DOCSLIB.ORG

Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern in North America August 2002 Recommended Citation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern in North America August 2002 Recommended Citation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern in North America August 2002 Recommended Citation: Shuford, W. D., and D. P. Craig. 2002. Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern (Sterna Caspia) in North America. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern (Sterna Caspia) in North America W. David Shuford PRBO Conservation Science 4990 Shoreline Highway Stinson Beach, CA 94970 email: [email protected] and David P. Craig Department of Biology Willamette University 900 State Street Salem, OR 97301 email: [email protected] August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. viii Summary............................................................................................................................................... 1 Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Legal and Conservation Status ............................................................................................................. 2 United States .......................................................................................................................... 2 Canada .................................................................................................................................. 2 Mexico .................................................................................................................................. 4 Central and South Americas .................................................................................................. 4 Description ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Geographic Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 4 Breeding ................................................................................................................................ 4 Migration ............................................................................................................................... 7 Winter .................................................................................................................................... 8 Pacific Coast .......................................................................................................................... 9 Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean Coasts .................................................................................... 9 Summer Nonbreeding .......................................................................................................... 10 Natural History ................................................................................................................................... 11 Breeding .............................................................................................................................. 11 Nests and Nest Spacing ....................................................................................................... 11 Reproductive Phenology ..................................................................................................... 11 Breeding Site Fidelity ..........................................................................................................12 Demography and Limiting Factors ...................................................................................... 13 Predators .............................................................................................................................. 14 Diet ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Migration ............................................................................................................................. 15 Habitat Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 16 Breeding Season .................................................................................................................. 16 Migration ............................................................................................................................. 17 Winter and Summer Nonbreeding Seasons ......................................................................... 17 Population Estimates and Trends........................................................................................................ 17 Estimates.............................................................................................................................. 17 Trends .................................................................................................................................. 19 Trends from Regional Surveys ............................................................................................ 19 Pacific Coast/Western (interior) Region ................................................................. 19 Central Canada ....................................................................................................... 25 Great Lakes ............................................................................................................. 26 Gulf Coast ............................................................................................................... 26 Atlantic Coast ......................................................................................................... 31 Breeding Bird Survey Trends .............................................................................................. 31 Christmas Bird Count Trends .............................................................................................. 