Abstract
Playa wetlands (shallow, circular, depressional wetlands) in the Southern Great Plains are essential to the maintenance of regional biodiversity. However, the relative importance of habitat characteristics for maintaining avian species richness and density in playas is unknown. We examined influences of local- and landscape-scale characteristics on avian communities in wet playas. We conducted biweekly avian surveys on 80 playas (40 playas/year) from summer 2003 through spring 2005. Avian species richness was positively related to playa area and hydroperiod. More avian species and greater densities of birds were found at wetlands when water depths were intermediate (30–80 cm) during fall, winter and spring. Increased cultivation in playa watersheds increased total-, native-, and exotic-avian species richness. However, unsustainable sediment accumulation caused by cultivation can fill the playa basin and result in the loss of playa function, which will not benefit future bird populations. Landscape variables generally were less consistent with avian communities among seasons compared to local variables. Playas with greater numbers of other playas within 1 and 10 km had lower bird densities than those with fewer surrounding playas, likely due to the increase of habitat availability. Larger playas within predominantly uncultivated watersheds, that have an intermediate water depth, longer hydroperiod (within a season), and 26–50% vegetation cover are likely to maximize seasonal native avian richness. However, manipulating static water depths and maintaining long hydroperiods over extended periods will not meet avian objectives over the long term because playas must go through natural wet/dry fluctuations between years to maintain the desired plant community and productivity that supports diverse avian populations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Environmental characteristics within a wetland (e.g., water depth and vegetation) are generally good predictors of avian diversity and abundance (Elphick and Oring 1998). Because wetlands are closely linked to their surrounding watersheds, activities beyond the wetland boundary at the landscape level can also influence wetland function (Gleason and Euliss 1998; Houlahan and Findlay 2003; Smith et al. 2008). For example, agricultural practices surrounding a wetland that result in erosion can change wetland hydrology (Euliss and Mushet 1996; van der Kamp et al. 2003) and affect wetland avian communities. While avian species have different responses to environmental change (Mason and Macdonald 2000), the ability to understand how avian communities respond to local (i.e., within boundary) and landscape (i.e., beyond boundary) characteristics is key to providing useful conservation plans.
Agricultural influences are often hypothesized as one of the main causes of avian population declines in North America including wetland birds (Bethke and Nudds 1995; Rodenhouse et al. 1995). Wetlands with uncultivated watersheds normally support high avian abundance as opposed to those surrounded by cultivation (Shutler et al. 2000). Through runoff, agriculture alters the quality and quantity of water and wetland productivity (Donald et al. 2001; Knoll et al. 2003), which influences the avian community by affecting food resources and available habitat (Freemark and Boutin 1995; Hoffmann and Dodson 2005). Agricultural runoff may also change wetland function through sediment accumulation, thereby, reducing seedling and invertebrate emergence (Gleason et al. 2003) and shortening hydroperiods (Luo et al. 1997; Tsai et al. 2007, 2010). Vertebrate species can also be affected by agriculture. For example, more exotic avian species are generally found in habitats surrounded by cultivation due to many factors including fragmentation (Smallwood 1994). However, knowledge of how land use influences community composition of native vs. exotic avian species is generally lacking.
Water depth, vegetation composition and structure, and wetland size are important local characteristics determining wetland bird composition (Elphick and Oring 1998; Riffell et al. 2001; Guadagnin et al. 2009). Deep water not only directly restricts wetland use by shorebirds due the limitation of leg length (Isola et al. 2000), but also influences prey accessibility (Nagarajan and Thiyagesan 1996; Gawlik 2002). Vegetation cover and interspersion patterns also influence avian diversity and abundance (Moreno-Mateos et al. 2009). For example, patchy emergent vegetation is associated with increased diversity and abundance of breeding (Murkin et al. 1997), migrating (Webb et al. 2010), and wintering waterfowl (Smith et al. 2004). Generally, larger wetlands have more species than smaller wetlands (e.g., Craig and Beal 1992; Rosenzweig 1995; Guadagnin et al. 2009; but see Oertli et al. 2002), likely because the number of habitat types and niches increase in larger areas (Williams 1964) or, alternatively, larger areas contain more species simply because they have more individuals than smaller areas (Connor and McCoy 1979). These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive and may collectively have an important influence on the species-area relationship.
Landscape characteristics can also explain relationships between habitat and avian community composition (Pearson 1993; Cunningham and Johnson 2006). Because wetland birds may use multiple wetlands in a season, amount of wetland habitat in the landscape can influence species richness (Farmer and Parent 1997; Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001). Moreover, landscape structure and pattern affect species distributions by potentially influencing avian movements among patches (Fernandez-Juricic 2000) and habitat occupancy (Wiens et al. 1997).
