" http-equiv=Content-Type>

Waterfowl and Wetlands of Long Point Bay and Old Norfolk County

7.0 Wetland Dynamics on the Long Point Bay

Previous chapters have dealt quite extensively with human impacts on the health of the Long Point Bay ecosystem and associated wetlands. This chapter deals solely with actual wetland loss at Long Point and the ecological implications of this loss.

7.1 Relative importance of Long Point for staging and breeding waterfowl:

Figure 7.1 Distribution of Major Waterfowl Habitat Complexes along the Great Lakes Coasts.

Figure 7.2 Long Point Bay - Ownership and Location of Hunting Clubs.

Table 7.1 Average Number of Waterfowl Use-days (X 1,000) in Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands During Spring (S) and Fall (F) Migration. Adapted from Prince et al. 1992.

Table 7.2 Estimated Number of Breeding Pairs of Dabbling Ducks in Major Coastal Wetland Complexes of the Great Lakes. Adapted from Prince et al. 1992.

Some of the greatest values for coastal wetlands lie in their habitat potential for migratory waterfowl (Smith et al. 1991). Consequently it is of great concern that coastal wetland loss on the Great Lakes has been substantial, with only about 20-25% of the original wetland area of western Lake Ontario remaining (Whillans 1982). Over 95% of western Lake Erie's coastal wetlands have been lost (Herdendorf 1987), and what little remains of the existing wetlands continues to receive pressure from accelerating coastal development.

Despite the drastic decline in availability of wetlands in the last half century, the Great Lakes region continues to supply essential staging habitat for migrating ducks, geese and swans. In fact, 15 coastal Great Lakes wetlands have been identified as key staging areas for migratory waterfowl (Figure 7.1)(Prince et al. 1992). Long Point receives the highest combined spring and fall waterfowl use of the 15 identified key coastal wetlands (Table 7.1). This extensive use by migratory ducks, geese and swans can be attributed to Long Point's unique southerly location, as well as the fact that it, unlike most other coastal wetlands, has not been extensively drained or reclaimed for human use. The importance of Long Point is reinforced by the fact that the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan has listed the wetlands associated with Long Point as a priority for securement (EHJV 1994).

Figure 7.1 Distribution of Major Waterfowl Habitat Complexes along the Great Lakes Coasts.

1. Chequamegon Bay 2. Portage Entry 3. Bay de Noc 4. Green Bay 5. West Michigan 6. St. Mary's River 7. Georgian Bay 8. Saginaw Bay 9. St. Clair Delta 10. Detroit River 11. Southwest Lake Erie 12. Point Pelee/Rondeau Bay 13. Long Point 14. Southcentral Lake Ontario 15. Northeast Lake Ontario. From Prince et al. 1992.

Table 7.1 Average Number of Waterfowl Use-days (X 1,000) in Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands During Spring (S) and Fall (F) Migration. Adapted from Prince et al. 1992.

Region-Location Number on figure 7.1 Year(s) of survey Swans Geese Ducks Total waterfowl
Lake Superior
    Chequamegon Bay *a (1) 1970 S 0 0 60 60
    1970 F 0 0 2 2
    Portage Entry (2) No data        
Lake Michigan
    Bay de Noc *b (3) 1984-86 F 0 51 82 133
    Green Bay *c (4) 1977 F     828 828
    West Michigan *d (5) 1974 F 1 12 514 527
Lake Huron
    St. Marys River *e (6) 1979-84 F 0 25 519 544
    Georgian Bay (7) No data        
    Saginaw Bay *f,g (8) 1967-77 S 44 413 864 1,321
Lake St. Clair
    St. Clair River and Delta (Can.) *h (9) 1977 S 135 378 1,148 1,661
  1976 F 12 673 6,402 7,087
    St. Clair River and Delta (U.S.) *f,i (9) 1974 S 55 0 386 441
    1976 F 21 0 1,525 1,546
    Detroit River (10) 1980 S 1 49 324 374
    1979 F 0 160 1,199 1,359
Lake Erie
    Southwest Lake Erie *b,d,j (11) 1980-90 F 1 1,120 8,400 9,521
    Point Pelee/Rondeau Bay *h (12) 1973 S 16 34 482 532
    1972 F 2 4 626 632
    Long Point *h (13) 1978-79 S 10 147 2,092 3,059
    1977-78 F 24 328 7,986 8,338
Lake Ontario
    SC Lake Ontario *d (14) 1986-87 F 0 154 666 820
    NE Lake Ontario *h (15) 1976 S 0 113 1,298 1,141
    1970-71 F 0 9 2,663 2,672

*a Herdendorf et al. 1981f, *b Unpubl. Data, Michigan DNR files, *c Bookhout et al. 1989, *d Herdendorf et al. 1981e, *e Duffy et al. 1987, *f Jaworski and Raphael 1978, *g Herdendorf et al. 1981d, *h Dennis et al. 1984, *i Herdendorf et al. 1986, *j G.M. Tori, Ohio DNR, 1991 personal communication. See Prince et al. 1992 for citations. See Prince et al. 1992 for references listed above.