31 Threats ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Overutilization ..................................................................................................................... 32 Adequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms .................................................................. 32 Habitat Loss and Degradation ............................................................................................. 32 Disease and Predation.......................................................................................................... 34 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern - August 2002 ii Pesticides and Other Contaminants ........................................................................................ 34 Human Disturbance ................................................................................................................ 35 Introduced Species.................................................................................................................. 36 Population Size and Isolation ................................................................................................. 36 Concentration Risk ................................................................................................................. 36 Monitoring Activities.......................................................................................................................... 37 Regional Surveys .................................................................................................................... 37 Breeding Bird Survey ............................................................................................................. 37 Christmas Bird Count ............................................................................................................. 38 Management Activities ....................................................................................................................... 38 Management Activities in the Columbia River Estuary ......................................................... 38 Habitat and Vegetation Management...................................................................................... 39 Artificial Nest Platforms......................................................................................................... 40 Social Attraction ..................................................................................................................... 41 Predator Management .............................................................................................................42 Minimizing Disturbance ......................................................................................................... 42 Outreach and Education...................................................................................................................... 43 Status Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 43 Conservation Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 44 Monitoring Recommendations ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Michigan Stocking Report 2010
    Lake Michigan Committee Meeting Ypsilanti, Michigan March 23-24, 2011 Salmonid Stocking Totals for Lake Michigan 1976-2010 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay National Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office 2661 Scott Tower Drive New Franken, WI 54229 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s fish stocking database is designed to summarize federal, provincial, state, and tribal fish stocking events. This database contains agency provided records dating back to the 1950’s and is available online at: (http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/). The purpose of this report is to briefly summarize the information in the GLFC database for Lake Michigan federal lake trout stocking and stocking rates of all salmonids within state waters of Lake Michigan (Table 1). A summary of lake trout stocking locations, described by priority area in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011), is also included (Figure 1, Table 2). Total numbers of Service stocked lake trout are shown by statistical district for the time series 1976 – 2010 in Table 3 while salmonid stocking totals for each state are described in Tables 4-7 (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, respectively). 2 Figure 1. Map showing the first and second priority stocking areas contained in the new lake trout restoration guide and implementation strategy. Figure 1. First and 2nd priority areas as described in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011). 3 2010 stocking overview: 12.3 million salmonids (combined species) were stocked in Lake Michigan in 2010, (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Michigan Part 1 a Publication of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council May 2019 Vol
    Inland Seas Angler GREAT LAKES BASIN REPORT Special Report – Lake Michigan Part 1 A Publication of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council May 2019 http://www.great-lakes.org Vol. 30, No. 5.3a Highlights of the Annual Lake Committee Meetings Great Lakes Fishery Commission proceedings, Ypsilanti, MI This third of a series of annual special reports is a two-part summary of Lake Michigan. This lake committee report is from the annual Lake Committee meetings hosted by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in March 2019. We encourage reproduction with the appropriate credit to the GLSFC and the agencies involved. Our thanks to IL DNR, IN DNR, MI DNR; USFWS; USGS and the many other DNR biologists who make this all happen, and also thanks to the staffs of the GLFC and USGS for their contributions to these science documents. Thanks also to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, its staff, Bob Lamb & Marc Gaden, for their efforts in again convening and hosting the Lake Committee meetings in Ypsilanti, MI. Lake Michigan – Part 1 Index of Reports Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in Lake Michigan, 2018 (USGS) pgs 2 – 10 Summary of 2018 Salmonine Stocking in Lake Michigan pgs 10 – 12 Harvest of Fishes from Lake Michigan during 2018 pgs 12 – 19 Status of Yellow Perch in Lake Michigan, 2018 pgs 20 – 22 Highlights . Age distribution of alewives remained truncated with no alewife age exceeding 5 years . Bloater biomass was 2.60 kg/ha in 2018, unchanged from 2017, but still only 14% of the long-term average. Round goby biomass was 1.25 kg/ha in 2018, the 3rd largest estimate in the time series .
