DOCSLIB.ORG

Fall Migration Ecology of American Woodcock in the Central Region of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fall Migration Ecology of American Woodcock in the Central Region of the United States FALL MIGRATION ECOLOGY OF AMERICAN WOODCOCK IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF THE UNITED STATES FALL MIGRATION ECOLOGY OF AMERICAN WOODCOCK IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF THE UNITED STATES A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science By NICHOLAS ANTHONY MYATT, B.S. Northland College, 2002 August 2004 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for Recommendation to the Graduate Council Thesis Director: ______________________ David G. Krementz Thesis Committee: ______________________ W. Fredrick Limp ______________________ Kimberly G. Smith THESIS DUPLICATION RELEASE I hereby authorize the University of Arkansas Libraries to duplicate this thesis when needed for research and/or scholarship. Agreed___________________________ Refused__________________________ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone who made my research possible. Dr. David Krementz, my major advisor, provided advice and support throughout my project, as well as provided me with an excellent start to a career in wildlife management and ecology. Dr. Fred Limp and Dr. Kimberly Smith provided valuable help while serving on my thesis committee. This project was made possible through funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region IV and the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. I especially thank Dr. David Andersen, Dr. Scott Lutz, Dr. John Bruggink, Kevin Doherty, Jed Meunier, Eileen Oppelt and their field crews who captured and radio-marked woodcock, and provided information on departure dates. Housing was provided by Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Two Rivers NWR, Marais de Cygnes NWR, Mingo NWR, Lower Hatchie NWR, and St. Catherine Creek NWR. I would also like to thank my pilot Jimmy Goad for his incredible abilities to withstand endless hours of aerial radio telemetry and for his flexibility to my constantly changing schedule. This project would not have been as enjoyable without the help and support from my fellow graduate students at the Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. I would also like to thank Alicia Korpach who conducted a pilot season before I began at the Co-op Unit. I would not have been able to complete the GIS portions of this project without the technical support of John Wilson. Lastly, I would like to thank my fiancé Jill Babski who has always provided an endless supply of support and put up with my constant absence during many field seasons. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1: Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Literature Cited-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Figures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 CHAPTER 2: Fall migration of American woodcock using Central --------------------- 16 Region band recovery and wing receipt data Abstract----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 Methods ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 Migration Progression -------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Migration Direction and Destination --------------------------------------------- 19 Results------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 Migration Progression -------------------------------------------------------------- 20 Migration Direction and Destination --------------------------------------------- 21 Discussion---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Management Implications---------------------------------------------------------- 24 Literature Cited-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 Figures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27 CHAPTER 3: Fall migration rates, routes, and habitat use of American --------------- 67 woodcock in the Central Region v Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 68 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 Study Area--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72 Methods------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 73 Capture --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73 Telemetry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 74 Habitat---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76 Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 Sample Size---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 Telemetry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 79 Migration Distance ------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 Stopover Duration -------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 Migration Habitat --------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 Winter Habitat------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82 Fall Migration Routes ---------------------------------------------------------------- 82 Potential Habitat Map ---------------------------------------------------------------- 83 Discussion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83 Management Implications --------------------------------------------------------------- 90 Literature Cited --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92 Figures ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97 Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 115 vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The American woodcock, Scolopax minor, is a popular, migratory game bird throughout the eastern half of the United States, annually providing an estimated 3.4 million days of recreational hunting (U.S. Department of Interior 1988). Woodcock population management is separated into two management units, the Eastern and Central Regions (Coon et al. 1977) (Fig. 1). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitors woodcock populations in each region using a series of singing ground surveys that exploit the courtship display of male woodcock on breeding grounds. Each randomly selected survey route is sampled annually during peak seasonal courtship activities. Population indices are calculated using average number of singing woodcock per route, weighted for land area (Tautin et al. 1983). Since annual surveys began in 1968, population indices have annually declined 2.3% in the Eastern Region and 1.8% in the Central Region (Kelley 2003). Breeding population indices were the lowest in 1997 in the Central Region and 1995 in the Eastern Region (Kelley 2003). Widespread habitat alteration and loss caused by human development and forest succession are thought to be the primary causes of woodcock population declines. In the northeastern United States, hardwood seedling-sapling stand area has decreased by 26% over the last 20 years (Desseckar and Pursglove 2000). Furthermore, the total area of aspen (Populus spp.) forest in Minnesota, Michigan and 1 Wisconsin has decreased by 21% since the mid-1960s (Desseckar and Pursglove 2000). In the U. S., the largest concentration of bottomland hardwood forest, primary woodcock wintering habitat, occurs in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). Until the 1930s, the MAV has remained largely untouched and undeveloped due to seasonal flooding. Extensive reduction and degradation has taken place since that time, largely due to water control, which was followed by land clearing (Newling 1990). From the 1950s to 1970s, bottomland hardwood forests were lost at a rate exceeding 120,000 ha per year (MacDonald et al. 1979). Of the original 10 million hectares of bottomland hardwood forest in the MAV, 7.2 million hectares have been cleared for agriculture (King and Keeland 1999). Although hunting is not considered to be a major cause of woodcock population declines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service restricted hunting in the Eastern Region in 1985, with additional restrictions in the Eastern and Central Regions in 1998 (Woehr 1999). These restrictions included a reduction from a 65- day hunting season and a 5-bird limit to 45 days in the Central Region and 30 days in the Eastern Region, each with a 3-bird limit (Kelley 2003). Woodcock population indices continue to decline despite reductions in season length and daily bag limit. Little research has been conducted on the fall migration ecology of this species. Although the timing of departure from the breeding grounds and arrival on the wintering grounds has been documented, little is known about what happens during the migration period. To effectively manage woodcock, managers need to consider fall migration habitat use, timing, and routes. 2 The woodcock range is restricted to the eastern half of North America south of the Taiga (Keppie and Whitting 1994). In the Central Region, woodcock primarily breed in the states and provinces surrounding the Great Lakes, but woodcock have been documented breeding in low densities as far south as Louisiana. Woodcock primarily over-winter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Growth and Development of Long-Billed Curlew Chicks
    April 1973] General Notes 435 Pitelka and Donald L. Beaver critically read the manuscript. This work was con- ducted under the I.B.P. Analysis of Ecosystems-TundraProgram and supported by a grant to F. A. Pitelka from the National ScienceFoundation.--THo•rAs W. CUSTrR, Department o! Zoology and Museum o! Vertebrate Zoology, University o! California, Berkeley,California 94720. Accepted9 May 72. Growth and development of Long-billed Curlew chicks.--Compared with the altricial nestlings of passerinesand the semiprecocialyoung of gulls, few studies of the growth and developmentof the precocialchicks of the Charadrii have been made (Pettingill, 1970: 378). In Europe, yon Frisch (1958, 1959) describedthe develop- ment of behavior in 14 plovers and sandpipers. Davis (1943) and Nice (1962) have reported on the growth of Killdeer (Charadriusvociferus), Nice (1962) on the Spotted Sandpiper (Actiris macularia), and Webster (1942) on the growth and development of plumages in the Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). Pettingill (1936) studiedthe atypical AmericanWoodcock (Philohelaminor). Among the curlews, Genus Numenius, only the Eurasian Curlew (N. arquata) has been studied (von Frisch, 1956). Becauseof the scant knowledgeabout the development of the youngin the Charadriiand the scarcityof informationon all aspectsof the breeding biology of the Long-billed Curlew (N. americanus) (Palmer, 1967), I believe that the following data on the growth and development of Long-billed Curlew chicks are relevant. I took four eggs,one being pipped, from a nest 10 miles west of Brigham City, Box Elder County, Utah, on 24 May 1966. One egg was preservedimmediately for additional study, the others I placed in a 4' X 3' X 2' cardboard box with a 60-watt lamp for warmth in a vacant room in my home until they hatched.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruffed Grouse and American Woodcock Status in Michigan, 2017
