TEN-YEAR STATUS OF THE EASTERN MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 University of Nebrsk - Lincoln DigitlCommons@University of Nebrsk - Lincoln Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop North Americn Crne Working Group 2014 TEN-YEAR STATUS OF THE EASTERN MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Richrd P. Urbnek U.S. Fish nd Wildlife Service, richrd_urbnek@fws.gov Sr E. Zimorski Interntionl Crne Foundtion Ev K. Szyskoski Interntionl Crne Foundtion Mrinne M. Wellington Interntionl Crne Foundtion Follow this nd dditionl works t: Prt of the Behvior nd Ethology Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Ornithology Commons, Popultion Biology Commons, nd the Terrestril nd Aqutic Ecology Commons Urbnek, Richrd P.; Zimorski, Sr E.; Szyskoski, Ev K.; nd Wellington, Mrinne M., "TEN-YEAR STATUS OF THE EASTERN MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION" (2014). Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop This Article is brought to you for free nd open ccess by the North Americn Crne Working Group t DigitlCommons@University of Nebrsk - Lincoln. It hs been ccepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop by n uthorized dministrtor of DigitlCommons@University of Nebrsk - Lincoln.

2 TEN-YEAR STATUS OF THE EASTERN MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION RICHARD P. URBANEK, 1 U.S. Fish nd Wildlife Service, Necedh Ntionl Wildlife Refuge, N11385 Hedqurters Rod, Necedh, WI 54646, USA SARA E. ZIMORSKI, 2 Interntionl Crne Foundtion, E Shdy Lne Rod, Brboo, WI 53919, USA EVA K. SZYSZKOSKI, Interntionl Crne Foundtion, E Shdy Lne Rod, Brboo, WI 53919, USA MARIANNE M. WELLINGTON, Interntionl Crne Foundtion, E Shdy Lne Rod, Brboo, WI USA Abstrct: From 2001 to 2010, 132 costume-rered juvenile whooping crnes (Grus mericn) were led by ultrlight ircrft from Necedh Ntionl Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in centrl Wisconsin to the Gulf Cost of Florid on their first utumn migrtion (ultrlight-led or UL), nd 46 juveniles were relesed directly on Necedh NWR during utumn of the htch yer (direct utumn relese or DAR). Return rte in spring ws 90.5% for UL nd 69.2% for DAR, the lower vlue of the ltter ttributble to 1 cohort with migrtion problems. Overll popultion survivl 1 yer nd from 1 to 3 yers post-relese ws 81% nd 84%, respectively. Survivl 1 yer post-relese ws significntly different between UL (85.1%) nd DAR (65.7%) crnes. Since summer 2008, DAR migrtion nd wintering hve improved, winter distribution of the popultion hs chnged, the migrtion route of the popultion hs shifted westwrd, nd number of yerlings summering in loctions used during spring wndering hs incresed. Humn voidnce problems resulted in 2 birds being removed from the popultion. As in erlier yers, homing to the ntl re nd prolific pir formtion continued (29 of 31 dult pirs hve formed in the core reintroduction re), predtion continued to be the primry cuse of mortlity, nd prentl desertion of nests, especilly during the initil (primry) nesting period, continued. During , ll 43 of these erly nests filed; of 15 lte nests or renests, chicks htched from 8 nests, nd 3 chicks fledged. As of 31 Mrch 2011, the popultion contined mximum 105 individuls (54 mles nd 51 femles) including 20 dult pirs. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CRANE WORKSHOP 12:33-42 Key words: direct utumn relese, Florid, Grus mericn, migrtory popultion, reintroduction, reproduction, survivl, ultrlight ircrft, whooping crne, Wisconsin. An effort to reintroduce migrtory popultion of whooping crnes (Grus mericn) into estern North Americ begn in 2001 when costume/isoltionrered juveniles were led behind ultrlight ircrft from Necedh Ntionl Wildlife Refuge (NWR), centrl Wisconsin, to relese on Chsshowitzk NWR on the centrl Gulf Cost of Florid. Annul releses of crnes by techniques of ultrlight-led migrtion (UL) nd direct utumn relese (DAR), the ltter beginning in 2005, hve continued through The popultion hs been intensively monitored through the course of the reintroduction. Resulting studies hve ssessed generl survivl, movements, nd reproduction (Urbnek et l. 2005, 2010), hbitt selection on summer (Mguire 2008) nd winter res (Fondow 2013), mortlity (Cole et l. 2009), winter mngement nd distribution (Urbnek et l. 2010b), direct utumn relese (Wellington nd 1 E-mil: richrd_urbnek@fws.gov 2 Present ddress: Louisin Deprtment of Wildlife nd Fisheries, White Lke Wetlnds Conservtion Are, LA Hwy 91, Gueydn, LA 70542, USA Urbnek 2010) nd corrective trnsloction (Zimorski nd Urbnek 2010) techniques, helth (Hrtup et l. 2004, 2005), genetics (Converse et l. 2012), nd demogrphy (Converse nd Urbnek 2010). Progress hs been fvorble for estblishment of the reintroduced popultion in ll subject res except reproduction, which hs experienced consistent nest filure (Urbnek et l. 2010c, Converse et l. 2013). This pper provides n overview of the survivl, reproduction, nd movements of these birds during the first 10 yers of the reintroduction. STUDY AREAS The core reintroduction re consisted of lrge complex of shllow wetlnds in Juneu nd djcent counties in centrl Wisconsin. All ultrlight-trining sites ( ) nd DAR rering nd relese sites ( ) were on Necedh NWR (44 04 N, W). Juveniles trined to follow ultrlight ircrft were led on their first utumn migrtion to slt mrsh relese site on Chsshowitzk NWR (28 44 N, W), on the centrl Gulf Cost of 33

