DOCSLIB.ORG

Land-Use Patterns Surrounding Greater Prairie-Chicken Leks in Northwestern Minnesota Author(S): Michael D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Land-Use Patterns Surrounding Greater Prairie-Chicken Leks in Northwestern Minnesota Author(s): Michael D. Merrill, Kim A. Chapman, Karen A. Poiani, Brian Winter Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 189-198 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3802500 . Accessed: 10/08/2011 12:55 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org LAND-USEPATTERNS SURROUNDING GREATER PRAIRIE- CHICKENLEKS IN NORTHWESTERNMINNESOTA MICHAELD. MERRILL,The NatureConservancy, 201 DevonshireStreet, FifthFloor, Boston, MA02110, USA KIMA. CHAPMAN,',2The NatureConservancy, 1313 FifthStreet SE, Suite 320, Minneapolis,MN 55414, USA KARENA. POIANI,The NatureConservancy, Department of NaturalResources, FernowHall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA BRIANWINTER, The NatureConservancy, Northern Tallgrass Prairie Office, Box 240, RuralRoute 2, Glyndon,MN 56547, USA Abstract: To better managewildlife populations, managers must knowwhich combinationof land uses creates optimal habitat.We used spatial analysisat a landscapescale to describe land-use patternsand patch charac- teristics surroundingleks of greater prairie-chicken(Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus L.) in the Agassiz Beach Ridges (ABR) landscape(2,467 km2)in northwestMinnesota. We hypothesizedthat types and patternsof land use favorableto greater prairie-chickenswould be associated positivelywith lek versus non-lek points, and particularlymore stable (traditional)leks. Using a GeographicInformation System (GIS), we analyzedland- use proportionsand patch characteristicswithin an 810-ha area (1.6-km radius) surroundingtraditional leks, temporaryleks, and randomlylocated non-lek points. We found locationsof greaterprairie-chicken leks were stronglydependent on land use as revealed by a multivariateanalysis of variance(MANOVA; P < 0.001). A discriminantfunction analysisand univariateanalysis of variance(ANOVA) showed that several land-usechar- acteristicswere associatedmost stronglywith leks: smalleramounts of residential-farmstead,smaller amounts and smallerpatches of forest, and greateramounts of ConservationReserve Program (CRP) lands. Comparisons between traditionaland temporaryleks revealed that traditionalleks were surroundedby a lesser proportion of forest and croplandthan were temporaryleks (P < 0.001). UnivariateANOVAs showed that traditionalleks also were associatedwith largerpatches of grassland(P < 0.001), and grassland(P = 0.016) and forest patches (P = 0.017) having more irregularshapes. Our study suggests efforts to manage and conserve greaterprairie- chickenpopulations in the TallgrassPrairie Region should focus on landscape-scaleland-use patterns in addition to local habitat characteristics.Landscape-scale efforts could include enlarginggrasslands around traditional leks by completingprairie restorationsand CRP plantings,while local-scalestrategies should seek to improve the qualityof habitatin existingand new grasslandareas. JOURNALOF WILDLIFEMANAGEMENT 63(1):189-198 Key words: GeographicInformation Systems, GIS, greater prairie-chicken,land-use pattern, leks, patches, Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus. Several researchers have established that per- lands in central North America, the greater manent grassland is vital to the greater prairie- prairie-chicken's range, not surprisingly, has chicken (Hamerstrom et al. 1957, Jones 1963, contracted, and population numbers have de- Robel et al. 1970, Kirsch et al. 1973, Newell et clined (Westemeier 1980). In Minnesota, the al. 1987). Grasslands provide cover for nesting, greater prairie-chicken is listed as a species of brood rearing, roosting, and concealment from special concern (Coffin and Pfannmuller 1988). diverse predators, as well as an abundant and Studies of habitat patterns and preferences of food In supply (Kobriger 1965). general, larger greater prairie-chickens have used radiotelem- are found greater prairie-chicken populations etry or field observations and focused on nest- near (Hamerstrom and larger grassland patches ing, brooding, courtship, roosting, and foraging Hamerstrom 1973). Kirsch (1974) the suggested areas. Landscape-scale studies are needed to minimum area for management greater prairie- understand species' distribution and habitat chickens was 520 ha, with the approximately patterns over large areas (Weins 1989). For smallest unit of grassland equal to 65 ha. Given greater prairie-chickens, leks are an obvious fo- the decrease and fragmentation of native grass- cal point at the landscape scale because they are surveyed relatively easily over large areas. Half I Present address: of ConservationBi- Department of all leks in 1 study (Schroeder and White ology, NaturalResources Science Building,University of Minnesota,St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. 