rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org Research Cite this article: Fournier AMV, Mengel DC, Krementz DG. 2018 Sora (Porzana carolina) autumn migration habitat use. R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171664 Sora (Porzana carolina) autumn migration habitat use Auriel M. V. Fournier1,† , Doreen C. Mengel3 and David G. Krementz2 1 Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, and 2 US Geological Survey, Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA 3 Resource Science Division, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO, USA AMVF, 0000-0002-8530-9968 Received: 18 October 2017 Accepted: 17 April 2018 Subject Category: Biology (whole organism) Subject Areas: ecology Keywords: resource use, sora, Porzana carolina, autumn migration, wetland Author for correspondence: Auriel M. V. Fournier e-mail: aurielfournier@gmail.com † Present address: Mississippi State University, 1815 Popps Ferry Road, Biloxi, MS 39532, USA. Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9. figshare.c.4088609. Palustrine wetland management across the USA is often conducted under a moist soil management framework aimed at providing energetic resources for non-breeding waterfowl. Moist soil management techniques typically include seasonal water-level manipulations and mechanical soil disturbance to create conditions conducive to germination and growth of early successional, seed-producing wetland plants. The assumption is that providing stopover and wintering habitat for non-breeding waterfowl will also accommodate life-history needs of a broader suite of migratory waterbirds including shorebirds, wading birds and marsh birds. Although studies of wetlands provide some evidence to support this assumption for shorebirds and wading birds, there is less information on how other marshbirds respond. Sora (Porzana carolina) are a species of migratory rail that depend on wetlands year round as they migrate across North America. It is a species for which the consequences of wetland management decisions directed towards non-breeding waterfowl are unknown. We conducted nocturnal surveys on 10 public properties in Missouri, USA during autumn migration during 2012–2016 to examine sora habitat use in wetland impoundments managed to enhance the production of moist soil vegetation. We found a positive relationship with sora presence and mean water depth and annual moist soil vegetation; sora used, on average, deeper water than was available across surveyed impoundments and used locations with a higher percentage of annual moist soil vegetation than was available. We found a negative relationship with sora use and upland vegetation, woody vegetation and open water. We found sora using deeper water than have previously been reported for autumn migration, and that moist soil management techniques used on Missouri’s intensively managed public wetland areas may be compatible with sora autumn migration stopover habitat requirements. 2018 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. 1. Introduction ................................................ rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664 Wetlands are among the nation’s most imperiled ecosystems with the conterminous USA experiencing an estimated 53% wetland loss since pre-European settlement [1]. Freshwater emergent wetlands (wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, [2]) have suffered the highest per cent loss among all freshwater vegetated wetland types (i.e. forest, shrub and emergent) with approximately 17% of emergent wetlands remaining in 1954 lost in the 55-year period 1954–2009 [1]. The central US landscape is highly altered owing to agricultural conversion and associated infrastructure (i.e. levees and ditches), navigation considerations associated with major riverways and other human developments such as roads and urban expansion. The degree of altered processes (i.e. disrupted flood pulses, stream or river channels constrained by levees, ditching to decrease flood duration that once created and maintained riverine wetlands) requires that public rehabilitated wetlands be intensively managed to provide a variety of habitats and resources for wetland-dependent wildlife as well as to accommodate wetland recreational opportunities for the agency’s stakeholders. A common management approach taken by wetland managers is to maximize production of early successional wetland plants; this approach is known as moist soil management [3]. Moist soil management is typically associated with providing energetic resources for autumn migrating waterfowl by creating conditions favourable to germination and growth of seed-producing plants adapted to moist or saturated growing conditions. The energetic resources (i.e. seeds) are made available by incrementally inundating wetland impoundments throughout late summer, autumn and early winter to provide habitat for non-breeding waterfowl, beginning with early migrating dabbling ducks (blue-winged teal, Anas discors) and continuing through to late-arriving dabbling ducks (i.e. mallards, Anas platyrhynchos). A key assumption of moist soil wetland management is that