5. Species Accounts
5.7. Killdeer Species Account
USFWS Region 3 status: common AOU number: 2730
AOU abbreviation: KILL
SUMMARY
T
otal vulnerability for Killdeer was low, scoring 1.7 out of 5.0. The adaptive capacity category was the largest contributor to vulnerability, largely due to high breeding site fidelity and, to a lesser extent, to a highly specialized diet during the breeding season. However, we found no information on non-breeding diet.Temperature change was not expected to have much effect on vulnerability during breeding nor non- breeding because Killdeer were
relatively insensitive to temperature change
throughout the annual cycle. Moisture change was expected to have a moderate to high effect, with the greatest impact in Mexico during the non-breeding season (Figure 5.17). There were eight breeding to non-breeding banding locations from the UMGL region, all to N. America (Figure 5.18). Because the data are sparse and there was no published information, we were not able to measure migratory connectivity. Thus, we maintained a broad approach to vulnerability analysis for the species. Although we found total vulnerability to be low as did the USFWS, lack of information about MC for this species may hinder our ability manage them year-round.
VULNERABILITY SCORES
Total Vulnerability
Breeding climate effect
subscore NB climate effect
subscore Adaptive
capacity subscore
Indirect effects subscore
Background subscorerisk Temperature
change Moisture
change Temperature
change Moisture change
1.7 0 2.4 0 2.0 2.9 1.3 1.7
(maximum score of 5 for all columns)
0 1 2 3 4 5
UMGL N. America Mexico Caribbean C. America S. America
Moisture exposure × sensitivity score Breeding Non-breeding
Figure 5.17. Killdeer subscores for moisture exposure ×
sensitivity, breeding (Jun – Aug) and non-breeding regions (Dec – Feb). Temperature results not shown as all scores equaled zero.
Killdeer with chick (photo by N Tox)
69
Figure 5.18. Killdeer banding data from USGS Bird Banding Laboratory. The UMGL breeding range is shown in green in the main map. There were eight breeding to stationary non-breeding encounters from the UMGL. Inset map shows concentration of non-breeding data originating from the UMGL.
Figure 5.19. Mid-century (2040-2069) climate exposure during winter (Dec – Feb) on the Killdeer’s non-breeding grounds (main maps) and during summer (Jun – Aug) on its breeding grounds in the Upper Midwest Great Lakes LCC (inset maps).
CLIMATE EXPOSURE
5.7. Killdeer Species Account
i. Background Risk
• Quasi-extinction risk (score = 1.0) 0 probability (95% CI = 0, 0)
• Range size (score = 1.0) breeding = 16,500,000 km2; non-breeding = 28,800,000 km2
• Threats (PIF) (score = 3.0) breeding score = 3.0; non-breeding score = 3.0
• Breeding PIF conservation (score = 2.5)
• Non-breeding PIF conser-
vation (score = 2.8)
ii. Adaptive Capacity
• Migration strategy (score = 3.0) Non-migrant, short-distance migrant, long-distance migrant (mean distance = 1003 km)
• Breeding habitat niche
specialization (score = 2.1) Macro habitats riparian, agriculture/pasture, urban/parks, coasts, wetland and lake shores (with gravel, sand, mudflat, or bare ground); nesting micro habitat open or sparsely vegetated ground (0 m high)
• Breeding diet niche spe-
cialization (score = 3.5) Arthropods (other inverts also taken); captured on the ground by gleaning
• Breeding site fidelity (score = 5.0) Very high (known to have considerable fidelity between years)
• Non-breeding habitat
niche specialization (score = 1.0) Riparian, agriculture/pasture, urban/parks, coasts, wetland and lake shores (with gravel, sand, mudflat, or bare ground)
• Non-breeding diet niche
specialization (score = unknown) No data iii. Climate Sensitivity
• Breeding thermal range (score = 0) 23.9° C
• Breeding precipitation
range (score = 3.0) 69 cm
• Non-breeding thermal
range (score = 0) 36.7° C
• Non-breeding precipitation
range (score = 2.0) 101 cm
iv. Climate Exposure (mid-century predictions)
• Summer (Jun – Aug)
UMGL temperature (score = 4.0) 2.9° C increase