3 34 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 Tble 1. Current numbers/number of whooping crnes relesed for ech htch yer, reintroduced estern migrtory popultion, 31 Mrch 2011 b. UL = Ultrlight-led. DAR = Direct utumn relese. HY2001 HY2002 HY2003 HY2004 HY2005 HY2006 HY2007 HY2008 HY2009 HY2010 Totl UL Mles 1 c /4 4/6 6/11 5/10 6/11 0/1 5 c /9 5/10 9/11 4/4 45/77 Femles 1/3 1 d /10 4/5 2/3 3/8-5/7 3/4 8/9 6/6 33/55 Totl 2/7 5/16 10/16 7/13 9/19 0/1 10/16 8/14 17/20 10/10 78/132 DAR Mles 0/1 d 0/1 1/3 1/3 1/3 d 2/2 4/7 9/20 Femles - 3/3 0/1 3/7 1/4 6 e /7 2/4 15/26 Totl 0/1 3/4 1/4 4/10 2/7 8/9 6/11 24/46 Wild-htched nd rered Totl - 1/ /2 3/3 Grnd totl 2/7 5/16 10/16 7/14 12/23 2/6 14/26 10/21 25/29 18/23 105/181 Number fledged in recruitment from nturl reproduction. b Not included re 17 HY2006 UL juveniles tht died in winter pen mortlity (2 Feb 2007) nd 1 HY2007 femle tht could not fly nd ws remnded to permnent cptivity. c 1 2-yer-old nd 1 10-yer-old mle were trnsferred to permnent cptivity fter unresolvble issues due to lck of humn voidnce. d Includes 1 mle with flight fether problems in 2004 nd 1 mle with ggression problems in These 2 individuls were originlly rered in ultrlight cohorts but were unsuitble for inclusion in the migrtion by tht protocol. They were therefore relesed in utumn on Necedh NWR. Neither survived to 1 yer of ge. e 1 yerling femle ws euthnized becuse of irrepirble leg injury. Florid, during ech yer. A temporry holding site ws dded in winter on Hlpt Tstnki Preserve (29 02 N, W), Southwest Florid Wter Mngement District, Mrion County. This ws n inlnd freshwter site 42 km northest of the winter relese site on Chsshowitzk NWR nd ws used to hold the juveniles until dominnt older whooping crnes hd clered the ltter site to winter t freshwter inlnd sites (Urbnek 2010b). Beginning in winter , second winter relese site ws lso used t St. Mrks NWR (30 06 N, W), Wkull County, in the estern Florid pnhndle. The reintroduced whooping crnes migrted, for the most prt, long reltively direct route between Wisconsin nd wintering res in the southestern United Sttes. Most birds wintered in Florid, but some lso wintered elsewhere, minly in Tennessee nd South Crolin. Mjor stopover nd winter sites within this route included Jsper-Pulski Fish nd Wildlife Are, Indin; Goose Pond Fish nd Wildlife Are, Greene County, Indin; Hiwssee Wildlife Refuge, Meigs County, Tennessee; Weiss Lke, Cherokee County, Albm; Wheeler NWR, Morgn County, Albm; nd Pynes Pririe, Alchu County, Florid. Ares most commonly used by wintering UL birds fter their first winter were inlnd res of west-centrl Florid, especilly lrge cttle rnches with ssocited wetlnds (Fondow 2013). Summer, migrtion, nd wintering res used by the popultion hve been previously described (Urbnek et l. 2005, 2010). METHODS Eggs were obtined from cptive propgtion fcilities t Ptuxent Wildlife Reserch Center (PWRC), the Interntionl Crne Foundtion (ICF), Clgry Zoo, Audubon Center for Reserch of Endngered Species, nd Sn Antonio Zoo. Additionlly, eggs were slvged from bndoned nests on Necedh NWR (Urbnek 2010c) nd trnsferred to PWRC or ICF, where ll htching nd initil rering of UL nd DAR chicks, respectively, occurred. Detils of rering nd relese methods hve been previously described (Urbnek et l. 2010,b). Juveniles were costume/isoltion-rered (Horwich 1989, Urbnek nd Bookhout 1992) ccording to either UL (Lishmn et l. 1997, Duff et l. 2001) or DAR protocols in nd , respectively. Birds of the UL cohorts were led from Necedh NWR in centrl Wisconsin to the Gulf Cost of Florid on their first utumn migrtion. Beginning with the 2008 migrtion, the originl route through Indin, est-