    Printed by Authority of: P.A. 451 of 1994 Total Number of Copies Printed: 207 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Cost per Copy:................................$0.84 Wildlife Report No. 3642 Total Cost: ................................... $174.00 September 2017 Michigan Department of Natural Resources RUFFED GROUSE AND AMERICAN WOODCOCK STATUS IN MICHIGAN, 2017 C. Alan Stewart and Lori Sargent ABSTRACT Hunter cooperator surveys, spring breeding surveys, and mail harvest surveys are conducted each year to monitor Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) and American woodcock (Scolopax minor) populations. Annual data comparisons are described for hunter cooperator survey (2015–2016), Ruffed grouse drumming survey (2015-2016), American woodcock spring breeding surveys (2016-2017), and mail harvest survey (2010-2011). Ruffed grouse cooperators hunting the first 4 days of ruffed grouse season reported an average 1.93 grouse per hour in 2016 compared to 0.91 grouse per hour in 2015. The usual spring drumming grouse surveys were not conducted this year because of concerns over past open records requests from a hunter whose activities jeopardized the validity of the survey. There was an increase detected in Michigan’s woodcock index based on the singing-ground survey from 2016-2017 and during the ten-year trend from 2007-2017. Significant long-term (1968-2017) declines were detected regionally and statewide, respectively. Woodcock banders in Michigan spent 1,950 hours afield in 2017 and banded 937 chicks. There were about 67 chicks observed and 48 chicks banded per 100 hours of search time, compared to 66 chicks observed and 49 banded in 2016. There were 112 ruffed grouse drumming routes surveyed in 2015 and 105 in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Conflict Between Migratory Birds and Electricity Power Grids in the African-Eurasian Region
    CMS CONVENTION ON Distribution: General MIGRATORY UNEP/CMS/Inf.10.38/ Rev.1 SPECIES 11 November 2011 Original: English TENTH MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Bergen, 20-25 November 2011 Agenda Item 19 REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN MIGRATORY BIRDS AND ELECTRICITY POWER GRIDS IN THE AFRICAN-EURASIAN REGION (Prepared by Bureau Waardenburg for AEWA and CMS) Pursuant to the recommendation of the 37 th Meeting of the Standing Committee, the AEWA and CMS Secretariats commissioned Bureau Waardenburg to undertake a review of the conflict between migratory birds and electricity power grids in the African-Eurasian region, as well as of available mitigation measures and their effectiveness. Their report is presented in this information document and an executive summary is also provided as document UNEP/CMS/Conf.10.29. A Resolution on power lines and migratory birds is also tabled for COP as UNEP/CMS/Resolution10.11. For reasons of economy, documents are printed in a limited number, and will not be distributed at the meeting. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copy to the meeting and not to request additional copies. The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) REVIEW OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN MIGRATORY BIRDS AND ELECTRICITY POWER GRIDS IN THE AFRICAN-EURASIAN REGION Funded by AEWA’s cooperation-partner, RWE RR NSG, which has developed the method for fitting bird protection markings to overhead lines by helicopter. Produced by Bureau Waardenburg Boere Conservation Consultancy STRIX Ambiente e Inovação Endangered Wildlife Trust – Wildlife & Energy Program Compiled by: Hein Prinsen 1, Gerard Boere 2, Nadine Píres 3 & Jon Smallie 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Migration Timing, Routes, and Connectivity of Eurasian Woodcock Wintering in Britain and Ireland