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of a California Gull for North Carolina
    General Field Notes LYNN MOSELEY EIS M. OSYE rth Crln Edtr Sth Crln Edtr prtnt f l prtnt f l Glfrd Cll h Ctdl Grnbr, C 240 Chrltn, SC 240 OICE Publication of any unusual sightings of birds in the Field Notes or Briefs for the Files does not imply that these reports have been accepted into the official Checklist of Birds records for either North or South Carolina. Decisions regarding the official Checklists are made by the respective State Records Committees and will be reported upon periodically in THE CHAT. rt rd f Clfrn Gll fr rth Crln Stephen J. Dinsmore John O. Fussell Jeremy Nance 2600 Glen Burnie 1412 Shepard Street 3259 N 1st Avenue Raleigh, NC 27607 Morehead City, NC 28557 Tucson, AZ 85719 At approximately 1400 h on 29 January 1993, we observed an adult California Gull (Larus californicus) at the Carteret County landfill, located southwest of Newport, North Carolina. We were birding the northwest corner of the landfill when Fussell called our attention to a slightly darker-mantled gull resting with hundreds of other gulls, mostly Herring Gulls (L. argentatus). We immediately recognized the bird as an adult California Gull. We were able to observe and photograph the bird for the nest half hour at distances of 75-100 m. At 1430 the bird suddenly flew south over the dump and we were not able to relocated it over the next 2 hours. Sprn 6 The following is a detailed description of the bird, much of it written immediately after the sighting. The bird was slightly smaller and slimmer than the numerous Herring Gulls surrounding it.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Living (Abiotic) Elements Shape Habitat
    Forest Birds Fast Facts LIGHT: Dominated by tall trees, layered canopy = very shady, openings made from a fallen tree provide sunny areas AIR: Trees slow wind, except along forest edges and openings. Shade = cool temps WATER: Fog and rain collect in tree branches and drip to ground. SOIL: Lots of organics (needles, decaying leaves, tree trunks) makes lots of space for air and water. Soil absorbs and holds water like a sponge. Varied Thrush • Slender bill good at gleaning soft foods like insects, pillbugs, snails, worms, fruits and some seeds from ground. • Hops and pauses to look for food. Flips leaves and debris with bill. • Perching feet – three toes forward, hind toe back. • Can sing 2 separate notes at same time and breathe while singing. Common Raven Varied Thrush • Versatile beak. Eats everything from carrion and garbage, to eggs, nestlings, insects, seeds, rodents and fruit. • Strong, sturdy feet and grasping toes to manipulate food and perch. • Acrobatic flight, hops on ground. Uses sight to find food. Northern Flicker • The toes are placed two forward, two back to grip firmly, while the tail feathers are stiff and pointed to help brace while pounding. • Bill is shaped like a chisel. Flickers don’t excavate as much as other types of woodpeckers so have a slightly curved bill and less sharp. Common Raven • Flickers eat insects and are especially fond of ants (flickers will forage on the ground as well as on trees). Probe and explore crevices. • Distinctive flight – flap, dip, flap, dip • Woodpeckers have long, sticky and barbed tongues to extract bugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Caspian Tern Nesting in South Carolina
    CASPIAN TERN NESTING IN SOUTH CAROLINA TRAVIS H. McDANIEL and THEODORE A. BECKETT III Although the Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) is known to be a year-round resident of South Carolina, the 1970 edition of South Carolina Bird Life (p. 608) lists it as a non-breeding species because no nest or eggs have been collected in the state. E. Milby Burton, T.A. Beckett III, and others who have studied the colonial birds breeding on the islands along the coast of South Carolina during the past 50 years have never found a Caspian Tern nest or chick. Wayne's statement that the species nests in the Royal Tern colonies at Cape Romain (Birds of South Carolina, 1910, p. 4) has been widely accepted, though in retrospect it appears to have been based upon questionable information received from others rather than upon field work actually conducted by the distinguished ornithologist of Oakland Plantation near Mt. Pleasant. On 5 June 1970 Travis H. McDaniel, then manager at Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, made a routine check of nesting birds on Cape Island. As he walked through a Black Skimmer and Gull-billed Tern colony at the south end of the island, he noticed two tern eggs that were appreciably larger than those normally laid by Royal Terns, which are common nesters. During three years at Cape Romain, he had noted that Royal Terns usually lay only one egg. As McDaniel returned to his patrol truck, the birds began to settle back on their eggs. At this time he saw a very large tern dropping down from the air to settle on a nest despite harassing by Black Skimmers.
