WHOOPING CRANE NEST BUILDING IN SOUTHWEST INDIANA

Abstract

The first documented case of whooping crane (Grus americana) nest building in Indiana is described. During spring 2015, a pair of whooping cranes did not leave their wintering grounds in Gibson County, Indiana, to return to their summering area in Wisconsin. Three nest platforms were discovered after the death of the female crane. To date, this is the only documented example of a whooping crane pair in the reintroduced Eastern Migratory Population (EMP) building nest platforms outside of Wisconsin. Although fidelity to the core nesting areas in Wisconsin is strong, and natal dispersal is usually <30 km, this example from Indiana shows that whooping cranes in the EMP may have the potential to pioneer nesting areas far outside of core reintroduction areas. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CRANE WORKSHOP 15:128-133

Full text

128
WHOOPING CRANE NEST BUILDING IN SOUTHWEST INDIANA
AMY J. KEARNS,1 Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife Mitchell Field Office, 562 DNR Road, Mitchell, IN 47446, USA
HILLARY L. THOMPSON, International Crane Foundation, E11376 Shady Lane Road, Baraboo, WI 53913, USA
ALLISYN-MARIE T. Y. GILLET, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife Bloomington Field Office, 5596 E State Route 46,
Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
Abstract: The rst documented case of whooping crane (Grus americana) nest building in Indiana is described. During spring
2015, a pair of whooping cranes did not leave their wintering grounds in Gibson County, Indiana, to return to their summering
area in Wisconsin. Three nest platforms were discovered after the death of the female crane. To date, this is the only documented
example of a whooping crane pair in the reintroduced Eastern Migratory Population (EMP) building nest platforms outside
of Wisconsin. Although delity to the core nesting areas in Wisconsin is strong, and natal dispersal is usually <30 km, this
example from Indiana shows that whooping cranes in the EMP may have the potential to pioneer nesting areas far outside of
core reintroduction areas.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CRANE WORKSHOP 15:128-133
Key words: breeding outside core range, Eastern Migratory Population, Grus americana, Indiana, nest building,
nest platform, whooping crane.
The native range of the whooping crane (Grus
americana) includes the state of Indiana, for which a
small number of early historical records exist (Allen
1952, Austin et al. 2019). Butler (1898) was convinced
that whooping cranes nested in the Grand Kankakee
Marsh in northwestern Indiana before it was drained in
the late 1800s. Despite this, no breeding evidence from
Indiana has been described, and whooping cranes were
extirpated from the state and the eastern United States
by the early 1900s (Allen 1952, Mumford and Keller
1984). In 2001 a reintroduction eort began releasing
captive-reared whooping cranes into the wild with the
goal of establishing an Eastern Migratory Population
(EMP) of whooping cranes nesting in Wisconsin and
migrating through Indiana on their route to wintering
areas in Florida (Urbanek et al. 2014a). Beginning
in 2007, some individuals from this population
demonstrated shortstopping, or wintering north of
Florida, and as of 2021, one-third of the population
spent at least 3 months of the nonbreeding season in
Indiana (Urbanek et al. 2014a, Teitelbaum et al. 2016,
Thompson et al. 2022).
In April 2015, a pair of whooping cranes did not
migrate north to Wisconsin but stayed in their wintering
area in southwestern Indiana. These birds built 3 nest
platforms in the area prior to the death of the female
crane. We describe the rst evidence of whooping
crane nest building in Indiana and the rst record of
a whooping crane pair from the EMP building nest
platforms outside of Wisconsin.
The whooping cranes described herein (male 12-
09 and female 14-09) were costume-reared in 2009 at
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland and
trained to migrate south in fall by following an ultralight
aircraft from Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),
Wisconsin, to St. Marks NWR, Florida (Urbanek et al.
2014a). Before their release, both cranes were banded
with a unique combination of colored leg bands and a
VHF radio transmitter (Advanced Telemetry Systems,
Isanti, MN, USA) so that their movements could be
monitored. Before spring 2015, neither crane had
been conrmed nesting, although the female and her
previous mate built nest platforms in Wisconsin in the
spring of 2012 and 2013, but with no evidence of eggs.
The crane pair began associating and formed a pair
bond during fall 2014, then spent most of the winter at
Tern Bar Slough Wildlife Diversity Area (herein, Tern
Bar Slough), a remote 340-ha prairie-wetland complex
in Gibson County that is owned and managed by the
Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Whooping cranes usually depart southern Indiana
in March and begin to lay eggs in Wisconsin in late
March and early April (Urbanek et al. 2010b, Thompson
et al. 2022); however, on 30 March 2015, the pair was
observed in a remote area of Tern Bar Slough. Because
of their presence past the typical migratory window
and the availability of suitable nesting habitat, no crane
observations were made in the weeks after this date to
avoid disturbing the pair during the sensitive period
1 E-mail: akearns@dnr.IN.gov