    Migration Timing, Routes, and Connectivity of Eurasian Woodcock Wintering in Britain and Ireland ANDREW N. HOODLESS,1 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF, UK CHRISTOPHER J. HEWARD, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF, UK ABSTRACT Migration represents a critical time in the annual cycle of Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), with poten- tial consequences for individual fitness and survival. In October–December, Eurasian woodcock migrate from breeding grounds in northern Eurasia over thousands of kilometres to western Europe, returning in March–May. The species is widely hunted in Europe, with 2.3–3.5 million individuals shot per year; hence, an understanding of the timing of migra- tion and routes taken is an essential part of developing sustainable flyway management. Our aims were to determine the timing and migration routes of Eurasian woodcock wintering in Britain and Ireland, and to assess the degree of connec- tivity between breeding and wintering sites. We present data from 52 Eurasian woodcock fitted with satellite tags in late winter 2012–2016, which indicate that the timing of spring departure varied annually and was positively correlated with temperature, with a mean departure date of 26 March (± 1.4 days SE). Spring migration distances averaged 2,851 ± 165 km (SE), with individuals typically making 5 stopovers. The majority of our sample of tagged Eurasian woodcock migrated to breeding sites in northwestern Russia (54%), with smaller proportions breeding in Denmark, Scandinavia, and Finland (29%); Poland, Latvia, and Belarus (9.5%); and central Russia (7.5%). The accumulated migration routes of tagged individ- uals suggest a main flyway for Eurasian woodcock wintering in Britain and Ireland through Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, and then dividing to pass through the countries immediately north and south of the Baltic Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruffed Grouse
    Ruffed Grouse Photo Courtesy of the Ruffed Grouse Society Introduction The ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) is North America’s most widely distributed game bird. As a very popular game species, the grouse is in the same family as the wild turkey, quail and pheasant. They range from Alaska to Georgia including 34 states and all the Canadian provinces. Historically in Indiana, its range included the forested regions of the state. Today the range is limited to the south central and southeastern 1/3 of the state in the southern hill country, with a few pockets in counties bordering Michigan. Ruffed grouse weigh between 1 and 1.5 pounds and grow to 17 inches in length with a 22-inch wingspan. They exhibit color phases with northern range birds being reddish-brown to gray while those in the southern part of their continental range, including Indiana, are red. History and Current Status Before settlement, grouse populations ranged throughout the hardwood region of the state. In areas where timber was permanently removed for farms, homes and towns grouse habitat has been lost. During the early1900’s, many farms in the south-central portion of Indiana were abandoned. As a result of this farm abandonment, the vegetation around old home sites and in the fallow fields grew through early plant succession stages. About the same time, the reforestation era began as abandoned farms reverted into public ownership under the management of state and federal natural resource agencies. By the 1950’s, natural succession, reforestation, and timber harvest management were beginning to form a myriad of early successional forest patches across a fairly contiguous forested landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Priority Information Needs for American Woodcock a FUNDING STRATEGY
    Priority Information Needs for American Woodcock A FUNDING STRATEGY Developed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Support Task Force. March 15, 2010 D.J. Case and Associates (editor). 2010. Priority Information Needs for American Woodcock: A Funding Strategy. Developed for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies by the Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Support Task Force. 16pp. Priority Information Needs for American Woodcock A Funding Strategy Developed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Support Task Force Compiled and Edited by David J. Case and Sarah J. Sanders D.J. Case & Associates March 15, 2010 Photo credits: Top row: left by Rucker Sewell; right by paco lypic Second row: CC Chapman Third row: Ren West Fourth row: atlantic life Illustration of American woodcock by Bob Hines, USFWS Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary . i Introduction . 1 Status of American Woodcock. 1 Priority Information Needs . 6 Priority 1. Develop a demographic-based model for assessing American woodcock population response to harvest and habitat management . 6 Priority 2. Develop communication strategies to increase support for policies and practices that benefit American woodcock and other wildlife of young forests . 7 Priority 3. Improve understanding of migration, breeding, and wintering habitat quality for American woodcock . 9 Priority 4. Improve the Singing-ground Survey . 11 Measuring Success . 13 Literature Cited . 15 Appendix A: 2009 Workshop Participants . 16 Figure 1. American woodcock management regions, breeding range, and Singing-ground Survey coverage and winter range . 2 Figure 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Tringa Melanoleuca (Greater Yellowlegs)
