Skip to Main Content
Table 2

Research achievements and gaps (At-A-Glance) regarding Kirtland’s warblers in the context of the telecoupling framework and example conservation actions based on the information from filling the gaps (see text for details). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.184.t2

Components of telecoupling framework (Liu et al., 2013)Telecoupling components with regard to Kirtland’s warblersSpecific telecoupling components that are already studiedResearch gaps (Specific telecoupling components that are not studied yet) (examples of conservation actions based on the information from filling the gaps)

 
Sending systems Breeding sites in Michigan 
  • Environmental characteristics, locations of core breeding habitat, impacts of management on habitat suitability

 
1. Sustainable habitat management options post-delisting (Include socioeconomics in proactive planning measures for most likely management needs such as funding
Receiving systems Wintering sites in the Bahamas 
  • Environmental characteristics, habitat occupied by Kirtland’s warblers on Eleuthera Island

  • Habitat created by goat farming to manage habitat for Kirtland’s warblers on Eleuthera Island

 
2. Habitat occupied by Kirtland’s warblers throughout the Bahamas (Develop measures to conserve the habitat and surrounding areas)
3. Habitat created by goat farming for Kirtland’s warblers throughout the Bahamas (Manage goat farming to maximize warbler habitat)
4. Sustainable habitat management options post-delisting (Include socioeconomics in proactive planning measures for most likely management needs
Spillover systems Stopover sites and other relevant places (e.g., origins of tourists to see Kirtland’s warblers and Brown-headed cowbird wintering and stopover sites) 
  • General pathway for migration of Kirtland’s warblers

  • Environmental characteristics of Brown-headed cowbird wintering habitats

 
5. Specific locations and environmental as well as socioeconomic characteristics of migratory stopover sites each year (Conserve these specific stopover sites)
6. Other areas affect or are affected by information on Kirtland’s warblers (e.g., tourist hometowns) (Motivate more support from tourists to benefit the warbler)
7. Sustainable habitat management options post-delisting(Take proactive measures to plan for most likely management needs)
8. Environmental characteristics of Brown-headed cowbird migratory stopover sites (Develop most effective measures to control the cowbird)
9. Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of Brown-headed cowbird continental scale control methods (Take measures to prevent or reduce the impacts of control methods
Agents Kirtland’s warblers, Brown-headed cowbirds, Government agencies,NGOs, and other public/private organizations that affect Kirtland’s warblers, farmers,tourists 
  • Government agencies and NGOs in sending systems such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, Huron Pines, Arbor Day Foundation collaborate with one another to conserve the Kirtland’s warbler in the sending system

  • Government agencies and NGO’s in receiving systems such as The Bahamas Ministry of the Environment, Bahamas National Trust, The Bahamas Ministry of Tourism, and The Nature Conservancy work together on conservation issues in the receiving system.

  • Agents from sending and receiving systems work together on shared warbler conservation issues in both systems.

  • Tourists view warblers in the sending system in Michigan.

  • Goat farmers affect warbler habitat in the receiving system in the Bahamas.

 
10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Migratory Birds Division,eastern flyway state government agencies are found in spillover systems but aren’t engaged in Kirtland’s warbler conservation (Engage these agents and promote cooperation between them and other agents)
11. Role of tourists and landowners in spillover systems is unknown (Engage those agents in stopover areas together those in sending and receiving systems)
12. Institutional frameworks and dynamics among multi-agency collaborations have not been analyzed in detail (Promote good collaboration among different agencies within and between systems
Flows Movement of Kirtland’s warblers, energy, information, materials and money between systems 
  • Initial qualitative studies of movement of energy via Kirtland’s warblers between wintering and breeding sites

  • Initial studies of movement of money between agents of recovery program and local communities

  • Initial qualitative studies on movement of money from spillover systems (e.g., Tourists pay for tours and spend money in local economies in sending and receiving systems)