Proc. North Am. Crane Workshop 15:2022 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS 129
early in the nesting cycle. The whooping crane pair was
seen at Tern Bar Slough again on 16 April 2015, but
then on 20 April the male was observed there alone,
making repeated alarm calls.
On 22 and 29 April, searches on foot were
conducted for the missing female and any evidence
of nesting activity. During the rst search, the male
behaved conspicuously, ying circles around the large
wetland complex and alarm calling regularly; however,
on 29 April he was not vocalizing and his behavior
appeared normal. In the remote area where the pair
had been seen in March and April, 1 nest platform was
found on 22 April and the carcass of the female and
other 2 nest platforms were found on 29 April (Figs.
1-3). The nest platforms were spaced over a ~2.78-
ha area, in shallow water (18-23 cm), and densely
constructed from standing dead sedges (Cyperaceae).
Nest platform dimensions were measured at water
level, where the surface of the water met the main mass
of vegetation from each platform. Mean dimensions
of the nest platforms were 125×207 cm. An estimated
6-m area around each nest platform was mostly cleared
of vegetation, creating a halo-like eect. The area
beyond the rst 2 nest platforms was mostly open,
consisting of standing dead sedges and few scattered
small cottonwood (Populus deltoides) saplings (Figs.
1-2); however, the third nest platform was in a small
open area surrounded by young cottonwoods. Unlike
the rst 2 nest platforms that were at across the top,
the surface material of this third platform was clumped
and displaced (Fig. 3). No eggs or eggshell fragments
were found; however, the water surrounding the nest
platform was turbid and no underwater search by feel
was conducted. About a dozen scattered white feathers
in the water around the nest platform led to the carcass
of the female submerged in shallow water 6.4 m north
of the third platform. The head and upper two-thirds
of the neck were missing, but the rest of the skeleton
was intact and unbroken, and the remiges were still
attached. The bands and nonfunctional radio transmitter
remained on the legs.
Based on the earlier observations of the cranes and
the state of the carcass, the death was estimated to have
occurred on 17 or 18 April. A necropsy was conducted
by the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife
Health Center and the nal report indicated predation
or scavenging of the carcass. A more detailed analysis
could not be completed due to the poor condition of the
carcass (Lankton 2015).
On 4 May 2015, the male crane was observed
at Necedah NWR, Wisconsin, on traditional EMP
whooping crane breeding grounds; however, by 26
May he had returned to the area around Tern Bar
Slough where he remained for 11 months until at least
4 April 2016. In 2016 and subsequent years, the male
summered in Juneau County, Wisconsin, and continued
to spend much of the winter around Tern Bar Slough.
Annually since 2012, one-third of the EMP has
spent 3 or more months of the nonbreeding season
in Indiana (Urbanek et al. 2014a, Teitelbaum et al.
2016, Thompson et al. 2022). Important wintering
habitat for whooping cranes in Indiana includes private
agricultural elds and protected wetlands, including
Jasper-Pulaski Fish and Wildlife Area (FWA), Goose
Pond FWA, Muscatatuck NWR, the Cane Ridge
Wildlife Management Area (WMA) of Patoka River
NWR, and Tern Bar Slough (Thompson 2018; WCEP,
unpublished data). Cane Ridge WMA and Tern Bar
Slough are adjacent properties in a remote area just
east of the Wabash River. This area seasonally oods
and is surrounded by approximately 7,500 ha of
agricultural lands, restored wetlands, borrow pits, and
an aboveground freshwater reservoir. Although sandhill
cranes (Grus canadensis) are sporadically found in this
area in winter, they typically depart for their northern
breeding grounds by the end of March, and there are
no known nesting records within 80 km (Castrale et
al. 1998, Castrale and Gillet 2022, eBird 2022, A. J.
Kearns, personal observation).
The habitat surrounding the Indiana whooping
crane nest platforms is congruent with that of historic
nest records described in Allen (1952), as well as
nests observed in the EMP and other whooping crane
populations in modern times (Timoney 1999, Strobel
and Giorgi 2017, Barzen 2019). These 3 nest platforms
were found in the remote interior of a 528-ha shallow
water emergent wetland complex that is closed to public
access; therefore, human disturbance at this site is rare.
The nearest road is infrequently traveled and 565-770 m
from the nest platform locations, and the interior of the
wetland where the platforms were located is obscured
by vegetation and topography and not visible from the
road.
The 3 nest platforms found at Tern Bar Slough
(Figs.1-3) are comparable to whooping crane nests
observed elsewhere, including on the breeding grounds
of the EMP in Wisconsin. Water depth at the nest
platforms was shallow with a mean depth of 20.33 cm,