    [Show full text]
  • Nesting Populations of California and Ring-Billed Gulls in California
    WESTERN BIR Volume 31, Number 3, 2000 NESTING POPULATIONS OF CLwO AND RING-BI--F-r GULLS IN CALIFORNIA: RECENT SURVEYS AND HISTORICAL STATUS W. DAVID SHUFORD, Point Reyes Bird Observatory(PRBO), 4990 Shoreline Highway, StinsonBeach, California94970 THOMAS P. RYAN, San FranciscoBay Bird Observatory(SFBBO), P.O. Box 247, 1290 Hope Street,Alviso, California 95002 ABSTRACT: Statewidesurveys from 1994 to 1997 revealed33,125 to 39,678 breedingpairs of CaliforniaGulls and at least9611 to 12,660 pairsof Ring-billed Gullsin California.Gulls nested at 12 inland sitesand in San FranciscoBay. The Mono Lake colonywas by far the largestof the CaliforniaGull, holding 70% to 80% of the statepopulation, followed by SanFrancisco Bay with 11% to 14%. ButteValley WildlifeArea, Clear Lake NationalWildlife Refuge, and Honey Lake WildlifeArea were the only othersites that heldover 1000 pairsof CaliforniaGulls. In mostyears, Butte Valley, Clear Lake, Big Sage Reservoir,and Honey Lake togetherheld over 98% of the state'sbreeding Ring-billed Gulls; Goose Lake held9% in 1997. Muchof the historicalrecord of gullcolonies consists of estimatestoo roughfor assessmentof populationtrends. Nevertheless, California Gulls, at least,have increased substantially in recentdecades, driven largely by trendsat Mono Lake and San FranciscoBay (first colonizedin 1980). Irregularoccupancy of some locationsreflects the changing suitabilityof nestingsites with fluctuatingwater levels.In 1994, low water at six sites allowedcoyotes access to nestingcolonies, and resultingpredation appeared to reducenesting success greatly at threesites. Nesting islands secure from predators and humandisturbance are nestinggulls' greatest need. Conover(1983) compileddata suggestingthat breedingpopulations of Ring-billed(Larus delawarensis)and California(Larus californicus)gulls haveincreased greafiy in the Westin recentdecades. Detailed assessments of populationstatus and trends of these speciesin individualwestern states, however,have been publishedonly for Washington(Conover et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Sandwich Terns to Isla Rasa, Gulf of California, Mexico, with Our Observations of Single Individuals in 1986 and Again in 2008
    NOTES SANDWICH TERNS ON ISLA RASA, GULF OF CALIFORNIA, MEXICO ENRIQUETA VELARDE, Instituto de Ciencias Marinas y Pesquerías, Universidad Veracruzana, Hidalgo 617, Col. Río Jamapa, Boca del Río, Veracruz, México, C.P. 94290; [email protected] MARISOL TORDESILLAS, Álvaro Obregón 549, Col. Poblado Alfredo V. Bonfi l, Cancún, Quintana Roo, México, C.P. 77560; [email protected] In North America the Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis) breeds locally along marine coasts and offshore islands primarily of the southeastern United States and Caribbean (AOU 1998). In these areas it commonly nests in dense colonies of the Royal Tern (T. maximus) and Laughing Gull (Leucophaeus atricilla; Shealer 1999). It winters along the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico from Florida to the West Indies, more rarely as far south as southern Brazil and Uruguay. It also winters on the Pacifi c coast, mainly from Oaxaca, Mexico, south to Panama (Howell and Webb 1995), occasionally to Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru (AOU 1998). As there are no breeding colonies on the Pacifi c coast, all birds wintering there are believed to represent migrants from Atlantic and Caribbean colonies (Collins 1997, Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely 1981, Ridgely and Greenfi eld 2001). Sandwich Terns have occasionally wandered as far north as eastern Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland) and inland to Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois (AOU 1998, Clapp et al. 1983). In the Pacifi c vagrants are known from California and the Hawaiian Islands (Hamilton et al. 2007, AOU 1998). Here we report vagrancy of Sandwich Terns to Isla Rasa, Gulf of California, Mexico, with our observations of single individuals in 1986 and again in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herring Gull Complex (Larus Argentatus - Fuscus - Cachinnans) As a Model Group for Recent Holarctic Vertebrate Radiations