The >25 000 playa wetlands in the Southern Great Plains (SGP) are essential for maintaining biodiversity in the region because they provide the primary habitat available for aquatic species on an otherwise arid landscape (Haukos and Smith 1994). Most studies in this region have focused on game birds (e.g., waterfowl and gallinaceous birds; but see Davis and Smith 1998; Conway et al. 2005) and their relationships with local habitat requirements (e.g., Smith et al. 2004). Information on how local and landscape environmental variables influence playa use by avian communities is lacking for effective conservation planning. We examined influences of local- and landscape-scale characteristics associated with playa wetlands on avian species richness and density.
Methods
Study Area
The SGP encompasses playas with an average size of 6.3 ha (Guthery and Bryant 1982) that cover approximately 2% of this landscape (Haukos and Smith 1994). Playa basins are identified by hydric soil (e.g., Randall clay) surrounded by upland sandy and loamy soils (Allen et al. 1972). Precipitation occurs irregularly, primarily in late spring/early summer and early autumn (Bolen et al. 1989), averaging 47.2 cm (1911–2005) (NOAA 2006). However, annual precipitation during our study was 39.8 cm (June 2003–May 2004) and 75.0 cm (June 2004–May 2005) (NOAA 2006). Playas are inundated by precipitation and runoff with water loss occurring via evapotranspiration and recharge to the Ogallala Aquifer (Osterkamp and Wood 1987). Because of irregular rainfall and high rates of evapotranspiration, playas generally are not flooded year round (Smith 2003).
Data Collection
In each year (June–May; 2003 and 2004), we selected 40 playas (80 total, no overlap between years) following significant precipitation events in 14 counties using ground and aerial surveys and maps. Because playas frequently do not fill with water every year, we could not choose playas completely random but selected playas from a pool that fit three criteria: inundated to the visual edge (determined by vegetation and slope changes; Luo et al. 1997), minimal anthropogenic modifications within the basin (e.g., pits, roads), and immediately surrounded by >75% cropland or native grassland. This approach did not affect the interpretation of our results because sampled playas were flooded to the visual edge within a short period of time. With different initial water depths (3.3–178.7 cm) and playa sizes (1.4–47.2 ha), our sample accounted for the variation in the population. Additionally, visually choosing playas surrounded by >75% cropland or native grassland bolstered our ability to understand the influence of land use. Although our results may not be applicable to all playas on the SGP, we could apply the inference to playas that filled during the same rainfall period, which fit the playa inundation cycle.
We conducted avian ground surveys once every 2 weeks for a year to include all seasons as long as playas retained water from June 2003 to May 2004 and from June 2004 to May 2005. We used binoculars and spotting scopes to identify species within each playa. We chose a vantage point from which to scan for birds in the open water. To ensure consistent sampling effort for playas of different sizes, we followed Naugle et al. (2001) and set two observation locations in playas <5 ha, three locations in playas 5–10 ha, and four locations in playas >10 ha. Then we proceeded around the playa to these predetermined locations near the playa edge and remained at each location for 6 min to record additional species and also estimate the number of each species in the playa. In most cases, we were able to count all species from vantage points and confirm the recorded species and number at survey locations. However, sometimes in more densely vegetated or larger playas, we could only detect species at survey locations. We kept track of the location of birds detected to minimize double counting. We also recorded species observed during travel between these locations. Species flying over playas were excluded from analyses, but birds constantly feeding over the playa (i.e., swallows, terns) were counted (Rivers and Cable 2003). The number of birds counted in each playa was treated as minimum number of birds and we did not correct for variability in detectability among playas. We terminated surveys when a playa dried (i.e., no longer contained surface water and the topsoil did not have enough moisture to form and maintain a soil ball), but resumed surveys once the playa was re-inundated. We separated avian data into four seasons to match patterns of bird appearance: summer (June-August), fall (September-November), winter (December-February), and spring (March-May) for analyses. We used total number of species observed during each survey for species richness and calculated minimum density using the total number of individuals observed during each survey divided by playa area.
During each avian survey, we visually estimated percent vegetated area within playas following Naugle et al. (2000) into seven categories: <1%, 1–5%, 6–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, 76–95%, and >95%. As an additional measure of vegetation, we visually estimated the number of emergent plant species that individually comprised >10% of the vegetated wetland area as an index of wetland vegetation heterogeneity (Naugle et al. 2001). We measured water depth after each avian survey. Measurements in the basin were recorded at three poles evenly spaced along a transect that spanned the diameter of each playa. We averaged the three water depth measurements of each survey because the elevation of the basin floor changes little in playas (Luo et al. 1997). We defined hydroperiod as the number of consecutive days a playa had measureable water (≥1 cm) within a season. We measured sediment depth (from the top of the sediment to the point with more than 50% hydric soil), basin elevation, and determined hydric soil edge location similar to Luo et al. (1997) as defined in Tsai et al. (2007). Hydric soil edge was determined by taking a series of soil cores along a transect perpendicular to the visual edge (details see Tsai et al. 2007). We calculated percent volume loss following Tsai et al. (2007). The calculation of volume loss was based on hydric soil of each playa, which provides a standardized way to compare the influence of sediment on playa volume. Because playas are located in the bottom of closed depressions with isolated watersheds, their hydric soils can be completely covered in sediment and thus playas lose more than 100% of their original volume.