130 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS Proc. North Am. Crane Workshop 15:2022
Figure 1. One of 3 nest platforms built by whooping cranes in southwestern Indiana. This nest was in 23 cm of shallow water and
measured 124 × 236 cm at water level.
Figure 2. One of 3 nest platforms built by whooping cranes in southwestern Indiana. This nest was in 20 cm of shallow water and
measured 150 × 142 cm at water level. The remains of an American coot (Fulica americana) were on the nest.

Proc. North Am. Crane Workshop 15:2022 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS 131
which is somewhat shallower than mean water depth
around nests observed at Necedah NWR (33 cm; Strobel
and Giorgi 2017), in Florida (29.11 cm; Dellinger 2019),
and at Wood Bualo National Park (25.4 cm; Kuyt
1981). The size and shape of the Tern Bar Slough nest
platforms resemble those described in other accounts of
whooping crane nests in Wood Bualo National Park
(Walkinshaw 1973) and Wisconsin (H. L. Thompson,
unpublished data). Like nest platforms described in
other accounts, surrounding vegetation was broken or
pulled up at the roots, leaving a narrow halo (5-7 m) of
cleared space around each nest platform (Allen 1952,
Walkinshaw 1973). Furthermore, the pair built 3 nest
platforms, which is not unusual for whooping cranes,
which occasionally build more than 1 nest platform
before egg laying (Folk et al. 2005, Urbanek and Lewis
2020).
Although no eggs or eggshells were recovered
at Tern Bar Slough, it is possible that the female had
laid eggs. The approximate date of the female’s death
was 17 or 18 April, by which most of the whooping
crane pairs in the EMP have laid eggs (Urbanek et al.
2014b, Thompson et al. 2022). At 6 years old, this pair
of whooping cranes was sexually mature and capable
of producing eggs. In the EMP of whooping cranes,
a female usually lays her rst egg at age 3 or 4 years
(mean 3.92 years, Urbanek et al. 2010a; 3.7 ± 0.2 years,
Thompson et al. 2021).
In this example from Indiana, a pair of whooping
cranes built 3 nest platforms more than 650 km south
of their reintroduction area at Necedah NWR. Although
the habitat at Tern Bar Slough closely resembles nest
site descriptions found in Allen (1952), there are
no other records of whooping crane pairs with nest
platforms, eggs, or chicks in Indiana or the neighboring
states of Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan (Allen 1952,
Austin et al. 2019). This is likely due to strong natal
philopatry to breeding areas caused by innate homing,
low population sizes, and abundant available nesting
habitat in core areas (Johns et al. 2005, Urbanek et al.
2014b). However, despite these inherent barriers, this
example provides evidence that young pioneering pairs
from the EMP could establish breeding sites in suitable
habitat far outside of their known historic nesting range
or areas of reintroduction, particularly if the population
grows.
Figure 3: One of 3 nest platforms built by whooping cranes in southwestern Indiana. This nest was in 18 cm of shallow water and
measured 109 × 234 cm at water level. The carcass of the female whooping crane was submerged beneath shallow water 6.4 m
north of this nest (circled area).