    The Herring Gull Complex (Larus argentatus - fuscus - cachinnans) as a Model Group for Recent Holarctic Vertebrate Radiations Dorit Liebers-Helbig, Viviane Sternkopf, Andreas J. Helbig{, and Peter de Knijff Abstract Under what circumstances speciation in sexually reproducing animals can occur without geographical disjunction is still controversial. According to the ring species model, a reproductive barrier may arise through “isolation-by-distance” when peripheral populations of a species meet after expanding around some uninhabitable barrier. The classical example for this kind of speciation is the herring gull (Larus argentatus) complex with a circumpolar distribution in the northern hemisphere. An analysis of mitochondrial DNA variation among 21 gull taxa indicated that members of this complex differentiated largely in allopatry following multiple vicariance and long-distance colonization events, not primarily through “isolation-by-distance”. In a recent approach, we applied nuclear intron sequences and AFLP markers to be compared with the mitochondrial phylogeography. These markers served to reconstruct the overall phylogeny of the genus Larus and to test for the apparent biphyletic origin of two species (argentatus, hyperboreus) as well as the unex- pected position of L. marinus within this complex. All three taxa are members of the herring gull radiation but experienced, to a different degree, extensive mitochon- drial introgression through hybridization. The discrepancies between the mitochon- drial gene tree and the taxon phylogeny based on nuclear markers are illustrated. 1 Introduction Ernst Mayr (1942), based on earlier ideas of Stegmann (1934) and Geyr (1938), proposed that reproductive isolation may evolve in a single species through D. Liebers-Helbig (*) and V. Sternkopf Deutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14-20, 18439 Stralsund, Germany e-mail: [email protected] P.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Birds of the Texas Coast
    Roseate Spoonbill • L 32”• Uncom- Why Birds are Important of the mon, declining • Unmistakable pale Breeding Birds Texas Coast pink wading bird with a long bill end- • Bird abundance is an important indicator of the ing in flat “spoon”• Nests on islands health of coastal ecosystems in vegetation • Wades slowly through American White Pelican • L 62” Reddish Egret • L 30”• Threatened in water, sweeping touch-sensitive bill •Common, increasing • Large, white • Revenue generated by hunting, photography, and Texas, decreasing • Dark morph has slate- side to side in search of prey birdwatching helps support the coastal economy in bird with black flight feathers and gray body with reddish breast, neck, and Chuck Tague bright yellow bill and pouch • Nests Texas head; white morph completely white – both in groups on islands with sparse have pink bill with Black-bellied Whistling-Duck vegetation • Preys on small fish in black tip; shaggy- • L 21”• Lo- groups looking plumage cally common, increasing • Goose-like duck Threats to Island-Nesting Bay Birds Chuck Tague with long neck and pink legs, pinkish-red bill, Greg Lavaty • Nests in mixed- species colonies in low vegetation or on black belly, and white eye-ring • Nests in tree • Habitat loss from erosion and wetland degradation cavities • Occasionally nests in mesquite and Brown Pelican • L 51”• Endangered in ground • Uses quick, erratic movements to • Predators such as raccoons, feral hogs, and stir up prey Chuck Tague other woody vegetation on bay islands Texas, but common and increasing • Large
    [Show full text]
  • Predator and Competitor Management Plan for Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
    Appendix J /USFWS Malcolm Grant 2011 Fencing exclosure to protect shorebirds from predators Predator and Competitor Management Plan for Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Background and Introduction Background and Introduction Throughout North America, the presence of a single mammalian predator (e.g., coyote, skunk, and raccoon) or avian predator (e.g., great horned owl, black-crowned night-heron) at a nesting site can result in adult bird mortality, decrease or prevent reproductive success of nesting birds, or cause birds to abandon a nesting site entirely (Butchko and Small 1992, Kress and Hall 2004, Hall and Kress 2008, Nisbet and Welton 1984, USDA 2011). Depredation events and competition with other species for nesting space in one year can also limit the distribution and abundance of breeding birds in following years (USDA 2011, Nisbet 1975). Predator and competitor management on Monomoy refuge is essential to promoting and protecting rare and endangered beach nesting birds at this site, and