    Maine 2015 Wildlife Action Plan Revision Report Date: January 13, 2016 Tringa melanoleuca (Greater Yellowlegs) Priority 3 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Class: Aves (Birds) Order: Charadriiformes (Plovers, Sandpipers, And Allies) Family: Scolopacidae (Curlews, Dowitchers, Godwits, Knots, Phalaropes, Sandpipers, Snipe, Yellowlegs, And Woodcock) General comments: Considered stable range wide, considered species of low or moderate concern by US Shorebird Conservation Plan however due to vulnerability to climate change considered priority 3. Listed as "Species of Least Concern" by U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan Partnership - 2015. Species Conservation Range Maps for Greater Yellowlegs: Town Map: Tringa melanoleuca_Towns.pdf Subwatershed Map: Tringa melanoleuca_HUC12.pdf SGCN Priority Ranking - Designation Criteria: Risk of Extirpation: NA State Special Concern or NMFS Species of Concern: NA Recent Significant Declines: NA Regional Endemic: NA High Regional Conservation Priority: NA High Climate Change Vulnerability: Vulnerability: 3, Confidence: Medium, Reviewers: Decided in Workshop (W) Understudied rare taxa: NA Historical: NA Culturally Significant: NA Habitats Assigned to Greater Yellowlegs: Formation Name Cliff & Rock Macrogroup Name Rocky Coast Formation Name Freshwater Marsh Macrogroup Name Emergent Marsh Macrogroup Name Modified-Managed Marsh Formation Name Intertidal Macrogroup Name Intertidal Gravel Shore Macrogroup Name Intertidal Mudflat Macrogroup Name Intertidal Sandy Shore Stressors Assigned to Greater Yellowlegs:
    [Show full text]
  • Survival Rates of Russian Woodcocks
    Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Wetlands International Woodcock and Snipe Specialist Group Survival rates of Russian Woodcocks Isabelle Bauthian, Museum national d’histoire naturelle, Centre de recherches sur la biologie des populations d’oiseaux, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] Ivan Iljinsky, State University of St Petersburg, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Sergei Fokin, State Informational-Analytical Center of Game Animals and Environment Group. Woodcock, Teterinsky Lane, 18, build. 8, 109004 Moscow, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Romain Julliard, Museum national d’histoire naturelle, Centre de recherches sur la biologie des populations d’oiseaux, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] François Gossmann, Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage, 53 rue Russeil, 44 000 Nantes, France. E-mail: [email protected] Yves Ferrand, Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage, BP 20 - 78612 Le-Perray-en-Yvelines Cedex, France. E-mail: [email protected] We analysed 324 recoveries from 2,817 Russian Woodcocks ringed as adult or yearling in two areas in Russia (Moscow and St Petersburg). We suspected that birds belonging to these two areas may experience different hunting pressure or climatic conditions, and thus exhibit different demographic parameters. To test this hypothesis, we analysed spatial and temporal distribution of recoveries, and performed a ringing-recovery analysis to estimate possible survival differences between these two areas. We used methods developed by Brownie et al. in 1985. We found differences in temporal variations of the age ratio between the two ringing areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Woodcock Bob Or Rock--And Why?
    October1982] ShortCommunications 791 ß 1981. Microgeographicvariation in the song tories of North American Cardinals,grosbeaks, of the SageSparrow. Condor 83: 113-119. buntings,towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies row: spatialand random aspects.Wilson Bull. (O. L. Austin, Jr., Ed.). U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 92: 425-438. 237, part 2. ROBB•S, C. S. 1970. Recommendationsfor an in- W•E•s, J. A. 1969. An approachto the study of ternational standard for a mapping method in ecologicalrelationships among grassland birds. bird census work. Audubon Field Notes 24: 723- Ornithol. Monogr. 8. 726. Received18 January 1982, accepted 12 April 1982. WAL•CI•SHAW,L. H. 1968. Spizellapusilla pusilla: EasternField Sparrow. Pp. 1217-1235in Life his- Does the Woodcock Bob or Rock--and Why? WILLIAM H. MARSHALL 7248 OakmontDrive, SantaRosa, California 95405 USA Details of the behavior of the American Woodcock worm from the surface,probed deeply to pull out a (Philohelaminor), other than thoseof the mating dis- large worm, or extractedan insectfrom under a leaf. play, are little known. Undisturbedbirds fly only for The head was well forward and held slightly to one brief periods in twilight and are almostalways well side with the tip of the bill 3 cm or less above the concealedwhile on the ground. Woodcockmay be- surface.Sometimes progress was brokenby repeated comeconspicuous, however, when they feed in open rocking in one place, and, lessoften, the bird stood areasduring daylight hours. motionless for several minutes. On two such occasions,I observed the repetitious On 4 April 1974,I watchedanother bird for 45 rain body motionsof undisturbedbirds from a largewin- in the samearea during the middle of the afternoon.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife in Your Young Forest.Pdf