4 Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. 35 Tble 2. Survivl of reintroduced migrtory whooping crnes 1 yer fter relese (HY ) nd from 1 yer fter relese to ge 3 yers (HY ). UL = Ultrlight-led. DAR = Direct utumn relese. 1 yer fter relese 1 yer fter relese to ge 3 yrs No. live/no. relesed % No. live/no. surviving 1 yer fter relese UL Mles 60/ / Femles 43/48 b / Totl 103/ * c 64/ DAR Mles 8/13 d / Femles 15/ / Totl 23/35 d 65.7* 9/ All relesed Mles 68/ / Femles 58/ / Totl 126/ / % Not included re 17 HY2006 UL juveniles tht died in winter pen mortlity event nd 1 HY2007 UL femle tht could not fly nd ws remnded to permnent cptivity. b Excludes HY2002 femle tht ws euthnized fter cpture myopthy. c *P < 0.05 d Includes 2 individuls originlly rered in UL cohorts but unsuitble for inclusion in the migrtion by tht protocol. They were lter relesed in utumn on Necedh NWR similr to DAR, lthough they hd not been rered ccording to the DAR protocol. Neither survived to 1 yer of ge. Excluding these 2 birds, survivl of DAR mles nd totl birds 1 yer fter relese ws 8/11 (72.7%) nd 23/33 (69.7%), respectively. centrl Kentucky nd Tennessee, nd Georgi ws replced with more westerly route though Illinois, western Kentucky nd Tennessee, nd Albm. Two UL juveniles were initilly trined to follow ultrlight ircrft but lter relesed similr to DAR birds on Necedh NWR; these individuls re treted s DAR birds in this pper (Tble 1). This inclusion contributed to evlution of the relese technique but not to possible effects of rering method on relese outcome. The DAR method depended on the ssocition of the relesed juveniles with older whooping crnes to guide them on their first utumn migrtion. The 18 juveniles of the HY2006 UL cohort (HY = htch yer) were relesed on Chsshowitzk NWR for 1 night on 20 Jnury 2007 but then kept penned while trnsient older birds were present t the site until 2 Februry. During erly morning hours on the ltter dte, severe storm produced high tides nd direct lightning strike on the penned birds, killing ll but 1 juvenile, which escped (Splding et l. 2010). The 17 crnes tht died during this mortlity event were excluded from dt summry nd nlysis. Differences in survivl between UL nd DAR crnes were ssessed with 2-smple proportion test with continuity correction (Anlyticl Softwre 2008). RESULTS Popultion Size nd Survivl During , 178 juveniles were costume/ isoltion-rered nd relesed: 132 were led by ultrlight ircrft from Necedh NWR to the Gulf Cost of Florid on their first utumn migrtion. The remining 46 individuls were relesed directly on Necedh NWR during utumn of the htch yer (DAR) (Tble 1). Overll survivl of relesed whooping crnes ws 81% (79% for mles, 83% for femles) 1 yer fter relese nd 84% for crnes from 1 yer fter relese until ge 3 (Tble 2). Survivl of both sexes ws lower for DAR thn UL during the erlier (66 vs. 85%) nd lter (75 vs. 85%) periods, but the difference ws less for the older birds. Survivl 1 yer fter relese ws significntly different between totl individuls of UL (86.0%) nd DAR (65.7%) (Z = 2.32, P = ) nd nerly significntly different between UL (90.0%) nd DAR (68.2%) femles (Z = 1.86, P = ). No other differences between or within the 2 post-relese groups were significnt. Of ll relesed individuls plus fledged chicks rered by relesed birds, 58%, including representtives

5 36 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 of ll yer clsses, were extnt s of 31 Mrch The popultion contined mximum 105 individuls (54 mles nd 51 femles) including 78 UL, 24 DAR, nd 3 wild-htched nd rered crnes (Tble 1). DAR juveniles exhibited wide rnge of behviorl scenrios immeditely fter relese, including ssociting with sndhill crnes nd/or older whooping crnes, migrting lone, nd mortlity (3 killed by predtors on northern refuge, 2 killed erly in migrtion by collision with jet lnding t irport, nd power line collision). However, s the popultion incresed during the course of the study, more whooping crne guide birds were vilble, especilly bchelor mles, nd ll HY DAR juveniles surviving to migrte migrted successfully with them to winter loctions. Mortlity Mortlities were dispersed mong sex/ge clsses t loctions within the nnul cycle, nd the primry cuse ws predtion, mounting to 60% of mortlities tht were ttributed to specific cuse (Tble 3). Excluding 17 juveniles tht died in single wether-relted event while penned t the winter relese site in 2007 nd nother tht could not fly fter relese, 74 individuls died from the first relese in November 2001 through 31 Mrch After the 16-month period from lte My 2006 through lte September 2007, when nnul mortlity rte in the popultion ws 26.7%, mortlity rte reverted to lower levels pproximting those observed erlier (Urbnek 2010). A notble increse in shootings (5 birds confirmed or incidents under investigtion) occurred during winter Through October 2007, ccounting for ll mortlities ws complete. Since tht time n incresing number of missing birds were not subsequently observed. In Tble 3 these were counted s mortlities, some llownce mde for probbility of detection, fter 1 yer without observtion. Some recent mortlities were lso relted to infectious disese. An dult femle tht died in spring 2011 (not included in period covered in Tble 3) pprently succumbed to bcteril septicemi due to n intestinl tremtode (Echinopryphium sp.) infesttion. A prefledged chick lso died of irscculitis nd peritonitis resulting from infection by intestinl bcteri in 2010 (Ntionl Wildlife Helth Center, Dignostic Services Cse Reports