The two most common nesting species at Long Point are Mallard and Blue-winged Teal, (McCracken et al. 1981), while Redheads also irregularly breed in Great Lakes coastal wetlands (Reeves 1991a). The Black Duck probably once was the most common nesting duck at Long Point (Snyder 1931); unfortunately it probably no longer breeds in the area (Prince et al. 1992). The low reproductive success of waterfowl at Long Point has been attributed to intense predation on eggs and young (Munroe 1965). However, in terms of continental waterfowl production, Great Lakes coastal wetlands have probably always been of relatively minor importance because the region is on the periphery of the breeding range of many species (Prince et al. 1992).

Also, it has been suggested that frequent and substantial water level fluctuations on the Great Lakes (see Chapter 2) tend to flood out nearshore and overwater nests (Prince et al. 1992). Consequently, Long Point probably never was an important breeding area for waterfowl. Thus, while Long Point is the most important of the 15 identified key Great Lakes wetlands from a staging aspect, it is one of the least important from a waterfowl reproduction standpoint (Table 7.2). Also, with the occasional exception of Wood Ducks, molting waterfowl have not been reported at Long Point in large numbers (D. Dennis, CWS, 1992 personal communication, from Prince et al. 1992).

Table 7.2 Estimated Number of Breeding Pairs of Dabbling Ducks in Major Coastal Wetland Complexes of the Great Lakes. Adapted from Prince et al. 1992.

Region-Location Wetland number No. of major wetlands Total area (ha) % of total Breeding Pairs *a % of total Pairs per ha
Lake Superior
    Chequamegon Bay (1) 2 4,170 4 1,600 6 0.38
    Portage Entry (2) 1 3,300 3 1,300 5 0.39
Lake Michigan
    Bay de Noc (3) 4 7,720 7 2,500 9 0.32
    Green Bay (4) 9 9,980 9 3,400 12 0.34
    West Michigan *d (5) 4 10,690 10 3,400 12 0.32
Lake Huron
    St. Marys River (6) 10 3,970 4 400 1 0.10
    Georgian Bay (7)   12,600 11 2,100 7 0.17
    Saginaw Bay (8) 2 12,140 11 4,400 16 0.36
Lake St. Clair
    St. Clair River and Delta (9) 5 17,500 16 4,400 16 0.25
    Detroit River (10) 0 *b 1,380 1 100 0 0.07
Lake Erie
    Southwest Lake Erie (11) 7 5,890 5 1,000 3 0.17
    Point Pelee/Rondeau Bay (12) 5 3,580 3 150 2 0.04
    Long Point (13) 3 11,490 10 500 7 0.04
Lake Ontario
    SC Lake Ontario (14) 4 1,340 1 200 1 0.15
    NE Lake Ontario (15)   6,000 5 1,000 3 0.17
Grand Total 111,750 100 26,450 100 0.24

*a Estimates were derived directly from breeding pair survey data in specific coastal wetlands for the following areas: Portage Entry, Bay de Noc, West Michigan, Saginaw Bay and St. Clair Delta (Jaworski and Raphael 1978; Herdendorf et al. 1981d,e); St. Marys River (Duffy et al. 1987); and southwest Lake Erie (Urban 1970, Hunt and Mickelson 1976, Herdendorf et al. 1981c). Estimates for Georgian Bay, Point Pelee/Rondeau Bay, Long Point and Northeast Lake Ontario are based on the average density of breeding pairs in southern Ontario (Dennis 1974). Estimates for Detroit River, Point Pelee/Rondeau Bay, and Long Point are based on Dennis, D.G., CWS, 1991, personal communication. Estimates presented for Chequamegon Bay, Green Bay, and southcentral Lake Ontario are approximations based on data from coastal wetlands that are located along the same lakes. *b No large wetlands remain in the Detroit River; total area of 31 small wetlands in and along the river and Canard River Marshes is reported. See Prince et al. 1992 for references listed above.


Back to Long Point Biosphere publications index