SEAFWA 2017

AUTHORS: John M. Yeiser, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia; John J. Morgan, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; Danna L. Baxley, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; Richard B. Chandler, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia; James A. Martin, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia

ABSTRACT: Determining the spatial scale at which a species responds to management (i.e., the scale of effect) is key to understanding how broad-scale conservation influences wildlife at population and metapopulation levels. Planning landscape-scale conservation without knowing what constitutes a landscape may not result in population-level benefits to wildlife. Private land enrollment into conservation programs is largely opportunistic, but frameworks for spatially targeted enrollment could increase the conservation benefit of these programs. Herein we investigate the scale of effect of a conservation program (the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)) on Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) density and population growth rate, and make general recommendations for future targeted land enrollment. We used a kernel smoother embedded in an open-population distance-sampling model to estimate scale of effect. Bobwhite populations responded positively to landscape-scale CREP land density. Landscapes were delineated at approximately 5 km radius circles, but importance of conservation land to a bobwhite diminished with distance. For example, we estimated that a CREP field 3000 m away would be 88% less useful to a local bobwhite population than a CREP field of similar size and quality 1000 m away. Using model estimates, we explored the effectiveness of several different land enrollment strategies at increasing bobwhite populations. We found that targeted land enrollment informed by our estimated scale of effect would improve long-term success of private land conservation programs. These findings expand government recommendations on local scale habitat management to the landscape scale, and provide a framework for spatial optimization of conservation land enrollment.