Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

C.R. Loesch

Publications and source records attributed to C.R. Loesch.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2001

Forest area and distribution in the Mississippi alluvial valley: Implications for breeding bird conservation

Knowing the current forest distribution and patch size characteristics is integral to the development of geographically defined, habitat-based conservation objectives for breeding birds. Towards this end, we classified 2.6 million ha of forest cover within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley using 1992 thematic mapper satellite imagery. Although historically this area, from southern Illinois to southern Louisiana, was dominated by forested wetlands, forest cover remains on less than 25% of the floodplain. Remaining forest cover is comprised of > 38,000 discrete forest patches > 2 ha. Mean patch area (64.1±5.2 ha; x̄ ±SE) was highly skewed towards small fragment size. Larger patches had a higher proportion of more hydric forest cover classes than did smaller patches which had a higher proportion of less hydric forest cover classes. Public lands accounted for 16% of remaining forested wetlands. Fewer than 100 forest patches exceeded our hypothesized habitat objective (4000 ha minimum contiguous forest area) intended to support self-sustaining populations of forest breeding birds. To increase the number of forest patches exceeding 4000 ha contiguous area, and thereby increase the likelihood of successful forest bird conservation, we recommend afforestation adjoining existing forest fragments ≥1012 ha and focused within designated Forest Bird Conservation Regions.

Journal of Biogeography↗
USGS2000

Development of management objectives for breeding birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

We used a six-step process to set habitat objectives and population goals for breeding birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Specifically, we used existing empirical studies and mathematically derived viable population estimates to define habitat objectives and population goals for bottomland hardwood forest, the most important habitat type in this physiographic area. Although habitat objectives must address both quality and quantity, we concentrate here on the size and number of forest patches in this highly fragmented landscape. To support source populations of all forest breeding birds we recommend the protection/restoration of 52 forest patches that are 4,000-8,000 ha in size, 36 patches of 8,000-40,000 ha, and 13 patches greater than 40,000 ha. Although every physiographic area is unique, the methodology applied here should be applicable in other situations.

Book chapter↗
USGS2000

Development of management objectives for waterfowl and shorebirds within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

The goal of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to provide sufficient habitat to support 4.3 million wintering ducks and 1.0 million wintering geese annually. Under the assumption that the amount of foraging habitat is the primary limitation to supporting waterfowl population goals in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV), a habitat objective to make available 285,000 ha of waterfowl foraging habitat is divided among seven states. This habitat objective is further divided between public and private ownership and among three habitat types: Bottomland hardwood forest, moist-soil sites, and agricultural fields. Management objectives for shorebirds within the MAV which provide foraging habitat for 0.5 million shorebirds during their southward migration have been tentatively established. Several as yet unverified assumptions were used in establishing these objectives; consequently, we caution that the objectives are subject to revision as the assumptions are tested. We assumed that 0.5 million shorebirds move through the MAV during late summer and fall, each foraging for an average of 10 days. During this migration period, foraging shorebirds are assumed to require sufficient forage to gain 1 g of biomass per day, in addition to their basal metabolic needs. Given an invertebrate food supply that provides 17.6 kj ? g-1, we calculated that an average 45 g shorebird requires about 8 g of invertebrate forage per day. Further assuming that each ha of managed shorebird habitat can provide 20 kg of invertebrate food resources available to shorebirds, we extrapolated a need for 2000 ha of shorebird foraging habitat. We suggest that the bulk of this foraging habitat be provided on public lands and that it be distributed throughout the MAV.

Book chapter↗
USGS2000

Conservation planning and monitoring avian habitat

Migratory bird conservation plans should not only develop population goals, they also should establish attainable objectives for optimizing avian habitats. Meeting population goals is of paramount importance, but progress toward established habitat objectives can generally be monitored more easily than can progress toward population goals. Additionally, local or regional habitat objectives can be attained regardless of perturbations to avian populations that occur outside the geographic area covered by conservation plans. Assessments of current avian habitats, obtained from remotely sensed data, and the historical distribution of habitats should be used in establishing habitat objectives. Habitat planning and monitoring are best conducted using a geographic information system. Habitat objectives are assigned to three categories: maintaining existing habitat, restoring habitat, and creating new or alternative habitat. Progress toward meeting habitat objectives can be monitored through geographic information systems by incorporating georeferenced information on public lands, private lands under conservation easements, corporate lands under prescribed management, habitat restoration areas, and private lands under alternative management to enhance wildlife values. We recommend that the area and distribution of habitats within the area covered by conservation plans be reassessed from remotely sensed imagery at intervals appropriate to detect predicted habitat changes.

Book chapter↗
USGS1996

Integrating research and management to conserve wildfowl (Anatidae) and wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A

Efforts to conserve winter habitat for wildfowl, Anatidae, in the alluvial valley of the lower Mississippi River, U.S.A., are directed by the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV) Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NA WMP). The Joint Venture is based on a biological framework developed through cooperative planning by wildfowl researchers and managers. Important elements of the framework include: (1) numeric population goals, (2) assumptions about potential limiting factors, (3) explicit relationships between wildfowl abundance and habitat characteristics, (4) numeric foraging habitat goals, and (5) criteria for evaluating success. The population goal of the Joint Venture for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MA V) is to enable 4.3 million ducks to, survive winter and join continental breeding populations in spring. Currently, available data suggest that foraging habitat is the primary factor limiting duck populations in the MA II. To establish a goal for foraging habitat, we assumed the length of the wintering period is 110 days and calculated that a population of 4.3 million breeding ducks (plus 15% to account for winter mortality) would need 546 million duck-days of food in the preceding winter. Then, we used estimates of daily energy requirements, food densities, and food energy values to calculate the carrying capacity or number of duck-days of food available in the three primary foraging habitats in the MAV (flooded croplands, forested wetlands, and moist-soil wetlands). Thus, availability of foraging habitat can be used as a criterion for evaluating success of the Joint Venture if accurate inventories of foraging habitat can be conducted. Development of an explicit biological framework for the Joint Venture enabled wildfowl managers and researchers to establish specific objectives for management of foraging habitat and identify priority problems requiring further study.

Book chapter↗