Neotropical Birds

A BirdĘźs Eye View

A Guide to Managing and Protecting Your Land for Neotropical Migratory Birds in the Upper Mississippi River Blufflands

by Marlene Ehresman

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

Š2003

1

A Birdʼs Eye View

A Guide to Managing and Protecting Your Land for Neotropical Migratory Birds in the Upper Mississippi River Blufflands This booklet was produced and distributed by

(515) 475-1846 • info@inhf.org • www.inhf.org

Research and writing by Marlene Ehresman Editing and layout by Cathy Engstrom

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for sharing helpful information; to Katherine Anderson Koskovich (Iowa DNR) for her suggestions early in the project; to Robin McNeely (ISU Geographic Information System Facility) for mapping; to Bob Anderson (Raptor Resource Project) for site coordinates for Peregrine Falcon cliff eyries; and to Jaime Edwards (Minnesota DNR), Richard Henderson (Wisconsin DNR) and Jaye Maxfield for important last-minute suggestions.

Thanks to Chuck McLaughlin (landowner and INHF board member) for being a good example and cheerleader.

Thanks to Tom Conry of Peregrine Productions for the fine cover and other illustrations and to Matt O’Gara for design assistance.

Thanks to the following INHF Robert R. Buckmaster interns for all kinds of project support: Bethany Ashby, Soo Wai-Kin, Nicol Ausen, Jill Clausen, Colleen Evenhouse, Laura Lutz-Zimmerman, Liz Nielsen and Katie Pepper.

Thanks to all the INHF staff and interns for technical advice and moral support, especially Heather Jobst for map-making, Anita O’Gara for financial and technical advice, and Mark Ackelson for first envisioning this project.

Special thanks to family (Bruce, Dan, Drew and the rest of you) and friends (you know who you are) for encouragement and understanding through missed vacations and late nights.

2

Professional Review

The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) greatly appreciates the comments by the following reviewers. Each of their perspectives is highly valued, as is their individual commitment to the future of Midwestern communities­—of people and wild things: Dr. Lynne Brookes (landowner) Dr. James Dinsmore (Professor Emeritus of Animal Ecology, Iowa State University) Bruce Ehresman (Wildlife Diversity Program, Iowa Department of Natural Resources) Douglas Harr (Wildlife Diversity Program, Iowa Department of Natural Resources) Pam Heidenreich (landowner) Jerry Kemperman (Bureau of Forestry, Iowa Department of Natural Resources) Dr. Melinda Knudson (USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center) Dr. William Norris (Western New Mexico University) Dr. Richard Schultz (Iowa State University).

Financial support

Thanks to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for funding the research of this booklet. This booklet would not exist without their initial funding and patient support.

Thanks to the Alliant Energy Foundation for helping fund printing and distribution.

Thanks to the following individuals and organizations for additional financial support: Ruth A. Swaner IDNR Wildlife and Forestry bureaus Audubon—Upper Mississippi River Campaign Audubon Iowa Iowa Important Bird Areas Program; Big Bluestem, Prairie Rapids and Dubuque Audubon Societies Kingfisher Fund Des Moines Audubon Society Anonymous INHF member Gifts in memory of IOWA ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION Karl J. Emendorfer, Jr.

Table of Contents Introduction........................................................... 4 Gaining perspective.............................................. 6 What is a Neotropical migrant? What are the threats to these birds, and why should we care?

Habitat and habitat loss......................................11 What size, shape, and quality of habitat is needed for Neotrops to survive and thrive?

What needs to be done........................................ 18 How can you manage your own land in ways that benefit Neotropical migrants and you?

Final thoughts...................................................... 28 Appendices

Glossary (defines terms italicized in text) 30

Guide to Neotropical migrants................... 32

Neotrops at risk (listed by state)................. 34

Financial resources..................................... 35

Organizational resources............................ 36 References.................................................. 39 Color photo section (center of booklet) Includes summary of main text and color photos of common neotropical migrant species, threatened and endangered species, and species grouped by upland or floodplain communities.

3

Introduction Why Neotropical migrants?

Avian (bird) communities are pieces of the biodiversity puzzle and vital components of the ecosystems* of which we are all a part.

Some birds are permanent residents, some migrate short distances, and some migrate thousands of miles. Some nest in cavities of trees, some on the ground.

Some eat insects, some seeds, some other animals. Some prefer to nest in the interior of a large forest, some in a ditch between a road and a crop field.

Whatever their niche, or role, in an ecosystem, birds­—in all their wondrous forms­—benefit us in many ways. When birds and all of the other native species

are present in the right habitat and in appropriate numbers, they help keep our biological systems healthy. Birds help control insects and rodents, disperse seeds, eat carrion, and become food for others. They are often sensitive indicators of Earth’s condition, and—more specifically—we can often gauge the condition of certain habitats or ecoystems by the presence or absence of birds.

However, one group of birds, the Neotropical migrants (North-to-South American migrators), are suffering tremendous onslaughts here in their breeding areas as well as on their wintering grounds south of the United States’ border. Because these birds affect and are affected by the

The Upper Mississippi River Blufflands Region In the upper Mississippi River valley, the hilly regions adjoining the rivers and their tributaries are known as “bluffs.” These bluffs define the beautiful and valuable river valleys that link Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois.

The Blufflands Alliance is a private and public partnership of organizations, individuals and landowners working to inspire a common vision for this blufflands region.

Some names are wellknown, like Bobolink and Baltimore Oriole.

Some are less known, like Cerulean Warbler.

Each depends on the Mississippi River blufflands for survival. natural balance on two continents, protecting them is especially important.

Why the Upper Mississippi River blufflands?

The various Neotropical migrant species use different Midwest habitats for nesting, resting and refueling during migration. However, as one of the nation’s major migratory flyways, the Upper Mississippi River is especially important.

Meanwhile, because many of the Neotropical migrant species with declining populations are savanna- and forestdwelling birds, people are increasingly interested in studying these natural habitats that birds require for survival. And because the Upper Mississippi River bluffland region of Iowa contains much of our state’s remaining forests, oak woodlands, savannas and unique hilltop prairies, an increasing number of Iowans are seeking ways to improve and protect this area of the state for the benefit of all of us.

Iowa is not alone in this search. Private citizens, public agencies, businesses and environmental organizations in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois are also working *Words in italics are explained further in the glossary on page 30.

4

together to protect the natural resources of the Upper Mississippi River blufflands.

Since 1995, member organizations of the Blufflands Alliance have helped landowners protect more than 10,000 acres in the blufflands region of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin through conservation easements, acquisitions or other land protection methods.

Bruce Ehresman

Why now?

Data from numerous studies indicate that a growing number of species, such as the forest-dwelling Veery and Wood Thrush, are in trouble (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995), and some may be in big trouble with reports of an estimated 75% decline in population over the last 25 years.

The last decade of research has begun to sort out the complicated natural histories of these, some of our most threatened, bird species. No one knows exactly how to reverse the declines, nor is there time to wait for all the answers.

In the meantime, this publication contains some suggestions to help landowners and land managers take positive action today.

Why you?

The current conservation strategy is to identify, maintain and restore large tracts of habitat most likely to benefit avian populations. This does not mean, however, that vast acres of land need to be held in public ownership. Private landowners can and do play crucial roles in the decline, and recovery, of migratory birds and wildlife conservation in general.

For example, 92% of Iowa’s forests are privately owned (IDNR 2001). Inherent in what it means to own property is to have “control” over what you do with it. But what one does with it is always subject to zoning regulations, statutes and just plain regard for one’s neighbors. Landowners own not just a piece of property, but also

a piece of the neighborhood.

If we think of the land, and all its components, as a neighborhood­—a community—we can see that humans are part of that community. By logical extension, there are not only practical, but also moral and ethical obligations to include good land use in the way we treat the communities of which we are a part. Protecting the land means protecting the community, and protecting the community protects our own interests.

Why this book?

People appreciate the value of natural resources but often lack enough information to truly understand the connections between themselves and the environment or between healthy natural resources and a flourishing economy.

While no single publication can cover every situation for every species and landowner, we hope this booklet provides you, Iowa’s landowners and managers, with a basic understanding of needs and solutions, plus a little more.

Through this publication, we hope that you come to understand: • why birds in general, and Neotropical migratory landbirds specifically, are important to humans, • how they can positively affect your

Neotropical migrant birds winter south of the U.S./ Mexican border, then migrate into the United States and north to nest.

The Common Yellowthroat is one of the Neotropical migrant species that nests in the Upper Mississippi River blufflands, a critical area for this and other groups of birds.

bottom line and the state’s economy, • what problems the birds are facing, • what we all can do to turn the situation around, • how you can protect those natural areas that serve you and the birds so well and • where to find the resources needed to accomplish your goals and practice good land management.

As you read these pages, ask yourself, “What do I want my land to look like, to be, in 10 years? 25 years? Seven generations from now?”

And while you are walking your property some day, ask yourself, “How rich is my land?” It’s more than the number of hay bales or bushels of corn produced; a truly rich land sustains humans and birds, wildlife and fish.

We are not suggesting that all of Iowa’s landscape return to pre-settlement conditions, but we are definitely suggesting that we need to do a better job of protecting and improving our biodiversity. Doing so will take local and regional action on many fronts by many hands: land protection, environmental education, landscape management, habitat restoration and better land use policies and decisions.

We can do this—we need to do this— for the birds, for ourselves and “for those who follow.”

5

Gaining Perspective What is a Neotropical migrant?

Although definitions of Neotropical migratory birds vary, the term generally includes birds that nest in the United States and Canada and then make that daunting journey thousands of miles to their winter homes in tropical Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean. More than 350 species, or about half of those that breed in the U.S. and Canada, are Neotropical migrants (or “Neotrops” for short). These include shorebirds, waterbirds and landbirds.

Neotrops and the Upper Mississippi River blufflands

Of the 145 birds that regularly nest in Iowa (Best et al. 1996), 41 are Neotropi-

cal migrants that prefer forest or forest edge habitat (Hemesath and Norris 1998).

Forty-two other woodland birds are yearround residents or don’t migrate as far south as the Neotropical migrants. In sum, 83 of our 145 regular breeding birds prefer wooded areas.

Within the ranks of Neotropical migrants, songbirds and raptors (birds of prey) are receiving national attention because of their declining populations.

Nineteen species of these Neotropical migratory landbirds have been identified by one of the four states as endangered, threatened or species of special concern in at least one Upper Mississippi River county. (See page 34 for species list.)

If we do not alter the environmental pressures affecting these birds—and

The Mysteries of Migration

People have long been mesmerized by the mysteries of migration.

Although migration has been studied for decades, new details emerge constantly. Worldwide, birds migrate year-around, not just during spring and fall, although this is when the greatest number of species takes the long journey. And they do so night or day, rain or snow.

Birds migrate to take advantage of the good things life has to offer on the other side of the Gulf. They fly north in the spring just in time to take advantage of a burst of food items: hatching insects, young animals and new seeds.

They fly south when the weather turns cold and their food disappears.

6

No two species follow the exact same path. Some of the long-distance travelers may use one of four main North American migration flyways, while other species spread out over the continent. Although some of the longest migrations are made by shorebirds, traveling from their nesting area in northern Canada to the southern tip of South America, other birds also travel great distances. One Iowa nester, the Cerulean Warbler, travels 2,175-4,500 miles from northwestern South America to central and eastern United States or Canada. Even the tiny Ruby-throated Hummingbird must fly 600 miles in a single day without stopping as it crosses the Gulf of Mexico (Weidensaul 1999).

soon—we may no longer see the rarer species and we may see even less of the common species.

Why Should We Care?

Let’s get to the point. Why should anyone care about some little feathered animal when headlines draw our attention to worldwide unrest, budget woes and natural disasters? Some people believe that simply having the opportunity to see and hear birds is enough. For those who need more tangible reasons before becoming supporters of birds, the following pages may provide that information.

The “hows” of migration are becoming more fascinating with each discovery.

Birds track the sun, moon and stars. They apparently can sense weak magnetic fields, faint odors, barometric pressure and polarized light (Weidensaul 1999). Instinct to take flight is triggered by changing day lengths, while genetics provide them an internal compass.

How do we know all this? Decades of research, marking and banding, radio telemetry and radar screens at weather stations—the latter capturing the flight of millions on-screen.

Agricultural benefits

Stan Pavlov/Cornell Lab of Ornithology

A bird isn’t just another pretty thing to look at: many species consume large quantities of pest weed seeds and/or insects.

The breeding season of birds takes place during the peak periods for insect populations so there is ample food for nestlings.

According to the Iowa Breeding Bird List, nearly 200 species may nest in Iowa, with another 200 that migrate through the state. In looking at the life histories of Iowa’s 145 regular nesting species, including six non-native species, such as the English, or “house,” Sparrow and the European Starling, some interesting information surfaces.

Like many Neotropical migrants, this Bewick’s Wren eats insects that might otherwise destroy crops. Of Iowa’s 145 regular nesting species, 49 eat pest insects regularly while another 23 consume them occasionally.

• Of these 145 bird species, 49 eat to a predominantly row crop landscape, we dollars from birders annually. Each year many pest insects regularly, while another 23 consume them occasionally.

• 24 bird species make weed seeds a regular part of their diet, while another 14 eat them occasionally.

• 21 species of birds eat both pest weeds and insects regularly.

• Of the bird species with declining populations, 59% regularly include harmful insects in their diet, while 28% regularly consume weed seeds.

(Best et al 1996) The birds that do consume agricultural products are the increasingly common species, such as grackles. Why are these species, considered pests by many, growing in numbers? In changing the landscape

Along the Upper Mississippi River, visitors spend more than $400 million annually to hunt waterfowl and watch birds.

have given some of the seed-eating birds a vast table of tasty, and easily obtained, treats.

Birds can provide definite benefits to farmers, but in order to keep the greatest number of beneficial species around, some agricultural practices will need to change.

Eliminating, or at least minimizing, pesticide use on farms is a bird-friendly practice, as is providing ample cover and nesting sites (which means leaving dead tree snags for cavity-nesting species like woodpeckers) and clean water around the farm. Perhaps because of low prices, high production costs and changing attitudes, a growing number of farmers have decided to alter the way they farm. Many are beginning to make the connection between their farm and the ecosystem—between farm management and ecosystem management.

Tourism benefits

As birds take to the air in spring and fall, thousands of people visit the blufflands area to hike and bike its trails; enjoy the magnificent views, parks and historic sites; and fish and boat the Mississippi River and tributaries.

Communities in similar “gateway” regions across the nation reap millions of

Texas’ lower Rio Grande Valley draws $90 million in birding-related tourist money.

Oregon’s remote high desert brings in $4 million, and the Quivira National Wildlife Refuge in central Kansas draws $1 million (Weidensaul 1999). Total expenditures for wildlife watching are up nationwide, and that trend is repeated in Iowa and the larger blufflands region.

Along the Upper Mississippi River, visitors spend more than $400 million annually to hunt waterfowl and watch birds (U.S. EPA 2002). More than 3.5 million visits are made annually at the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.

In Iowa in 2001, the total numbers of anglers and hunters were 542,000 and 243,000, respectively, while the numbers of residential and non-residential wildlife watchers were 939,000 and 310,000, respectively (USFWS 2002). In that same year in Iowa, $368,712,000 was spent on fishing, $261,778,000 on hunting, and $1,098,664,000 on wildlife watching (USFWS 2002).

Potential tourism benefits

But the present economic impact of wildlife tourism, impressive as it may be, barely taps the potential—if local leaders 7

can recognize their “bird in the hand.”

For example, the Audubon Upper Mississippi River Campaign (UMR Campaign) has published a series of free maps that show the best places to bird along both sides of the Mississippi River from the headwaters in northern Minnesota to Cairo, Illinois. Birdwatchers will be able to take a 1,366-mile self-guided tour down the Great River Birding Trail. The trail follows the Great River Road, which acts as the “spine” of the trail. A similar trail is being developed along the Lower Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico.

Chambers of commerce, businesses, restaurants, motels and hotels, and schools are encouraged to take advantage of the educational and tourism opportunities.

Already designated as an American Heritage River by the federal government after 57 communities and more than 250 organizations pushed for the designation (U.S. EPA 2002), the Upper Mississippi River has received yet another title. “The

Six of the eight birding “hotspots” that were part of an important forest bird research project are located in Iowa’s Mississippi River bluffland counties:

Iverson Bottoms Wildlife Management Unit (WMA); Clear Creek WMA; Fish Farm Mounds WMA; Paint Creek Unit, Yellow River State Forest (all in Allamakee County); Bloody Run Creek WMA (Clayton County); and White Pine Hollow State Preserve (Dubuque County).

8

Kip Ladage

Bill Witt

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge and the adjacent Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge have together been designated as a Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy’s United States Important Bird Areas program” (U.S. Dept. of Interior 1998). This is the highest level designation and indicates the importance these refuges provide to all avian species that use these critical habitats.

The Great River Road runs along the west bank of the Mississippi River, taking travelers through beautiful bluffland scenery and habitat. It serves as the “spine” of the 1,366mile Great River Birding Trail.

Additionally, the National Audubon Society, through BirdLife International’s Important Bird Areas Program, has recently identified the Upper Mississippi refuge as a candidate for designation as one of their national IBA sites.

Pennies From Heaven Communities in other states have expanded their wildlife tourism dollars by holding and marketing birdwatching festivals. The number of major birding festivals has grown from five in 1985 to 140 in 1999 (U.S. EPA Ecocom 2002).

HawkWatch, co-sponsored by the Upper Iowa Audubon Chapter, Effigy Mounds National Monument (EFMO), and Iowa Department of Natural Resources, is one such festival.

Held annually since 1985, 1,500 birdwatchers flock to northeast Iowa’s Allamakee County on one weekend in late September to view some of the thousands of migrating hawks, eagles and other raptors, songbirds and wa-

terfowl.

If surrounding communities and establishments would take advantage of this opportunity, they could ride the air current provided by HawkWatch to create and market “soaring sportswear” or door-to-door vulture (scavenger) hunts that bring people into local businesses during fall and spring migration peaks.

During the summer nesting season, communities could host “birding breakfasts” and “streetscape birding trips” to continue to draw birdwatchers into the area.

The International Migratory Bird Day website (see references) provides information about how to start a community bird festival.

Meanwhile, just over the blufftop, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has recently listed the Yellow River Forest/Effigy Mounds area as one of its 12 potential Bird Conservation Areas. The IDNR will work with area landowners who want to voluntarily manage their habitat for a variety of bird species (B. Ehresman, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 2002).

Threats to Neotrops

Looking out your door on spring mornings, you may see familiar birds everywhere: in the cattle bunks, at the bird feeder, on top of the barn or in your shade tree. You may hear the early morning songs of cardinals, the ever-present chirping of House Sparrows or the honking of geese flying over. These are familiar sights and sounds to most of us. In fact, they may be such a normal part of our surroundings that we don’t even notice them anymore.

But all this activity is deceiving.

We may be seeing more of the common birds for a variety of reasons. The yearround resident birds, such as the Northern Cardinal, or those that migrate only short distances, such as the Blue Jay, have a longer nesting season while Neotropical migrants arrive late in the spring, depart early, and lay fewer eggs.

Some threats to Neotrops are as old as weather, while others are new to this generation of humans.

Migration migraines

Weather, wild predators and other natural obstacles beset Neotropical migrants on their migration journey. In 1993, a major storm claimed at least 40,000 migrating songbirds of 45 species whose bodies washed up on Texas beaches—and this didn’t include those birds swallowed by the ocean or scavengers (Weidensaul 1999).

Unfortunately, these winged wonders also face many human-caused threats.

Communications towers of all kinds and heights kill an estimated 4-5 million birds every year (USFWS 2002 Collision). A single 1,000-foot tower in Central Wisconsin caused the deaths of an estimated 30,000 songbirds in a single night (BirdSource 2002). The number of deaths will only increase as cell phone towers sprout up on high points across the landscape

Communications towers of all kinds and heights kill an estimated 4-5 million birds every year. and television stations convert to digital.

In Iowa alone in 1998, the Federal Communication Commission reported 900 towers from 200 feet to over 800 feet tall (Towerkill.com 2000).

An estimated 10,000 birds are killed annually in a single monitored metropolitan business area as brightly lit skyscrapers of various heights lure the birds like moths to a flame. The solution could be as simple as turning off the lights (Fatal Light 2001).

Even “Tabby” poses a greater threat than we imagined. Recent research in Wisconsin suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats kill over 8 million birds each

year, and the number is probably closer to 39 million, especially as the number of pet cats increases (Coleman & Temple 1996).

Pesticide perils

In the 1960s, people began noticing that some of their favorite songbirds had become scarce where they were once common. Former U.S. Fish and Wildlife scientist Rachel Carson and her 1962 book, Silent Spring, heralded the dangers of particular pesticides, such as DDT, in use in the U.S. at that time.

Carson’s research helped link the use of DDT to reproductive failures in many bird species, including our national symbol, the Bald Eagle. We became aware of the persistent effects of some pesticides and were able to help many species reverse their downward spiral toward extinction.

That wasn’t the end of the pesticide problem, however. Millions of pounds of pesticides, many of which are harmful to birds and their habitats, are applied in and around our homes, on golf courses, roadsides and parks every year. Also, many dangerous pesticides (herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) now banned in the United States are still manufactured here and sold to other countries, including Central and South America—where the Neotrops spend the winters.

Ty Smedes

Familiar birds, like this American Robin, may be more common in some areas. But these species may not face as many obstacles as the Neotropical migrants because they may use a wide variety of food and habitat preferences.

9

Habitat headaches

But of all the problems facing Neotropical migrants in Iowa and around the world, loss of natural habitat may be the most pervasive and threatening.

Consider that most of the common resident birds are generalists in one way or another. Either they aren’t as picky about their food or they don’t have a preference about nesting in towns, farms or more remote areas. These permanent residents and

short-distance migrant species are known to prefer forest openings and edge habitat (Whitcomb et al. 1993). As habitats have been chopped up into smaller and smaller parcels, it only stands to reason that generalist species are seen more and more often, while habitat specialists disappear.

According to the Breeding Bird Survey, 41% of Iowa’s resident and 31% of our short-distance migrants are increasing, while only 17% of the Neotropical mi-

grants are increasing (Best et al.1996). As habitat specialists, many of the Neotrops have not been able to adapt to the loss of the woodlands, prairies and wetlands that once covered the Midwest.

Because habitat protection is such a key issue for the long-term survival of Neotropical migrants and many other species, the next chapter expands on this theme in much more detail.

Protecting migrant birds, then and now

Concern for birds, including migrants, isn’t a recent phenomenon.

Spurred by dwindling waterfowl populations, citizens demanded laws and wildlife refuges to protect migratory stopover and wintering habitats for waterfowl starting in the early 1900s and peaking in the 1930s.

In fact, Iowans have been leading the charge. Iowa Congressman John F. Lacey (1841-1913) became known as “the father of federal conservation legislation” for his work in passing the 1900 Lacey Bird Act (which prohibited illegal interstate commerce in game, particularly endangered bird feathers for ladies’ hats), the 1891 forest reserve program and the 1906 Antiquities Act (which allowed for the creation of national monuments).

Later, The Des Moines Register’s editorial cartoonist, Jay N. “Ding” Darling (1876-1962), penned many cartoons supporting conservation. He also served under Franklin D. Roosevelt as Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, founded what is now the National Wildlife Federation and conceived and designed the original Duck Stamp to raise money for waterfowl protection.

Thanks to efforts of past leaders like these, decades of attention and funding have gone to the Mississippi River basin, 10

a migratory flyway for 40% of all North American waterfowl.

However, other migratory birds, such as the songbirds, shorebirds and raptors, didn’t receive the same attention as migratory waterfowl. Spurred by increasing public awareness and concern for the less “popular” and familiar migrant species, the U.S. Geological Survey and Canadian Wildlife Service began coordinating nationwide bird surveys in 1966.

According to their survey results, which continue today, waterfowl numbers have generally stabilized or increased.

Even with all the attention in the past decades, some, such as canvasbacks and one species of scaup, are considered to be in decline (M. Knutson, USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, pers. comm. 2002).

Many songbird species are dwindling rapidly as well. Some of these threatened migrants have familiar names, such as the Bobolink and Baltimore Oriole, while others have names known mostly to birdwatchers, like the Cerulean Warbler and Scarlet Tanager. Waterfowl and songbird populations alike begin to decrease when either the quality or quantity of habitat is destroyed.

In 1990, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to encourage private

conservation projects, formed Partners in Flight (PIF). PIF was created in response to growing concerns about declines in the populations of “landbird species,” another term for Neotropical songbirds and raptors.

This broad international coalition of groups and individuals—from conservation organizations to foundations, private landowners to scientists—now coordinates efforts aimed at preserving those birds not covered by earlier conservation initiatives.

The main premise of PIF has been that the resources of public and private organizations in North and South America must be combined to achieve success in conserving bird populations in the Western hemisphere. Their research is helping generate the information needed to formulate specific conservation goals.

Piece by piece, the needs of the declining bird populations are being discovered. Scientists studying these birds are finding what may be one of the most important pieces of information to date: there is increasing evidence that many Neotrops are habitat specialists. As the habitat they require is destroyed, their populations decline We can only hope today’s citizens are as successful in protecting migrant “landbirds” as our predecessors have been with waterfowl.

Habitat and Habitat Loss Changing lands

The Upper Mississippi River blufflands, also known as the Paleozoic Plateau or Driftless Area, escaped the scouring, flattening action of the glaciers that once covered much of the Midwest.

Though European settlers saw the same terrain we see today, with steep hills and limesone outcrops, they saw a much different landscape of plants and trees. A couple centuries ago, the blufflands were a mosaic of prairie, savanna and forest.

Grazing and fires, whether caused by lightning strikes or set by Native Americans, kept trees from invading the prairies. The savanna, too, was maintained by fire and probably bison and elk. Forests survived in the protected river valleys of the rugged region (Fremling and Drazkowski 2000).

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa have undergone rapid and wide-

spread landscape transformation. Today, most of the ridge tops and valleys in the bluffland area of all four states have been cleared for agriculture, with forests persisting only on the steep valley walls.

But the scope and speed of the alterations to Iowa’s 36 million acres is, perhaps, most remarkable. In 2001, nearly 33 million of those 36 million acres were classified as farms (Iowa Agricultural Statistics Service 2001).

When Europeans began settling Iowa in the mid-1800s, the landscape was dominated by tallgrass prairie that covered 85% of the state. Of more than 30 million acres of prairie, only about 30,000 remain.

There were once about 3 million acres of prairie pothole wetlands, now reduced to an estimated 110,000 acres, and another 1 million acres of riparian wetlands along major streams (Dahl 1990).

Oak savanna was another major part of Iowa’s landscape and covered parts of the southern and eastern three-fourths of Iowa plus the Little Sioux River watershed in northwest Iowa (in deLong and Hooper 1996). Only scattered remnants remain, and savanna is considered as rare as the tallgrass prairie. The plants and animals of the Midwest evolved to survive these ecosystems.

A land survey conducted from 1832 to 1849 estimated that Iowa had 7 million acres of forest land, which likely included savannas and woodlands. By 1974, only about 1.5 million acres remained. A 1989 survey estimated that forested acres had increased to approximately 2 million acres (Brand and Walkowiak 1991). Settlers cleared woodlands for crop fields or to provide lumber and other material, but they also planted trees, creating forested INHF/Heather Jobst

These maps show changes in northeastern Iowa’s wooded lands (indicated by dark areas) from 1832 to 1992. Note the dramatic decrease in what likely included mixed hardwood forest, oak woodlands and savannas.

What will the maps show in 2102?

1832-1859 northeastern Iowa wooded lands

1992 northeastern Iowa wooded lands

(General Land Office project data,

(Iowa Gap Analysis project data,

Iowa State University)

Iowa State University)

11

INHF map/Joe McGovern (MN, WI, IL, IA Gap Anaylsis Project data)

habitat protection are similar in most ecosystems: Habitat size and shape, habitat fragmentation and habitat quality are all important concepts.

Habitat size & shape

Because larger blocks of habitat are required for many of the declining populations of Neotropical migrant birds, the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation has identified areas with 1,000 acres or more of contiguous woodland. INHF and its Bluffland Alliance partner organizations will encourage and assist landowners to protect the remaining habitat.

areas where prairie had existed previously (Van Der Linden and Farrar 1984).

However, virtually all forests in Iowa have been disturbed in some way within the past century (Raich et al. 1999), and these disturbed areas favor some species at the expense of others, including many Neotropical migrants. (See maps on page 11.)

12

Though this booklet focuses primarily on forest habitat for examples of birds and management, the basic principles of habitat protection are the same in most ecosystems: Habitat size and shape, habitat fragmentation and habitat quality are all important concepts.

Changing wildlife populations

Many plant and animal species have struggled for survival in their quickly changing habitats, while others have expanded their range. The Least Flycatcher and Cerulean Warbler are found in much fewer numbers in northeast Iowa while the Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher, Northern Cardinal and Tufted Titmouse have moved in (Hemesath and Norris 1998).

This shift is due in part to habitat changes throughout the Midwest (Faaborg et al. 1993). For all birds, the physical structure of the habitat provides courtship sites, nest sites, protection from predators and shelter from adverse weather.

On the surface it may seem like trading one species of bird for another is not a problem. However, underlying processes that we do not immediately see, nor understand fully, may have greater future impacts on people than we can imagine today.

Though this book focuses primarily on forest habitats for examples of birds and management, the basic principles of

One major goal in managing for the recovery of these landbirds is to create source habitat, meaning an area large enough to support successful breeding with excess animals that can colonize other areas.

Consider a Wood Thrush family. Adult Wood Thrushes may only require 0.2 to 7 acres for their breeding territories. On the other hand, family groups need 6.5 acres to as much as 61 acres for several weeks before leaving the natal area (Anders et al. 1998). When thinking about minimumarea requirements for species, remember that family groups generally need a larger area in which to forage for food.

Habitat area requirements are also influenced by the home range required of species within a given habitat. A bird’s size and diet can influence the size of a species’ home range. For example, a large-bodied species with a very specialized diet would probably require a large home range in which to find its food. A similar-sized species that is less picky about what it eats would most likely require a smaller home range. However, if the habitat is in poor condition, both species would need to search a larger area for scarcer food.