nd 23562, 2011). Tble 3. Mortlities (n =74) of reintroduced estern migrtory whooping crnes by confirmed or probble cusl fctor, 2001 through 31 Mrch 2011,b. Loction during nnul cycle: summer (36), utumn migrtion (7), winter (20), spring migrtion (5), unknown (5), cpture myopthy (1). Distribution Cuse of mortlity Mles Femles Totl Ultrlight-led (UL) Predtion (unidentified predtor) c Bobct predtion Alligtor predtion 1 1 Egle predtion 2 2 Power line collision d 1 1 Gunshot Trum (source unknown) 1 1 Epicrdil hemorrhge 1 1 Predtion of injured bird 1 1 Euthnized (cpture myopthy) 1 1 Vehicle collision 1 1 Chronic spergillosis 1 1 Undetermined e Presumed ded (no crcss recovered) Totl Direct utumn relese (DAR) Coyote predtion 2 2 Predtion (suspected cnid) Bobct predtion 1 1 Alligtor predtion 2 2 Power line collision 2 f 2 4 f Aircrft collision 1 1 Gunshot Leg trum (euthnized) 1 1 Presumed ded (no crcss recovered) 3 f 1 4 f Totl 11 f f All birds Does not include 17 HY2007 UL juveniles tht died in winter pen mortlity event. b Does not include femle remnded to cptivity becuse of loss of flight bility. c Includes suspected cnid (3). d Includes mle found live but immobile under power line; lter died from unrelted cuse in cptivity. e Crcss recovered, but cuse of mortlity could not be determined. f 1 individul killed in power line collision nd 1 presumed ded but not recovered were originlly rered in UL cohorts but were unsuitble for inclusion in UL migrtion. They were lter relesed on Necedh NWR similr to DAR lthough they hd not been rered ccording to the DAR protocol. Relesed crnes, for the most prt, remined in the expected migrtory pthwy nd wintered in Florid or t pproprite loctions long the Florid to Wisconsin route. Noteworthy exceptions (discussed below) included wintering res in South Crolin, presence

6 Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. 37 of birds in the Centrl Flywy, nd birds terminting spring migrtion est of Lke Michign. Migrtion, wintering loctions, nd movements in the summering re from 2001 to 2008 hve been previously described (Urbnek et l. 2005, 2010, 2010b). First yer UL: Relesed UL crnes begn their first spring migrtion from winter relese sites in Florid during 24 Mrch-14 April nd with few exceptions (noted below) migrted ppropritely bck to Centrl Wisconsin. Typiclly, these returning yerlings only remined briefly nd then moved to vrious other sites frther south in Wisconsin or occsionlly to Minnesot, Iow, or other res. This previously unreported pttern hs been termed spring wndering by the senior uthor, nd will be described in detil in subsequent pper. With few exceptions these yerlings returned to Necedh NWR nd other sites within the core reintroduction re by erly July. From 2002 to 2007, these returning yerlings then styed for the reminder of the summer. Beginning in 2008, yerlings nd some 2-yer-olds returned to spring wndering loctions to summer: 8 in 2008, 12 in 2009, nd 15 in 2010 (these vlues include DAR birds, which demonstrted the sme behvior). Spring wndering of dults ws rrely observed. Through 2011, ll dults estblished their breeding territories in the core reintroduction re. Most crnes remined in the core until the following utumn migrtion, lthough few returned to previously used spring wndering sites before migrting. First yer DAR: DAR juveniles migrted unssisted on utumn migrtion, nd the results were vrible by cohort. A HY2004 juvenile originlly rered s UL bird but then trnsferred to DAR followed whooping crne guide birds nd wintered t site with other whooping crnes in Florid. Two HY2005 juveniles wintered together t Hiwssee Wildlife Refuge, Tennessee (1 required retrievl erlier in Kentucky), nd 2 others wintered seprtely with sndhill crnes (Grus cndensis) in Florid. All 4 HY2006 juveniles wintered in Florid in 2 groups. Two of the HY2007 birds were killed just fter beginning migrtion; 1 bird migrted to Arknss, nd group of 6 migrted with no whooping crne or sndhill crne guides directly south to southwestern Illinois. The ltter 7 HY2007 birds were retrieved nd relesed on Hiwssee Wildlife Refuge, Tennessee. The estwrdly displced birds then ll migrted in spring to Michign, where dditionl retrievl ttempts were mde. All HY juveniles migrted nd wintered successfully with older whooping crne guide birds. DAR birds returning to Wisconsin in spring demonstrted the sme homing nd spring wndering ptterns s UL birds. First yer spring return rtes: For HY juveniles, return rte to centrl Wisconsin the following spring ws 90.5% for UL nd 69.2% for DAR. However, return rte of DAR yerlings ws highly vrible by yer, nd the lower return rte ws due to migrtion problems (see bove) within the HY2007 cohort (Tble 4). Return rtes were influenced by the previous utumn migrtion nd presence of guide birds. All filures involved spring migrtion to Lower Michign nd, when possible, were