• Summer (Jun – Aug)
UMGL moisture (score = 2.0) 4.0% drier
• Winter (Dec – Feb)
non-breeding temperature Entire non-breeding range (score = 3.0) 2.0° C increase N. America (score = 3.0) 2.1° C increase Mexico (score = 3.0) 2.0° C increase Caribbean (score = 2.0) 1.6° C increase C. America (score = 2.0) 1.8° C increase S. America (score = 3.0) 2.0° C increase
• Winter (Dec – Feb)
non-breeding moisture Entire non-breeding range (score = 2.0) 4.5% drier N. America (score = 1.0) 2.9% drier Mexico (score = 4.0) 8.1% drier Caribbean (score = 3.0) 6.3% drier C. America (score = 1.0) 3.7% drier S. America (score = 1.0) 3.1% drier v. Indirect Effects
• Breeding habitat vulner-
ability (score = 0.9) Riparian habitat vulnerability may depend on location (Perry et al. 2012, USFS 2013);
although coastal habitat is highly vulnerable in general, shorelines used by Killdeer may be less vulner- able; wetland and lake shorelines are probably less vulnerable also as long as lakes do not disappear entirely; no vulnerability of agricultural and urban areas
• Breeding biotic interaction
vulnerability (score = 2.0) Vulnerability of arthropods in general is largely unknown, though native species may be vulnerable (Chown et al. 2007); however, Killdeer take a wide variety of species
• Non-breeding habitat
vulnerability (score = 0.9) Riparian habitat vulnerability may depend on location (see above); coastal shorelines less vulnerable (see above); wetland and lake shorelines less vulnerable (see above); no vulnerability of agricultural and urban areas
• Non-breeding biotic inter- (score = unknown) No data
USFWS Region 3 status: conservation concern AOU number: 2610
AOU abbreviation: UPSA
SUMMARY
T
otal vulnerability for Upland Sandpiper was moderate, scoring 2.4 out of 5.0. The adaptive capacity category was by far the largest contributor to vulnerability, largely due to a combination of extremely long-distance migration, highly specialized habitat requirements during breeding and non-breeding seasons, and high breeding site fidelity. Although Upland Sandpipers are so specialized, the grassland habitat that they require was not predicted to be heavily affected by climate change during the breeding season. Thus, the subscore for indirect effects is low and reduced total vulnerability.Our knowledge of indirect effects, however, is incomplete due to the lack of information about vulnerability of the pampas grasslands used during winter. More data are needed on this topic for a complete picture of Upland Sandpiper vulnerability. Non-breeding diet was another information gap for the species and should be an area of priority for
research. Drying on
the UMGL breeding grounds and temperature increases in S.
America were both predicted to have high effects on vulnerability (Figure 5.20). This was partly due a very high sensitivity to moisture change during summer. We had very little connectivity information on Upland Sandpipers from banding data (Figure 5.21) and no information from the literature. Thus, our knowledge of possible migratory connectivity was very limited, which could hinder our ability to predict vulnerability and conserve the species comprehensively. However, because the Upland Sandpiper has a fairly small winter range, researching its migratory connectivity may be more feasible than for other species.
VULNERABILITY SCORES
Total Vulnerability
Breeding climate effect
subscore NB climate effect
subscore Adaptive
capacity subscore
Indirect effects subscore
Background subscorerisk Temperature
change Moisture
change Temperature
change Moisture change
2.4 2.0 3.2 3.2 0 4.3 1.3 2.0
(maximum score of 5 for all columns)
*
0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperature
Moisture
Climate exposure × sensitivity score Breeding Non-breeding
Figure 5.20. Upland Sandpiper subscores for climate exposure × sensitivity, breeding (UMGL, Jun – Aug) and non-breeding regions (S.
America, Dec – Feb). *Non- breeding score ≥ 20% greater than breeding.
Upland Sandpiper standing vigil
© 2009 Brad Moon