Researchers believe that a minimum of 250 acres of forested land is necessary to maintain most forest-interior species (Grettenberger 1991, Robbins et al.

Researchers believe that a minimum of 250 acres of forested land is necessary to maintain most forest-interior bird species.

1989). However, some species, such as the Cerulean Warbler, may require unfragmented habitat ranging from hundreds to thousands of acres (Knutson et al. 2001).

Birds are often attracted to smaller

Unfortunately, increasing edge habitat actually decreases the number of species of Neotrops in a given area. woodlands that may not sustain their populations. The bird species in these sink habitats probably would not reproduce successfully because of predation by raccoons, skunks and other animals and cowbirds that lay their eggs in other birds’ nests (Robinson 1992).

Many of the remaining contiguous bottomland and upland tracts of forests along the Mississippi River are probably large enough to sustain many Neotropical migrants. However, in addition to the total acreage, the number of interior or core acres is vital to maintaining Neotropical

migrant populations.

Long, narrow tracts or irregularly shaped forests, which have an abundance of edge habitat, do not protect birds from predators and nest predation nearly as well as square or round land parcels (Martin 1980, Blake 1984, Faaborg et al. 1993).

For more about edge effects, see the next section.

Marlene Ehresman

Habitat fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation causes many problems for Neotropical migrants.

Habitat fragmentation, caused by clearing sites for utility line corridors, sewer lines, agricultural fields, roads, houses, and other buildings, breaks large habitat areas into small pieces with edge, where two or more types of habitats meet.

Today, many forests in northeastern Iowa are connected to each other by at least a narrow corridor of trees, but they are also surrounded by crop fields or pastures along most of their borders (Hemesath and Norris 1998). This configuration creates lots of edge and very little interior area.

INHF/Soo Wai-kin

Long, narrow tracts or irregularly shaped forests such as the one on the upper right, have an abundance of edge habitat and do not protect birds from predators and nest predation as well as square or round parcels.

When natural areas are cleared for scenic views, as in this photo (note cabin at top/left of clearing), the resulting disconnected or fragmented landscape is not good for many Neotrops.

Neotrops on the edge

Today wildlife management has broadened its focus to include game and nongame (hunted and not hunted) species.

Past management efforts have concentrated on increasing the amount of edge because many game species, such as Bobwhite Quail, raccoon and fox, are attracted to edges.

Unfortunately, increasing edge actually decreases the number of species of Neotrops in a given area. Some of these bird species, such as the Cerulean Warbler or Worm-eating Warbler, can thrive only in large blocks of uniform habitat. These area-sensitive species cannot tolerate areas where edge is over-abundant.

In general, the more fragmented the forest landscape, the fewer the forest-interior bird species. In landscapes fragmented by agriculture, as is typical in Iowa, levels of nest parasitism and predation are so high that nesting birds cannot raise enough young to compensate for adult deaths. The inability to successfully reproduce seems 13

to be one of the major causes of declines in the Neotropical migrant population.

In a recent study of the nesting success of forest upland birds in northeastern Iowa, nest success was lowest for those species that build open cup-shaped nests, species that prefer to nest near forest edges and Neotropical migrants (Knutson 2001).

Many nest predators, such as the raccoon, domestic cat, Blue Jay and crow, are most prevalent in edge habitats. Traveling easily along edge habitat, these predators are opportunistic hunters that find quick

meals of eggs and nestlings.

Another possible threat caused by forest fragmentation is reduced food supply. Previous research has indicated that Ovenbirds are less abundant in small tracts of woodland and near edges and that most of the males found singing their familiar “teacher, teacher, teacher” along the woodland edge remain unmated (Robinson 1998).

It appears that, while males are good at finding song perches that are conspicuous so they can most easily attract any passing

female Ovenbird, females prefer territory with rich food resources and avoid areas where food is scarce. Hence, they pass up the fervently singing males if they are located along edges where leaf litter is drier and soil arthropods, a food of choice for the Ovenbird, are scarcer.

With so much of the Upper Mississippi blufflands already fragmented, landowners who still own continuous, unfragmented forest tracts should strive to protect them. This way, both the species that prefer edge habitat (edge species) and

Edge effects and nest parasitism: The case of the Brown-headed Cowbird Nest parasitism by the Brown-headed Cowbird is a major problem for many Neotropical migrants.

Brown-headed Cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. The female cowbirds choose a high perch and watch for a chance to deposit their egg(s) in the nests of other species when nests are left unattended in the early stages of egg-laying. The unsuspecting host birds then incubate and raise the cowbird hatchling as their own.

Brown-headed Cowbirds decrease the nesting success of the host because they remove a host egg before laying their own, and their eggs hatch 1-3 days before the host eggs. Cowbird hatchlings are larger and grow faster than host hatchlings, causing most of the food to be given to the cowbird at the expense of the host young.

While the average cowbird will lay 40 eggs in a season, they can lay up to 80 eggs (Herkert et al. 1993). Due to their high egg production, cowbirds are a threat to the survival of many species.

These pages discuss how habitat fragmention leads to the edge effect. In 14

addition to the other problems edge causes for some Neotropical migrant species, edge effects also contribute directly to nest parasitism because female cowbirds prefer edge habitat.

While it would be easy to simply blame cowbirds and set out to eliminate them, we have to remember that they aren’t “bad” birds. They are native birds that prefer open habitats, evolving over time with the bison that once roamed the grasslands. Other prairie and savanna birds evolved with cowbirds and learned how to cope with them. Some species remove the cowbird eggs from their nest, while others simply abandon those nests and build another.

Unfortunately, some area-sensitive species have not yet adapted ways to respond to cowbird parasitism.

Our altered landscape has created greater opportunities for the cowbird,

John Gavin, Cornell Lab of Ornithology

Here an unsuspecting Common Yellowthroat adult (left) is feeding the much larger juvenile Brownheaded Cowbird at the expense of its own young. Cowbirds are far more likely to parasitize nests in edge habitats than in interior habitats.

while interior nesting birds haven’t had time yet to evolve mechanisms to reduce or avoid the parasitism.

And time is not on the Neotropical migrants’ side.

those that require large areas of interior habitat can flourish. In sum, maintaining large areas of continuous, unfragmented habitat is the best way to preserve the greatest number of species.

Habitat quality & structure

The size of the area is not the only factor to consider. Funded by IDNR Nongame (Wildlife Diversity) Program; The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Chapter; and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners-in-Flight grant, a recent study that measured the natural quality of 44 forests in northeast Iowa—including mature and recently disturbed (logged, pastured) forests—found that rare and uncommon bird species were more diverse in mature forests (Norris 1999). These species may have evolved preferences for particular structural characteristics and/or plant species with associated insects and other food that are not available in a less mature, successional habitat.

On the other hand, it appears that species of both short-distance migrants and

permanent residents frequent successional forests and their accompanying shrubby vegetation. Also, ground nesting birds preferred to build nests in lower quality forests, which have shrubby understories (Norris 1999).

In sum, as with edge, it appears that a variety of mature and less mature forest habitats is best for wildlife diversity. However, since mature forests are now rare in the Midwest, those remaining deserve the highest protection.

Habitat communities

Quality and structure are two factors that determine the natural community.

A community is made up of a group of plants, animals, fungi and microbes interacting with each other. Each biotic community differs from another. For example, Iowa forests are comprised of a different set of birds and mammals (Redbellied Woodpecker, Blue Jay, bobcat, fox squirrel) than our prairies (Western Meadowlark, Sedge Wren, badger, ground squirrel). For the savanna community in between forest and prairie, you would find

On edge:

the great debate

Over the years, there has been an often confusing ping-pong of theories about what comprises “ideal” habitat.

While past and current information is confusing to some and downright “scientific hooey” to others, this is what good science is all about: test, question and reevaluate. We get closer to the truth with each whack of the ball.

Edge, or habitat created by the adjacent borders of different habitat types, such as cornfield and woodland, has at times been heralded as the best for a diversity of creatures. More recently we have learned that abundance of edge primarily benefits the more common species, such as opossum, House Wren and deer at the expense of other species.

Because modern urban and rural land uses already create edge, the best strategy seems to be hedging our bets by preserving the few interior habitats we have left.

INHF/Soo Wai-kin

Habitat fragmentation breaks large areas of habitat into smaller pieces. The forest on the left has the most interior habitat (dark), the least amount of edge (light) and may sustain some of the forest-interior species while supporting edge-loving species on its perimeter.

In the middle habitat, a road and a farm have reduced the amount of interior habitat and increased the amount of edge. This decreases the number of species of

Neotropical migrants, especially those that prefer deep forest interiors. On the right, new cropfields have further reduced the amount of interior, creating even more edge.

The common edge-loving birds would dominate this area, as would the edge-loving nest predators, such as raccoons and crows. Some interior-loving species could no longer maintain successful populations here.

15

Bruce Ehresman/IDNR

Shown taking a necessary measurement during a recent study that measured the quality of northeastern Iowa forests, Dr. William Norris found that rare and uncommon bird species were more diverse in mature forests.

another set of species, with some species overlapping between savanna and prairie or savanna and forest communities.

The types of plants found in a particular area are largely dependent on soil type and topography, and animals depend on the plants or vice-versa. For example, a steep north-facing slope is cooler and

moister than an exposed ridgetop, with its accompanying drier, thinner soils.

Ridgetop trees are typically oak and shagbark hickory, while slopes favor oak, maple and basswood. The birds and other animals that prefer the ridgetops would be somewhat different than those that forage and nest on the slopes.

At any one spot within any natural community, there can be few, or many, layers. In forests those layers extend from the ground to the top of the trees. Different animal species select different layers of that community in which to seek food and shelter or build their nests. For example, the American Redstart, a species that prefers the bottomland community, frequently builds its nest between 4 and 20 feet up in small saplings, while the Yellow-throated Warbler, also a bottomland bird, often selects one of the tallest trees in the forest and places its nest between 100 and 120 feet high—higher than most Iowa birds (Jackson et al. 1996).

Some Neotropical migrants build nests in shrubs or trees, while many nest on the ground. No matter where they nest, each species requires a particular selection of insects, fruits or seeds from the surrounding soil, shrub and tree layers for food.

Also, some birds even prefer particular Tom Conry

Different varieties of trees and plants are found in bottomland habitats than are found on slope or upland habitats. Also, north- and east-facing slopes will contain different species than south- or west-facing slopes.

Similarly, many of the birds and other animals that prefer bottomlands will be different than those that forage or nest on the uplands because of the particular insects attracted to, and seeds produced by, the different plant species.

Scarlet Tanager

oak/ shagbark hickory

Acadian Flycatcher

Prothonotary Warbler

cottonwood/silver maple

16

sugar maple/ basswood

A cleared field, ready to plant, is a habitat of sorts, although it lacks diversity.

If we stand back and watch, we’ll see the first change, or succession, take place as nature seeks to fill in all that empty space.

This cleared land will eventually give way to weedy, fast-growing species, which give way to other grasses and forbs, which give way to shrubs and fast-growing trees, which give way to the slower growing trees. At any stage, natural events—such as fire or flood—or humans can interrupt the succession and the progress begins again. At each stage of succession, you will find a different set of animals on that land. In Iowa, the majority of forest cover is early- to mid-successional habitat (Norris and Farrar 2001).

If communities are constantly changing, even at the whim of nature, why try to manage land for the birds? Of course birds have always had to select suitable habitat from an ever-changing landscape. But, add to the natural events—which tended to be localized—those caused by humans and the changes are even more widespread.

Humans have caused more extensive change more quickly than natural events.

In northeastern Iowa, landowners have the opportunity to slow this change down, to help prevent declining species from disappearing forever and to keep common species common.

Carl Kurtz

Bruce Ehresman

Communities and change

A community is made up of the various kinds of plants and animals that live and interact in a habitat or region.

T h e b a d g e r a n d t h e We s t e r n Meadowlark share Iowa’s prairie community. . .

while the Red-bellied Woodpecker and the bobcat share the forests.

Ty Smedes

Carl Kurtz

tree species when foraging (Robinson and Holmes 1984).

17

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Bill Witt

the raccoon, domestic cat and crow, which destroy the nests and young of birds.

However, it is futile to try to remove all of the predators. For each animal or species removed, another will likely take its place in the ecosystem. Furthermore, attempting to remove all the predators in an area will simply knock the biological system further out of balance. It is more effective in the long run to work with the physical structure and quality of the forest.

Increase foliage

Instead of attempting to remove predators, increasing woody and herbaceous foliage seems to decrease the rate of predation. (Also see discussion on habitat quality, page 15.) Most forestry professionals recommend removing cattle and other grazing livestock from forests. Besides reducing understory cover, heavy grazing slows down or prevents tree regeneration and compacts the soil (Popotnik and Giuliano 2000). Removal of excess deer that over-browse the understory also helps foliage recover.

Promote reforestation

By promoting the reforestation or reconstruction of forest openings, you can create larger forest tracts. Planting native trees is a great way to close artificially created openings, such as old agricultural fields or heavily logged sites, in the woodland and encourage more Neotropical migrants to nest. When possible, work with neighboring landowners to create larger blocks of unbroken woodland.

Foresters offer many tips for starting and maintaining forest reconstruction.

When restoring degraded forests, remove 18

You’re not alone. Talking over your land protection goals, exploring financial incentive programs and creating a land management plan with experts are good steps to take toward the future.

undesirable species, such as multiflora rose, when possible. Unwanted species can be removed by cutting or, where older fire-resistant trees exist, burning. If necessary, carefully selected herbicides can be used for the most aggressive plants.

During the early stages of forest reconstruction on cleared land, consider using annuals, especially annual grasses, as a nursery crop for seedling trees. The nursery annuals block the wind, which can cause enough water to evaporate from the leaves that the young trees die (Schultz 2002).

Creating a mosaic, or patchwork, of early and mid-successional woodlands while protecting large tracts of mature forests will benefit many different species

and ages of birds—from woodpeckers to warblers and from nestlings to adults.

Provide nest sites

Many forest birds excavate nest cavities in dead or dying trees—or use a cavity another species has created. If your forest management plan includes removing mature softwood trees such as silver maple, you can create natural cavities by girdling the trees. Softer wood trees die

Trying to remove all predators is futile and inappropriate.

Improving the quality of the forest is more effective.

Forests

Current research suggests that much of the Midwestern United States represents a regional population sink for forest-nesting Neotrops.The birds may be present in a habitat because individuals of a particular species are immigrating into that habitat from another area. However, these species are probably not able to offset adult mortality with young, even in the largest forest fragments that remain in the area. The reason is probably due to the extremely high levels of predation (Robinson 1992).

One way to increase the population size of Neotropical migrants in a given area is to decrease the rate of predation.

This can be accomplished by physically removing some of the predators, such as

Cliffs

Cliffs, especially those that occur along the Upper Mississippi River blufflands, offer unique nest sites, or eyries, for a species that was on the brink of extinction: the Peregrine Falcon. This raptor is considered one of the world’s fastest birds, reaching 260 mph while diving after prey.

The Peregrine Falcon and other birds of prey, such as the Bald Eagle, almost disappeared from North America because of widespread use of the pesticide DDT. Although still seen along the Mississippi River Flyway during migration, nesting peregrines disappeared completely from the Midwest after the mid-1960s. Today they are slowly making a comeback and were taken off the federal endangered species list in 1999. They are still on all the Tom Conry

Soft Edge

Common sense can help you determine how to manage for Neotropical migrants.

There is always more we can learn to help in land management decisions.

Species have a wide variety of breeding habits and responses to fragmentation and land use. Some researchers believe that landowners and land managers need a wealth of information about bird and habitat relationships and the distribution of birds on the landscape before they make informed decisions.

Yet, several proactive steps can be taken to conserve species before more severe population declines are evident. It all boils down to this: 1. The larger the habitat area, the better.

2. The higher the habitat quality, the better. Strive for adequate and appropriate tree and plant species and structure.

3. Encourage native species of trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers.

4. Discourage non-native invasive species, such as tartarian honeysuckle and garlic mustard.

5. Preserve unbroken interior forests when possible.

Managing bluffland ecosystems

Hard Edge

fairly quickly and cavity species can begin to develop cavities within a few years of girdling (Schultz 2002).

Nest boxes for cavity-nesting birds are also beneficial. Many times in small woodland tracts, mature and standing dead trees are rare, and cavity-nesting birds lack suitable habitat for nest building.

Providing boxes for these birds can attract them to the area and give the landowner a chance to see the feathered tenants once in a while. However, nest boxes should be monitored and cleaned out annually to prevent a build-up of nest materials and harmful insects.

Sharp or “hard� edges between two very different habitats (as in the bottom example) attract many nest predators, such as the skunk and the Brownheaded Cowbird, a nest parasite that lays its eggs in nests of other birds.

Creating soft edges by blending the two habitats more gradually (as in the top example) decreases opportunities for predators and cowbirds while benefiting shrub-nesting species. Planting a buffer strip of shrubs or understory trees, or allowing natural revegetation on the edge area are ways to accomplish this.

19

state lists here in the Midwest, but thanks to the efforts of the Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Natural Resources, organizations such as the Raptor Resource Project and others, the falcons are returning to a few of their historical eyries.

However, degradation of many cliff sites may be preventing the birds from re-establishing healthy breeding populations in the Midwest, including Iowa. The unchecked growth of trees and shrubs and the development of the bluffs are two of the major factors. Protecting these cliffs and removing unwanted vegetation from the rock outcroppings, especially those identified by the Raptor Resource Project

as historic eyries and potential nest sites, could lead to the thrill of discovering a returning pair of falcons on your property.

Riparian lands

Riparian areas are linear habitats adjacent to rivers or streams. These areas serve as transition zones between terrestrial and aquatic systems, often have more diverse vegetative structure and are home to more plants and animals than the adjacent uplands. They also filter nutrients and sediment and act as buffers from disturbance in upland areas.

Riparian systems are considered key elements of migratory bird habitat as they provide food, cover and water and serve as migration corridors and connectors INHF/Soo Wai-kin, Heather Jobst

While Peregrine Falcons once faced extinction, they are making a slow comeback. In May 2000, the Raptor Resource Project (RRP) flew the upper Mississippi River and identified and evaluated nearly 90 historic (labeled above) or potential (unlabeled) nesting sites (eyries) on the river cliffs. Using RRP site coordinates, INHF created a map to help Blufflands Alliance partners identify eyrie sites for protection. Here is a simplified version of that map.

20

About 40% of the Upper Mississippi River floodplain forests have been destroyed since the late 1890s. between habitats (Sedgwick and Knopf 1987).

Unfortunately, the north-central United States has experienced more loss of floodplain forests than anywhere else in the nation. Conservative estimates from land cover map comparisons show that about 40% of the Upper Mississippi River floodplain forests have been destroyed since the late 1890s (Knutson and Klaas 1998).

The forested area along the Mississippi River and some major tributaries contain the last major refugia in this region of the Midwest for many forest-interior species.

Researchers have identified 18 species of Neotrops sensitive to fragmentation that breed in the lowland forests of the Upper Mississippi River (though some may also breed in upland areas). These species include the Wood Thrush, Warbling Vireo, Yellow-throated Vireo, Northern Parula, American Redstart, Prothonatory Warbler, Yellow-throated Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, Acadian Flycatcher and Redshouldered Hawk.

A riparian corridor’s suitability as avian habitat varies depending on factors such as width, length, degree of fragmentation and dominant vegetation. To encourage a diverse avian community, riparian corridors should be as wide and long as possible. Managers should manage existing habitat or restore corridors and buffer strips that are at least 300 feet wide (Fischer 1999), with 600 feet and 2000 feet being preferred for small to medium rivers and larger rivers, respectively.

The corridor should also be relatively free from improved roads, human settlements and other impacts. If any grazing

takes place, it should be seasonal, preferably in the fall and winter, and of short duration. Year-long or spring/summer grazing has the most negative impact on vegetation through constant trampling and grazing (Sedgwick and Knopf 1987).

Restoring riparian buffers, some as narrow as 40 feet, along even small streams has a dramatic effect on the birdlife. Iowa State University has found that, following restoration of a pasture to a riparian buffer ecosystem with trees, shrubs, native grasses and forbs, summer bird species present increased from eight to more than 40 in as little as seven to eight years (Schultz 2002). When linked to the forests of the larger rivers, these small buffers can become important wildlife corridors on the landscape.

Although normal flooding can be positive for some bird species, severe flooding has been found to reduce both the number of birds present in a floodplain and the number of different species. Many things can impact flooding, including the presence of dams and levees and channelization.

Land use within the watershed of a river or stream also impacts flooding (Knutson and Klaas 1997). When rain falls on an upland area or slope, some of the water soaks into the ground and some flows overland into the river, carrying with

Kip Ladage

Note how the Yellow River passes through the center of this photo and creates riparian habitat. This landscape-perspective project was created when the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, working with a willing private seller, added 1,045 acres to Effigy Mounds National Monument (EFMO).

See page 27 for details. it soil and other substances. In areas that Midwest, but a 1995 survey found only don’t have enough vegetation to capture the rainfall and slow it down, such as a plowed field or over-grazed pasture, severe flooding can occur more often.

Good watershed practices and a healthy riparian area will minimize adverse impacts to Neotrops and water quality.

Savannas

Although the experts don’t always agree on the definition of savanna, and even the spelling of the word (savannah), they do agree that savannas are one of the most endangered ecosystems in the world. Oak savanna probably once covered some 27-32 million acres in the

about 0.02% of the original savannas still in relatively good condition (Nuzzo 1994). The Midwest’s savannas have been cleared, over-grazed or choked by too many encroaching plants and trees from lack of native grazing herbivores and the fire that created and maintained them for hundreds of years.

Considered the transition zone between prairies of the west and forests of the east, Midwestern oak savannas provide habitat for birds such as the Savanna Sparrow, Eastern Bluebird and Loggerhead Shrike.

Birds like these fill the grass and shrub level niche in savanna as they forage for

Tom Conry

Savanna

Woodland

Prairie

The oak savanna, with its characteristic open-grown oaks, is one of the Midwest’s most threatened ecosystems.

Considered a transition zone between forest and prairie, a savanna contains some plant and animal species from

each of these two communities, and some of its own. The Loggerhead Shrike, Bewick’s Wren and Swainson’s Hawk are three savanna species with declining populations.

21

seeds and insects, while forest birds such as Indigo Buntings, White-breasted Nuthatches and Least Flycatchers glean insects from the trees.

Savannas, with their characteristic scattered trees, can have a canopy that ranges from nearly closed to as open as 10% (but usually less than 50%) with a ground cover that is diverse and reflects the subtle changes in the soil conditions within each site. This ground cover, or herbaceous layer, dominates the savanna.

Here in the black soil of the Midwest, 80to-250 year-old fire-tolerant bur oaks, with their thick bark and deep roots, are the predominant trees in savanna ecosystems, although white and even swamp oaks are present in some situations.

In the few remnants of savanna that remain in the Midwest, oaks are aging and dying. The oak seedling regeneration is almost non-existent as the invading successional trees and exotic shrubs, such as sumac, buckthorn, honeysuckle and multiflora rose, create shade too dense for oak regeneration (Apfelbaum 1990).

With the invasive species no longer held in check by fire and roaming elk and bison, the unique plant, insect, animal and bird communities within the savannas are struggling to maintain a toehold.

Oak savanna restoration can increase bird diversity. Restored savanna environments can provide new habitat for many

declining bird species, such as the Redheaded Woodpecker, Eastern Kingbird, Brown Thrasher, Baltimore Oriole and American Goldfinch—Iowa’s state bird (Davis et al. 2000).

To restore a savanna, remove unwanted woody vegetation from around the oak

In the absence of fire and roaming elk and bison, the unique plant, insect, animal and bird communities within the savannas are struggling to maintain a toehold. trees. If too few oaks are present, savanna grasses, such as Big Bluestem and Indian Grass, can be planted to help carry fire and prevent re-invasion of other species.

Just be sure to plant grasses and trees of various heights as some birds prefer short vegetation while others use tall vegetation at the start of the breeding season.

When used judiciously, grazing can be used as a savanna management tool.

For best management practices, divide the grazing area into sections, with each section receiving a different level of grazing pressure. These areas should be rotated on an annual basis. Some land managers in southwest Wisconsin are usBill Witt

ing Scottish Highland cattle in a rotational grazing system. This hardy breed is able to browse and remove undesirable species such as prickly ash, multiflora rose and box elder (University of Wisconsin Extension 2001).

Mowing can control vegetation for these birds. However, timing is important: avoid mowing before late July or early August as many birds are nesting and breeding during this time, and avoid mowing the savanna too late in the growing season because this can affect regrowth and can also encourage invasion of problem species.

Another management regime for savannas involves using prescribed fire annually or at least every two to three years, with hotter fires on drier sites, until the most recently established invading species are eliminated (Packard and Mutel 1997).

As with woodland birds, minimizing sharp, or hard, edges is key in maintaining savanna species. Blending prairie into savanna and savanna into forest, rather than having rowcrop as an edge, is best.

Another advantage to having a prairie or forest area as the edge is that these two communities share many plant species with the savanna, so plants and animals can migrate back and forth between prairie and savanna or savanna and forest. As noted earlier, maintaining square or round parcels is much better at minimizing edge than are skinny, rectangular-shaped areas.

Prairies

Many Iowa prairies grow near wood-lands and can provide a host of insects, seeds and nesting habitats.

22

A prairie is a community of grasses, forbs (wildflowers), some shrubs, animals and microorganisms. Within the tallgrass prairie here in Iowa, there are three basic types of prairie – dry, mesic and wet. Prairie plants are renowned for their capacity to hold—and create—soil and to absorb a lot of rainfall in a short amount of time.

As mentioned before, most of the prairie in northeastern Iowa was located

(continued on page 23)

Larry Stone

Some hillside prairies were given the name “goat prairie” because they were “too steep to mow and only fit for a goat.” on the dry ridgetops and steep west-facing slopes. These openings, known as goat prairies, often varied in size from small patches to several acres. That is where remnants, often overgrown with young trees such as cedars, are still found.

Anyone can learn to recognize a prairie. If there is a remnant present, you will probably be able to find at least some native warm-season grasses, like big bluestem, little bluestem or Indian grass. These are easier to recognize in the late summer or fall as the wine-colored stems and leaves stand out from the drab tan color of the cool-season grasses like brome.

Forbs, which you will find blooming at different times throughout the growing season, can be as colorful as the brightest Neotropical migrants. Your site might include species such as prairie violet, round-headed bush clover, leadplant or wild rose. If the land has been heavily grazed, however, the more easily identified plants might be present more as roots, or even seed within the soil, waiting for better times.

To restore these remnants to health, remove encroaching trees. Consider controlled burns to invigorate prairie plants to grow and produce seed. Research is currently underway to explore rotational grazing regimes that perhaps can be applied in unison with fire.

If seeding is needed, purchase local ecotype seed, which has co-evolved with the local climate, insects and animals (M. Ehresman and Kurtz 2000). Although prairie seed can be expensive (shop around!), use enough seed of both grasses and forbs

Prescribed, or planned, burning can be a good land management tool—often removing undesirable species—if handled with care.

at the beginning of your restoration or reconstruction. Planting only the more common or more easily grown grasses can cause you management problems later on as they will have gotten a strong-hold on the site, preventing later additions from successfully being added.

Farmsteads

Rather than mowing acres of bluegrass, many farmers are now planting native species around their farmsteads—less work and more habitat.

In one study, Iowa State University researchers found that when a pasture was restored to an ecosystem with trees, shrubs, native grasses and forbs, summer bird species increased from eight to more than 40 in as little as seven to eight years.

If you must mow bluegrass or other plantings, try postponing it until mid-July to give some of the bird species a chance to raise a brood.

Consider leaving large trees if there are some in the yard, and planting the ground layer to native savanna species. If there are no trees, consider planting prairie species, if that is what existed there historically.

Otherwise, plant native trees.

If you want to do even more “for the birds” on your farmstead, consider the following: • protect remaining woodland, savanna and prairie; • use nature-friendly development if you must construct more buildings (keep your buildings clustered and near the road, rather than spread out); • leave dead and dying trees (top them if you must, but leave trunks); • provide clean water and brush piles; • limit your use of pesticides; and • keep your cats indoors.

23

Selected management issues

Management of our mixed hardwood forests and oak woodlands is a long-term commitment, and regeneration of oaks and other hardwood trees should be the long-term goal. Unfortunately, this resource has been declining due to increased cutting and poor, or nonexistent, management (University of Minnesota Extension 1992). Just as allowing cattle to graze in our forests is now considered poor management, other management issues are equally important: unethical/unwise logging; local over-population of deer; and invasive non-native plant species.

Logging practices

Minnesota DNR, Section of Wildlife; adapted by Liz Nielsen, INHF

The forestry profession is no longer just about growing trees and cutting them down, just as wildlife management is no longer just about maintaining populations of game animals and shooting them. If you want a truly sustainable, large and valuable timber

inventory, consider the balance of nature, healthy soils, mixed composition stands, and uneven-age structure when designing a management plan for your forest. Well-managed forests play critical roles in watershed protection and soil health while providing habitat for many game and nongame animals.

Such a forest also stands a better chance of sustaining your own family, as well as Neotropical migrants, far into the future.

When looking at the Upper Mississippi River bluffland area from a landscape perspective, any logging should be done judiciously.

Studies show that the degree of change in vegetation structure brought about by timber harvest typically determines the degree of change in the bird community. Although some avian biologists often recommend single-tree selection as the best harvest practice for maintaining bird communities (Herkert et al. 1993), partial or selective harvests may produce only small changes in the bird community and continue to provide habitat for those species found in mature stands (Medin and Booth 1989).

Implementing only one type of regenera-

When timber is harvested, the degree of change in vegetation structure typically determines the degree of change in the bird community. tion practice can cause adverse effects. For example, single-tree selection can cause removal of the largest canopy trees in an area, reducing the diversity and density of potential nest sites for canopy nesters. Besides this, consider that you need mature trees to produce the seed, then seedlings and saplings to become mature trees.

However, removing groups of trees or whole stands results in the replacement of late-successional forest bird species with early successional forest species and species associated with edges. Avian species of special concern can certainly include those birds that require early- or late-successional forests, but with the few acres of mature timber Iowa has remaining, forest management practices should be evaluated in landscape and regional contexts.

Again, working with a team of professionals, including wildlife biologists and foresters, and hiring an ethical logger will help ensure the desired result.

Deer

A bird’s eye view of different harvest methods: clearcutting (left) favors shadeintolerant trees such as cottonwood and birch. Shelterwood cuts (middle) favor intermediate trees species such as white oak and hickory. Single-tree or selective harvest (right) favors shade-tolerant trees, such as basswood or maples. Each harvest practice also favors particular bird species.

24

Both white-tailed deer and elk once roamed Iowa, including northeast Iowa.

Elk disappeared in the 1840s, and unregulated hunting also led to the neardisappearance of deer in the 1920s. Deer made a come-back in the 1940s, much to the delight of most Iowans. Today, whitetails have possibly become too much of a good thing.

Large populations of deer that browse on seedlings and saplings and spread invasive plant seeds can wreak havoc on wooded areas, thereby affecting birds

using the same habitat (DeCalesta 1994).

In central Iowa’s Polk County, a report on the impacts of deer browsing in woodland shows several patterns involving woody growth and flowering plants.

Perhaps the most significant finding concerning birds is that after two full growing seasons at three study sites, native woody shrubs (20 inches to 6-1/2 feet tall) were 2-1/2 times more dense in a fenced exclosure (a structure that keeps out deer) than in the browsed plots. This is significant because structure is very important to birds as they seek shelter and nesting areas (Rosburg 2002).

Currently, other research is underway to determine whether an overpopulation of deer may browse the understory to the point that there is less regeneration of trees than needed to maintain a healthy and diverse forest (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Without large predators to keep deer populations in check, hunting is a viable alternative that can be considered part of a management plan.

Gary Hamer

After habitat loss, the rampant spread of invasive plant species may be the second most important problem facing landowners and resource managers.

Here, invasive garlic mustard blankets the forest floor, crowding out most of the native plants that will otherwise provide a source of food and insects for Neotrops.

Invasive/non-native plant species Carl Kurtz

Deer love to eat your garden and jeweled shooting star, an Iowathreatened plant species.

After habitat loss, the issue of invasive species is now considered to be the second most important problem facing natural resource managers as they struggle to maintain bits and pieces of our planet’s natural communities (Dinsmore and Bernstein 2001).

Garden stores and catalogues promote many non-native plants, shrubs and trees as “great for birds,” but we have no way of knowing which of these species will become problems in our natural communities or our agricultural systems. Already, plants like leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, tartarian honeysuckle, buckthorn and garlic mustard are posing large problems in our grasslands and forests. Insects that damage crops and trees, like the European corn borer and gypsy moth, came into the country attached to plants or embedded in the soil around the roots.

The United States spends an estimated

$100 billion annually on invasive species (Pimental et al. 1999). While chemicals are a traditional treatment, researchers are having success eliminating some invasive species with fire management. Be aware of this problem, ask questions of knowledgeable people and be sure to plant only those species that are native to your area or region.

Already, plants like leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, tartarian honeysuckle, buckthorn and garlic mustard are posing large problems in our grasslands and forests.

25

Partnering to manage larger landscapes

Whether it’s two neighbors unofficially coordinating management plans or large partnerships between private landowners, public agencies and nonprofit organizations, some management goals are best approached on a landscape level rather than as only a single property.

Taking a landscape perspective

Armed with evidence provided by researchers, management biologists have begun looking at the overall assortment of land types: the landscape perspective.

For example, in northeastern Iowa we see forest, degraded savanna and prairie, wetland, riparian or river bottomland, agriculture and urban land compacted

Protecting your good work

You’ve made the choice. You are either going to expand or improve the natural area you have remaining, or just leave it alone. Now you have another decision: Are you going to protect your land beyond your lifetime and for future generations? How are you going to accomplish this?

The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation has produced a free booklet, The Landowners Options: A guide to the voluntary protection of land in Iowa. It is available through INHF and other conservation offices or online at www.inhf.org.

The booklet describes 18 legal methods of permanently protecting property in Iowa, like those described in “Success Stories” on page 27. One of the options, or a combination of options, can probably be matched to your needs and desires. The Foundation has knowledgeable staff who will listen to your wishes and work with you for the benefit of you and your land.

26

into relatively small areas. Land managers using this perspective create management plans by considering not only the forest or savanna, but also the types of land use around these habitats (such as pastures and row crop) and other land types within them (such as goat prairies or wetlands).

While state wildlife biologists may be busy managing wildlife areas and forests for wildlife species and other resource objectives, the adjacent private landowners can help carry out plans for landscapelevel management.

Forestry commissions from Australia to Great Britain to Canada are introducing the concept of connectivity and are enlisting the help of area landowners as parcels of land are connected by similar management goals. Just as landowners and agency staff have created partnerships to benefit wetland species, similar collaboration in managing forests and other habitats would increase biological diversity of a larger area. More species will benefit by this type of management.

Landowner assistance

Many state and federal programs provide assistance to landowners interested in protecting and managing their property’s natural resources. For example, the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation now holds several dozen conservation easements, an arrangement where private landowners agree to maintain private ownership and use while giving up selected rights, such as development or mining.

Depending on the circumstances, landowner compensation varies from personal satisfaction to significant tax benefits to full reimbursement for appraised value of the rights contained in the easement.

Check the appendix for a partial list of such programs.

It will take everyone working together to create complexes of habitats large enough to really have a positive impact on local Neotropical migrant populations.

Development and zoning

Due to the beauty and unique qualities of the blufflands, the region is facing tremendous development and resource use pressure. Just like the Neotropical migrants, people need and want nice places to live.

However, care must be taken to prevent negative impacts to the very same biological systems that support us all.

Communities, including citizens and zoning officials, must resist the temptation of short-term windfalls at the expense of long-term environmental and economic health.

What was once a deep, healthy and scenic forest or a lovely, park-like savanna

Depending on the circumstances, landowner compensation varies from personal satisfaction to significant tax benefits to full reimbursement for appraised value of the rights contained in the easement. can quickly become degraded by all the elements that are part of development: soil compaction or erosion, fertilizer, pesticide or noise pollution and water runoff instead of groundwater recharge. Consider, also, the obstacles to wildlife posed by the buildings, roads and utility corridors of “citified” landscaping.

Citizens and civic leaders alike must seek development that is compatible and sustainable. Any type of development, whether a large-scale or small acreage or even a public trail, should be designed to reduce negative impacts on the site and maintain as much biological integrity as possible. Unique habitats or the larger intact areas simply should not be developed

but should be left for the enjoyment of all.

Zoning officials and policy-makers at the city and county levels would do well by their communities to explore conservation planning, which makes development more compatible with nature. According to an award-winning architect and planning firm, “Many real estate developers are learning that good conservation design can get government approval more easily, and can be lower in cost than conventional development. They are also finding that people in all price ranges want more community, less traffic, and love nature” (Village Habitat Design).

As an added incentive, communities that create master plans which concentrate housing and other development near existing services can better control costly tax increases. Allowing development to sprawl into outlying open spaces is costly because electricity, water, sewer and other services will need to be extended into these areas. Keeping development localized and protecting open spaces saves taxpayers money—and protects their natural resources.

Finding partners

As a landowner or land manager, you are not expected to work in a vacuum.

County, state and federal agencies, academic institutions and many nonprofit organizations throughout the Midwest have developed resources in the form of programs, publications or staffing to help.

Yet many of these support programs face political and financial hurdles.

As a member of your human and ecological community, participate in the creation and support of wise land use plans in your county. Write to public agencies and legislators and let them know you care and understand the economic and ecological value of Neotropical migrants.

It will take all of us working cooperatively to ensure that Iowa’s landscape contains all the elements of healthy ecosystems.

Bill Witt

INHF/John Ledges

Dick Worm, a Mississippi River bluffs landowner, gazes over the land he and his family protected with a conservation easement through the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. Dick and family met several times with INHF staff (above) to develop a mutually satisfying protection plan.

Success stories

Many landowners want to ensure their good stewardship choices will continue beyond their lifetime. Such options include bequests, donations with reserved life estate, bargain sales, conservation easements and more.

In 1996, after working 21 years to purchase and restore their natural retreat, Jane and Richard Worm donated a conservation easement on their 145-acre property, Faraway Farm, to the the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF).

While the Worms continue to own and enjoy the beautiful woodland overlooking the Mississippi River, their easement prevents them and future owners from developing the property and damaging its natural features.

In 1980, Bob and Marie Jones arranged to leave their 18-acre woodland to INHF as a bequest in their wills. After Marie’s death, Bob decided to donate the woodland to INHF during his lifetime. Since he and Marie had planted numerous trees, especially walnuts, on this certified tree farm, he hopes INHF can sell selected timber some day. Bob made it clear, however, that all aspects of the habitat would be taken into consideration prior to loggingn 1999, landowner Charles Kistler decided that,

rather than subdividing his 1,045 acres of Mississippi River bluffs timber, he’d sell the entire parcel to INHF. This special property contains 13 archeological sites, including two ancient effigy mounds. It also contains rare and endangered plant and animal species—such as a nesting pair of Red-shouldered Hawks (an Iowa threatened species and Neotropical migrant).

INHF raised funds from the National Park Service (NPS), two Iowa agencies and more than 1,000 private donors. The site is now owned by NPS and is known as the Heritage Addition to the adjacent Effigy Mounds National Monument (EFMO). By connecting EFMO and a unit of the Yellow River State Forest, this addition put more than 4,000 contiguous acres and 7.8 miles of the scenic Yellow River under public protection.

“This project literally took a half century, a willing landowner, an act of Congress, support from state agencies, a team of dedicated professionals and volunteers from INHF and hundreds of individual Iowans—a partnership in the truest sense,” noted Mark Ackelson, INHF’s president. (See photo on page 21.)

27

Final Thoughts Ty Smedes

The Bald Eagle appears to be a success story in bird protection. Although still on the federal threatened list, the American emblem is now more common along the Mississippi River blufflands­—but still a thrilling sight!

Beyond the Birds

“When land does well for its owner, and the owner does well by his land; when both end up better by reason of their partnership, we have conservation. When one or the other grows poorer, we do not.”

—Aldo Leopold

28

Increasing biological diversity isn’t the only benefit of these collaborations.

Forests, woodlands, savannas and prairies provide many benefits themselves. These ecosystems hold soil and help restore and retain vital soil nutrients.

They improve water quality by trapping sediment and filtering pollutants before they reach streams and rivers. Each offers wildlife habitat for many species of nongame, as well as game animals. For example, the Wild Turkey, a true savanna species, takes advantage of leftover field corn when it can, but often depends on

the oak tree’s acorns to survive Midwest winters. All of our native ecosystems also provide a wide array of educational and recreational opportunities. And finally, if management plans include harvesting trees, remember that a healthy diverse forest will most likely be less succeptible to disease and pests, creating higher quality timber.

So, everything is connected to everything else in some way. Does it really matter if we save all those “everythings?”

Some believe we have the responsibility to save everything, no matter what the cost. Many believe it is important to save a species while it is still common, rather than going to the expense and hassle (sometimes legal hassle) of trying to bring it back after it has become rare.

It isn’t necessary for people to agree on every aspect of land or wildlife management, but we would probably all agree that we need space and habitat to protect future options. Given these premises, we should be able to create a better, more enriched future for ourselves.

Aldo Leopold, a native Iowan who is one of the most frequently quoted conservationists, began to understand the myriad of connections coursing through his farm. In 1939, he defined conservation as “harmony between men and land” saying, “When land does well for its owner, and the owner does well by his land; when both end up better by reason of their partnership, we have conservation. When one or the other grows poorer, we do not” (Meine 1988).

Leopold also thought that once people understood the connections—the “drama in every bush”—indifference to the soils, creatures and plants would fall away. He

believed that landowners would then want to apply good conservation standards on their own. Leopold mused about the future of a Wisconsin creek: “Many things are expected of this creek and its woods: cordwood, posts, and sawlogs; flood-control, fishing, and swimming; nuts and wildflowers; fur and feather. Should it fail to yield an owl-hoot or a mess of quail on demand, or a bunch of sweet William or a coon-hunt in season, the matter will be cause for injured pride and family scrutiny, like a check marked ‘no funds’” (Meine 1988).

It really is up to each individual to ensure that his or her land, all of our lands—our present and future bank account—are not marked “no funds,” just as it is each individual’s responsibility to better understand basic ecological connections. Birds and other creatures are linked to human survival in ways that we are just beginning to understand.

Leaving our land in the best shape possible is the true inheritance we leave

Clint Farlinger

“Many things are expected of this creek and its woods: cordwood, posts, and sawlogs; flood-control, fishing, and swimming; nuts and wildflowers; fur and feather. Should it fail to yield an owl-hoot or a mess of quail on demand, or a bunch of sweet William or a coon-hunt in season, the matter will be cause for injured pride and family scrutiny, like a check marked ‘no funds.’”

—Aldo Leopold

our children; not real estate holdings, not financial gain, but healthy, working biological systems capable of nurturing and INHF/ Heather Jobst

Protecting Richness

Map data based on Kane et al 2000

As a result of this Neotropical migrant project, INHF and its Blufflands Alliance partners can look at a map such as this to help us prioritize our land protection efforts. This “species richness” map of Allamakee County shows where the greatest number, as well as the lowest number, of 17 of the at-risk Neotropical migratory bird species is found.

We can also look at the general avian species richness of an area and determine where the greatest number of all bird species present in an area are located.

sustaining future generations.

Through this publication, we hope you have come to a better understanding about the importance of Neotropical migratory birds and our connection to them. And we hope that you care enough to help.

And one more thing: Whatever else you get out of this booklet, we hope that you look at the landscape, at the place where you are, a little differently.

Leaving our land in the best shape possible is the true inheritance we leave our children; not real estate holdings, not financial gain, but healthy working biological systems capable of nurturing and sustaining future generations.

29

Glossary (to terms in italics) Abundance – The total number of individuals of a species in an area, population or community

Corridor – A linear (long) patch of habitat that enables animals to travel between habitat patches

Amplitude – The range of tolerance to environmental conditions of an organism or species

Density – The number of units (individuals, pairs, nests, etc.) within a given area

Area-sensitive species – Those species that respond negatively (by declines in population or leaving the area entirely) to decreasing habitat patch size Biodiversity – The variety of different species, the genetic differences within a species and the ecological roles the species perform, also the types of communities and ecosystems Buffer strip – A wide area (at least 40 feet for small streams and 600-2000 feet for larger rivers) of forest or prairie bordering each side of a creek, stream or river Canopy – The uppermost continuous layer of foliage in a forest formed by the crowns of the tallest trees Carrying capacity – The maximum number of individuals that can use a given area of habitat without causing the habitat to deteriorate and without causing social stresses that result in population reduction Cavity-nesting birds – Birds that excavate or make use of existing holes in trees for nesting; may also use bird houses Clear-cutting – Method of timber harvesting in which all trees in a forested area are removed in a single cutting Community – The various kinds of plants and animals, in this case birds, that live and interact in a habitat or region Connectivity – The extent or way by which various populations are connected within the landscape; a measure of the connectedness or continuity of a habitat corridor

30

Diversity – Variety; the number of different species in an ecosystem Ecosystem – A complex of the communities of all living organisms—including plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms—interacting with one another and their physical environment Edge – The area where two different types of plant communities meet; habitat created by adjacent borders of different habitat types Edge effects – The changes in the types and numbers of species, and also the changes of levels of sunlight, soil, air temperature and moisture, that occur at the edge of differing habitat types

Forb – A small, non-woody flowering plant; does not include grasses, etc.

Forest – A relatively large area of trees with a closed canopy of 60% or more (see “canopy”); a small stand of trees may be termed a grove; a slightly larger stand may be called a woodland Forest-interior species – Those species that tend to avoid edge habitats; usually require large tracts of forest habitat for nesting and foraging Fragmentation – The disruption of large patches of vegetation or habitat into smaller patches of varying sizes and degrees of isolation Generalist – A species with a broad range of food preferences, habitat preferences, or both Goat prairie – Generally, a dry, hillside prairie

Edge-tolerant species – Species that tolerate habitat created by the borders of different vegetation types, such as roadside ditches and forest

Habitat – The place, having the necessary shelter, food, water and space for survival, where an animal or plant lives; often characterized by the main plant form or physical characteristic of the area, as in “prairie habitat”

Edge species – Those species that prefer habitat created along the borders of different vegetation types

Home range – The undefended area to which an animal restricts most of its usual activities

Endangered species – A designation for a species with so few individual survivors that it is in danger of extinction throughout all or part of its range. A species can be “endangered” in one state but not in another. A species can also be “endangered” at the national or world-wide level

Indicator species – A species used as a gauge of environmental conditions in a habitat or ecosystem

Fledging – The act of leaving the nest after developing feathers necessary for flight; the young bird is typically still under the care of its parent(s) Flyway – A broad pathway, such as a major river corridor, along which birds migrate from one area to another at certain times of the year

Interior species – Those species found primarily or entirely distant from the edges of their preferred habitat Introduced species – Non-native species present in an area due to human release Landscape – The landforms of a region

Local ecotype – Typically, a historically native plant or seed that originated in the local area or region and is adapted to that geographic environment (climate, soil, etc.)

Matrix – The total different types of habitat and land use in an area Mesic – Pertaining to conditions of moderate moisture or water supply Microhabitat – A small, specialized habitat Migration – The regular, extensive seasonal movements of animals between breeding and wintering sites

Natal – In general, the area where young are hatched or born Neotropical migrant – A migratory bird that winters in the Neotropical region (southern Mexico, Caribbean, Central and South America) and nests in the Nearctic region (roughly northern Mexico, United States, Canada and Greenland) Nest, or brood, parasitism – Reproduction by laying eggs in the nests of other species, leaving care for the parasite young to the owners of the nest Nest predation – The destruction of eggs or nestlings by another animal Niche – In biology, the space occupied by a species, which includes both the physical space as well as the functions that species performs within the physical space Patch – A habitat that is surrounded by other types of habitat, such as a woodland surrounded by cornfields Population – In biology, a group of individual organisms (in this case, birds) of the same species living within a particular area Prairie pothole wetland – A wetland in the prairie landscape that was formed when glaciers gouged depressions in the landscape Raptor – A bird that hunts and eats meat, a bird of prey Reconstruction – The process of re-creating an ecosystem on land that has been cleared of native vegetation Reforestation – The process of re-establish-

ing a forest on previously cleared land Refugium – An area that remains unchanged while areas surrounding it change markedly; hence, the area serves as a refuge for species requiring specific habitats Restoration – The process of restoring a native ecosytem that has been taken over to some degree by another plant community Riparian – Habitat that occurs along the bank of a river or lake Savanna(h) – In general, a grassland with scattered, usually fire-resistant trees with tree cover less than 30%; the transition area between prairie and forest Selective (or single-tree) harvest – Cutting of intermediate, mature or diseased trees in an uneven-aged forest, singly or in small groups. Encourages growth of younger trees and maintains uneven-aged stands Sharp (or hard) edge – The area of abrupt change in habitat where two very different types of habitat meet, such as a cornfield adjacent to a forest, or road bisecting a woodland Shelterwood harvest – Removal of mature, marketable trees (40-60%) in an area in a series of partial cuttings to allow regeneration of a new stand under the shade of older trees, which are removed later Sink habitat – A habitat in which a species DOES NOT reproduce enough offspring to maintain itself without the entry of individuals from other habitats and populations Soft edge – The area of gradual change in habitat where two different types of habitat meet Soil arthropods – Invertebrates (insects, spiders, etc.) that live on or in the soil Source habitat – A habitat in which a species DOES reproduce enough offspring to maintain itself; the addition of individuals from other habitats is not necessary for the survival of that species’ population Special Concern – Species that are at risk of becoming threatened Specialist – A species with narrow (finicky)

food preferences, habitat preferences, or both Species – All organisms of the same kind; a type of plant or animal; members of a species are alike in many ways and are able to reproduce with others of the same species Succession – The sequence of plant communities that occur over time; the process that replaces one group of species with a different group of species in continual stages Tallgrass prairie – A typically treeless grassland of particular species of grasses, flowers, insects and animals Threatened species – A designation for a species that is still relatively abundant throughout all or part of its range, but is likely to become endangered because of a decline in numbers. A species can be “threatened” in one state, but not in another. A species can also be “threatened” at the national or world-wide level Topography – All natural and human-made features of the surface of the land Understory – The layer of a forest that is formed by the smaller trees Watershed – The region or area of land that drains into a river or stream, delivering water, soil and dissolved substances to those systems Woodland – An area dominated by trees with a canopy cover of 30-60% Xeric – Referring to habitats in which plant production is limited by lack of water

The definitions used in this glossary were gleaned from many different sources, and some were edited to make them more understandable. The primary sources were The National Audubon Society’s The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior, edited by Chris Elphick, John B. Dunning, Jr., and David Allen Sibley; the Cambridge Illustrated Dictionary of Natural History by Roger Lincoln and G.A. Boxshall; and Living in the Environment, 16th edition, by G. Tyler Miller, Jr. 31

guide to Neotrops While this is not a complete list of the Neotropical migratory birds that nest in the four-state Upper Mississippi River blufflands region (and it includes one species that is not considered a true Neotropical migrant), it does include many species that state conservation agencies are most concerned about at this time.

Many of these species are pictured in this book’s fullcolor, center section.

Bald Eagle

The Bald Eagle, although a species that migrates at least short distances in many cases, is not a Neotropical migrant. It is found in the blufflands region in all seasons. Biologists are still concerned about the survival of this federally threatened species and wanted the Bald Eagle to be included in this publication’s list.

The Bald Eagle is a very large, dark brown raptor (bird of prey) that acquires its distinctive white head and tail when it is five years old. A member of a group known as fish-eagles, Bald Eagles build huge nests that they return to each year, adding more sticks and branches each year. Although the typical nest is about three feet deep and five feet across, often weighing nearly two tons, some can attain truly huge dimensions measuring at least ten feet deep. Because of the size of the nest and because the Bald Eagle’s favorite food is fish, large mature trees located close to a river or lake are needed. In Iowa, eagles often nest in cottonwoods or white pines.

Hawks (Sharp-shinned, Swainson’s, Red-shouldered,

Broad-winged) Members of the Hawk family are carnivorous and feed during the day. Equipped with strong feet and claws and hooked beaks, they have keen eyesight that enables them to identify their prey from many yards away. Hawks usually build their own nests, typically in trees, although some grassland hawks nest on the ground. Some species eat a wide variety of prey, including fish, crayfish and small mammals, while other hawks prefer small birds.

The quick, small Sharp-shinned Hawk usually nests in trees with dense foliage, especially conifers such as pines. It preys on small birds and mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects.

The Swainson’s Hawk is a raptor of the prairie and savanna, 32

building its nests in solitary trees, riparian corridors or on the ground. The same size as the common Red-tailed Hawk, the Swainson’s Hawk prefers insects, but also eats ground squirrels, mice, young birds and reptiles.

The Red-shouldered Hawk requires large, riparian, deciduous woodlands with tall trees, such as cottonwoods or maples, for nesting. It eats a variety of prey, including small mammals, crayfish, insects and birds.

The Broad-winged Hawk prefers woodlands near wetlands and also eats a variety of prey, occasionally including fish. This hawk is best known for migrating in kettles, or large swirling groups, sometimes reaching thousands of individual birds.

Peregrine Falcon

The Peregrine Falcon is very similar in structure to hawks, but with long-pointed wings. The adult is bluish-gray in color with a light colored breast and dark facial markings. It is a very fast flyer and performs spectacular aerial maneuvers. The Peregrine feeds primarily on other birds, but will occasionally eat mammals.

Peregrine Falcons require forested regions, preferably those with rocky cliffs with ledges overlooking rivers, lakes or other water sources.

Wood Warblers (Cerulean, Hooded, Yellow-throated,

Worm-eating, Prothonotary and Kentucky Warblers; Louisiana Waterthrush) The insect-eating wood-warblers have distinctive songs and typically bright plumage, with the males more brightly colored than the females. The timing of warbler migration to Iowa is indicative of their wintering grounds. Those that appear in late spring typically winter in northern South America. Those that are more predominant in the fall typically winter in the West Indies. Warblers usually migrate at night.

The Yellow-throated Warbler is commonly found in large trees, preferably sycamores, along riverbanks and in bottomland.

The Prothonotary Warbler prefers moist bottomland or swampy deciduous forests where it nests in natural cavities.

The Worm-eating Warbler chooses extensively wooded hillsides and ravines with stands of deciduous trees and dense undergrowth.

The Kentucky Warbler lives in the understory of damp, heavily wooded ravines along major rivers.

The Hooded Warblers also prefers moist forested regions of mixed hardwoods.

The Cerulean Warbler inhabits the treetops of extensive mature floodplain or upland forests and is rarely found in tracts of less than 700 acres. It appears that they require at least 1,700 acres of contiguous forest to maintain suitable numbers.

The Louisiana Waterthrush is found in the heavily wooded ravines of extensive bottomland forests with moss-covered logs and rank undergrowth along rapidly moving streams.

Henslow’s Sparrow

Numerous species of sparrows fill different or overlapping ecological niches. The insect-eating Henslow’s Sparrow is easily distinguished by their unusual, short call. The bird has a large, flat head, large bill and short tail. The body is olive colored and the wings are dark chestnut. In the adult, both sexes are colored very similarly. The Henslow’s Sparrow is usually found in moist grasslands that have a great deal of standing dead vegetation.

Acadian Flycatcher

A solitary bird, the Acadian Flycatcher is olive-colored with a grayish throat, yellow eye rings, and two buffy or whitish wingbars. The Acadian Flycatchers is difficult to identify by sight and, although its call is unique, it takes much practice to recognize it.

As with other flycatchers, both sexes look very similar to each other. This bird is an insectivore, although it occasionally eats seeds. It tends to return to the same area each year.

The Acadian Flycatcher lives in the lowest tree canopy and understory layer of shady, mature floodplain forests and wooded swamps. It prefers tall trees with closed canopies and an open understory.

Bewick’s Wren

The Bewick’s Wren is a small, but very active, bird. The bird has short legs, long claws, and a bill adapted for probing.

A Bewick’s Wren is best identified by its buzzy song. It has a solid brown back, white underparts, a white-tipped tail and a conspicuous white stripe over each eye. The bird typically arrives in Iowa beginning in March and leaves in September.

The cavity-nesting Bewick’s Wren chooses habitat with a brushy understory and cavities for nesting. It will use artificial nest boxes.

Loggerhead Shrike

The name “shrike” is derived from the harsh shriek produced by the bird. The Loggerhead Shrike is carnivorous and has been nicknamed the “butcher bird.” This is due to the shrike’s practice of impaling its prey of small birds on thorns, barbed wire and

other sharp objects. Both adult males and females have gray backs, light breasts, black wings and tails, light wing patches and tail bars, and a black facial mask. Considered a savanna species, the Shrike lives in open country with scattered shrubs and trees where it feeds primarily on grasshoppers and other insects, although it also preys on birds, mice, snakes and frogs.

Veery

A slender bird, the Veery is tawny in color with tawny V-shaped spots on a buffy breast. It is a rare migrant that arrives in mid-May and departs in mid-September. The secretive Veery has a delicate song that can sometimes be heard in its preferred habitat of moist deciduous woodland, bottomland, forest, wooded swamps or damp ravines. It nests in large tracts of mature undisturbed woodlands.

Bell’s Vireo

Vireos are insect-eating birds that have a relatively large head, slightly hooked bill and a simple plumage pattern. The small Bell’s Vireo is drab gray to green above and white to yellow below. It also has a white eye ring and two pale wing bars. It is very difficult to see and is most commonly identified by its song. The Bell’s Vireo lives in dense riparian thickets, especially willow and cottonwood trees.

Long-eared Owl

Owls are nocturnal predators. They have large heads, eyes that are placed on the front of the face, and strong, hooked bills.

Their soft and fluffy feathers allow them to fly silently. The Long-eared Owl is medium-sized and brown to gray in color.

It has long ear tufts and its breast is streaked lengthwise. For nesting, it prefers dense stands of conifer or mixed deciduousconifer forests, especially those near water, where it typically uses old crow, hawk or squirrel nests. The Long-eared Owl hunts in open grasslands where it finds small mammals such as voles, field mice and shrews.

Not intended to be comprehensive, the preceding information was compiled using a variety of sources, including Birds in Iowa, by Thomas Kent and James Dinsmore; The Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas, by Laura Jackson, Carol Thompson, James Dinsmore and others; Neotropical Migratory Birds, Natural History, Distribution, and Population Change, by Richard DeGraaf and John Rappole; the National Audubon Society’s Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior; and various bird identification field guides.

33

Neotrops at risk The following is a list of the Neotropical migrants of the Upper Mississippi River blufflands region that were reported in Fall 2002 as endangered, threatened or of special concern in at least one county within the blufflands region of the four Blufflands Alliance states. Some are also federally endangered or threatened.

Many of these species are pictured in the center, full-color pages of this book.

Key:

E—endangered T—threatened SC—special concern

Illinois

(Jo Daviess and Carroll Counties) Long-eared Owl (E) Peregrine Falcon (E) Sharp-shinned Hawk (E) Swainson’s Hawk (E) Bewick’s Wren (T) Loggerhead Shrike (T) Veery (T) Cerulean Warbler (SC)

Iowa

(Clinton, Jackson, Dubuque, Clayton, and Allamakee Counties) Bald Eagle (E) Peregrine Falcon (E) Red-shouldered Hawk (E) Long-eared Owl (T)

34

Minnesota

(Houston, Winona, Wabasha, Goodhue, Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington Counties) Henslow’s Sparrow (E) Peregrine Falcon (E) Loggerhead Shrike (T) Acadian Flycatcher (SC) Cerulean Warbler (SC) Hooded Warbler (SC) Louisiana Waterthrush (SC) Red-shouldered Hawk (SC)

Wisconsin

(Grant, Crawford, Vernon, La Crosse, Trempealeau, Buffalo, Pepin, Pierce, and St. Croix Counties) Bewick’s Wren (E) Loggerhead Shrike (E) Peregrine Falcon (E) Worm-eating Warbler (E) Yellow-throated Warbler (E) Acadian Flycatcher (T) Bell’s Vireo (T) Cerulean Warbler (T) Hooded Warbler (T) Kentucky Warbler (T) Red-shouldered Hawk (T) Louisiana Waterthrush (SC) Prothonotary Warbler (SC)

Financial Resources

Conservation Easements and Land Retirement Programs:

A conservation easement is an agreement by which a landowner voluntarily restricts specified land use rights in partnership with a qualifying nonprofit organization or government agency that will monitor and protect the land’s natural resources. Under certain conditions, donors may be eligible for tax benefits, or they may be paid outright for the loss of land use.

Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) – Habitat protection, restoration, enhancement and management for federal/ state species at risk. Private Lands Program, Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources.

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Floodplain Easements Program – U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Grassland Reserve Easements – U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (FSA) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) – U.S. Department of Agriculture, FSA or Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Debt for Nature – U.S. Department of Agriculture, FSA Farmland Protection Program (FPP) – U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS or FSA Forest Legacy Program – In Iowa, Iowa Department of Natural Resouces (other states should contact their state conservation agency)

Purchase of Development Rights or Transfer of Development Rights

Check with the county zoning authority to see whether such programs exist in your county.

Cost-Share Programs

These programs reimburse landowners for part of the expenses they incur for conservation practices.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) – U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS or FSA Erosion, Sediment Control, and Water Quality Cost-Share Program – U.S. Department of Agriculture, SWCD Flood Risk Reduction Program – U.S. Department of Agriculture, FSA The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may offer cost-share funds.

Contact the local USFWS office.

Your state, through the Department of Natural Resources, may have habitat incentive programs.

Private nonprofit organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited or Pheasants Forever, may have funds for habitat programs.

Your state or local land trust (usually private, nonprofit organizations) may also offer funding assistance or advice.

To find the land trust nearest you, visit www.lta.org or see the list on page 38.

NOTE: Because these programs change over time, check with the sponsoring agencies for changes or new programs.

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) – U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS 35

Organizational Resources Iowa Resources Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Wildlife, Wildlife Diversity Program. 1436 255th Street, Boone, Iowa 50036. Wildlife Diversity biologists and technicians. Expertise covering bird, mammal, reptile and other non-hunted animals.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry. Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319. District Foresters and other staff. All aspects of woodland management, including tree planting, insect and disease problems and woodland wildlife management. www.state.ia.us/forestry.

Iowa Native Plant Society. A nonprofit organization that promotes conservation of, ethical use of, and education about Iowa’s native plants. www.public.iastate. edu/~herbarium/inps/purpose.htm.

Iowa Prairie Network. A grassroots nonprofit organization that is dedicated to the preservation of Iowa’s prairie heritage. http://iowaprairienetwork.org.

Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service.

Ames, Iowa. Forestry, Entomology, Horticulture, Pathology, and Wildlife faculty extension specialists. Also, county offices listed under the “Government-County” section of local telephone directory: publications, offices and staff in every Iowa county; www.extension.iastate. edu Iowa’s County Conservation Boards. The boards serve as a primary natural resource management agency and environmental education center in their respective counties. Environmental education, natural resources management. Listed in local telephone directories under county government offices or http://george.ecity.net/iaccb/ Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.

Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319.

Provides assistance and support to soil and water conservation districts; distributes cost-share funds for a variety of forestry practices.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street, Ste. 693, Des Moines, IA 50309-4260. Provides technical assistance and information about soil and water conservation including riparian forest buffers and tree planting. Offers financial assistance through USDA programs including Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Forestry Incentives Program 36

(FIP), Rural Development through Forestry (RDTF), Watershed Programs, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). http:// www.ia.nrcs.gov Audubon Iowa. The state chapter of the National Audubon Society. Iowa has 11 local chapters in various areas of the state and the Important Bird Areas Program; for links and more information, visit the website for the national organization. http://www.audubon.org/ Iowa Ornithologists’ Union. A nonprofit membership organization that promotes the study and enjoyment of birds; website contains information about publications, birdwatching sites, annual meetings and more. http://iowabirds.org/main/home.asp Iowa State University NatureMapping Iowa. A citizen science program to “keep common species common.” http://www.extension.iastate.edu/naturemapping/naturemapping_process/primary_birds.html) lists most common Iowa birds with link to the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Bird Identification InfoCenter site, which has species identification tips and photos (www. mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/infocenter.html) Prairie’s Edge Sustainable Woods Cooperative (PESWC).

Forest management, processing and marketing cooperative of northeast Iowa woodland owners. Northeast Iowa RC&D, PO Box 916, Postville, IA, 52162-0916 Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Established as part of the Iowa Groundwater Protection Act of 1987. Iowa State University, 209 Curtiss Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1050. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu The Wild Side of Iowa. A photographic index to nearly 60 Iowa birds. http://wildsideofiowa.com/wildsidebirdsbyname.html

Regional resources

Check similar organizations as listed for Iowa.

Audubon Upper Mississippi River Campaign. Serving Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri. 2357 Ventura Dr., Ste 106; Woodbury, MN 55125. 651-7399332. http://www.audubon.org/campaign/umr Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Springfield, http://dnr.state.il.us/offices/resource.htm

Regional resources (cont).

Illinois Audubon. Danville. http://www.illinoisaudubon.org/ contact.html Illinois Ornithological Society. Lake Forest. http://www. illinoisbirds.org/ Land Stewardship Project. http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/programs.html Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Nongame Wildlife Program. http://www.dnr.state. mn.us/ecological_services/nongame/index.html Minnesota Interagency Information Cooperative. Forest resource data for Minnesota. www.iic.state.mn.us/index. html Minnesota Ornithologists Union. http://www.cbs.umn. edu/~mou/ Minnesota Audubon: http://www.audubon.org/chapter/mn Natural Resources Research Institute, Forest Birds of Minnesota. http://oden.nrri.umn.edu/mnbirds/Default. htm The Prairie Enthusiasts. www.theprairieenthusiasts.org The Raptor Resource Project. Peregrine Falcon, Swallowtail Kite, and Mississippi River recovery programs. PO Box 152, Canton, MN 55922.

nomically and ecologically sound agriculture. Contact: 608/848-7000; www.farmland.org.

American Heritage Rivers Initiative. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program that offers financial and informational assistance to communities addressing watershed problems. www.epa.gov/rivers/ Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. A membership insitute dedicted to the study, appreciation and conservation of birds, research, public education and citizen science.

Program Services, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, NY 14850-1999. http://birds.cornell.edu Forest Stewardship Council U.S. A forest certification system that promotes and rewards responsible forest management. 1155 30th St., NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20007; 202/342-0413; www.fscus.org.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Conserves populations of plants and animals by awarding challenge grants to projects benefiting conservation education, habitat protection and restoration and natural resource management.

National Wildlife Federation. A nonprofit conservation organization; offers website that includes illustrations, information and audio on more than 800 bird species. www.eNature.com/sibleyguidetobirds Partners in Flight. www.partnersinflight.org USDA Forest Service. Landowner Assistance Programs. http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/loa.htm

Wisconsin Society for Ornithology (WSO). http://www. uwgb.edu/birds/wso/

U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey. www.mp2pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/

Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas. a bird data collection project of the WSO: In book form or on the web. The website includes species location maps, visual and audio library of birds, species descriptions, and more. http://www. uwgb.edu/birds/wbba/ Audubon Wisconsin. http://www.audubon.org/chapter/wi/

USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Clickable maps of Wisconsin and Minnesota for each regional landscape ecosystem.

Wisconsin: www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/rlandscp/ wiscmap.htm Minnesota: www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/rlandscp/ minnmap.htm

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Endangered Resources, nongame website. http://www. dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/non_game.htm

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. “How to identify birds” information, quizzes, bird lists, national survey information, and research. www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/.

Nationwide general resources

U.S. Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center.

Monitoring data, maps and information about the Upper Mississippi River floodplain and reports of wildlife research projects. 2630 Fanta Reed Rd. LaCrosse, WI 54603, 608-783-6451. http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/

American Bird Conservancy. 1834 Jefferson Place NW. Washington, DC 20036. www.abcbirds.org.

American Farmland Trust. In partnership with farmers, local governments, planners and citizens, AFT’s Upper Midwest Regional Planning Office protects farmland, advocates for protective policies and promotes eco-

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Landowner tools, including incentive programs and grants for landowners. http:// endangered.fws.gov/ Working Landscapes. www.workinglandscapes.org

37

Blufflands Alliance Partners

Other land trust organizations

Jo Daviess Conservation Foundation 126 Main St., PO Box 216 Elizabeth, IL 61028-0126 Phone: (815) 858-9100 Fax: (815) 858-9102 E-mail: info@jdcf.org Web: www.jdcf.org

Land Trust Alliance 1331 H St. NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 638-4725 Fax: (202) 638-4730 lta@lta.org (has state-by-state list of land trusts)

Minnesota Land Trust 2356 University Ave. W., Suite 240 St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (651)647-9590 Fax: (651)647-9769 E-mail: mnland@mnland.org Web: www.mnland.org Mississippi Valley Conservancy PO Box 2611 LaCrosse, WI 54602-2611 Phone: (608)784-3606 Fax: (608)784-0257 E-mail: mvc@centurytel.net Web: www.centurytel.net/mvc Natural Land Institute 320 South Third Street Rockford, IL 61104 Phone: (815)964-6666 Fax: (815)964-6661 E-mail: NLI@aol.com Web: www.naturalland.com West Wisconsin Land Trust, Inc. 500 East Main, Suite 307 Menomonie, WI 54751 Phone: (715)235-8850 Fax: (715)235-8910 E-mail: wwlt@wwlt.org Web: www.wwlt.org Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation 505 Fifth Avenue, Suite 444 Des Moines, IA 50309-2321 Phone: (515) 288-1846 Fax: (515) 288-0137 E-mail: info@inhf.org Web: www.inhf.org

38

The Nature Conservancy 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22203-1606 E-mail: comment@tnc.org (800) 628-6860 http://nature.org/ The Nature Conservancy, Iowa chapter The Homestead Building 303 Locust Street, Suite 402 Des Moines, IA 50309 Phone: (515) 244-5044 Fax: (515) 244-8890 Web: iowa@tnc.org

References Albert, Dennis A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc. usgs.gov/resource/1998/rlandscp/rlandscp.htm.

Allman, L. 1997. Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital Community Asset. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 148p.

Anders, A.D., J.T. Faaborg, and F.R. Thompson. 1998.

Postfledging Dispersal, Habitat Use, and Home-Range Size of Juvenile Wood Thrushes. Auk 115: 349-358.

Anderson, P.F. 1996. GIS Research to Digitize Maps of Iowa 1832-1859 Vegetation From General Land Office Township Plat Maps: Final Report. Department of Landscape Architecture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Annand, E.M., and F.R. Thompson. Forest Bird Response to Regeneration Practices in Central Hardwood Forests.

Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 159-171.

Apfelbaum, Steven I.; Haney, Alan W. 1990. Management of degraded oak savanna remnants in the upper Midwest: preliminary results from three years of study.

In Restoration ‘89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration. (Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds.): 280-291.

Bartsch, P. 1897. Summer Birds of the Oneota Valley. Iowa Ornithologist 3: 51-61.

Beardmore, C.J., and J.S. Hatfield. 1999. Population and Habitat Viability Assessments for Golden-cheeked Warblers and Black-capped Vireos: Usefulness to Partners in Flight Conservation Planning. In Bonney, R., D.N. Pashley, R.J. Cooper, and L. Niles (eds.), Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. <http://birds.cornell. edu/pifcapemay> Bednarz, J.C., and J.J. Dinsmore. 1982. Nest-Sites and

Habitat of Red-Shouldered and Red-tailed Hawks in Iowa. Wilson Bulletin 94: 31-45.

Best, L.B., K.E. Freemark, B.S. Steiner, and T.M. Bergin.

1996. Life History and Status Classifications of Birds Breeding in Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 103: 34-45.

Bird Source. Towering Concerns: Communications Towers Cause Songbird Mortality. Cornell Lab of Ornithology and National Audubon Society. 24 July 02. http:// birdsource.cornell.edu/conservation/TowerKill.htm.

Blake, J. G., and J. R. Karr. 1984. Species composition of bird communities and the conservation benefit of large versus small forests. Biol. Cons. 30:173-87.

Blankenship, K. 2000. A Perilous Flight. American Forests 106: 32-37.

Brand, G., and J. Walkowiak. 1991. Forest Statistics for Iowa, 1990. Resour. Bull. NC-136. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 100 p.

Bollinger E.K., and E.T. Linder. 1994. Reproductive Success of Neotropical Migrants in a Fragmented Illinois Forest.

Wilson Bulletin 106: 46-54.

Bollinger, E.K., B.D. Peer, and R.W. Jansen. 1997. Status of Neotropical Migrants in Three Forest Fragments in Illinois. Wilson Bulletin 109: 521-526.

Brawn, J.D., and S.K. Robinson. 1996. Source-Sink Population Dynamics May Complicate the Interpretation of Long-Term Census Data. Ecology 77: 3-12.

Brittingham, M.C., and S.A. Temple. 1995. Vegetation Around Parasitized and Non-Parasitized Nests Within Deciduous Forest. Journal of Field Ornithology 67: 406413.

Coleman, J.S. and S.A. Temple. 1996. On the Prowl.

Wisconsin Natural Resources 20:4-8.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1790’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 13p.

39

Danielson, W.R., R.M. DeGraaf, T.K. Fuller. 1997. Rural and Suburban Forest Edges: Effect on Egg Predators and Nest Predation Rates. Landscape and Urban Planning 38: 25-369.

Davis, M.A., D.W. Peterson, P.B. Reich, M.Crozier, T. Query, E. Mithcell, J. Huntington and P. Bazakas. 2000.

Restoring Savanna Using Fire: Impact on the Breeding Bird Community. Restoration Ecology 8:30-40.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1994. Enhancing Wildlife on Private Woodlands. Oregon State University Extension Service Circular 1122.

DeCamps, H., J. Joachim, and J. Lauga. 1987. The Importance for Birds of the Riparian Woodlands Within the Alluvial Corridor of the River Garonne, S.W. France.

Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 1: 301-316.

DeGraaf, R.M., and J.H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical Migratory Birds: Natural History, Distribution, and Population Change. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York.

DeLong, K.T., and C. Hooper. 1996. A Potential Understory Flora for Oak Savanna in Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 102: 1-20.

Dinsmore, J.J. 1998. Iowa’s Avifauna: Recent Changes and Prospects for the Future. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 105: 115-122.

Dinsmore, J.J., and N.P. Bernstein. 2001. Invasive Species in Iowa: An Introduction. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 108: 105-106.

Dinsmore, J.J., T.H. Kent, D. Koenig, P.C. Petersen and D.M. Roosa. 1984. Iowa Birds. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Ehresman, M.F and C.P. Kurtz. 2000. A New Kind of Prairie Pioneer. Iowa Natural Heritage, Winter 2000: 8-10.

Elias, J.E. 1997. Avian Species Richness and Abundance Levels in Different Habitats Along the Bad River Corridor, Northern Wisconsin. Passenger Pigeon 59: 21-44.

Emlen, J.T., M.J. DeJong, M.J. Jaeger, T.C. Moermond, K.A. Rusterholz, and R.P. White. 1986. Density Trends and Range Boundary Constraints of Forest Birds Along a Latitudinal Gradient. Auk 103: 791-803.

Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake.

1993. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone: A perspective for managers. Pages 331-339 in Finch, D. 40

M., and P. W. Stangel, Eds. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-229, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. For. Exp. Stat. 422 pp.