corrected by retrievl nd reloction to centrl Wisconsin (Zimorski nd Urbnek 2010). Birds with long-term dispersl loctions outside the core reintroduction re: Through 2010, pproximtely 19 birds (5 mles, 14 femles) hd some history (pst the yerling utumn) of consistent summering outside the core reintroduction re. Eight of these occurrences involved birds in Michign. Four femles eventully pired with mles nd returned to estblish territories in the core; 2 of these femles pired on Hiwssee Wildlife Refuge, Tennessee, 1 returned to the core fter 3 yers elsewhere with sndhills nd then pired with resident mle during spring, nd 1 pired s result of multiple Tble 4. Return rtes of yerling whooping crnes to the ntl core reintroduction re in centrl Wisconsin, Retrieved birds (see footnotes) were relesed on or ner Necedh NWR. Htch yer UL Return rte DAR / / /16 b /13 1/ /19 c 3/4 d /0 1/2 e /15 0/6 f /13 4/4 g /19 9/9 g Totl 105/116 18/26 Percent femle retrieved in Ohio. b 3 mles nd 2 femles in Michign. c 2 mles in Michign (1 retrieved); 1 femle migrted with HY2003 femle nd both were retrieved in New York. d 1 femle in Michign. e 1 mle retrieved in Michign. f 1 mle (retrieved) nd 5 femles (3 retrieved) in Michign. g Wintered nd migrted with older whooping crne guide birds.

7 38 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 Figure 1. Winter distribution of the reintroduced estern migrtory whooping crne popultion in 4 geogrphic res, CH = Chsshowitzk NWR. SM = St. Mrks NWR. retrievls. One subdult mle tht summered t distnt loction returned to the core s 3-yer-old. Winter loctions nd homing: Most UL birds originlly relesed on Chsshowitzk NWR returned to tht site nd then moved to winter t inlnd freshwter sites upon completion of their first unssisted utumn migrtion. Subsequent migrtions were influenced by ssocition with birds nd climte conditions in some yers, nd some shortstopping occurred. Mny dult pirs eventully returned to the sme winter re in successive yers. Mny DAR birds migrted only to the mid-south, where mny older dult whooping crnes nd sndhill crnes lso winter, with Hiwssee Wildlife Refuge being primry wintering re (Tble 5, Fig. 1). Reproduction The homing to the ntl re nd excellent pir formtion pprent erlier in the reintroduction hve continued in recent yers. Of 31 dult pirs occurring in the popultion through 2010, 29 pirs formed while in the core reintroduction re, mostly on Necedh NWR (Tble 6). Except for 1 femle from htch yer 2001, ll femles 4 yers of ge or older tht summered in the core reintroduction re pired with mles. Femles pired t 3-5 yers (see lso Urbnek 2010). Mles pired t pproximtely the sme time, lthough severl remined unpired becuse of limited numbers of femles. As of spring 2011, the popultion contined

8 Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. 39 Tble 5. Winter distribution of reintroduced estern migrtory whooping crnes s typified by loction in mid-februry (or erlier if mortlity occurred during winter), Does not include juvenile UL birds overwintering on protected relese re. Number of totl from DAR crnes in prentheses. Loction Florid (1) 33 (2) 45 (5) 26 (2) 31 (4) 30 (2) 42 (4) Georgi 2 4 (2) 3 (1) 9 (7) South Crolin North Crolin 3 1 e Tennessee 4 7 (2) 4 (3) 18 (10) 21 (8) 13 (6) 14 (4) Albm (1) 6 (2) 19.5 (6.5) Louisin 1 Mississippi 1 Kentucky 8 (7) 0.5 (0.5) Indin (1) 4 (1) Undetermined (1) 9 (3) Totl (1) 45 (4) 62 (8) 56 (12) 73 (15) 78 (20) 102 (26) Includes 4 birds counted s wintering in Florid even though their finl wintering res were undetermined. Also includes 1 mle counted s wintering in Florid, lthough he ws trnsferred to permnent cptivity in erly Jnury. Birds tht died were counted s wintering t their mortlity sites. Decimls re the result of birds tht wintered in more thn 1 stte. 20 confirmed breeding pirs. Breeding territories nd resulting nests were concentrted in 2 mjor res on the southern nd northern portions of Necedh NWR with few nests off refuge. Prentl desertion of nests continued to result in consistent reproductive filure (Urbnek 2010c). During , ll 43 nests during the initil (primry) nesting period filed. Of 15 lte nests or renests, chicks htched from 8 nests, nd 3 chicks fledged (Tble 7). The cuses of this high nest filure rte re under study. The first DAR femles (2) produced eggs for the first time in Both nested during the lter period nd incubted full term; however, numbers of DAR individuls re currently too low to provide sufficient dt needed to fully evlute their reproduction. Tble 6. Loction nd period of breeding pir formtion (n = 31), estern migrtory whooping crne popultion. All pirs formed where concentrtions of crnes were present. Period No. pirs formed Loction Circumstnces Mr-My 22 Necedh/core 16 from singles, 6 from trids or qud Jun-Aug 4 Necedh/core All from loss of mte Sep-Nov 3 Necedh/core 1 from loss of mte, 1 fter reloction