platforms

on

Twenty years ago colleagues and I published a paper showing that artificial nesting platforms increase loon’s hatching success by 70%. Others have reported similar patterns. So there is no doubt that, on average, loons that incubate their eggs on artificial nesting platforms (“ANPs”) put more chicks in the lake than do pairs using natural sites. Moreover, our paper showed that greater hatching success produced by ANPs also leads to more fledged loons.

In the last two decades, ANPs have become an enticing tool used by loon conservationists to boost loon populations. This is not surprising. ANPs have proven to be effective, and they are rather easy to make and place in the water. So conservationists can plop a mess of ANPs in the water and feel pretty confident that they have added young loons to the population. And they can make a strong case to funding agencies that their actions might help loons avoid population decline. Indeed, many millions have been/are being spent in the U.S. to float ANPs as a means to mitigate the negative effects that oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico have had on the species.

Are ANPs really just as good as natural sites at producing young loons that reach adulthood? Or are platform-raised chicks not as likely to survive to fledging age as chicks hatched as natural sites? We must remember that loons pick the location of a natural nest, whereas humans choose the site where platforms go. So it seems quite plausible that platform-raised young face hazards that natural-raised young do not.

It is only now that I have large enough samples of nests from platforms and natural sites that I can run a head-to-head comparison. Despite my 32 years of Wisconsin data, only a small proportion of loons in the Wisconsin Study Area (e.g. 15 of 90 focal pairs in 2024; 17%) nested on platforms. In Minnesota, however, almost half of all of our focal pairs use ANPs (38 of 84 territorial pairs in 2024; 45%), so our sample of platform-hatched chicks has swollen markedly since 2021.

As the graph above shows, hatchlings from platforms are lost slightly more often than are natural-hatched chicks in both states. While the pattern shows up in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, the difference is quite small and does not reach statistical significance. In other words, we have no scientific evidence that chicks hatched on platforms suffer lower survival than those hatched at natural sites. The same can be said for chick loss in Wisconsin versus Minnesota, despite what appears to be a slightly higher rate of chick loss in the North Star State.

Frankly, I am relieved! It has become almost de rigueur to place an ANP in your lake to support the loons. If, for some reason, ANPs had been producing chicks likely to perish before reaching adulthood, it would have sent shockwaves through the world of loon conservation.

I am still not a great fan of nesting platforms. Why not? Because we have learned in recent years that nest predation is not the main problem loons are facing in the Upper Midwest. Remember, nesting platforms are a one-trick pony. They increase hatching success enormously and put more chicks in the water. But if chicks cannot get enough food to survive to adulthood or reach prime condition, then all of the platforms in the world will not help them.

on

The pattern is stark. As you can see from the graph below, loon pairs using artificial nesting platforms have produced a much higher rate of fledged chicks in the Wisconsin Study Area than in the Minnesota Study Area. The pattern was especially dramatic in 2021, when Wisconsin platform pairs reared twice as many chicks per platform as Minnesota pairs. But to compare study areas on the basis of a single year is unwise. Moreover, 2021 was a dreadful year for black flies in north-central Minnesota; most Minnesota nests started in May of last year were abandoned because of the blood-sucking pests. The current year provides a better comparison because flies were not severe in either state. Yet even when we carry out this “apples to apples” comparison by looking only at 2022 data, Wisconsin platforms look far more productive than their Minnesota counterparts. How can this be?

Let’s be very clear on one point. Lake residents in both Minnesota and Wisconsin are moving heaven and earth to help loons. Indeed, folks in both states who float platforms for loons commonly shift them from a first spot to a second and even a third, if doing so keeps nests safe from mammalian egg predators, eagles, waves, and curious humans. It makes no sense to suppose that Wisconsinites are better or more committed platform monitors than Minnesotans.

How then might we explain this curious cross-state disparity in platform success? Perhaps the difference can be attributed to lake size. Since more of the platforms that we study in Minnesota are found on large lakes, the lower rate of fledged chick production from platforms in Minnesota might simply result from higher wind and boat exposure on large lakes, not any state-to-state difference. Lake size, however, cannot explain better platform outcomes in Wisconsin. As the graph below illustrates, the proportion of hatched chicks that actually survives to fledging age is higher in Wisconsin both on large and small lakes. Furthermore, survival of hatchlings is, in general, a bit higher on large than small lakes. So having more large lakes in a sample should increase fledging success, not decrease it.

The new graph does shed some light on the platform pattern. Chicks seem to fledge better in Wisconsin at least in part because more hatched chicks make it to adult size. That is, part of the reason for greater fledging success at Wisconsin platform nests is high chick survival, not necessarily high nest survival.

Could it be that platforms are somewhat overused in Minnesota? In the past two years, 67 of 141 Minnesota nests (48%) but only 43 of 195 Wisconsin nests (22%) have been placed on platforms. Maybe in their zeal to support the state bird, some Minnesotans have lured loons to nest on lakes or parts of lakes that are unsuitable for rearing chicks. At present, this is only one speculative hypothesis to explain the rather low fledged chick production of Minnesota platforms. But it is certainly worthy of investigation. *

————————————————————

Featured photo by Woody Hagge

_________________________________

*I must quickly note that most platforms in Minnesota seem well-placed. Some clearly provide loons an opportunity to nest in locations that lack nesting habitat but where food is plentiful. Such locations are perfect for platforms and must help the loon population produce more chicks than it would otherwise.