Fatal Light Awareness Program. Collision Course: Lights at Night, A Threat to Migrating Birds. . http://www.flap.org/ home2.htm. 2001.

Finley, R.W. 1976. Original Vegetation Cover of Wisconsin.

St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Fischer, R. A., Martin, C. O., and Fischenich, J. C. 2000.

“Improving riparian buffer strips and corridors for water quality and wildlife.” International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-land Use Watersheds, American Water Resources Association.

Fitzgerald, J. and D.N. Pashley. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for The Dissected Till Plains (Physiographic Area 32). Partners in Flight and American Bird Conservancy.

Flather, C.H., and J.R. Sauer. 1996. Using Landscape Ecology to Test Hypotheses About Large-scale Abundance Patterns in Migratory Birds. Ecology 77: 28-35.

Freemark, K.E., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape Ecology of Birds Breeding in Temperate Forest Fragments. Pp. 443454 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, eds.).

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Freemark, K.E., and H.G. Merriam. 1986. Importance of Area and Habitat Heterogeneity to Bird Assemblages in Temperate Forest Fragments. Biological Conservation 36: 115-141.

Freese, C.H., and D.L. Trauger. 2000. Wildlife Markets and Biodiversity Conservation in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 42-51.

Fremling, C., and B. Drazkowski. 2000. Ecological, Institutional, and Economic History of the Upper Mississippi River. Resource Studies Center, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota. (http://www.umbsn.org/news/ documents/UMR_Ecological_History.htm). 11 April 2002.

Gillihan, S. W., and S. W. Hutchings. 2000. Best Management Practices for Shortgrass Prairie Birds: A Landowner’s Guide. Colorado Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. Green, J.C. 1995. Birds and Forests, A Management and Conservation Guide. St. Paul, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Grettenberger, J. 1991. Habitat Fragmentation and Forested Wetlands on the Upper Mississippi River: Potential Impacts on Forest-Interior Birds. The Passenger Pigeon 53: 227-241.

Hemesath, L.M., and W.R. Norris. 1998. The Forest Avifauna of Northeast Iowa. Iowa Bird Life 68: 29-41.

Herkert, J.R., R.E. Szafoni, V.M. Kleen, and J.E. Schwegman.

1993. Habitat Establishment, Enhancement, and Management for Forest and Grassland Birds in Illinois.

Division of Natural Heritage, Illinois Department of Conservation, Natural Heritage Technical Publication #1, Springfield, Illinois. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ resource/ othrdata/manbook/manbook.htm). 3 May 2000.

Knutson, M.G. 2001. Abundance, Diversity, and Productivity of Songbirds Nesting in Upland and Floodplain Forests of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.

USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. (http://www.umesc.er.usgs.gov/ terrestrial/migratoryâ&#x20AC;Ś/ mknutson_5002534.htm). 2 January 2002.

Knutson, M.G., and E.E. Klaas. 1997. Declines in Abundance and Species Richness of Birds Following a Major Flood on the Upper Mississippi River. Auk 114: 367-380.

Knutson, M.G., and E.E. Klaas. 1998. Floodplain Forest Loss and Changes in Forest Community Composition and Structure in the Upper Mississippi River: A Wildlife Habitat at Risk. Natural Areas Journal 18: 138-150.

Herkert, J. R., D. W. Sample, and R. E. Warner. 1996.

Management of Midwestern grassland landscapes for the conservation of migratory birds. Pages 89-116 in F.R. Thompson, III, ed. Management of Midwestern landscapes for the conservation of migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service General Commissioners 32:234-241.

Knutson, M.G., J. Fitzgerald, and J. Shieldcastle. 2001.

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for The Upper Great Lakes Plain (Physiographic Area 16). USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in cooperation with Partners in Flight, La Crosse, Wisconsin. (http:// www.blm.gov/wildlife/pifplans.htm).

Holmes, R.T., and T.W. Sherry. 2001. Thirty-Year Bird Population Trends in an Unfragmented Temperate Deciduous Forest: Importance of Habitat Change. Auk 118: 589-609.

Knutson, M.G., J.P. Hoover, and E.E. Klaas. 1996. The Importance of Floodplain Forests in the Conservation and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds in the Midwest. Pp. 168-188 in F.R. Thompson III, ed., Management of Midwestern Landscapes for the Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report. NC-187.

Hoover, J.P., M.C. Brittingham, and L.J. Goodrich. 1995.

Effects of Forest Patch Size on Nesting Success of Wood Thrushes. Auk 112: 146-155.

Iowa Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. http://www.nass. usda.gov/ia/ Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Iowa Forests and Prairies Resources: A Plan of Action for 2001-2006 to Sustain and Expand. 20 p.

Jackson, L.S., C.A. Thompson, J.J. Dinsmore. The Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas. 1996. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. 484 p.

Jungst, S.E. D.R. Farrar, and M. Brandrup. 1998. Iowaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Changing Forest Resources. Journal of Iowa Academy of Science. 105:61-66.

Kane K.L., E.E. Klaas, K.L. Andersen, P. Brown and R.L. McNeely. 2002. The Iowa Gap Analysis Project Final Report. Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames.

King, D.I., R.M. DeGraaf et al. 2001. Productivity of Early Successional Shrubland Birds in Clearcuts and Group Cuts in an Eastern Deciduous Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:345-350.

Lange, K.I. 1990. A Postglacial Vegetational History of Sauk County and Caledonia Township, Columbia County, South-central Wisconsin. Tech. Bull. 168. Madison, WI: Department of Natural Resources. 40 p.

Latta, S.C., and M.E. Baltz. 1997. Population Limitation in Neotropical Migratory Birds: Comments on Rappole and McDonald (1994). Auk 114: 754-762.

Litwin, T.S., and C.R. Smith. 1992. Factors Influencing the Decline of Neotropical Migrants in a Northeastern Forest Fragment: Isolation, Fragmentation, or Mosaic Effects?

Pp. 483-496 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Marini, M.A., S.K. Robinson, and E.J. Heske. 1995. Edge Effects on Nest Predation in the Shawnee National Forest, Southern Illinois. Biological Conservation 74: 203-213.

Martin T.E. 1980. Diversity and Abundance of Spring Migratory Birds Using Habitat Islands in the Great Plains. Condor 82: 430-439.

41

Martin, T.E. 1992. Breeding Productivity Considerations: What are the Appropriate Habitat Features for Management? Pp. 455-473 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Medin, D.E. and G.D. Booth. 1989. Responses of Birds and Small Mammals to Single-Tree Selection Logging in Idaho. USDA Forest Service Int. Res. Station Res. Paper INT-408, Boise. 11p.

Meine, Curt. 1988. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 638 p.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2000.

Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Birds. (endangered_species/endabir.htmlâ&#x20AC;? http://www.dnr.state. mn.us/fish_and_wildlife/ endangered_species/endabir. html). 27 April 2000.

Montgomery, G.L. 1966. Riparian Areas: Reservoirs of Diversity. United States Department of Agriculture, Working Paper No. 13.

National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges and USDA Natural Resource Unit, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. The Role of Research, Education and Extension in Sustaining Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Forest Resources: Why You Should Care.

Pamphlet.

Norris, W.R. 1999. The Influence of Vegetation and Landscape on the Forest Bird Community of Northeast Iowa. Diss. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Norris, W.R. and D.R. Farrar. 2001. A method for the Rapid Survey and Natural Quality Evaluation of Forests in the Central Hardwoods Region. Natural Areas Journal 21:313-323.

Nuzzo,V. 1994. Extent and Status of Midwest Oak Savanna: Presettlement and 1985 (republished version of Nuzzo 1986). Pp. 1-24 in Proceedings of the North American Conference on Barrens and Savannas (J.S. Fralish, R.C. Anderson, J.E. Ebinger, and R. Szafoni, eds.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes, National Program Office, Chicago, IL. Packard, S. and C. Mutel. 1997. The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook for Prairies, Savannas and Woodlands. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Petit, L.J., D.R. Petit, and T.E. Martin. 1995. Landscapelevel Management of Migratory Birds: Looking Past the Trees to See the Forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 420-429.

42

Pimental, D. et al. 12 June 1999. (September 2002) Environmental And Economic Costs Associated With Non-Indigenous Species in The United States. http:// www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/species_costs.html.

Popotnik, G.J., and W.M. Giuliano. 2000. Response of Birds to Grazing of Riparian Zones. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:976-982.

Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, et al. 1989. Habitat Area Requirements of Breeding Forest Birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs 103:1-34.

Robinson, S.K. 1992. Population Dynamics of Breeding Neotropical Migrants in a Fragmented Illinois Landscape.

Pp. 408-417 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C..

Robinson, S.K. 1998. Another Threat Posed by Forest Fragmentation: Reduced Food Supply. Auk 115: 1-3.

Robinson, S.K. and R.T. Holmes. 1984. Effects of Plant Species and Foliage Structure on the Foraging Behavior of Forest Birds. Auk 101:672-84.

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thomson III, T.M. Danovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success of Migratory Birds. Science 267: 1987-1990.

Rosburg, T.R. 2002. Effects of Deer Herbivory on the Community Composition and Structure of Forest Vegetation in Central Iowa. Progress Report II presented to Polk County Conservation Board, Granger, Iowa.

Rosenberg, K.V., R.W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S.E. Barker, J.D. Lowe, R.S. Hames, and A.A. Dhondt. 1999. A Land Managers Guide to Improving Habitat for Scarlet Tanagers and Other Forest-interior Birds. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Sader S.A., G.V.N. Powell, and J.H. Rappole. 1991.

Migratory Bird Habitat Monitoring Through Remote Sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing 12: 363-372.

Sample, D.W. and M.J. Mossman, 1997. Managing Habitat for Grassland Birds: A Guide for Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 154 p.

Sauer, J.R., and S. Droege. 1992. Geographic Patterns in Population Trends of Neotropical Migrants in North America. Pp. 26-42 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Sedgwick, J.A., and F.L. Knopf. 1987. Breeding Bird Response to Cattle Grazing of a Cottonwood Bottomland.

Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 230-237.

Schultz, Richard C. Pers. Comm. 4 Sept. 2002.

Sherry, T.W., and R.T. Holmes. 1992. Population Fluctuations in a Long-Distance Neotropical Migrant: Demographic Evidence for the Importance of Breeding Season Events in the American Redstart. Pp. 431-442 in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, eds.).

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Smith, D.D. 1990. Tallgrass Prairie Settlement: Prelude to the Demise of the Tallgrass Prairie. Pp. 195-196 in Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference: Recapturing a Vanishing Heritage; 1992.

University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa. (D.D Smith and C. Jacobs, eds.).

Stauffer, D.F., and L.B. Best. Habitat Selection by Birds of Riparian Communities: Evaluating Effects of Habitat Alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 1-15.

Suarez, A.V., K.S. Pfennig et al. 1997. Nesting Success of a Disturbance-Dependent Songbird on Different Kinds of Edges. Conservation Biology 11(4): 928-935.

Temple, S.A. 1998. Easing the Travails of Migratory Birds.

Environment 40: 6-9.

TowerKill.com. 1998. Iowa Map. http://www.TowerKill. com/IA.html. 8 December 2000.

Twedt, D.J., and J. Portwood. 1997. Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation for Neotropical Migratory Birds: Are We Missing the Forest for the Trees? Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 647-652.

University of Minnesota Extension. 1992. Managing Oak in the Driftless Area. http://www.extension.umn.edu/ distribution/naturalresources/DD5900.html.

University of Wisconsin Exension. 2001. Highland Cattle in Oak Savanna Restoration. http://clean-watr.uwex.edu/ malweg/pdfs/savanna.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior.

1998. Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuges Are Globally Important to Migratory Birds. People, Land, and Water 5(1): 22.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior, 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation: State Overview.

Preliminary Findings. 23 pp. http://library.fws.gov/net_ sursvey2001.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Avian Collisions at Communications Towers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sources of Information. http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/ towers.htm. 2002.

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Sept.

2000. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: A Vision of American Bird Conservation. 29 p.

Van Der Linden, P.J. and D.R. Farrar. Forest and Shade Trees of Iowa. 1984. Iowa State University Press. 133p.

Village Habitat Design. Website: http://www.villagehabitat. com/. 2002.

Villard, M., G. Merriam, and B.A. Maurer. 1995. Dynamics in Subdivided Populations of Neotropical Migratory Birds in a Fragmented Temperate Forest. Ecology 76: 27-40.

Walk, J.W., and R.E. Warner. 1998. Effects of Habitat Area on the Occurrence of Grassland Birds in Illinois.

American Midland Naturalist 141: 339-344.

Way, J.M. 1989. Reconstruction of Habitats on Farmland. pp. 102-104 in Biological Habitat Reconstruction (G.P. Buckley, ed.).

Weidensaul, S. 1999. Living on the Wind: Across the Hemisphere with Migratory Birds. North Point Press, New York.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. American Heritage Rivers. http://www.epa.gov/rivers/98rivers.html. 19 July 2002.

Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, K. Klimkiewicz and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of Forest Fragmentation on the Avifauna of the Eastern Deciduous in Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. (R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, eds.).

Spring-Verlag, New York. 125-205.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nature-Based Tourism. Issue Brief #1. Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. http://www.epa.gov/ ecocommunity/tools/econatt5.pdf. 10 p. 5 Sept. 2002.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000.

Endangered and Threatened Vertebrate Species. (etlist1. htmâ&#x20AC;? http://www.dne.state.wi.us/org/land/er/factsheets/ etlist1.htm). 27 April 2000.

43

Peregrine Falcon, Ty Smedes Mississippi River bluffs in northeast Iowa, Bob Hurt

Prothonotary Warbler, Jim Messina Scarlet Tanager, Ed Siems

This book is written and distributed by the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation. INHF is a membersupported, nonprofit organization that protects Iowa’s land, water and wildlife “for those who follow.”

Since its founding in 1979, INHF has partnered with private landowners, public agencies and other nonprofit organizations to restore thousands of acres of wildlife habitat and to protect tens of thousands of acres of Iowa’s natural lands: prairies, wetlands, woodlands, savannas, watersheds and recreation areas.

As a member of the four-state Blufflands Alliance, INHF has protected hundreds, even thousands, of acres along Iowa’s Mississippi River blufflands.

If you’d like to know more about land protection in Iowa, please contact us. In the meantime, thanks for picking up this book. We hope you enjoyed learning about Neotropical migrants—and are inspired to protect them.

INHF and partners thank the many landowners, land managers and birdenthusiasts who help protect Neotropical migrant habitat along the Upper Mississippi River blufflands. This book is dedicated to you­, to those who follow—and to the birds.

44

Twice each year, millions of Neotropical migrant birds travel along the Upper Mississippi River blufflands between their wintering grounds in southern Mexico and Central and South America and their summer breeding and nesting grounds in northern Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Some pause here only to rest and refuel for their long journey. Others stay to raise their families. Either way, many of these special birds require the region’s natural areas for survival. When those habitats are at risk, so are the birds. This book tells how area landowners and others can help.

For more about protecting your land’s natural resources, Neotropical migrants, Iowa’s natural resources, outdoor recreation resources and much more, visit www.inhf.org.

505 Fifth Avenue, Suite 444 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2321 515-288-1846 info@inhf.org