from N.Y. Dec-Feb 2 Hiwssee, Tenn. Fll migrtion or wintering Includes 1 whooping crne/sndhill crne pir. Humn Avoidnce In generl, most relesed whooping crnes stisfctorily voided close proximity to humns nd humn structures. However, becuse they hve been rered in cptivity, they cn be esily tmed fter relese if precutions re not tken. The most serious problem sites resulting in hbitution of estern migrtory whooping crnes to humns were occurrence t 1) n ethnol plnt south of Necedh NWR in , nd 2) severl humn communities djcent to wetlnds in Florid nd contining tme non-migrtory sndhill crnes, which were sometimes fed by locl residents. Two subdult pirs occupied the grounds of the ethnol plnt in spring They hd initilly been ttrcted to spilled corn t this site nd were lredy hbituted to humns fter wintering t Tooke Lke, wetlnd surrounded by residentil development in Hernndo County, Florid. We solved this problem by removing the dominnt mle nd trnsferring him to permnent cptivity. The femle then re-pired on Necedh NWR with mle demonstrting stisfctory humn voidnce nd dopted his behvior. The other pir then lso vcted the site. Another mle with winter territory on or ner Chsshowitzk NWR repetedly returned to nerby Homosss Springs Wildlife Stte Prk, where he ws ttrcted to cptive femle whooping crne, nd required reloction on severl occsions. We trnsferred him to permnent

9 40 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 Tble 7. Summry of reproduction in estern migrtory whooping popultion, Yer No. nests Nest type/period Nest initition dtes No. dys incubtion No. successful nests No. chicks htched No. chicks fledged first Apr first 5-13 Apr renest 23 My first 3-19 Apr renest 14 My 26 b first 7-23 Apr first 2-21 Apr renest My c first/erly 1-5 Apr first e /lte 29 Apr-12 My d f renest 29 Apr-12 My 2-38 d 3 5 c 2 c Totl nest per pir within these nest type/period ctegories, except for footnote f below. b Single infertile egg of sibling pir ws bndoned fter ttempted egg substitution. c 1 chick htched from egg substituted into nest of infertile pir in ech yer t 22 dys (2009) nd 27 dys (2010) of incubtion. The ltter chick fledged. d Single infertile egg in ech of 2 nests ws removed t 38 dys of incubtion. e 1 of these nests my hve been renest with ctul first nest undetected. f Includes 2 renests by sibling pir (first renest deserted within 2 dys). cptivity in Jnury The femle of pir hbituted to humns t Tooke Lke, nd to lesser degree on Necedh NWR, died from gunshot in Indin during utumn migrtion As of Mrch 2011, 6 crnes in the popultion hd history of intermittent close hbitution to humns. This number ws reduced from 13 problem birds in DISCUSSION Reintroduced costume-rered whooping crnes hve continued to demonstrte successful migrtion, homing, hbitt use, pir formtion, nd territory estblishment. Averge nnul mortlity of whiteplumged whooping crnes in the nturl Arnss- Wood Bufflo popultion (AWBP) ws 9.8% during (B. Johns, Cndin Wildlife Service, unpublished dt). Except during 1.6-month period of excessive mortlity (Urbnek 2010), survivl of the reintroduced estern migrtory popultion hs generlly been comprble. The min cuse of mortlity, s discussed erlier by Cole et l. 2009, continued to be predtion. Becuse of reduced monitoring since 2008, the number of recovered birds found too decomposed to determine cuse of deth hs lso incresed. This sitution could result in underestimtion of importnce of some mortlity fctors such s disese. Since summer 2008 (Urbnek 2010), the following significnt developments in the estern migrtory whooping crne popultion hve occurred: DAR migrtion hs improved s result of ssocition of juveniles with older whooping crnes. Winter distribution hs shifted becuse of wter conditions nd climte nd ddition of second winter relese site. No dditionl birds hve estblished winter territories in South Crolin. No dditionl birds hve migrted est of Lke Michign in spring; therefore, need for retrievls ws reduced. The migrtion route of the popultion hs shifted westwrd, nd severl new stopover/wintering sites hve become estblished. Number of yerlings summering in loctions found during spring wndering hs incresed s more territories were estblished by dults on Necedh NWR. Becuse of reduced monitoring, mny missing birds were presumed but not confirmed s mortlities. Humn voidnce problems peked in 2009 but then decresed, nd 2 birds were eventully removed from the popultion becuse of chronic uncorrectble behvior. Humn voidnce problems could rebound in response to current nd future lnd mngement ctions or insufficient monitoring nd corrective ction. Therefore, efforts to minimize close exposure of whooping crnes to humns nd humn ctivity nd to resolve situtions tht my compromise welfre of the popultion require continued ttention. The following hve continued since 2008: Homing to the ntl re nd pir formtion hve been excellent.

