American Woodcock Symposium

Assessment of the American Woodcock Singing-Ground Survey Zone Timing and Coverage

Joseph D. Moore

Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Biological Science, University of Arkansas

Thomas R. Cooper

Migratory Bird Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rebecca Rau

Population and Habitat Assessment Branch, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

David E. Andersen

U.S. Geological Survey, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Jeffrey P. Duguay

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

C. Alan Stewart

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

David G. Krementz

U.S. Geological Survey, Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24926/AWS.0124

---

Abstract

The American woodcock (Scolopax minor; hereafter, woodcock) Singing-Ground Survey (SGS) was developed to inform management decisions by monitoring changes in the relative abundance of woodcock. The timing of the designated survey windows was designed to count resident woodcock while minimizing counting of migrating woodcock. Since the implementation of the SGS in 1968, concerns over survey protocols that may bias data have been raised and investigated; however, the extent of survey coverage and the timing of the survey window zones have not been critically investigated. We used 3 years of data collected from male and female woodcock marked with satellite tags to assess the extent of survey coverage and the timing of the SGS survey windows relative to presence of woodcock. SGS coverage encompassed the majority of woodcock breeding-period sites (locations where marked woodcock returned to in spring) within the U.S. (n = 17, 92%) and approximately half of the breeding-period sites in Canada (n = 6, 43%). Thirteen of the 37 monitored woodcock with known breeding-period site arrival dates (35%) were migrating through a survey zone during an active survey window, all in the northernmost 4 of 5 SGS zones. Thirteen woodcock arrived at breeding-period sites after the start of surveys, and all but one of these was located in the northernmost 2 zones. The combination of migration through a SGS zone during the survey window and arrival at breeding-period sites after the beginning of the survey window in northern zones may result in the SGS weighing too heavily the contribution of routes in the southern portion of the primary breeding range, while weighing too lightly the routes in the northern portion of the primary breeding range. We suggest that additional information is necessary to evaluate whether current survey windows are sufficient, or whether they need to be changed.