providing habitat for the full suite of waterfowl species (Anatidae—ducks, geese and swans) will also accommodate life-history needs of a broader suite of waterbirds including shorebirds, wading birds and marshbirds. Although studies of moist soil wetlands provide some evidence to support this assumption regarding shorebirds and wading birds [4], there is less information on how marshbirds respond to the vegetative and habitat conditions resulting when wetlands are managed with a focus on non-breeding waterfowl. Marshbirds encompass a group of wetland-dependent birds including rails, bitterns and moorhens [4] that are generally inconspicuous and tend to inhabit wetlands with robust, perennial vegetation, making them difficult to detect [5]. Overall, limited distributions combined with low detection probability have resulted in marshbirds being among the least studied avian groups [6] and, for most species of marshbirds, there is limited information on population levels, breeding ecology, migration patterns and overall habitat requirements [7]. Our work focuses on one marshbird, the sora (Porzana carolina), a species of migratory rail that is a common autumn migrant and is often detected in wetland impoundments managed under a moist soil management scenario [8]. Sora are habitat generalists that forage primarily on seeds throughout autumn migration, which may explain why sora are found in high densities in thick moist soil vegetation in the autumn [9]. However, wetland management decisions, specifically timing of water-level manipulations, directed towards non-breeding waterfowl have unknown consequences on the suitability of stopover habitat for this species. Much of the previous sora autumn migration research has been conducted in Missouri [8], although this previous work was completed on single sites and was based on opportunistic observations. Findings from these studies tend to indicate that sora use habitat based more on water conditions and plant structure rather than specific plant species [9–12]. Sora were detected during autumn migration in shallowly inundated (2–45 cm) habitats dominated by annual, seed-producing wetland vegetation, including Panicum, Echinochloa and Bidens spp. [10–12]. Sora have been found in high densities around wetlands that were dewatered (less than 15 cm) in accordance with local irrigation practices during late summer in Colorado, thereby reducing available habitat and concentrating food resources [13]. High densities of sora were also recorded on wetlands inundated (5–15 cm) during the early part of autumn migration (early September) in Missouri [11]. Sora migration in Missouri begins in early August and continues through to late October, with the peak of migration occurring in late September [14]. Our objective was to examine sora habitat use on public wetlands in Missouri during the entire span of their autumn migration under a standardized protocol to help inform wetland managers of the habitat use of sora during autumn migration, and to form a foundation for future work examining wetland management for the full suite of wetland bird species. 2 2. Material and methods 2.2. Surveys We conducted surveys by driving systematic nocturnal transects spaced 30 m apart on ATVs for 3 h each night, starting a half hour after sunset [16]. We spaced these transects based on work by Fournier & Krementz [16] who equipped sora with very high frequency transmitters to examine the behaviour of sora in response to the survey method [16]. They determined that transects spaced 30 m apart were sufficient to avoid double counting [16]. Transects were completed in a serpentine fashion across an entire impoundment, so the length of transect varied with impoundment size [16]. We used a spotlight to scan for flushing, walking or swimming sora, while the observer was slowly moving along the transect on the ATV and took a global positioning system (GPS) location at the point where an individual was first detected. We surveyed in each of 5 years from August through to October and visited each National Wildlife Refuge or Conservation Area four times a year (roughly every two weeks; figure 1 and table 1; electronic supplementary material, table S1). 2.3. Vegetation data We collected habitat data during daylight hours following a night of surveys under an available versus used framework. This approach is commonly carried out in the habitat use literature [17–20] and involves collecting the same kind of habitat data at available points and used points. Available points are defined as random points (randomly distributed within the boundary of the impoundment using the spsample() function in R, [21,22]) within the wetland impoundments surveyed which, together with the GPS points where sora were observed on surveys, allowed us to examine sora habitat use. Sora-used points (i.e. used points) are points where sora were detected, and collectively, these used points represent the habitat used by sora at the time of the survey. We sampled 20 random available points within each wetland impoundment each time the impoundment was surveyed for sora. We sampled vegetation associated with up to 20 sora points within each wetland impoundment each time the impoundment was surveyed; however, if habitat data were collected from less than 20 used points, it was because less than 20 sora were detected the previous night. We placed 25 m diameter plots around each available and sora-used point and, because we were interested in habitat use by individual sora, we considered the plot (available and used) to be the ................................................ Missouri is one of six mid-latitude states in the USA (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio) that suffered greater than 80% loss of their historical wetland acres [1]. To compensate for this degree of wetland loss, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) invested in acquiring and restoring wetland areas distributed geographically across Missouri. These Conservation Areas (public land parcels owned by MDC) and National Wildlife Refuges (public land parcels owned by USFWS) are located within riverine floodplains; seven are associated with mid-size rivers (stream order 6–8) and eight are associated with either the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers. These state and federal properties have served as core areas for the development of regional wetland complexes as wetland development on private land has occurred in close juxtaposition to the public properties. We selected public (i.e. MDC Conservation Areas and USFWS National Wildlife Refuges, figure 1), intensively managed wetland areas from across Missouri, from all wetlands within the state, because of their active moist soil management and historic importance for migrating waterfowl [15]. Areas were chosen (10 total) from wetland complexes in four regions (figure 1; electronic supplementary material, table S1). Regions are areas of two to four National Wildlife Refuges or Conservation Areas that are close to each other and share similar hydrology, surrounding landscape characteristics and weather. Wetland managers assigned to areas selected for surveys were consulted regarding the wetland impoundments under a moist soil management regime, and survey sites were selected from these impoundments. We surveyed moist soil wetland impoundments (a wetland surrounded by a levee, with manual water-level manipulation; 4.5–300 ha in size; mean = 26.5 ha; table 1) using selection criteria based on whether or not we were able to access the impoundment with an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) because some have interior ditches that cannot be crossed, and whether or not we could complete a survey within an hour and a half survey window. rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664 2.1. Study site 3 4 ................................................ rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664 Clarence Cannon NWR Ted Shanks CA BK Leach CA Loess Bluff NWR Nodaway Valley CA Swan Lake NWR Fountain Grove CA 50 Duck Creek CA Otter Slough CA Ten Mile Pond CA 40 30 –120 –100 –80 Figure 1. Study sites in Missouri, USA surveyed for sora during autumn migration 2012–2016. CA: Conservation Area, state land managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation; NWR: National Wildlife Refuge, federal land managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Table 1. Survey start and end dates for each year of autumn surveys of sora (Porzana carolina) in Missouri, USA. year start date end date visits per state property 2012 17 August 7 October 3 visits per federal property number of impoundments number of sora detected 3 40 1895 number of available vegetation points 900 number of sora-used vegetation points 909 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2013 11 August 27 October 3 4 39 1876 1890 624 2014 12 August 22 October 4 4 33 1268 2268 589 2015 12 August 23 October 4 4 33 1063 1710 522 2016 10 August 20 October 4 4 33 1803 2124 664 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... experimental unit (figure 2). We measured water depth at (i) the centre of the plot and (ii) 5 m from the centre in the four cardinal directions (figure 2); we used the mean of these five measurements to characterize water depth. We visually estimated and created a sketch in the field to record the per cent cover of plant groups in each plot and placed them in the following categories: (i) annual moist soil plants, (ii) perennial moist soil plants, (iii) upland vegetation, (iv) woody vegetation, and (v) open areas [23,24]. Annual moist soil plants are those that fall below the water surface at the end of the growing season, including Polygonum spp. and Echinochloa spp. [2]. Perennial moist soil plants are those that stay above the water surface at the end of the growing season, including Typha spp. and Sparganium spp. Woody vegetation was predominantly Salix spp. and Cephalanthus occidentalis. Upland vegetation was composed of a wide suite of terrestrial annual plants, including upland grasses, Solidago spp., Asclepias spp. and Helianthus spp. Open areas are those without any vegetation and could be either bare earth or open water surface. 