10 Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. 41 Most pirs hve formed while in the core reintroduction re, mostly on Necedh NWR. Mortlity continued to occur t similr rtes in sesonl res occupied, nd the primry cuse ws predtion. Prentl desertion of nests, especilly during the initil (primry) nesting period, continued. The mjor problem hindering success of the reintroduction is poor reproduction. Hrssment of incubting birds by blck flies (Simulium spp.) (Urbnek et l. 2010c) remins fctor of prmount concern to the welfre of this popultion. Poor chick survivl, which cnnot yet be evluted becuse of low htching success, is nother fctor which could limit the success of this reintroduction nd my require ttention. Beginning in 2005, the DAR technique ws used s less expensive nd logisticlly less complicted mens to supplement numbers of reintroduced birds. Migrtion hs improved s result of more consistent ssocition with guide birds. Overll, survivl of DAR crnes hs generlly been lower thn tht of UL relesed birds, lthough not significntly so except for totl individuls within 1 yer fter relese (Tble 2). However, unlike UL crnes, DAR juveniles re younger when relesed nd not protected in gentle relese pen through their first winter; therefore, dditionl risk of mortlity during this period ws not unexpected. The vlues presented, however, do not include mortlities tht occurred during the ultrlight-led migrtions (6/156 juveniles) before relese. In ddition, mortlity event ffecting n entire cohort of UL birds occurred in Februry 2007 nd resulted in loss of 17/18 members. This group, relesed for only 1 night on 20 Jnury but then penned therefter due to trnsient older crnes present t the pensite, ws not included in the UL mortlities in Tbles 1-3. With inclusion of these mortlities, the difference in survivl between totl individuls of UL (74.6%) nd DAR (65.7%) 1 yer fter relese ws not significnt (Z = 0.85, P = ). To reduce possibility of similr ctstrophic loss, the wintering UL flock ws seprted to winter t 2 different relese sites beginning in winter The disdvntge of lck of protection of DAR juveniles during the utumn relese period nd first utumn migrtion nd winter could possibly be reduced by gentle relese (Urbnek nd Bookhout 1992) nd by incresed monitoring to identify nd ddress hzrds during their first migrtion nd winter. DAR birds will continue to dd significnt numbers of crnes to this popultion, nd successful piring nd reproduction comprble to tht of UL birds hs begun s more of these birds reched breeding ge. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Existence of only 1 popultion of whooping crnes will keep this species endngered nd t risk of loss from the wild. Recovery gols for the whooping crnes include estblishment of 2 popultions in ddition to the single nturl popultion. The reintroduction of whooping crnes by the costume-rering techniques hs been successful nd should continue until the popultion becomes self-sustining. The ltter gol, however, will depend on solving the mjor problem of nest filure. Costume-rered whooping crnes hve proven to be excellent relese cndidtes cpble of dpting to nturl environments nd demonstrting pproprite behviors in the wild. The technique involving leding birds with ultrlight ircrft, including ssocited protection of the birds through the juvenile period, hs been prticulrly successful. The DAR technique requires greter numbers of birds nd time for comprble evlution but lso indictes potentil for success. These techniques cn ply key role in further mngement nd recovery of this endngered species. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is product of the Whooping Crne Estern Prtnership (WCEP), which ws estblished in 1999 to reintroduce migrtory popultion of whooping crnes to estern North Americ. The 9 founding members re the Cnd-U.S. Whooping Crne Recovery Tem, U.S. Fish nd Wildlife Service, USGS Ptuxent Wildlife Reserch Center, USGS Ntionl Wildlife Helth Center, Wisconsin Deprtment of Nturl Resources, Opertion Migrtion, Inc., Interntionl Crne Foundtion, Ntionl Fish nd Wildlife Foundtion, nd the Nturl Resources Foundtion of Wisconsin. Mny dditionl orgniztions nd individuls hve plyed n importnt role in the reintroduction, nd the efforts of ll prticipnts re cknowledged s vitl to the success of the project. We thnk ll pst trcking stff of the Interntionl Crne Foundtion nd numerous coopertors for monitoring free-rnging birds in the popultion. We especilly thnk the following recent ICF or U.S. Fish nd Wildlife Service interns who trcked relesed birds or ssisted in rering of DAR chicks: A. M. Fsoli, C. L. Wisinski, J. F. Cullum, B. Z. Elger, M. J. Fitzptrick,