We measured the visual edge of each playa to estimate playa area with a Global Positioning System. We digitized and verified land use cover in 10-km radius (31,416 ha) areas from the center of each playa using Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle aerial photographs (TNRIS 2006) in ESRI® ArcGIS and from the Farm Service Agency of the U. S. Department of Agriculture following Tsai et al. (2007). We classified land uses as native grassland, cropland, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), playa, urban area, and other (e.g., reservoir). We quantified landscape structure within 1-, 5-, and 10-km radii. We chose 1-, 5-, and 10-km radii as landscape scales considering mobility and behavior of species (Wiens et al. 1986). For example, nearly 90% of the movements of migratory shorebirds were restricted to <10 km at stopover sites (Farmer and Parent 1997) whereas dabbling ducks normally fly <5 km from feeding sites to roosting sites on a daily basis (Cox and Davis 2002). Within each radii we used FRAGSTATS*ARC® to determine number of playas (NP), percent cover of playas (PP), and interspersion and juxtaposition index (IJI; measure of differences in land use of adjacent patches) to quantify isolation and density of playas (McGarigal and Marks 1995). We calculated landscape complexity indices: landscape shape index (LSI), Shannon diversity index (SHDI) of land use (hereafter, diversity of land use), Shannon evenness index of land use (SHEI), edge density (m edge/ha, ED), and mean edge contrast index (MECI; degree of contrast between a land use type and its immediate neighbors) (McGarigal and Marks (1995). Finally, we determined each study playa watershed using a digitized United States Geological Survey contour map (TNRIS 2006). We followed Tsai et al. (2007) to calculate tilled index as:
where tilled area included cropland and CRP and untilled area included native grass within watershed. The tilled index ranged from −1 (100% native grass) to 1 (100% tilled).
Data Analyses
We calculated variance inflation factors (VIF) on our initial 33 biologically relevant variables (i.e.,% vegetation cover, number of species >10%, water depth, playa area, hydroperiod, sediment depth, volume loss, tilled index, and eight landscape variables [NP, PP, IJI, LSI, SHDI, SHEI, ED, MECI] within 1-, 5-, and 10-km radii) to assess collinearity (Belsley et al. 1980; Kutner et al. 2004) and excluded those with VIF >2 (Graham 2003). The 16 remaining variables (Table 1) were used for building models. To test the polynomial relationship between birds and water depth, we included a quadratic term as well as the linear term for water depth (Gawlik 2002). If a quadratic term for water depth is included in the model, a linear form for water depth is required for inclusion in the model (Freund and Littell 1991; Freund and Wilson 1993). Because waterfowl species richness and density are often greater in wetlands with 50% emergent vegetation compared to wetlands with dense or sparse vegetation (Weller and Fredrickson 1974), we also included a quadratic term to test for a polynomial relationship between birds and vegetation cover. We used the mid-point value of each vegetation category in the analyses.
We constructed 84 generalized linear models to describe each response variable (i.e., avian species richness and density) in each season separately using combinations of the 16 variables. We started with single-variable models of each independent variable, local variables only, and landscape variables only. We then expanded the model sets by adding combinations of variables based on knowledge of richness and density from the literature and professional judgment based on experience and field observations. We tested models by using PROC GENMOD in SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) which can incorporate various link functions to model non-normal data (e.g., Poisson and negative binomial distributions) without transformation (Littell et al. 2002). We used GENMOD and a Poisson distribution with a log-link function to model species richness and density. However, overdispersion was high (i.e., deviance/degrees of freedom [df] > 25) for density models. Therefore, we used GENMOD and a negative binomial distribution with a log-link function to model density (deviance/df = 1.2). We combined the data from 2 years and created models for each season because habitat requirements of bird species differ among seasons.
To determine whether exotic species played an important role in influencing richness, we excluded exotic species (see Appendix 1) from total species and used GENMOD to model native species richness. To further clarify the relationship between exotics and land use, we calculated the percentage of exotic species by using the number of exotic species divided by the number of all species within a year for each playa. We then related the percentage of exotic species to tilled index. We used GENMOD assuming a binomial distribution and incorporated a logit-link function to account for the non-normal nature of binomial data.
We treated surveys within a season in each experimental unit (i.e., playa) as repeated measures in analyses and used generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach in GENMOD to account for temporal autocorrelation (Hardin and Hilbe 2003). Because GEE is not a likelihood-based method, we used the quasi-likelihood criterion (QIC u ) (Pan 2001), where QIC u replaced the likelihood in Akaike’s Information Criterion, to evaluate and rank models. We calculated ∆QIC u values for all other candidate models (relative to the lowest QIC u value) and QIC u weights (wi) for each candidate model, considering models with ∆QIC u < 2 as plausible given the data (Burnham and Anderson 2002).