2.4. Analysis We examined sora habitat use by comparing sora-used versus available habitat plots in a binomial mixed model framework. Our response variable was a binary of whether a point was used (1) or available (0). 25 5 metres 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 metres 20 25 Figure 2. Each habitat plot was 25 m in diameter; the space within this 25 m diameter circle is the area over which the coverage of our vegetation variables was estimated. The five points are the five places where water depth was measured to the nearest centimetre, the centre of the plot, and 5 m away from the centre in each cardinal direction. Our observations of sora among visits were not independent because of the sora’s long stopover duration (40+ days, [25]). Owing to the lack of independence, we nested visit within year in a repeated-measures framework as a part of a binomial mixed model in the R package ‘lme4’ ([18,19], v. 1.1–12, R v. 3.3.2). We included mean water depth squared, and per cent cover of annual moist soil plants, perennial moist soil plants, woody vegetation, upland vegetation and open area, as fixed effects with random effects (random intercepts) of year. We included mean water depth squared because we expected habitat use to increase at some medium depth and decrease thereafter. We include a random effect of year because of the variation in weather and precipitation conditions among years. We considered a fixed-effect coefficient to be significant if the estimated coefficient and its 95% confidence interval did not overlap with 1. All data and code to reproduce these analyses are available in DataDryad [26]. 3. Results We detected 7905 sora during August to October 2012–2016 (for the number of sora detected per year, table 1). We found significant positive use (sora using annual moist soil vegetation at higher percentages than is available; figure 3 and table 2) for annual moist soil vegetation and average water depth squared. On average, sora used water depths approximately 12 cm (yearly averages between 1.5 and 19.1 cm; electronic supplementary material, table S2); on average, sora used annual moist soil vegetation per cent cover of 37% (yearly averages ranging from 21 to 70%; electronic supplementary material, table S2), showing that they are positively using habitat with shallow water depths and annual plant cover. We found significant negative use (sora using lower percentages than available) with upland vegetation, woody vegetation and open areas (figure 3 and table 2; electronic supplementary material, table S2). We found no significant relationship with the rate at which sora used locations characterized as perennial moist soil vegetation (6.2% average sora used; electronic supplementary material, table S2). 4. Discussion Sora are often considered to be a habitat generalist among the rails [8], and our findings support this portrayal. Although we found sora in a wide variety of water depths (dry to over 50 cm) that speaks to their adaptability, including their ability to swim and dive [27], most sora used shallow water depths when available. The median water depth used by sora was similar to the depth typically associated with the breeding season [28], deeper than previous autumn migration work [3,10–12] and overlaps with that used by migratory teal during autumn migration [3,29]. Other rails (Virginia rail, Rallus limicola and yellow rail, Coturnicops noveboracensis) use drier habitats during autumn migration [30]. Our work supports previous characterizations of sora autumn migration habitat, which showed selection for annual seed-producing plants, with seeds being their primary autumn food source, in combination with tall dense cover [10,31]. Sora diet diversifies in the spring and includes a higher proportion of aquatic invertebrates [8]; this shift is probably in preparation for the breeding season when proteins, lipids and minerals are needed for egg production [32,33] and other life-history events (i.e. ................................................ 15 rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664 20 6 1.44 *** 0.99 perennial moist soil vegetation woody vegetation open water ................................................ 1.07 *** water2 upland vegetation rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664 annual moist soil vegetation 0.80 *** 0.71 *** 0.70 *** 0.75 1.00 1.25 fixed effect coefficient 1.50 Figure 3. Fixed effects coefficients from binomial mixed models comparing sora (Porzana carolina) used versus available habitat from wetland impoundments surveyed during 2012–2016 in Missouri, USA. Line represents the 95% confidence interval around the point. *** indicates a significant difference because the 95% confidence interval does not overlap 1. Items to the left of the dotted line showed negative selection (selected less often than available); items to the right showed positive selection (selected more often than available). Table 2. Model results of binomial mixed model comparing sora (Porzana carolina) used habitat points with available points from moist soil wetlands in Missouri, USA from 2012 to 2016. p-value covariate estimate standard error intercept −1.26 0.28 <0.001 open −0.40 0.04 <0.001 upland −0.30 0.04 <0.001 