    WILDLIFE IN YOUR Young Forest 1 More Wildlife in Your Woods CREATE YOUNG FOREST AND ENJOY THE WILDLIFE IT ATTRACTS WHEN TO EXPECT DIFFERENT ANIMALS his guide presents some of the wildlife you may used to describe this dense, food-rich habitat are thickets, T see using your young forest as it grows following a shrublands, and early successional habitat. timber harvest or other management practice. As development has covered many acres, and as young The following lists focus on areas inhabited by the woodlands have matured to become older forest, the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis), a rare amount of young forest available to wildlife has dwindled. native rabbit that lives in parts of New York east of the Having diverse wildlife requires having diverse habitats on Hudson River, and in parts of Connecticut, Rhode Island, the land, including some young forest. Massachusetts, southern New Hampshire, and southern Maine. In this region, conservationists and landowners In nature, young forest is created by floods, wildfires, storms, are carrying out projects to create the young forest and and beavers’ dam-building and feeding. To protect lives and shrubland that New England cottontails need to survive. property, we suppress floods, fires, and beaver activities. Such projects also help many other kinds of wildlife that Fortunately, we can use habitat management practices, use the same habitat. such as timber harvests, to mimic natural disturbance events and grow young forest in places where it will do the most Young forest provides abundant food and cover for insects, good. These habitat projects boost the amount of food reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioenergetics-Of-American-Woodcock
    BIOENERGETICS OF AI\,ÍERICAN IVOoDcocK DURING THE BREEDING SEASON ON MOOSEHORN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, MAINE By William Matthew Vander Haegen B.S. University of Massachusetts, 1983 M.S. University of Massachusetts, 1987 A DISSERTATTON Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in \ilildlife) The Graduate School, University of Maine May 7992 Advisory Committee: William B. Krohn, Professor of Wildlife and l-eader, Maine c-ooperative Fish and wildlife Research unit (co-chairman) g._ luy Owen, Jr., Professor of Wildlife (Co-chairman) Frederick H. Servello, Assistant Professor of Wildlife Wìlliap E. Glana Associate Professor of Zoology 'White, Alan S. Associate Professor of Forest Rèiources BIOENERGETICS OF AI\4ERICAN WOODCOCK DURING THE BREEDING SEA.SON ON MOOSEHORN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, MAINE by William Matthew Vander Haegen Thesis advisors: Williem B. Krohn, ph.D. Ray B. Owen, Jr., Ph.D. An abstract of the Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in Wildlife). May,1992 Bioenergetics of female American woodcock (fulgE minor) was studied from 1987-1989 at Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, Maine. A model of daily enerry expenditure was developed from laboratory-derived data on metabolic rates; from data on activity and microclimates collected in the field; and from body component analysis of collected birds. Enerry demands incurred by female woodcock on the breeding grounds were highest during the Pre-nesting (60.3 kcaVday) and Iaying (S9.1 kcaVday) periods. Availability of food (earthworms [Lumbricidae]) is normally sufficient during these periods, but shortages such as the one caused by persistent soil frost in spring of 1989 can delay nesting and affect productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Behaviour of an Incubating Woodcock G
    Behaviour of an incubating Woodcock G. des Forges INTRODUCTION In his well-known paper on the breeding habits of the'Woodcock Scolopax rusticola, Steinfatt (1938) records: 'The brooding female only rarely changes her position during the day; she lies for hours on the nest motionless. There seems to be a sort of rigidity, which overcomes the female. It obviously serves the purpose to reduce smell and so the possibility of being observed. Only twice a day, in morning and evening twilight, the female leaves the nest, in order to find food, for a total time of an hour'. A report on the European Woodcock (Shorten 1974) states that 'Steinfatt's description of behaviour at the nest seems to have been the basis for many subse­ quent accounts'. Also Vesey-Fitzgerald (1946), writing of his own experience in Surrey, says, 'I do not think that, unless disturbed, a sitting Woodcock leaves the nest during the day'. As circumstantial evidence had led me to believe that a sitting Woodcock did leave the nest and feed by day, I decided to attempt a prolonged watch on an incubating bird. THE NEST SITE The nest was in woodland, about 5 km north of Haywards Heath, West Sussex, on a hill-side sloping down from the main London to Brighton railway line to a stream at the bottom of the valley. The section of the wood concerned had been cleared of undergrowth and mature ash Fraxinus excelsior in 1972/73 leaving only standard oaks Quercus. Re-planting with mixed conifers had taken place in 1973/74 m tne open areas but not immediately round the nest, which was under the canopy of a group of six mature oaks, the lowest branches being 5 or 6 metres from the ground which here carried a thin growth of brambles Rubus fruticosus and bracken Pteridium aquilinum: but around the small conifers were only short grasses and a variety of perennials which had not made much growth by the end of March.
    [Show full text]