Species richness and density models present relationships between dependent variable and environmental variables but do not provide management recommendations. To further elucidate the relationship between water depth and avian community and provide management applications, we plotted the effect of water depth on species richness and density within a season while holding all other variables constant at their median values (Shaffer and Thompson 2007). Because GENMOD does not provide an R2 value, we used multiple least-squares regression analysis to obtain an adjusted R2 value for each model with a ∆QIC u < 2.
Results
We conducted 1,045 avian surveys from June 2003 through May 2005. We observed a total of 212 651 individuals from 122 species (Appendix 1). The surrounding watershed ranged from 100% grassland to 100% cropland, however, the mean tilled index was close to 0.5, indicating a dominance of cropland in the watersheds. Mean volume loss was 110%, suggesting that our study playas have lost their original volume. Mean water depth was 37.4 cm (Table 1).
Playa area, water depth, hydroperiod, tilled index, percent vegetation cover, and number of plant species >10% were included in the best-fit models of species richness for at least one season. Playa area had a positive influence on richness in the best-fit models for all seasons (Table 2). Water depth was an important predictor appearing in the best-fit models for species richness for spring with a positive linear and a negative quadratic term. Species richness peaked when water depth ranged from 50 to 80 cm in fall, 40–60 cm in winter and 30–50 cm in spring (Fig. 1). There was no obvious species richness peak within the water depth ranges observed in summer. Hydroperiod had a positive relationship with species richness in the best-fit models in summer, fall, and winter. Tilled index had a positive influence on richness in the best-fit models for summer and winter (Table 2). Percent vegetation cover showed a polynomial relationship with species richness in the best-fit models in fall and spring. Percent vegetation cover had a negative influence on richness in spring. Number of plant species >10% had a positive influence on richness in fall and spring. Models had the best fit in spring (R2 = 0.45) and poorest fit in fall and winter (R2 = 0.34) (Table 2).
Each season had only one best-fit model for avian density (Table 3). Playa area did not have a consistent influence on density in the best-fit models, being negative in summer and positive in winter. Water depth appeared in the best-fit model for winter, with polynomial responses. A positive linear and a negative quadratic term indicated that bird density increased as water depth increased, richness initially increased, reached a peak, and then decreased. Bird density peaked when water depth ranged from 30 to 50 cm in both winter and spring (Fig. 2). However, there was no obvious density peak within the water depth ranges observed in summer and fall. Hydroperiod was positively correlated to density in summer and fall. Tilled index had a positive influence on density only for winter, indicating that density was greater in playas surrounded by a cultivated landscape (Table 3). Diversity of land use within 1 km was positively correlated to density in spring. Mean edge contrast index within 10 km had a negative influence on density in best-fit models for spring. The number of playas within 1 and 10 km had negative influences on density in the best-fit models for fall and summer, respectively. This indicated that total density per playa decreased as number of playas in the landscape increased. Models had the best fit in summer (R2 = 0.30) and poorest fit in spring (R2 = 0.09) (Table 3).
The best fit models describing native species richness were essentially identical to those when exotic species were included. When tilled index increased, the percentage of exotic species increased (χ 2 = 4.23, df = 1, P = 0.04), indicating that playas dominated by cultivated landscape (i.e., tilled index > 0) had a greater percentage of exotic species than did playas surrounded by native grassland (i.e., tilled index < 0). The mean percentage of exotic species was 1.53% and 0.74% in playas with tilled index greater and smaller than mean tilled index (i.e., 0.51), respectively.
Discussion
Our results provide systematic insight into influences of local- and landscape-scale characteristics on avian communities in wet playas. By modeling species richness and density, we can understand the variation and rapid turnover of avian communities in playa wetlands and their associations with environmental variables. Variables in species richness models were more consistent compared to variables in density models, and variations were likely the outcome of changes in avian community composition and their needs across seasons (Wiens 2001). Therefore, season-specific considerations are critical in successful playa conservation planning. From a management perspective, local variables such as vegetation cover, water depth, and hydroperiod are applicable in informing what type of conservation/manipulation to use for managing avian communities in this semi-arid region, whereas, landscape variables are useful for prioritizing habitat conservation.
We found that playa area was positively associated with species richness. Species-area relationships have been documented in wetland systems in different regions (Brown and Dinsmore 1986; Webb et al. 2010), with some exceptions (Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001). More species can be found in larger areas than smaller areas because of greater habitat diversity (Williams 1964) and/or number of individuals in a larger area (Connor and McCoy 1979). As playa area increases, there are still only two types of habitat, edge and basin (Smith and Haukos 2002). Therefore, avian richness in playas is likely affected more by the number of individuals rather than habitat diversity. The species-area relationship was also supported by the model explaining bird density in winter, which showed that playa area had a positive influence on density in winter. Therefore, as playa area increased, number of individuals increased, which contributed to richness. In contrast, playa area was not a significant predictor for richness in dry playas for any season (Tsai 2007). Wet playas provide a unique habitat compared to upland semi-arid environments, serving as habitat islands (Whited et al. 2000). Non-wetland species were not restricted to dry playas and thus could use playas or additional nearby upland environments.
Species richness was greatest at water depths from 30 to 80 cm which is deeper than optimal depths (10–20 cm) suggested (Elphick and Oring 1998; Colwell and Taft 2000; Bolduc and Afton 2004). However, comparisons between studies may not be appropriate as resource availability and abundance can be confounded with water depth in different wetland types (Bolduc and Afton 2008). Also, we measured depth in the basin bottom not on the playa edge where many species were likely foraging. When we estimated the range of optimal depths at which density is maximal by fitting quadratic models, the right-skewed distribution of water depth may have overestimated water depth.
Percent vegetation cover was also an important influence on richness and density, which has been found in other studies of breeding (Weller and Spatcher 1965; Murkin et al. 1982) and migrating bird richness (Webb et al. 2010) and wintering waterfowl (Smith et al. 2004). The intermediate level of vegetation cover can provide more food resources, increase visual isolation between breeding pairs, and increase habitat diversity (Kaminski and Prince 1981; Murkin et al. 1982; Smith et al. 2004). Playas must go through natural hydrological fluctuations to achieve this vegetation pattern unless they are intensively managed for moist-soil plant production (Haukos and Smith 1993).
Within-season hydroperiod consistently had a positive effect on species richness. This possibly was related to greater prey availability as longer hydroperiods may allow more time for invertebrates to colonize (Batzer and Resh 1992), especially in the summer and fall, thus supporting more avian species in greater abundance. However, prolonged hydroperiods can also modify aquatic invertebrate species composition by increasing predator–prey interactions and competition, thus decreasing overall biomass (Snodgrass et al. 1999; Babbitt et al. 2003). Although playas with longer hydroperiods may benefit avian communities because of greater food availability or simply by providing reliable habitat and increasing the number of days that playas can be used by birds in different seasons, playas must dry for a period of time to maintain productivity (Smith et al. 2008).
We hypothesized that species richness should be negatively correlated with tilled index. However, tilled index was positively related to richness in playas for summer and winter. This result is not solely due to exotic avian species since the percentage of exotic species in the avian community and native species richness were both positively related to tilled index. In Canada, species richness was higher in wetlands surrounded by grassland than in wetlands surrounded by cropland because some species preferred areas with fewer disturbances (Shutler et al. 2000). Different crop types (e.g., corn and sorghum) may contribute to this relationship by providing food resources, especially during winter. Annual plant species in the playas that were associated with cropland watershed (Tsai et al. 2012) can also provide additional food sources. However, agriculture activities were not randomly distributed across the landscape and may be associated with soil quality and water availability. Therefore, the direct effect of land use on avian communities is not easy to measure, and knowledge about how land use influences avian communities will require more research focused on fitness.
In studies of grassland birds (Cunningham and Johnson 2006; Winter et al. 2006) and wetland birds (Webb et al. 2010), neither local nor landscape variables alone explained the distribution and composition of bird assemblages. We also found that both categories of variables were important in predicting avian communities in playas, but more so for local variables compared to landscape variables. For example, landscape variables generally did not appear in the best-fit models for all seasons, indicating that species with different life history require different landscape characteristics dependent on the season. Additionally, previous studies indicate that the amount of wetlands in the surrounding landscape has an important influence on avian species richness and density in a single wetland (Brown and Dinsmore 1986; Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001). In our study, we found that number of playas within 1 and 10 km were negatively related to density in fall and summer, respectively. This may be because local birds tended to disperse to other playas when other wet playas with diverse habitat were available. The importance of landscape variables suggested that it is necessary to consider variables beyond individual playas in managing avian community in playas.
Wet playas provide essential habitats for avian communities throughout the year. Tsai (2007) found that wet playas support twice as many species and six times as many individuals as do dry playas. However, dry playas are also important to regional diversity because they provide habitat for non-wetland species. A wetland must go through wet/dry fluctuations to maintain productivity essential for wetland dependent birds during the next wet phase (Euliss et al. 2008). Thus, the natural cycle of wetting and drying is important to maintain avian diversity on the landscape. However, anthropogenic influences such as unsustainable sedimentation have changed the natural wet/dry cycle in playas (Tsai et al. 2007). Modifications in the playa basin (e.g., ditches and pits) concentrate water in a small area for prolonged period. These changes may also facilitate biological invasion of introduced or exotic species (Shay et al. 1999). Therefore, studies focused on how changes of the wet/dry cycle influence species assemblage and playa function are needed.