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... perennial 0.002 0.03 0.94 average water depth squared 0.05 0.01 <0.001 annual moist soil vegetation 0.28 0.05 <0.001 woody vegetation −0.38 0.04 <0.001 random effects visit nested within year variance 1.01 standard deviation 1.006 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... year 0.01 0.113 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... molting). Similarly, a shift in sora habitat use occurs in spring as plant structure and cover for nesting and raising young become more important, whereas during autumn migration plants that provide the greatest energetic resources (i.e. seeds) are needed. Many of the wetland impoundments we surveyed were largely dry during our first visits in early August. While sora are selecting deeper water when it is present, it is not widely available early in the autumn migration season. The limited area of inundated wetlands could impact the quality of autumn 5n7t4) [26]. Authors’ contributions. A.M.V.F. conducted the fieldwork, did the data analysis, drafted the first version of this paper and led the writing of the manuscript. D.C.M. helped obtain funding, assisted with fieldwork, gave input on the data analysis and helped with the writing of the manuscript. D.G.K. helped obtain funding, gave input on the data analysis and helped with the writing of the manuscript. Competing interests. We have no competing interests. Funding. A.M.V.F. was supported by a combination of US Fish and Wildlife Service, Missouri Department of Conservation and University of Arkansas funds during her PhD. D.C.M. is a full-time employee of the Missouri Department of Conservation. D.G.K. was, at the time of this work, a full-time employee of the US Geological Survey, now retired. Acknowledgements. Special thanks are expressed to M. Boone, L. Brinkman, D. Datlof, J. Fournier, J. Lehman, H. Pavisich and N. Seeger for their diligent work in the field. Thanks are also expressed to E. Lawton and A. Bond for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. Any use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. References 1. Dahl TE. 2011 Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009, 108 pp. Washington, DC: US Dep. Inter. Fish Wildl. Serv. 2. Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, Laroe ET. 1970 Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior; 1979 p. 79. Report No. December 1979. See http://www.charttiff.com/pub/WetlandMaps/ Cowardin.pdf. 3. Fredrickson LH, Taylor TS. 1982 Management of seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. USFWS, p. 3. See https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ publication/rp148. 4. Conway CJ. 2011 Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocol. Waterbirds 34, 319–346. (doi:10.1675/063.034.0307) 5. Conway CJ, Gibbs JPJ. 2011 Summary of intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting detection probability of marsh birds. Wetlands 31, 403–411. (doi:10.1007/ s13157-011-0155-x) 6. Valente JJ, King SL, Wilson RR. 2011 Distribution and habitat associations of breeding secretive marsh birds in Louisiana’s Mississippi alluvial valley. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Wetlands 31, 1–10. (doi:10.1007/s13157-0100138-3) Eddleman WR, Knopf FL, Meanley B, Reid FA, Zembal R. 1988 Conservation of North American Rallids. Wilson Bull. 100, 458–475. Melvin SM, Gibbs JP. 2012 Sora (Porzana carolina), v. 2. In The birds of North America (ed. AF Poole). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. See https:// doi.org/10.2173/bna.250. Rundle WD, Sayre MW. 1983 Feeding ecology of migrant soras in southeastern Missouri. J. Wildl. Manag. 47, 1153–1159. (doi:10.2307/3808182) Sayre MW, Rundle WD. 1984 Comparison of habitat use by migrant soras and Virginia rails. J. Wildl. Manag. 48, 599–605. (doi:10.2307/3801198) Rundle WD, Fredrickson LH. 1981 Managing seasonally flooded impoundments for migrant rails and shorebirds. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 9, 80–87. Reid FA. 1989 Differential habitat use by waterbirds in a managed wetland complex. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Griese HJ, Ryder RA, Braun CE. 1980 Spatial and temporal distribution of rails in Colorado. Wilson Bull. 92, 96–102. 14. Fournier AMV, Mengel DC, Gbur EE, Krementz DG. 2017 The timing of autumn sora (Porzana carolina) migration in Missouri. Wilson J. Ornithol. 129, 675–770. 15. Babcock KM, Wentz WA. 2014 Waterfowl hunting and wetland conservation in Missouri: a model of collaboration, 480 p. Marceline, MO: Walsworth Publishing Company. 16. Fournier AMV, Krementz DG. 2017 Nocturnal distance sampling all-terrain vehicle surveys for non-breeding rails. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 41, 151–157. (doi:10.1002/wsb.745) 17. Arthur SM, Manly BFJ, Mcdonald LL, Garner GW. 1996 Assessing habitat selection when availability changes. Ecology 77, 215–227. (doi:10.2307/ 2265671) 18. Jones JJ. 2001 Habitat selection studies in avian ecology: a critical review. Auk 118, 557–562. (doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2001)118[0557:HSSIAE] 2.0.CO;2) 19. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FK. 2002 Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol. Model. 157, 281–300. (doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(02) 00200-4) ................................................ Ethics. All work was covered by IACUC protocol nos 13044 and 15023 from the University of Arkansas. Data accessibility. Our data and associated analysis scripts are publicly available here (http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad. 7 rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664 stopover habitat by affecting the ability of sora to obtain resources needed to continue migrating. Gries et al. [13] and Rundle & Fredrickson [11] also found that sora congregated around flooded areas early in autumn migration. Sora have long stopovers during autumn migration [25], often over 40 days, suggesting habitat quality during that stopover is very important. Frequently, the timing of managed moist soil wetland flooding is directed at meeting the needs of migratory waterfowl, which migrate later in the autumn, and hence may not meet the needs of sora because of the mismatch in timing [14,34]. The large-scale loss of palustrine wetlands makes science-based management of remaining wetlands of special concern. The timing of management actions is critical to provide suitable habitat when it is needed by multiple species, including rails, waterfowl, other waterbirds, reptiles and amphibians [11,35]. Here, we present a solid foundation to support future research and management of wetland habitats by understanding habitat use of one migratory wetland bird, which complements similar efforts for other species (i.e. waterfowl and shorebirds). This project was conducted at a broad scale among multiple areas and highlights a potential gap between sora habitat needs during autumn migration and timing of managed water-level manipulations. We suggest future research that is conducted at a finer resolution scale that can focus more closely on the within area and/or within impoundment resources made available by management actions. This combined with the information from this project will enable public land managers to more thoughtfully consider the trade-offs involved when considering multiple objectives aimed at multiple wetland-dependent species and various stakeholder groups. 30. Fournier AMV, Mengel DC, Krementz DG. 2017 Virginia and yellow rail autumn migration ecology: synthesis using multiple data sets. Anim. Migr. 4, 15–22. (doi:10.1515/ami-2017-0003) 31. Meanley. 1960 Fall food of the sora rail in the Arkansas rice fields. J. Wildl. Manag. 24, 339. 32. Fredrickson LH, Reid FA. 1988 Nutritional values of waterfowl foods, pp. 1–6. Fish and wildlife leaflet 13.1.1. See https://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/ wmh/wmh.pdf. 33. Gammonley JH, Fredrickson LH. 1995 Life history and management of the blue-winged teal. Waterfowl Manag. Handb. See https:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmwfm/39. 34. Bellrose FC. 1980 Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole. 35. Kross CS, Richter SC. 2016 Species interactions in constructed wetlands result in population sinks for wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) while benefitting eastern newts (Notophthalmus viridescens). Wetlands 36, 385–393. (doi:10.1007/s13157-0160751-x) 8 ................................................ 25. Haramis GM, Kearns GD. 2007 Soras in tidal marsh: banding and telemetry studies on the Patuxent river, Maryland. Waterbirds 30, 105–121. (doi:10.1675/1524-4695(2007)030[0105:SITMBA] 2.0.CO;2) 26. Fournier A, Mengel D, Krementz D. 2018 Data from: Sora (Porzana carolina) autumn migration habitat use. Dryad Digital Repository. (http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5061/dryad.5n7t4) 27. Fournier AMV, Krementz DG. In press. Confirmation of diving and swimming behavior in the sora (Porzana carolina). Wilson J. Ornithol. 28. Johnson RR, Dinsmore JJ. 1986 Habitat use by breeding Virginia rails and soras. J. Wildl. Manag. 50, 387–392. (doi:10.2307/3801092) 29. Taft OW, Colwell MA, Isola CR, Safran RJ. 2002 Waterbird responses to experimental drawdown: implications for the multispecies management of wetland mosaics. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 987–1001. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00763.x) rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171664 20. Manly B, McDonald L, Thomas D, McDonald T, Erickson W. 2002 Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 21. R Core Team. 2017 R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project. org/. 22. Pebesma EJ, Bivand RS. 2005 Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News. 5, (2). See http://cran. r-project.org/doc/Rnews. 23. Darrah AJ, Krementz DG. 2010 Occupancy and habitat use of the least bittern and pied-billed grebe in the Illinois and upper Mississippi river valleys. Waterbirds 33, 367–375. (doi:10.1675/063. 033.0314) 24. Darrah AJ, Krementz DG. 2011 Habitat use of nesting and brood-rearing king rails in the Illinois and upper Mississippi river valleys. Waterbirds 34, 160–167. (doi:10.1675/063.034.0204)