has been incorporated into annual management plans for several decades. In 2000, the Service extended the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Nesting Season Operating Procedure, Monitoring Protocols, and Competitor/Predator Management Plan, 1998-2000, which was expiring, with the intent to revise and update the plan as part of the CCP process. This appendix fulfills that intent. As presented in chapter 3, all proposed alternatives include an active and adaptive predator and competitor management program, but our preferred alternative is most inclusive and will provide the greatest level of protection and benefit for all species of conservation concern. The option to discontinue the management program was considered but eliminated due to the affirmative responsibility the Service has to protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and migratory birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwergstern3.Pdf
    99 PRIMARY MOULT, BODY MASS AND MOULT MIGRATION OF LITTLE TERN STERNAALBIFRONS IN NE ITALY GIUSEPPE CHERUBINI, LORENZO SERRA & NICOLA BACCETTI Cherubini G., L. Serra & N. Baccetti 1996. Primary moult, body mass and moult migration of Little Tern Sterna albifrons in NE Italy. Ardea 84: 99­ 114. Large post-breeding gatherings of Little Terns Sterna albifrons are regu­ larly observed in the Lagoon of Venice, Italy. Here, during five consecutive \ 1/ trapping seasons, 2956 birds were examined and ringed. Their breeding area, as indicated by 163 direct recoveries (mainly juveniles, ringed as chicks), spans over a broad sector of the Adriatic coasts, with colonies lo­ cated up to 133 km far. During their stay at the study area, adults undergo an almost complete moult. Two partial primary moult cycles can be ob­ \ served, the first of them being suspended when 2-4 outermost long primar­ ies have not yet been shed. Pre-migratory body mass build-up, enough for a ~/ flight longer than 1000 km, takes place during the very last days before de­ parture to the winter quarters, in most cases when the moult has reached a I suspended stage. Active primary moult and body mass increase do overlap in late moulting birds (after 27 August), indicating that the two processes are compatible, in case of time shortage. Post-breeding movements to the Lagoon of Venice seem to fit most requisites of moult migration. Key words: Sterna albifrons - Italy - biometrics - moult migration - ringing - fattening Istituto Nazionale per la Fauna Selvatica, via Ca' Fornacetta 9,1-40064 Oz­ zano Emilia BO, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Spacing in Elegant Terns: Hexagonal Packing Revisited Charles T
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 39, Number 2, 2008 NEST SPACING IN ELEGANT TERNS: HEXAGONAL PACKING REVISITED CHARLES T. COLLINS and MICHAEL D. TAYLOR, Department of Biological Sci- ences, California State University, Long Beach, California 90840 (current address of Taylor: Santiago Canyon College, 8045 East Chapman Ave., Orange, California 92869); [email protected] ABSTRACT: Within an important breeding colony in southern California, Elegant Terns (Thalasseus elegans) nest in one to several tightly packed clusters. Inter-nest distances within these clusters average 31.2 cm. This value is less than that reported for the larger-bodied Royal Tern (T. maximus) and Great Crested Tern (T. bergii). For Elegant Terns, the modal number of adjacent nests was six (range 5–7). This type of nest arrangement has been previously described as hexagonal packing and now appears to be typical of all Thalasseus terns for which data are available. Many seabirds nest in large, often traditional, colonies (Coulson 2002, Schreiber and Burger 2002). The ontogeny of annual colony formation has been reviewed by Kharitonov and Siegel-Causey (1988), and the evolution- ary processes which have led to coloniality have been considered by a number of authors (Lack 1968, Fischer and Lockley 1974, Wittenburger and Hunt 1985, Siegel-Causey and Kharitonov 1990, Coulson 2002). Seabird colonies may be rather loosely organized aggregations of breeding pairs of one to several species at a single site. At the other extreme, they may be dense, tightly packed, largely monospecific clusters where distances between nests are minimal. A graphic example of the latter is the dense clustering of nests recorded for several species of crested terns (Buckley and Buckley 1972, 2002, Hulsman 1977, Veen 1977, Symens and Evans 1993, Burness et al.
    [Show full text]