11 42 MIGRATORY WHOOPING CRANE REINTRODUCTION Urbnek et l. Proc. North Am. Crne Workshop 12:2014 T. P. Czubek, R. K. Hrtmn, J. W. Thompson, K. J. Frrell, J. B. Longenecker, K. E. Wymn, J. A. Dvis, A. E. Mccoux, C. A. Alexnder, nd M. W. Strusser. We thnk J. Duff nd stff of Opertion Migrtion nd stff of Ptuxent Wildlife Reserch Center for rering, trining, nd leding migrtion of UL chicks; T. Kohler nd stff of Windwy Cpitl Corportion for contributions nd ircrft support; nd Necedh NWR, Interntionl Crne Foundtion, Chsshowitzk NWR, Crystl River Preserve Stte Prk, Nturl Resources Foundtion of Wisconsin, U.S. Fish nd Wildlife Service-Migrtory Birds nd Stte Progrms, nd Southwest Florid Wter Mngement District for logisticl support. Without the contributions of these nd mny others, this effort would not hve been possible. The findings nd conclusions in this rticle re those of the uthors nd do not necessrily represent the views of the U.S. Fish nd Wildlife Service. LITERATURE CITED Anlyticl Softwre Sttistix 9 user s mnul. Anlyticl Softwre, Tllhssee, Florid. Cole, G. A., N. J. Thoms, M. Splding, R. Stroud, R. P. Urbnek, nd B. K. Hrtup Postmortem evlution of reintroduced migrtory whooping crnes in estern North Americ. Journl of Wildlife Diseses 45: Converse, S. J., nd R. P. Urbnek Demogrphy of whooping crnes in the estern migrtory popultion. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 11:198. Converse, S. J., J. A. Royle, nd R. P. Urbnek Byesin nlysis of multi-stte dt with individul covrites for estimting genetic effects on demogrphy. Journl of Ornithology 152(S2): Converse, S. J., J. A. Royle, P. H. Adler, R. P. Urbnek, nd J. A. Brzen A hierrchicl nest survivl model integrting incomplete temporlly-vrying covrites. Ecology nd Evolution 3: Duff, J. W., W. A. Lishmn, D. A. Clrk, G. F. Gee, nd D. H. Ellis Results of the first ultrlight-led sndhill crne migrtion in estern North Americ. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 8: Fondow, L. E. A Hbitt selection of reintroduced migrtory whooping crnes (Grus mericn) on their wintering rnge. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Mdison, USA. Hrtup, B. K., G. H. Olsen, N. M. Czekl, J. Pul-Murphy, nd J. A. Lngenberg Levels of fecl corticosterone in sndhill crnes during humn-led migrtion. Journl of Wildlife Diseses 40: Hrtup, B. K., G. H. Olsen, nd N. M. Czekl Fecl corticoid monitoring in whooping crnes (Grus mericn) undergoing reintroduction. Zoo Biology 24: Horwich, R. H Use of surrogte prentl models nd ge periods in successful relese of hnd-rered sndhill crnes. Zoo Biology 8: Lishmn, W. A., T. L. Teets, J. W. Duff, W. J. L. Slden, G. G. Shire, K. M. Goolsby, W. A. Bezner Kerr, nd R. P. Urbnek A reintroduction technique for migrtory birds: leding Cnd geese nd isoltion-rered sndhill crnes with ultrlight ircrft. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 7: Mguire, K. J Hbitt selection of reintroduced whooping crnes, Grus mericn, on their breeding rnge. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Mdison, USA. Splding, M. G., S. Terrell, nd W. B. Brooks Pthology ssocited with lightning strike nd drowning mortlity of whooping crnes in Florid. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 11:215. Urbnek, R. P., nd T. A. Bookhout Development of n isoltion-rering/gentle relese procedure for reintroducing migrtory crnes. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 6: Urbnek, R. P., L. E. A. Fondow, C. D. Styshur, A. D. Lcy, S. E. Zimorski, nd M. Wellington First cohort of migrtory whooping crnes reintroduced to estern North Americ: the first yer fter relese. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 9: Urbnek, R. P., L. E. A. Fondow, nd S. E. Zimorski Survivl, reproduction, nd movements of migrtory whooping crnes during the first seven yers of reintroduction. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 11: Urbnek, R. P., L. E. A. Fondow, S. E. Zimorski, M. A. Wellington, nd M. A. Nipper. 2010b. Winter relese nd mngement of reintroduced migrtory whooping crnes Grus mericn. Bird Conservtion Interntionl 20: Urbnek, R. P., S. E. Zimorski, A. M. Fsoli, nd E. K. Szyszkoski. 2010c. Nest desertion in reintroduced popultion of migrtory whooping crnes. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 11: Wellington, M. M., nd R. P. Urbnek The direct utumn relese of whooping crnes into the estern migrtory popultion: summry of the first three yers. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 11:215. Zimorski, S. E., nd R. P. Urbnek The role of retrievl nd trnsloction in reintroduced popultion of migrtory whooping crnes. Proceedings of the North Americn Crne Workshop 11:216.