CLBMON- 11B1. Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring and Enhancement Area Identification for Lower and Mid-Arrow Lakes Reservoir
Author: N.T. Hentze, R. Waytes, C.M. Wood, V.C. Hawkes, J. Gatten
A long-term wildlife monitoring project assessing the effectiveness of revegetation prescriptions and proposed wildlife physical works in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Focal taxa include terrestrial arthropods, songbirds and bats. Arthropod populations were being tracked using pitfall and Malaise traps. Responses of birds were being monitored by point count surveys and nest searches. Bat presence and activity was collected using autonomous recording units. These monitoring datasets were used to assess the efficacy of revegetation prescriptions and future habitat enhancements applied in the drawdown zone. Revegetation prescriptions being assessed include stake and graminoid treatments. Pre-treatment baseline conditions of wildlife enhancing physical works are continuing to be evaluated.
1. Are the revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects effective at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone?
There is evidence of species-specific responses to revegetated areas for some spider species but results for other taxa are inconclusive. The data do indicate that wildlife are using all habitat types, but current results show little difference between control and treatment plots.
Physical Works: Unknown.
2. If revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects enhance wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone, to what extent does the revegetation program and the wildlife physical works projects increase the productivity of habitat in the drawdown zone for wildlife?
Revegetation treatments: To date, revegetation prescriptions do not appear to effectively improve wildlife habitat. In general, no multi-year trend has been observed for arthropod biomass or songbird communities between the control and treatment areas within sites.
Physical Works: Unknown.
3. Are some methods or techniques more effective than others at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone?
Revegetation treatments: Revegetation treatments were most successfully established at Lower Inonoaklin and Edgewood South. Whether this is due to the treatment types applied or site-specific variation is not known. A review of revegetation treatments is available in Miller et al. (2018) and should be incorporated into assessments of wildlife habitat suitability in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir.
Physical Works: Unknown.
1. Are the revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects effective at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone?
There is evidence of species-specific responses to revegetated areas for some spider species but results for other taxa are inconclusive. The data do indicate that wildlife are using all habitat types, but current results show little difference between control and treatment plots.
Physical Works: Unknown.
2. If revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects enhance wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone, to what extent does the revegetation program and the wildlife physical works projects increase the productivity of habitat in the drawdown zone for wildlife?
Revegetation treatments: To date, revegetation prescriptions do not appear to effectively improve wildlife habitat. In general, no multi-year trend has been observed for arthropod biomass or songbird communities between the control and treatment areas within sites.
Physical Works: Unknown.
3. Are some methods or techniques more effective than others at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone?
Revegetation treatments: Revegetation treatments were most successfully established at Lower Inonoaklin and Edgewood South. Whether this is due to the treatment types applied or site-specific variation is not known. A review of revegetation treatments is available in Miller et al. (2018) and should be incorporated into assessments of wildlife habitat suitability in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir.
Physical Works: Unknown.
No resources found.
Additional Info
Study Years: 2018
Published: 2019
CLBMON- 11B1. Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring and Enhancement Area Identification for Lower and Mid-Arrow Lakes Reservoir
Author: N.T. Hentze, R. Waytes, C.M. Wood, V.C. Hawkes, J. Gatten
Tags: Arrow Lakes Reservoir, Arthropods, Bats, CLBMON11B1, Drawdown Zone, Effectiveness Monitoring, Hydro, Monitoring Recommendations, Revegetation, Songbirds
A long-term wildlife monitoring project assessing the effectiveness of revegetation prescriptions and proposed wildlife physical works in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Focal taxa include terrestrial arthropods, songbirds and bats. Arthropod populations were being tracked using pitfall and Malaise traps. Responses of birds were being monitored by point count surveys and nest searches. Bat presence and activity was collected using autonomous recording units. These monitoring datasets were used to assess the efficacy of revegetation prescriptions and future habitat enhancements applied in the drawdown zone. Revegetation prescriptions being assessed include stake and graminoid treatments. Pre-treatment baseline conditions of wildlife enhancing physical works are continuing to be evaluated.
Summary
1. Are the revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects effective at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone?
There is evidence of species-specific responses to revegetated areas for some spider species but results for other taxa are inconclusive. The data do indicate that wildlife are using all habitat types, but current results show little difference between control and treatment plots.
Physical Works: Unknown.
2. If revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects enhance wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone, to what extent does the revegetation program and the wildlife physical works projects increase the productivity of habitat in the drawdown zone for wildlife?
Revegetation treatments: To date, revegetation prescriptions do not appear to effectively improve wildlife habitat. In general, no multi-year trend has been observed for arthropod biomass or songbird communities between the control and treatment areas within sites.
Physical Works: Unknown.
3. Are some methods or techniques more effective than others at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone?
Revegetation treatments: Revegetation treatments were most successfully established at Lower Inonoaklin and Edgewood South. Whether this is due to the treatment types applied or site-specific variation is not known. A review of revegetation treatments is available in Miller et al. (2018) and should be incorporated into assessments of wildlife habitat suitability in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir.
Physical Works: Unknown.