Regarding the piles of brush, if they are underwater by design, they are likely there for fish habitat purposes. They will be used by various species or groups depending on life stage and strategy. As previously mentioned search any online database or journals like Freshwater Biology, Aquatic Sciences, Journal of Fish Biology, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, etc.
Duck nest boxes (as I mentioned in an off-list e-mail) support a variety of species, not just exclusively waterfowl (e.g. American Kestrels). There is a good body of literature on duck nesting success using artificial structures from the 1980s and 1990s, much of it published in JWM or the Wildlife Society Bulletin. Look for names like Bellrose, SOulliere, and others. A good point was raised regarding whether the area has the potential to support a given species in the first place. A wetland improvement area completely isolated from other wetlands may not ever support species for which the artificial structures are designed. The abundance or presence of various species in the area can also have an important effect. Wood Ducks may not use every available nest box, just like they may not use every available natural cavity. Stephen Mills Forest Wildlife Habitat Specialist Northeast Science & Information Section Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P.O. Bag 3020, Hwy. 101 E. South Porcupine, ON P0N 1H0 Tel: (705) 235-1235 Fax: (705) 235-1251 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Andrew Cole Sent: July 12, 2007 1:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] wildlife habitat structures - more clearly stated? As I've received many helpful comments on my initial query about the utility of wildlife habitat structures, it occurs to me that I wasn't all that clear to begin with. Let me try and be more precise. On wetland mitigation sites, I frequently see piles of brush (often underwater), wood duck boxes, goose nesting structures, and snags (dead trees implanted in the ground) all installed in the name of wildlife habitat improvement. I rarely see any wildlife use these structures (especially the submerged brush piles :-D ) and by the time the 5-year permit is up, these are frequently falling down or in bad repair. So I wonder about the utility of spending the time and the money to install these in created wetlands. It just doesn't seem worth it at all. Is there any refereed literature on this subject relative to wetland mitigation sites? Hopefully, that's more clear. Thanks. Andy Charles Andrew Cole, Ph.D. Associate Director Center for Watershed Stewardship Penn State University 301a Forest Resources Laboratory University Park, PA 16802 814-865-5735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.larch.psu.edu/watershed/home.html