132 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS Proc. North Am. Crane Workshop 15:2022
Other species of birds have successfully expanded
their nesting range through the initial eorts of
pioneering individuals (Johnson 1994, Winkler et
al. 2017), including the related greater sandhill crane
(Grus canadensis tabida), which has recolonized
much of its historic nesting range in the Midwest
(Meine and Archibald 1996). Furthermore, there are
recent examples of long-distance natal dispersal in
reintroduced populations of whooping cranes. During
springs 2016-2021 a breeding pair from the EMP
nested in far northwestern Wisconsin, 306 and 358 km
from the male’s and female’s respective natal areas
(Thompson et al. 2021). In addition, in springs 2020-
2021, a male whooping crane nested with a sandhill
crane in southern Michigan, 414 km from his natal site
(Thompson et al. 2022). Lastly, in spring 2021 2 pairs
of whooping cranes from the Louisiana Non-migratory
Population nested in Texas, 152 and 173 km from their
respective natal site in Louisiana (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2021; E. K. Szyszkoski, Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries, personal communication). All
of these whooping cranes were successful at hatching
chicks despite the long distance between their natal and
nesting areas. Although the occurrence would be rare,
it seems likely that another young pair of whooping
cranes from the EMP will attempt to nest outside of
Wisconsin.
Wetlands are essential habitat for whooping cranes
and many other imperiled species. Within the historic
range of the whooping crane, wetlands have been
destroyed on a massive scale. For example, over 85% of
Indiana’s wetlands have been lost in the last 200 years
(Indiana Department of Environmental Management
2021). In the face of current threats such as climate
change, land development, and human population
growth, more wetlands on public and private land
should be restored and protected.
If whooping cranes are not limited to nesting in
historical or reintroduction areas, then there are nesting
opportunities available to this imperiled species where
large blocks of productive emergent marsh remain within
their range. Conservationists and property managers
in areas like these, especially when the areas host
whooping cranes for extended periods during summer,
winter, and migration, should consider the possibility
that whooping cranes could nest and should prioritize
these sites, so they are protected from development and
disturbance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to E. Szyszkoski, S. Giord, J. Pohl, and
H. Ray for sharing their observations and information
about the whooping cranes (12-09 and 14-09). Thank
you to N. Gordon, the editors, and an anonymous
reviewer for their feedback on an earlier version of
this manuscript. The observations gathered in the eld
and time writing this manuscript were funded by the
federal State Wildlife Grant Program and the Indiana
Nongame Wildlife Fund. Thank you to all who donate
to the Indiana Nongame Wildlife Fund to help make
this essential work possible.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, R. P. 1952. The whooping crane. National Audubon
Society Research Report 3. National Audubon Society,
New York, New York, USA.
Austin, J. E., M. A. Hayes, and J. A. Barzen. 2019. Revisiting
the historic distribution and habitats of the whooping
crane. Pages 25-88 in J. B. French, Jr., S. J. Converse,
and J. E. Austin, editors. Whooping cranes: biology and
conservation. Biodiversity of the world: conservation
from genes to landscapes. Academic Press, San Diego,
California, USA.
Barzen, J. A. 2019. Ecological implications of habitat use by
reintroduced and remnant whooping crane populations.
Pages 327-352 in J. B. French, Jr., S. J. Converse, and
J. E. Austin, editors. Whooping cranes: biology and
conservation. Biodiversity of the world: conservation
from genes to landscapes. Academic Press, San Diego,
California, USA.
Butler, A. W. 1898. The birds of Indiana. Pages 515-1187 in
W. S. Blatchley, editor. Twenty-second annual report.
Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources,
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Castrale, J. S., E. M. Hopkins, and C. E. Keller. 1998. Atlas
of breeding birds of Indiana. Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Indianapolis, USA.
Castrale, J. S., and A. T. Y. Gillet. 2022. Second atlas of
breeding birds of Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Indianapolis, USA.
Dellinger, T. A. 2019. Florida’s nonmigratory whooping
cranes. Pages 179-194 in J. B. French Jr., S. J. Converse,
and J. E. Austin, editors. Whooping cranes: biology and
conservation. Biodiversity of the world: conservation
from genes to landscapes. Academic Press, San Diego,
California, USA.