1993) and all leks in another (Svedarsky 1988) 2 E-mail:[email protected] were located within 2 km of the nests of females 189 190 GREATERPRAIRIE-CHICKEN * Merrill et al. J. Wildl. Manage. 63(1):1999 visiting those leks, which suggested that the sur- bors the largest populations of the greater prai- rounding area meets certain habitat require- rie-chicken in Minnesota (Svedarsky et al. ments such as nesting and brood-rearing cover 1997). for females. Not does habitat only high-quality METHODS influence where leks are located, males appear to choose lek locations based on proximity to Land-Use Data females (Schroeder and White 1993). We compiled and analyzed data for the ABR We hypothesized that land-use patterns and landscape in a vector-based GIS (ARCNIEW, some land-use patch characteristics (e.g. patch ARC/INFO). The ABR boundary was digitized size, shape) surrounding leks would be different by the Minnesota State Natural Heritage Pro- than land-use patterns and patch characteristics gram and followed the system of glacial dune surrounding randomly located non-lek points. ridges. The entire landscape was generalized to We also hypothesized that land-use patterns and 14 land-use types interpreted and digitized patch characteristics surrounding more stable from 1:24,000-scale 1990 aerial photos by the leks (i.e. traditional leks) would differ from pat- International Coalition for Land/Water Stew- terns and patch characteristics surrounding ardship in the Red River Basin (cropland, tran- temporary leks, assuming lek permanency was sitional agriculture, forest, wetland, grass- positively related to overall habitat quality. Per- shrub, grassland, urban, farmstead, rural resi- manent leks may be in areas with "better" nest- dence, other rural residential, open water, grav- ing habitat, whereas Schroeder and Braun el pits, exposed soil, unclassified). The mini- (1992) suggested temporary leks consisted of mum mapping unit was 2 ha. Land enrolled in males unable to obtain territories on permanent CRP was not distinguished from other land-use leks. The permanency of leks should help us types via the 1990 aerial photos; thus, we ob- identify preferred greater prairie-chicken habi- tained a separate data coverage of CRP lands tat as well as marginal habitat and suggest which enrolled between 1985 and 1995 from the Min- differences in land-use patterns and patch char- nesota Department of Agriculture. When we acteristics are most important, with implications overlaid CRP with land-use data, approximately for management at the landscape scale. We 92% of CRP coincided with agricultural uses used greater prairie-chicken leks and current (i.e., cropland and transitional agriculture). To land-use data to examine such relations across correct for this data mismatch problem, crop- the ABR landscape of northwest Minnesota. land was decreased by the amount of overlap- CRP. The 8% of CRP was clas- STUDYAREA ping remaining sified as other land-use types such as native The ABR study area covers 2,467 km2 in grasslands, wetlands, and grass-shrub areas. We northwestern Minnesota and spans 6 counties did not change these land-use types to CRP. An within the Red River Valley (Fig. 1). The elon- additional classification error that we did not gated shape of the landscape (about 200 km quantify or correct was that transitional agricul- long and 3-30 km wide) follows the historic ture (generally consisting of CRP and fallow dunes and beach ridges created 10,000 years land) also contained some burned native prairie. ago by former Glacial Lake Agassiz (Krenz and For our analysis, we combined urban, farm- Leitch 1993). The native grassland ecosystem steads, rural residence, and other rural residen- that once dominated the area has been highly tial types into 1 class (i.e., residential-farm- fragmented by agriculture, roads, and urban de- stead). Open water, gravel pits, exposed soil, velopment. Currently, the landscape is >73% and unclassified land-use classes were not ana- cropland. However, since 1985, about 400 km2 lyzed because they accounted for only 0.6% of of cropland have been enrolled in the CRP, the landscape. Thus, we arrived at 8 land-use which has been
Recommended publications
  • Lowland Book 170618.Indd

