Climate, Habitat Quality, and Fitness in Northern Spotted Owl Populations in Northwestern California

Abstract

A controversy exists in the Pacific Northwest of the United States between logging of old-growth coniferous forests and conservation of Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) populations. This species has a strong association with old-growth forests that also have economic value as timber. Research questions relevant to conservation of this species include how temporal trends in Northern Spotted Owl populations are influenced and how spatial configuration of old-growth forests affects these populations. To address these questions, we studied a population of marked Northern Spotted Owls on 95 territories in northwestern California from 1985 through 1994. We examined the magnitude of temporal and spatial variation in life history traits (survival, reproductive output, and recruitment), the effects of climate and landscape characteristics on temporal and spatial variation in these traits, respectively, and how this variation affected aspects of population dynamics. We used a components-of-variation analysis to partition sampling from process variation, and a model selection approach to estimate life history traits using capturerecapture and random-effects models. Climate explained most of the temporal variation in life history traits. Annual survival varied the least over time, whereas recruitment rate varied the most, suggesting a ''bet-hedging'' life history strategy for the owl. A forecast of annual rates of population change (), estimated from life history traits, suggested that Northern Spotted Owl populations may change solely due to climate influences, even with unchanging habitat conditions. In terms of spatial variation, annual survival on territories was positively associated both with amounts of interior old-growth forest and with length of edge between those forests and other vegetation types. Reproductive output was negatively associated with interior forest, but positively associated with edge between mature and old-growth conifer forest and other vegetation types. A gradient existed in territoryspecific estimates of fitness derived from these life history estimates. This gradient suggested that a mosaic of older forest interspersed with other vegetation types promoted high fitness in Northern Spotted Owls. Habitat quality, as defined by fitness, appeared to buffer variation in annual survival but did not buffer reproductive output. We postulated that the magnitude of was determined by habitat quality, whereas variation of was influenced by recruitment and reproductive output. As habitat quality declines, variation in should become more pronounced.

Influence of Drought on Annual Survival of the Mountain Plover in Montana

“…Climate conditions may also affect vital rates, including survival, as has been shown in other birds (Franklin et al 2000). The Mountain Plover nests in semiarid habitats with a bare ground component (Knopf and Miller 1994), short vegetation (Olson and Edge 1985), and regular disturbance (e.g., grazing by prairie dogs or cattle; Knopf and Wunder 2006).…”

Effects of Fire and Commercial Thinning on Future Habitat of the Northern Spotted Owl

“…The longerterm value of fire disturbances is in the creation of landscape heterogeneity with inclusions of young stands, improving habitat at the landscape scale. Fire also plays a vital role in creating snags, large down logs, and other key elements of the highest quality spotted owl habitat at the territory scale (Franklin et al 2000). No assessments of fire and thinning effects on spotted owls, including this one, have accounted for any potential beneficial effects of mixed-severity fire, nor the potential negative effects of lack of mixed-severity fire in treated areas.…”

Influence of woodland cover on habitat selection and reproductive parameters of tropical roseate terns: implications for colony management

“…However, in 2005, chick food delivery and adult body condition were similar between birds breeding in the 2 areas. Multiple indicators of habitat quality may not give the same response because habitat conditions favouring density, survival, body condition or reproduction may not be the same (Franklin et al 2000).…”