 
13. Numbers of Kirtland’s warblers lost during each season of annual cycle (Develop measures to reduce the loss of warblers)
14. Movement of information/materials between sending (or receiving) system and spillover systems (Develop measures to manage the flows between systems that affect the warbler)
15. Quantitative studies of movement of energy via Kirtland’s warblers between wintering and breeding systems (Improve habitat quality to ensure sufficient energy intake by the warbler)
16. Further studies of movement of money between agents of recovery program and local communities (Provide adequate conservation incentives for local communities)
17. Quantitative studies on movement of money from spillover systems (e.g., Tourists pay for tours and spend money in local economies in sending and receiving systems) (Promote financial contribution from spillover systems for conservation)
18. Movement of money from sending and receiving systems to spillover systems (e.g., via government agencies or NGOs) (Take measures to maximize the benefit of the money to the warbler
Causes Socioeconomic and environmental factors affecting Kirtland’s warblers across Michigan, Bahamas, stopover sites, and other spillover systems 
  • Kirtland’s warbler migration for food/habitat availability

  • Increased drought intensity reduces Kirtland’s warbler breeding success

  • Impacts of brood parasitism by Brown-headed cowbirds

  • Impacts of land conversion, tourism, and timber harvesting on warblers in sending systems

  • Impacts of information spread on tourism

  • Interagency cooperation within sending and receiving systems

 
19. Impacts of land conversion, tourism, and timber harvesting on warblers in receiving and spillover systems
20. Magnitudes of interaction (environmental and socioeconomic) of climate change and human disturbances on food and habitat availability for Kirtland’s warblers (Take adaptive conservation measures in response to interaction effects between climate change and human disturbances)
21. Magnitudes of interaction (environmental and socioeconomic) between Kirtland’s warblers and Brown-headed cowbirds on continental scale (spillover and sending systems) (Control the cowbird in spillover and sending systems)
22. Spread of information on Kirtland’s warblers with technological advances in sending, receiving, and spillover systems (Coordinate conservation across sending, receiving, and spillover systems) 
Effects Socioeconomic and environmental effects on Michigan, Bahamas,stop-over sites, and other spillover systems; feedbacks among systems 
  • Seed dispersal by migrating Kirtland’s warblers

  • Changes in habitat management by private landowners in sending and receiving systems to promote conservation

  • Creation of tourism and education programs in the sending and receiving systems

  • Feedbacks between conservation efforts in the sending system and goat management in the receiving system

 
23. Magnitudes and relative strengths of socioeconomic and environmental effects on spillover systems (Regulate the effects on spillover systems to enhance conservation in sending and receiving systems)
24. Feedbacks between spillover systems and both sending and receiving systems (Develop new policies based on habitat quality in receiving/spillover systems
Components of telecoupling framework (Liu et al., 2013)Telecoupling components with regard to Kirtland’s warblersSpecific telecoupling components that are already studiedResearch gaps (Specific telecoupling components that are not studied yet) (examples of conservation actions based on the information from filling the gaps)

 
Sending systems Breeding sites in Michigan 
  • Environmental characteristics, locations of core breeding habitat, impacts of management on habitat suitability

 
1. Sustainable habitat management options post-delisting (Include socioeconomics in proactive planning measures for most likely management needs such as funding
Receiving systems Wintering sites in the Bahamas 
  • Environmental characteristics, habitat occupied by Kirtland’s warblers on Eleuthera Island

  • Habitat created by goat farming to manage habitat for Kirtland’s warblers on Eleuthera Island

 
2. Habitat occupied by Kirtland’s warblers throughout the Bahamas (Develop measures to conserve the habitat and surrounding areas)
3. Habitat created by goat farming for Kirtland’s warblers throughout the Bahamas (Manage goat farming to maximize warbler habitat)
4. Sustainable habitat management options post-delisting (Include socioeconomics in proactive planning measures for most likely management needs
Spillover systems Stopover sites and other relevant places (e.g., origins of tourists to see Kirtland’s warblers and Brown-headed cowbird wintering and stopover sites) 
  • General pathway for migration of Kirtland’s warblers

  • Environmental characteristics of Brown-headed cowbird wintering habitats

 
5. Specific locations and environmental as well as socioeconomic characteristics of migratory stopover sites each year (Conserve these specific stopover sites)
6. Other areas affect or are affected by information on Kirtland’s warblers (e.g., tourist hometowns) (Motivate more support from tourists to benefit the warbler)
7. Sustainable habitat management options post-delisting(Take proactive measures to plan for most likely management needs)
8. Environmental characteristics of Brown-headed cowbird migratory stopover sites (Develop most effective measures to control the cowbird)
9. Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of Brown-headed cowbird continental scale control methods (Take measures to prevent or reduce the impacts of control methods
Agents Kirtland’s warblers, Brown-headed cowbirds, Government agencies,NGOs, and other public/private organizations that affect Kirtland’s warblers, farmers,tourists 
  • Government agencies and NGOs in sending systems such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, Huron Pines, Arbor Day Foundation collaborate with one another to conserve the Kirtland’s warbler in the sending system

  • Government agencies and NGO’s in receiving systems such as The Bahamas Ministry of the Environment, Bahamas National Trust, The Bahamas Ministry of Tourism, and The Nature Conservancy work together on conservation issues in the receiving system.