    Lowland Book 170618.Indd

    Grey partridges are an “indicator species” for broader farmland biodiversity, because where they thrive, a range of other species tend to do well. © Markus Jenny 3. Grey partridge In the past, the wild grey partridge thrived on farmland, and was traditionally the main focus of shooting in the lowlands. Management for driven partridge shooting led to rising numbers during the 19th century; it involved comprehensive predator control in a farmed environment that provided good partridge habitat, with weedy cereal crops, traditional crop rotations including grass crops, small fields separated by hedges, fallows and waste ground. By contrast, grey partridge numbers have been falling in the UK throughout the second half of the 20th century, with the decline becoming most marked since the mid-1960s. To focus conservation efforts, the grey partridge was put on the UK Red Data List in 1990, became a priority species under the 1995 UK Biodiversity Action Plan36, and remains a red-listed Bird of Conservation Concern. Progress has been made in areas that make a commitment to partridge conservation, but overall the decline in their numbers continues. GWCT research on grey partridge declines in the 1960s and 1970s helped to establish the new field of agro-ecology, which is studying 38 39 The Knowledge ecology within farming systems. Scientific study moved from recording declines, to investigating the changes in the arable environment that were affecting partridges45–47. This work found that the causes of the grey partridge decline were directly or indirectly related to much wider declines in many aspects of farmland biodiversity. For instance, the UK government monitors national bird abundance through the British Trust for Ornithology’s Breeding Bird Survey, which has shown a 92% decline in numbers of grey partridge from 1967 to 2015, in conjunction with declines in many other species of farmland bird48.
  • Small Game Review “Issues and Concerns”

    Small Game Review “Issues and Concerns”

    ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS SMALL GAME REVIEW “ISSUES AND CONCERNS” PRELIMINARY INPUT FROM THE ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS OCTOBER 2009 General and Preliminary O.F.A.H. Comments/Suggestions Purpose The purpose is to update and revise the small game hunting regulations and policies, under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, with the view to: • reflect changes in populations and/or harvest pressure to ensure sustainability; • address significant knowledge gaps where there is a conservation concern; • optimize the ecological, social, economic and recreational benefits that accrue through sustainable hunting of small game birds and mammals; • refine management directions and establish broad targets/objectives; and • manage and prevent human-wildlife conflicts. Scope of Review The review should include the conservation and management of provincial game birds, small game mammals, and furbearers that are also hunted (e.g. red fox, raccoon). At this time, small game species with current management plans/policy (i.e. wild turkey, wolves) need not be a focus within this review. The harvest management of migratory birds is primarily a federal mandate, but the review should consider recommendations for the improved management of migratory birds where there is a clear provincial interest and mandate to do so (e.g. woodcock, sandhill cranes). The harvest of snapping turtles and bullfrogs is regulated under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, but are not considered “small game” for the purpose of this review. Falconry should be recognized as a small and growing method of small game hunting within Ontario; however, it should be mentioned that its regulation is reviewed regularly through the Provincial Falconry Advisory Committee, so it will not be included within this general review.
  • What Makes a Good Alien? Dealing with the Problems of Non-Native Wildfowl Tony (A

    What Makes a Good Alien? Dealing with the Problems of Non-Native Wildfowl Tony (A

    What makes a good alien? Dealing with the problems of non-native wildfowl Tony (A. D.) Fox Mandarin Ducks Aix galericulata Richard Allen ABSTRACT Humans have been introducing species outside their native ranges as a source of food for thousands of years, but introductions of wildfowl have increased dramatically since the 1700s.The most serious consequence of this has been the extinction of endemic forms as a result of hybridisation, although competition between alien and native forms may also contribute to species loss. Globally, non-native wildfowl have yet to cause major disruption to ecosystem functions; introduce new diseases and parasites; cause anything other than local conflicts to agricultural and economic interests; or create major health and safety issues in ways that differ from native forms. The fact that this has not happened is probably simply the result of good fortune, however, since many introduced plants and animals have had huge consequences for ecosystems and human populations.The potential cost of greater environmental and economic damage, species extinction, and threats to the genetic and species diversity of native faunas means that we must do all we can to stop the deliberate or accidental introduction of species outside their natural range. International legislation to ensure this is remarkably good, but domestic law is generally weak, as is the political will to enforce such regulations.The case of the Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis in Europe will show whether control of a problem taxon can be achieved and underlines the financial consequences of dealing with introduced aliens.This paper was originally presented as the 58th Bernard Tucker Memorial Lecture to the Oxford Ornithological Society and the Ashmolean Natural History Society, in November 2008.
  • Europe's Huntable Birds a Review of Status and Conservation Priorities