Playas are resilient ecosystems that can continue to support avian species when subject to anthropogenic impacts affecting hydroperiod and impairing ecological function. Even though most of our study playas were surrounded by cropland watersheds and accumulated unsustainable levels of sediment, they currently continue to provide habitat for avian species, which is reflected in the recorded species richness. However, continued sediment accumulation will result in the physical loss of playas (Johnson 2011), which will no longer support the observed species richness. To avoid this condition, conservation of playas with grassland watersheds should be a high priority for sustainability of future species richness. Playas with cropland watersheds should be managed to minimize sediment transport into the wetland to prolong the functional life of the playa.
Conclusion
State, federal, and nongovernmental conservation groups have conserved few playa habitats in the SGP in the last 2 decades (Smith 2003; Smith et al. 2011). If conserving playa habitat becomes a priority, our data suggests that purchasing and obtaining easements on larger playas would maximize native avian species diversity assuming that other conditions are equivalent. Intermediate water depths ranging from 30 to 80 cm and percent vegetation cover from 26% to 50% cover in playas should maximize species richness and density in winter and spring. For short term management, water level and vegetation conditions can be maintained through moist-soil management by drawdown or pumping water according to specific timeline (Haukos and Smith 1993). However, these methods can only be implemented on a local scale. Because playas must go through natural wet/dry fluctuations to sustain productivity, holding water level at a constant depth indefinitely will not benefit the avian community for the long term (Euliss et al. 2008). As playas go through wet and dry periods, changing water levels through time provides the necessary habitat requirements for a diversity of birds. Vegetation cover will also respond naturally to the changing water levels. Therefore, preserving hydrology is critical to maintaining normal playa function and playas in native grassland settings will likely allow the natural cycle to occur more often.
Continued erosion of cultivated watersheds and subsequent sedimentation has reduced playa volume and hydroperiod (Luo et al. 1997; Tsai et al. 2007, 2010). Although a higher tilled index results in a shorter hydroperiod (Tsai et al. 2007), species richness was greater in playas with higher tilled index. For example, a playa with a tilled index of 0.5 (i.e., three times as much cropland as grassland) holds water 29.5 fewer days than a playa with tilled index of −0.5 (i.e., three times as much grassland as cropland), but the playa with the tilled index of 0.5 would generally have 0.34 more species. At the same time, the percentage of exotic avian species also increased. Although exotic species were not the only cause of higher species richness in playas with a higher tilled index (native species richness was also positively correlated with tilled index), land use surrounding playas should be considered an important criterion for prioritizing playas for conservation in the future. A buffer zone with native grass around playas should reduce erosion and provide more natural hydroperiods (Skagen et al. 2008). However, more information is needed to specify buffer zone size and type.
References
Allen BL, Harris BL, Davis KR, Miller GB (1972) The mineralogy and chemistry of High Plains playa lake soils and sediments. Texas Tech University Report 14-01-0001-1551, Lubbock
Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Tarr TL (2003) Patterns of larval amphibian distribution along a wetland hydroperiod gradient. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1539–1552
Batzer DP, Resh VH (1992) Macroinvertebrates of a California seasonal wetland and responses to experimental habitat manipulation. Wetlands 12:1–7
Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Wiley, New York
Bethke RW, Nudds TD (1995) Effects of climate change and land use on duck abundance in Canadian prairie-parklands. Ecological Applications 5:588–600
Bolduc F, Afton AD (2004) Relationships between wintering waterbirds and invertebrates, sediments and hydrology of coastal marsh ponds. Waterbirds 27:333–341
Bolduc F, Afton AD (2008) Monitoring waterbird abundance in wetlands: the importance of controlling results for variation in water depth. Ecological Modelling 216:402–408
Bolen EG, Smith LM, Schramm HL Jr (1989) Playa lakes: prairie wetlands of the Southern High Plains. BioScience 39:615–623
Brown M, Dinsmore JJ (1986) Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:392–397
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Colwell MA, Taft OW (2000) Waterbird communities in managed wetlands of varying water depth. Waterbirds 23:45–55
Connor EF, McCoy ED (1979) The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. American Naturalist 113:791–833
Conway WC, Smith LM, Ray JD (2005) Shorebird habitat use and nest-site selection in the playa lakes region. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:174–184
Cox RR Jr, Davis BE (2002) Habitat use, movements, and survival of female northern pintails during spring migration in Nebraska and subsequent potential breeding-site selection in the Prairie Pothole Region. Progress report. U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Bismarck
Craig RJ, Beal KG (1992) The influence of habitat variables on marsh bird communities of the Connecticut river estuary. Wilson Bulletin 104:295–311
Cunningham MA, Johnson DH (2006) Proximate and landscape factors influence grassland bird distributions. Ecological Applications 16:1062–1075
Davis CA, Smith LM (1998) Ecology and management of migrant shorebirds in the playa lakes region of Texas. Wildlife Monographs 140:1–45
Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268:25–29
Elphick CS, Oring LW (1998) Winter management of Californian rice fields for waterbirds. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:95–108
Euliss NH Jr, Mushet DM (1996) Water-level fluctuation in wetlands as a function of landscape condition in the Prairie Pothole Region. Wetlands 16:587–593
Euliss NH Jr, Smith LM, Wilcox DA, Browne BB (2008) Linking ecosystem processes with wetland management goals: charting a course for a sustainable future. Wetlands 28:553–562
Fairbairn SE, Dinsmore JJ (2001) Local and landscape-level influences on wetland bird communities of the Prairie Pothole Region of Iowa, USA. Wetlands 21:41–47
Farmer AH, Parent AH (1997) Effects of the landscape on shorebird movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor 99:698–707
Fernandez-Juricic E (2000) Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape. Conservation Biology 14:513–521
Freemark K, Boutin C (1995) Impacts of agricultural herbicide use on terrestrial wildlife in temperate landscapes: a review with special reference to North America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 52:67–91
Freund RJ, Littell RC (1991) SAS system for regression, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary
Freund RJ, Wilson WJ (1993) Statistical methods. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego
Gawlik DE (2002) The effects of presy availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecological Monographs 72:329–346
Gleason RA, Euliss NH Jr (1998) Sedimentation of prairie wetlands. Great Plains Research 8:97–112
Gleason RA, Euliss NH Jr, Hubbard DE, Duffy WG (2003) Effects of sediment load on emergence of aquatic invertebrates and plants from wetland soil egg and seed banks. Wetlands 23:26–34
Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815
Guadagnin DL, Maltchik L, Fonseca CR (2009) Species-area relationship of Neotropical waterbird assemblages in remnant wetlands: looking at the mechanisms. Diversity and Distributions 15:319–327
Guthery FS, Bryant FC (1982) Status of playas in the Southern Great Plains. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:309–317
Hardin JW, Hilbe JM (2003) Generalized estimating equations. Chapman & Hall, New York
Haukos DA, Smith LM (1993) Moist-soil management of playa lakes for migrating and wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:288–298
Haukos DA, Smith LM (1994) The importance of playa wetlands to biodiversity of Southern High Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning 28:83–98
Hoffmann MD, Dodson SI (2005) Land use, primary productivity, and lake area as descriptors of zooplankton diversity. Ecology 86:255–261
Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2003) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1078–1094
Isola CR, Colwell MA, Taft OW, Safran RJ (2000) Interspecific differences in habitat use of shorebirds and waterfowl foraging in managed wetlands of California’s San Joaquin Valley. Waterbirds 23:196–203
Johnson LA (2011) Occurrence, function, and conservation of playa wetlands: The key to biodiversity of the Southern Great Plains. Dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Kaminski RM, Prince HH (1981) Dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses to manipulated wetland habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:1–15
Knoll LB, Vanni MJ, Renwick WH (2003) Phytoplankton primary production and photosynthetic parameters in reservoirs along a gradient of watershed land use. Limnology and Oceanography 48:608–617
Kutner MH, Neter J, Nachtsheim CJ, Li W (2004) Applied linear statistical models, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, New York
Littell RC, Stroup WW, Freund RJ (2002) SAS for linear models, 4th edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary
Luo H-R, Smith LM, Allen BL, Haukos DA (1997) Effects of sedimentation on playa wetland volume. Ecological Applications 7:247–252
Mason CF, Macdonald SM (2000) Influence of landscape and land-use on the distribution of breeding birds in farmland in eastern England. Journal of Zoology 251:339–348
McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. PNW-GTR-351. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland
Moreno-Mateos D, Pedrocchi C, Comín FA (2009) Avian communities’ preferences in recently created agricultural wetlands in irrigated landscapes of semi-arid areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:811–828
Murkin HR, Kaminski RM, Titman RD (1982) Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:2324–2332
Murkin HR, Murkin EJ, Ball JP (1997) Avian habitat selection and prairie wetland dynamics: a 10-year experiment. Ecological Applications 7:1144–1159
Nagarajan R, Thiyagesan K (1996) Waterbirds and substrate quality of the Pichavaram wetlands, southern India. Ibis 138:710–721
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2006) Lubbock precipitation: from 1911-present. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lub/climate/summaries/klbb/precip/index.php. Accessed 1 October 1 2007
Naugle DE, Higgins KF, Estey ME, Johnson RR, Nusser SM (2000) Local and landscape-level factors influencing black tern habitat suitability. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:253–260
Naugle DE, Johnson RR, Estey ME, Higgins KF (2001) A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21:1–17
Oertli B, Joye DA, Castella E, Juge R, Cambin D, Lachavanne JB (2002) Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biological Conservation 104:59–70
Osterkamp WR, Wood WW (1987) Playa-lake basins on the Southern High Plains of Texas and New Mexico: part I. Hydrologic, geomorphic, and geologic evidence for their development. Geological Society of America Bulletin 99:215–223
Pan W (2001) Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57:120–125
Pearson SM (1993) The spatial extent and relative influence of landscape-level factors on wintering bird populations. Landscape Ecology 8:3–18
Riffell SK, Keas BE, Burton TM (2001) Area and habitat relationships of birds in Great Lake coastal wet meadows. Wetlands 21:492–507
Rivers JW, Cable TT (2003) Evaluation of farmed playa wetlands as avian habitat using survey data and two rapid assessment techniques. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 106:155–165
Rodenhouse NL, Best LB, O’Connor RJ, Bollinger EK (1995) Effects of agricultural practices and farmland structures. In: Martin TE, Finch DM (eds) Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 269–293
Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, New York
Shaffer TL, Thompson FR (2007) Making meaningful estimates of nest survival with model-based methods. Studies in Avian Biology 34:84–95
Shay J, de Geus P, Kapinga M (1999) Changes in shoreline vegetation over a 50-year period in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba in response to water levels. Wetlands 19:413–425
Shutler D, Mullie A, Clark RG (2000) Bird communities of prairie uplands and wetlands in relation to farming practices in Saskatchewan. Conservation Biology 14:1441–1451
Skagen SK, Melcher CP, Haukos DA (2008) Reducing sedimentation of depressional wetlands in agricultural landscapes. Wetlands 28:594–604
Smallwood KS (1994) Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251–259
Smith LM (2003) Playas of the Great Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin
Smith LM, Haukos DA (2002) Floral diversity in relation to playa wetland area and watershed disturbance. Conservation Biology 16:964–974
Smith LM, Haukos DA, Prather RM (2004) Avian response to vegetative pattern in playa wetlands during winter. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:474–480
Smith LM, Euliss NH Jr, Wilcox DA, Brison MM (2008) Application of a geomorphic and temporal perspective to wetland management in North America. Wetlands 28:563–577
Smith LM, Haukos DA, McMurry ST, LaGrange T, Willis D (2011) Ecosystem services provided by playas in the High Plains: potential influences of USDA conservation programs. Ecological Applications 21:S82–S92
Snodgrass JW, Ackerman JW, Bryan AL Jr, Burger J (1999) Influence of hydroperiod, isolation, and heterospecifics on the distribution of aquatic salamanders (Siren and Amphiuma) among depression wetlands. Copeia 1999:107–113
Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS) (2006) TNRIS data distribution system. http://www.tnris.state.tx.us/digital.htm. Accessed 15 September 2006
Tsai J-S (2007) Local and landscape factor influences on avian community composition in playas of the Southern High Plains. Dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Tsai J-S, Venne LS, McMurry ST, Smith LM (2007) Influences of land use and wetland characteristics on water loss rates and hydroperiods of playas in the Southern High Plains, USA. Wetlands 27:683–692
Tsai J-S, Venne LS, McMurry ST, Smith LM (2010) Vegetation and land use impact on water loss rate in playas of the Southern High Plains, USA. Wetlands 30:1107–1116
Tsai J-S, Venne LS, McMurry ST, Smith LM (2012) Local and landscape influences on plant communities in playa wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:174–181
van der Kamp G, Hayashi M, Gallen D (2003) Comparing the hydrology of grassed and cultivated catchments in the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Hydrological Processes 17:559–575
Webb EB, Smith LM, Vrtiska MP, Lagrange TG (2010) Effects of local and landscape variables on wetland bird habitat use during migration through the Rainwater Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:109–119
Weller MW, Fredrickson LH (1974) Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird 12:269–291
Weller MW, Spatcher CS (1965) Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Agricultural and Home Economic Experiment Station, Iowa State University, Ames
Whited D, Galatowitsch S, Tester JR, Schik K, Lehtinen R, Husveth J (2000) The importance of local and regional factors in predicting effective conservation: planning strategies for wetland bird communities in agricultural and urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 49:49–65
Wiens JA (2001) Predicting species occurrences: progress, problems, and prospects. In: Scott, JM, Heglund PJ, Haufler, JB, Morrison M, Raphael MG, Wall WB, Samson F (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 739–749
Wiens JA, Addicott JF, Case TJ, Diamond J (1986) Overview: the importance of spatial and temporal scale in ecological investigations. In: Diamond JM, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper Collins College Division, Glenview, pp 145–153
Wiens JA, Schooley RL, Weeks RD Jr (1997) Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78:257–264
Williams CB (1964) Patterns in the balance of nature. Academic, London
Winter M, Johnson DH, Shaffer JA, Donovan TM, Svedarsky WD (2006) Patch size and landscape effects on density and nesting success of grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:158–172
Acknowledgments
Funding for this project was provided by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (project number R-2964101-0). L. M. Smith was supported by the Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation. We thank the numerous private landowners that allowed us access to their properties. The Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, provided information of study playas. We thank everyone who assisted with field data collection and the GIS and remote sensing work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tsai, JS., Venne, L.S., Smith, L.M. et al. Influence of Local and Landscape Characteristics on Avian Richness and Density in Wet Playas of the Southern Great Plains, USA. Wetlands 32, 605–618 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0280-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0280-1