H., J. H. Felio, and J. D. Fraser (2011a). Effect of Great- horned Owl trapping on chick survival in Piping Plovers. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:458-462.
  4. Catlin, D. H., J. H. Felio, and J. D. Fraser (2013). Effects of water discharge on fledging time, growth, and survival of Piping Plovers on the Missouri River. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77:525-533.
  5. Catlin, D. H., J. D. Fraser, J. H. Felio, and J. B. Cohen (2011b). Piping Plover habitat selection and nest success on natural, managed, and engineered sandbars. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:305-310.
  6. Claassen, A. H., T. W. Arnold, E. A. Roche, S. P. Saunders, and F. J. Cuthbert (2014). Factors influencing nest survival and renesting by Piping Plovers in the Great Lakes region. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:394-407.
  7. Cohen, J. B., and C. Gratto-Trevor (2011). Survival, site fidelity, and the population dynamics of Piping Plovers in Saskatch- ewan. Journal of Field Ornithology 82:379-394.
  8. Cowardin, L. M., and D. H. Johnson (1979). Mathematics and Mallard management. The Journal of Wildlife Management 43:18-35.
  9. Elliott-Smith, E., and S. M. Haig (2004). Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna. · DOI
  10. Galat, D. L., and R. Lipkin (2000). Restoring ecological integrity of great rivers. In Assessing the Ecological Integrity of Running Waters: Proceedings of the International Conference (M.
  11. Gratto-Trevor, C. L., J. P. Goossen, and S. M. Westworth (2010). Identification and breeding of yearling Piping Plovers. Journal of Field Ornithology 81:383-391.
  12. Hesse, L. W., and G. E. Mestl (1993). An alternative hydrograph for the Missouri River based on the precontrol condition. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:360- 366.
  13. Hosmer, D. W., and S. Lemeshow (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
  14. Hunt, K. L., D. H. Catlin, J. H. Felio, and J. D. Fraser (2013). Effect of capture frequency on the survival of Piping Plover chicks. Journal of Field Ornithology 84:299-303.
  15. Larson, M. A., M. R. Ryan, and B. G. Root (2000). Piping Plover survival in the Great Plains: An updated analysis. Journal of Field Ornithology 71:721-729.
  16. McCully, P. (1996). Rivers no more: The environmental effects of dams. In Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. Zed Books, London, UK. pp. 29-64.
  17. Naiman, R. J., and H. Décamps (1997). The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:621-658.
  18. Naiman, R. J., H. Décamps, and M. E. McClain (2005). Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities, first edition. Elsevier Academic Press, Burling- ton, MA, USA.
  19. Petts, G. E. (1984). Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
  20. Poff, N. L., and J. K. H. Zimmerman (2010). Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: A literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwa- ter Biology 55:194-205.
  21. Stephens, S. E., D. N. Koons, J. J. Rotella, and D. W. Willey (2004). Effects of habitat fragmentation on avian nesting success: A review of the evidence at multiple spatial scales. Biological Conservation 115:101-110.
  22. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009). Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA, and the Midwest Region's East Lansing Field Office, MI, USA.
  23. Weithman, C., D. Gibson, K. Hunt, M. Friedrich, J. Fraser, S. Karpanty, and D. Catlin (2017). Senescence and carryover effects of reproductive performance influence migration, condition, and breeding propensity in a small shorebird. Ecology and Evolution. doi:10.1002/ece3.3533 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hunt, K. L., Fraser, J. D., Friedrich, M. J., Karpanty, S. M., & Catlin, D. H.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Hunt, Kelsi L.
Venue
The Condor
Published
2018-02
Volume
120
Issue
1
Pages
149-165
ISSN
  • 0010-5422 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5129
OpenAlex
W2783693122
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ornithological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • National Park Service
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
piping plover, Charadrius melodus, riparian zones, Missouri River, demographic responses, nest success, chick survival, nest predation, population growth

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review