    Europe's Huntable Birds a Review of Status and Conservation Priorities

    FACE - EUROPEAN FEDERATIONEurope’s FOR Huntable HUNTING Birds A Review AND CONSERVATIONof Status and Conservation Priorities Europe’s Huntable Birds A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities December 2020 1 European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE) Established in 1977, FACE represents the interests of Europe’s 7 million hunters, as an international non-profit-making non-governmental organisation. Its members are comprised of the national hunters’ associations from 37 European countries including the EU-27. FACE upholds the principle of sustainable use and in this regard its members have a deep interest in the conservation and improvement of the quality of the European environment. See: www.face.eu Reference Sibille S., Griffin, C. and Scallan, D. (2020) Europe’s Huntable Birds: A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities. European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE). https://www.face.eu/ 2 Europe’s Huntable Birds A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities Executive summary Context Non-Annex species show the highest proportion of ‘secure’ status and the lowest of ‘threatened’ status. Taking all wild birds into account, The EU State of Nature report (2020) provides results of the national the situation has deteriorated from the 2008-2012 to the 2013-2018 reporting under the Birds and Habitats directives (2013 to 2018), and a assessments. wider assessment of Europe’s biodiversity. For FACE, the findings are of key importance as they provide a timely health check on the status of In the State of Nature report (2020), ‘agriculture’ is the most frequently huntable birds listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive.
  • Species Included in Categories A, B & C Scientific

    Species Included in Categories A, B & C Scientific

    Species included in categories A, B & C Scientific name Race Category 1 Mute Swan Cygnus olor -- A / C1 2 Bewick’s Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii A >> Tundra Swan columbianus -- 3 Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus -- A 4 Bean Goose Anser fabalis fabilis A >> Tundra Bean Goose rossicus -- 5 Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus -- A 6 White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons flavirostris A >> Russian White-fronted Goose albifrons -- 7 Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus -- A 8 Greylag Goose Anser anser anser A / C1 9 Snow Goose Anser caerulescens caerulescens A / D1 >> Greater Snow Goose atlanticus -- 10 Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii hutchinsii A 11 Canada Goose Branta canadensis canadensis A / C1 >> Todd's Canada Goose interior -- 12 Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis -- A / C1 13 Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota A >> Dark-bellied Brent Goose bernicla -- >> Black Brant nigricans -- 14 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea -- B / D1 15 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna -- A 16 Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata -- C1 17 Wigeon Anas penelope -- A 18 American Wigeon Anas americana -- A 19 Gadwall Anas strepera -- A 20 Baikal Teal Anas formosa -- A / D1 21 Teal Anas crecca crecca A 22 Green-winged Teal Anas carolinensis -- A 23 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos A / C1 24 American Black Duck Anas rubripes -- A 25 Pintail Anas acuta acuta A 26 Garganey Anas querquedula -- A 27 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors -- A 28 Shoveler Anas clypeata -- A 29 Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina -- A 30 Pochard Aythya ferina -- A 31 Redhead Aythya americana -- A 32 Ring-necked
  • HUNTING-SEASONS.Pdf

    HUNTING-SEASONS.Pdf

    HUNTING SEASON AUGUST 1 - JULY 31 AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL White tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Open season Sep 1 - Feb 15 Roedeer (Capreolus capreolus) Open season Sep 1 - Feb 15 Roe buck May 5 - Jun 15 Moose (alces alces) Open season Sep 1 - Jan 15 Fallow deer (Dama dama) Open season Sep 1 - Jan 31 Mouflon (Ovis orientalis musimon) Open season Sep 1 - Jan 31 Wild boar (Sus scrofa) Open season all year round. Females with piglets are protected Mar 1 - Jul 31 Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Open season Sep 30 - Jan 31 Brown hare (Lepus europaeus) Open season Sep 1 - Feb 28 Mountain hare (Lepus timidus) Open season Sep 1 - Feb 28 Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) Open season Sep 1 - Feb 28 European beaver (Castor fiber) Open season Aug 20 - Apr 30 North American beaver (Castor canadensis) Open season Aug 20 - Apr 30 Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) Open season Oct 1 - May 19 Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) Nov 1-Feb 31 Brown bear (Ursus arctos) Open season Aug 20 - Oct 31 Grey wolf (Canis lupus) Lynx (Lynx lynx) Dec 1 - Feb 28 Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) Open season Apr 16 - Dec 31 Open season Apr 16 - Dec 31 Ringed seal (Pusa hispida botnica) Open season Apr 16 - Dec 31 Open season Apr 16 - Dec 31 Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Open season Aug 1 - Apr 14 Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) Open season all year round. Females with cubs are protected between May 1 - July 31 Badger (Meles meles) Open season Aug 1 - Mar 31 American Mink (Neovison vison) Open season all year round.
  • The Diet of Danish Red Foxes (Vulpes Vulpes) in Relation to a Changing Agricultural Ecosystem

    The Diet of Danish Red Foxes (Vulpes Vulpes) in Relation to a Changing Agricultural Ecosystem

    The diet of Danish red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in relation to a changing agricultural ecosystem. A historical perspective Sussie Pagh, Rune Skjold Tjørnløv, Carsten Riis Olesen & Mariann Chriel Mammal Research ISSN 2199-2401 Mamm Res DOI 10.1007/s13364-015-0244-y 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Bia#owie#a, Poland. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy Mamm Res DOI 10.1007/s13364-015-0244-y ORIGINAL PAPER The diet of Danish red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)inrelation to a changing agricultural ecosystem. A historical perspective Sussie Pagh 1 & Rune Skjold Tjørnløv2 & Carsten Riis Olesen3 & Mariann Chriel4 Received: 21 October 2014 /Accepted: 24 August 2015 # Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland 2015 Abstract Rodents and especially voles (Microtus agrestis or of small natural habitats has increased by 15 %; meaning that arvalis) make up the basic diet of foxes (Vulpes vulpes)in the length of field boundaries and the number of small natural Denmark.
  • A New Nest Record After Dropping Substantially in the Early 2000S, NRS Annual Totals Are Now at Their Highest Level Since the Scheme Began in 1939

    A New Nest Record After Dropping Substantially in the Early 2000S, NRS Annual Totals Are Now at Their Highest Level Since the Scheme Began in 1939

    The newsletter of the Nest Record Scheme Issue 29 may 2013 InsIde thIs edItIon 03 in The NewS 04 NRS laTeST ReSulTS 05 DaVID Glue’S RepoRT oN 2012 06 getting moRe fRom box moNIToRING 08 NRS aNNual ToTalS 10 2012 Top NeSTeRS 11 neST RecoRDING oN a ReSeRVe 13 uRbaN wooDpIGeoN moNIToRING 14 neSTING ‘bIG yeaR’ 16 SpoT The NeST plus TRIbuTe To alaN buRGess, New paRTIcIpaNTS IN 2012, awaRD foR bob SheppaRD Thanks to Mark Joy for this great photo of a Goldfinch attending a brood of chicks. See page 4 for our appeal for more finch records. a new nest record after dropping substantially in the early 2000s, NRS annual totals are now at their highest level since the scheme began in 1939. n the early 2000s, participation in We’re extremely grateful to all nest the Nest Record Scheme was waning. recorders for their help getting NRS e R Annual submission totals were down back on track: new recorders, recorders mo I a quarter on 1990s levels and far fewer who have helped with recruitment and DINS N a I records were being submitted for those training, recorders who have focused ll GI species whose nests are more challenging on priority species, and recorders who e, to find. have made sure that well-monitored RIDG b NRS News 28 RIS Last spring, in , we species continue to be well-monitored. , ch S reported how far the Scheme had We’re also grateful for funding from the e RID since come, with numbers of active Dilys Breese project, which has made e b e N recorders up 35% and lots more development work on NRS possible.
  • Hunters' Contribution to the Conservation of Threatened Species

    Hunters' Contribution to the Conservation of Threatened Species

    Hunters’ contribution to the Conservation of Threatened Species Examples from Europe where hunting positively influences the conservation of threatened species Hunters’ contribution to the Conservation of Threatened Species Examples from Europe where hunting positively influences the conservation of threatened species This report has been collated in cooperation with the FACE members. We extend our gratitute towards everyone that has helped to complete this report. April, 2017 © FACE - Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU Author: R.J.A. Enzerink (Conservation intern FACE) Contact: Rue F. Pelletier 82, Brussels T: +32 (0) 2 416 1620 / +32 (0) 2 732 6900 E: [email protected] Contents Introduction: Hunting and Conservation in Europe ...................................................................................... 4 Ireland ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Red grouse (Lagopus lagopus hibernicus) ................................................................................................. 5 UK .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris) .................................................................. 5 Grey partridge (Perdix perdix) ..................................................................................................................
  • THE BRITISH LIST the Official List of Bird Species Recorded in Britain Sponsored by Leica Sports Optics

