3. Introduction
Graduating senior
Fish, wildlife and conservation biology major
Influential classes: Ornithology and Natural resource law and policy
4. Lower South Platte River Basin
Northeastern CO
Front Range and eastern plains
Habitats used by Sandhill cranes:
Emergent Marsh
Playa
Sandbar
River channel
Wet meadow
Recharge pond/moist soil unit
Lemly, J and Gilligan, L. 2015. Wetlands of the Lower South Platte River
Basin: Extent, condition and habitat quality. CNHP
5. Sandhill cranes
CPW priority species: Greater Sandhill
Crane
Stopover on Central Flyway in fall and
spring
Most found on Central Platte River in
Nebraska
Staging habitat
Shallow water, broad channels, sparse
vegetation, close to feeding
Shallow water, agriculture fields
6. Methods: Reviewing habitat indices
Thresholds – review, revise
Roosting index: Modified herb cover, patch width, dominant veg
Added herb height, river channel, sandbar; removed water cover emergent
Feeding index: dominant veg, water depth, herb height
Version 2
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding DVC
Dominant Vegetation
Category Like "[CEF]" GH Like "[ABDIJKL]" M, P 1.00
A lot of sites out of range
for a couple variables.
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding HCV Herb Cover >= 80 Between 60 And 79.99 Between 30 And 59.99 < 30 0.95
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding WPDA
Water Predominant Depth
Actual < = 5 Between 5.01 And 35 Between 35.01 And 50 > 50 0.95
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding HHT Herb Height Class = 1 = 2 = 3 > 3 0.90
SAN_FEE Sandhill Feeding LVSACR
Landscape Value Model
for Sandhill Cranes >= 66 Between 33 And 65.99 > 33 1.00
7. Methods: Data analysis
One-way ANOVA
H0 = There is no difference in means between sandhill crane habitats
Ha = There is a difference in means
Tukey’s HSD Post-hoc
Which habitats differ most?
8. Results
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Emergent
Marsh
Playa Recharge
pond/Moist
soil unit
River channel Sandbar
Averageoverallscore
Sandhill Roosting
C
A
B AB
BC
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Emergent Marsh Recharge Pond/Moist
soil unit
Wet Meadow
Averageoverallscore
Sandhill Feeding
A
A
B
ANOVA results: F = 7.9973; F-crit = 3.1866; df =
2; p = 0.000987
ANOVA results: F = 8.8218; F-crit = 2.4954; df =
4; p = 7.02x10-6
13. Discussion: Scoring and evaluation
process
Field data collection and timing of species use of habitat
Variables, thresholds, and weights
Other possible analyses
14. Discussion: Future research priorities
Current research on occurrence or
presence/absence of priority species
Existing data
Conducting surveys
Thresholds
Revisit some sites
The North American Breeding Bird Survey; http://www.mbr-
pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/grass/genintro.htm
15. Conclusion
Valuable insight into accuracy of scoring methods
Future research questions and analyses
Experience for future personal research, stakeholder interactions, other
evaluation processes, etc.
16. Thank you! Any Questions?
Literature Cited
Boykin, K.G., Kepner, W.G., Bradford, D.F., Guy, R.K., Kopp, D.A., Leimer, A.K., Samson, E.A., East, N.F., Neale, A.C., Gergely, K.J. 2012. A national
approach for mapping a quantifying habitat-based biodiversity metrics across multiple spatial scales. Ecological Indicators.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.11.005
Colorado Natural Heritage Program. (CNHP) 2013. “Field Key to Wetland Habitat Types in the Lower South Platte River Basin, Colorado”. 24 May 2013.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2011. Statewide strategies for wetland and riparian conservation: Strategic plan for the wetland wildlife
conservation program. Version 2.0. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.
International Crane Foundation (ICF). 1983. Cranes of the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Online. http://www.savingcranes.org/sandhill-
crane.html
Kessler, A.C., Merchant, J.W., Allen, C.R., Shultz, S.D. 2011. Invasive plants and sandhill crane roosting habitat. Invasive plant science and management.
4:369 – 377.
Kinzel, P.J., Nelson, J.M, Parker, R.S. 2005. Assessing Sandhill Crane roosting habitat along the Platte River, Nebraska. USDOI, USGS fact sheet.
Krapu, G.L., Brandt, D.A., Kinzel, P.J., Pearse, A.T. 2014. Spring migration ecology of the mid-continent sandhill crane population with an emphasis on use
of the Central Platte River Valley, Nebraska. Wildlife Monographs. 189:1-41.
Lemly, J., Gilligan, L. 2012 North Platte River Basin wetland profile and condition assessment. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Lemly, J., L. Gilligan, and M. Fink. 2011. Statewide strategies to improve effectiveness in protecting and restoring Colorado’s wetland resource, including
the Rio Grande Headwaters pilot wetland condition assessment. Prepared for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Wetland Program
Development Grant Assistance ID No. CD-97874301-0.
Lemly, J., Gilligan, L., Smith, G. 2014. Lower South Platte River Basin profile and condition assessment., Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ortega, C. P. 2013. Habitat quality for wetland-dependent priority wildlife species in the Lower South Platte River Basin, Colorado: species assessments
and monitoring protocols. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Environmental Protection Agency.
Stone, K.R. 2009. Stone, Katharine R. 2009. Grus canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