Proc. North Am. Crane Workshop 15:2022 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS 133
eBird. 2022. eBird: an online database of bird distribution
and abundance. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New
York, USA. <http://www.ebird.org>. Accessed 19 Jan
2022.
Folk, M. J., S. A. Nesbitt, S. T. Schwikert, J. A. Schmidt, K.
A. Sullivan, T. J. Miller, S. B. Baynes, and J. M. Parker.
2005. Breeding biology of reintroduced non-migratory
whooping cranes in Florida. Proceedings of the North
American Crane Workshop 9:105-109.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 2021.
Indiana’s wetland resources. <https://www.in.gov/idem/
wetlands/2333.htm>. Accessed 18 Feb 2021.
Johns, B. W., J. P. Goossen, E. Kuyt, and L. Craig-Moore.
2005. Philopatry and dispersal in whooping cranes.
Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop
9:117-125.
Johnson, N. K. 1994. Pioneering and natural expansion of
breeding distributions in western North American birds.
Studies in Avian Biology 15:27-44.
Kuyt, E. 1981. Population status, nest site delity, and
breeding habitat of whooping cranes. Pages 119-225 in
J. C. Lewis and H. Masatomi, editors. Crane research
around the world. International Crane Foundation,
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA.
Lankton, J. S. 2015. Diagnostic services case report 26451.
National Wildlife Health Center, U.S. Geological Survey,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Meine, C. D., and G. W. Archibald, editors. 1996. Sandhill
crane. Pages 103-121 in The cranes: status survey
and conservation action plan. International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland,
Switzerland.
Mumford, R. E., and C. E. Keller. 1984. The birds of Indiana.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA.
Strobel, B. N., and G. F. Giorgi. 2017. Nest-site selection
patterns of coexisting sandhill and whooping cranes in
Wisconsin. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management
8:588-595.
Teitelbaum, C. S., S. J. Converse, W. F. Fagan, K. Bohning-
Gaese, R. B. O’Hara, A. E. Lacy, and T. Mueller. 2016.
Experience drives innovation of new migration patterns
of whooping cranes in response to global change. Nature
Communications 7:12793.
Thompson, H. L. 2018. Characteristics of whooping
crane home ranges during the nonbreeding season in
the Eastern Migratory Population. Thesis, Clemson
University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Thompson, H. L., A. J. Caven, M. A. Hayes, and A. E.
Lacy. 2021. Natal dispersal of whooping cranes in the
reintroduced eastern migratory population. Ecology and
Evolution 11:12630-12638.
Thompson, H. L., N. M. Gordon, D. P. Bolt, J. R. Lee, and E.
K. Szyszkoski. 2022. Twenty-year status of the eastern
migratory whooping crane reintroduction. Proceedings
of the North American Crane Workshop 15:34-52.
Timoney, K. 1999. The habitat of nesting whooping cranes.
Biological Conservation 89:189-197.
Urbanek, R. P., L. E. A. Fondow, and S. E. Zimorski.
2010a. Survival, reproduction, and movements of
migratory whooping cranes during the rst seven years
of reintroduction. Proceedings of the North American
Crane Workshop 11:124-132.
Urbanek, R. P., S. E. Zimorski, A. M. Fasoli, and E. K.
Szyszkoski. 2010b. Nest desertion in a reintroduced
population of migratory whooping cranes. Proceedings
of the North American Crane Workshop 11:133-141.
Urbanek, R. P., E. K. Szyszkoski, and S. E. Zimorski. 2014a.
Winter distribution dynamics and implications to a
reintroduced population of migratory whooping cranes.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 5:340-362.
Urbanek, R. P., S. E. Zimorski, E. K. Szyszkoski, and M.
M. Wellington. 2014b. Ten-year status of the eastern
migratory whooping crane reintroduction. Proceedings
of the North American Crane Workshop 12:33-42.
Urbanek, R. P., and J. C. Lewis. 2020. Whooping crane.
Version 1.0 in Poole, A. F., editor. Birds of the world.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA.
<https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/whocra/>.
Accessed 23 Dec 2020.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Historic rst as whooping
cranes found nesting in Texas. Press release. <https://
www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=historic-
first-as-whooping-cranes-found-nesting-in-texas&_
ID=36885&Source=iframe>. Accessed 19 Oct 2021.
Walkinshaw, L. H. 1973. Cranes of the world. Winchester
Press, New York, New York, USA.
Winkler, D. W., F. A. Gandoy, J. I. Areta, M. J. Ili, E.
Rakhimberdiev, K. J. Kardynal, and K. A. Hobson. 2017.
Long-distance range expansion and rapid adjustment
of migration in a newly established population of
barn swallows breeding in Argentina. Current Biology
27:1080-1084.