    THE BRITISH LIST the Official List of Bird Species Recorded in Britain Sponsored by Leica Sports Optics

    THE BRITISH LIST The official list of bird species recorded in Britain sponsored by Leica Sports Optics CATEGORY E SPECIES Category E comprises those species that have been recorded as introductions, human-assisted transportees or escapees from captivity, whose breeding populations (if any) are thought not to be self-sustaining. Species in Category E that have bred in the wild in Britain are designated as E*. Species listed in Category E form no part of the British List, unless they are also included in Categories A, B or C. Descriptions and definitions of Categories of the British List can be found at BOU (2017)19. Category E has been compiled largely from county/regional bird reports and other published listings, and is not exhaustive. BOURC is unable to confirm the correct identification of species in Category E, or the circumstances in which they were recorded. Doubtful cases have been excluded, pending enquiries, along with species not recorded since 1 January 1950. The BOU is responsible for maintaining the British List. Part of this responsibility is to monitor the occurrence of non-native species which may qualify for addition to Category C of the British List. To undertake this we require published information from which to work and which we can quote as reference. The BOU encourages observers to report records of non-native species to the relevant local bird recorder. Local recorders and those producing local, county or regional publications are encouraged to publish these records, and to make them available to the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (RBBP) who publish annual reports1- 7,9,10,12 of non-native species breeding in Britain in British Birds.
  • Grey Partridge News Winterspring 2014.Indd

    Grey Partridge News Winterspring 2014.Indd

    Grey partridge News Issue 20: Spring 2014 Introduction Inside this issue: I ended my introduction to the last newsletter, which covered the appallingly wet summer Page 1... of 2012, with: “Finally, let us all collectively hope for a ‘normal’ summer this year, without Introduction massive extremes of weather.” It appears that I was pushing my luck once again. Page 2-3... The spring and early summer of 2013 was unbelievably cold so coveys stayed together Partridge course; Ireland bucking much longer than usual and many relied on feed hoppers because much of the natural the trend; Demonstrating recovery food had gone. New sources of food in the form of fresh plant growth and early seeding in Scotland meadow grass and chickweed, along with emerging insects, just did not appear. Page 4-5... Many bird species put breeding on hold, so that nesting was delayed between a month The Partridge Count Scheme; to six weeks later than usual. But from talking to keepers around the country, most felt that Big Farmland Bird Count grey partridges started laying about the same time as usual. Page 6... Peak hatch time is around the middle of June (a little later the further north you are) Controlling rats and as broods hatched, they had to contend with cold, wet conditions, with hard frosts at Page 7-8... night. But most damaging was the almost complete lack of insects present, which resulted The word on the ground; in the vast majority of these chicks perishing due to starvation. Group news; Contacts. The weather suddenly turned to a wonderfully warm summer right at the end of June.
  • Game Birds of the World Species List

    Game Birds of the World Species List

    Game Birds of North America GROUP COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME QUAIL Northern bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus Scaled quail Callipepla squamata Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii Montezuma (Mearns’) quail Cyrtonyx montezumae Valley quail (California quail) Callipepla californicus Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Black-throated bobwhite quail Colinus nigrogularis GROUSE Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus Spruce grouse Falcipennis canadensis Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus (Greater) sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Sooty grouse Dendragapus fuliginosus Gunnison sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus PARTRIDGE Chukar Alectoris chukar Hungarian partridge Perdix perdix PTARMIGAN Willow ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Rock ptarmigan Lagopus mutus White-tailed ptarmigan Logopus leucurus WOODCOCK American woodcock Scolopax minor SNIPE Common snipe Gallinago gallinago PHEASANT Pheasant Phasianus colchicus DOVE Mourning dove Zenaida macroura White-winged dove Zenaida asiatica Inca dove Columbina inca Common ground gove Columbina passerina White-tipped dove GROUP COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME DIVING DUCK Ruddy duck Oxyuia jamaiceusis Tufted duck Aythya fuliqule Canvas back Aythya valisineoia Greater scaup Aythya marila Surf scoter Melanitta persicillata Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca King eider Somateria spectabillis Common eider Somateria mollissima Barrow’s goldeneye Buchephala islandica Black scoter Melanitta nigra amerieana Redhead Aythya americana Ring-necked duck aythya