  • Agents from sending and receiving systems work together on shared warbler conservation issues in both systems.

  • Tourists view warblers in the sending system in Michigan.

  • Goat farmers affect warbler habitat in the receiving system in the Bahamas.

 
10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Migratory Birds Division,eastern flyway state government agencies are found in spillover systems but aren’t engaged in Kirtland’s warbler conservation (Engage these agents and promote cooperation between them and other agents)
11. Role of tourists and landowners in spillover systems is unknown (Engage those agents in stopover areas together those in sending and receiving systems)
12. Institutional frameworks and dynamics among multi-agency collaborations have not been analyzed in detail (Promote good collaboration among different agencies within and between systems
Flows Movement of Kirtland’s warblers, energy, information, materials and money between systems 
  • Initial qualitative studies of movement of energy via Kirtland’s warblers between wintering and breeding sites

  • Initial studies of movement of money between agents of recovery program and local communities

  • Initial qualitative studies on movement of money from spillover systems (e.g., Tourists pay for tours and spend money in local economies in sending and receiving systems)

 
13. Numbers of Kirtland’s warblers lost during each season of annual cycle (Develop measures to reduce the loss of warblers)
14. Movement of information/materials between sending (or receiving) system and spillover systems (Develop measures to manage the flows between systems that affect the warbler)
15. Quantitative studies of movement of energy via Kirtland’s warblers between wintering and breeding systems (Improve habitat quality to ensure sufficient energy intake by the warbler)
16. Further studies of movement of money between agents of recovery program and local communities (Provide adequate conservation incentives for local communities)
17. Quantitative studies on movement of money from spillover systems (e.g., Tourists pay for tours and spend money in local economies in sending and receiving systems) (Promote financial contribution from spillover systems for conservation)
18. Movement of money from sending and receiving systems to spillover systems (e.g., via government agencies or NGOs) (Take measures to maximize the benefit of the money to the warbler
Causes Socioeconomic and environmental factors affecting Kirtland’s warblers across Michigan, Bahamas, stopover sites, and other spillover systems 
  • Kirtland’s warbler migration for food/habitat availability

  • Increased drought intensity reduces Kirtland’s warbler breeding success

  • Impacts of brood parasitism by Brown-headed cowbirds

  • Impacts of land conversion, tourism, and timber harvesting on warblers in sending systems

  • Impacts of information spread on tourism

  • Interagency cooperation within sending and receiving systems

 
19. Impacts of land conversion, tourism, and timber harvesting on warblers in receiving and spillover systems
20. Magnitudes of interaction (environmental and socioeconomic) of climate change and human disturbances on food and habitat availability for Kirtland’s warblers (Take adaptive conservation measures in response to interaction effects between climate change and human disturbances)
21. Magnitudes of interaction (environmental and socioeconomic) between Kirtland’s warblers and Brown-headed cowbirds on continental scale (spillover and sending systems) (Control the cowbird in spillover and sending systems)
22. Spread of information on Kirtland’s warblers with technological advances in sending, receiving, and spillover systems (Coordinate conservation across sending, receiving, and spillover systems) 
Effects Socioeconomic and environmental effects on Michigan, Bahamas,stop-over sites, and other spillover systems; feedbacks among systems 
  • Seed dispersal by migrating Kirtland’s warblers

  • Changes in habitat management by private landowners in sending and receiving systems to promote conservation

  • Creation of tourism and education programs in the sending and receiving systems

  • Feedbacks between conservation efforts in the sending system and goat management in the receiving system

 
23. Magnitudes and relative strengths of socioeconomic and environmental effects on spillover systems (Regulate the effects on spillover systems to enhance conservation in sending and receiving systems)
24. Feedbacks between spillover systems and both sending and receiving systems (Develop new policies based on habitat quality in receiving/spillover systems
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal