DOCSLIB.ORG

Attw Ater's Prairie Chicken Its Life History and Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attw Ater's Prairie Chicken Its Life History and Management UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 'Harold L. leltel, Secretary FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ira N. Gabriellon, Director North American Fauna 57 ATTW ATER'S PRAIRIE CHICKEN ITS LIFE HISTORY AND MANAGEMENT BY VALGENE W. LEHMANN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1M! 1'01" MI_ b7 th_ SupedAteDdeDt 01 DocumeDta, WublaatoD. D. c. --- • PrIce .. ceDtIi ABSTRACT TTWATER'S PRAIRIE CHICKEN, a characteristic bird of the Texas A coastal prairie, is closely related to the now extinct heath-hen of northeastern North America. Once abundant in an area extending from the coastal tall-grase prairies of southwestern Louisiana and Texas west and south to near Port Isabel, it has decreased in numbers· as man has exploited its habitat, until now it is threatened with the same fate as that of the heath-hen. Important factors limiting the numbers of the bird include excessive or persistent rainfall during the nesting season, heavy grazing, excessive pasture burning, agricultural operations, and overshooting. Management will usually involve protection from excessive killing, improvement of food and cover, and control of predators and of the kill by hunters. Responsibility for this rests with the landowner. Optimum prairie chicken range apparently consists of well-drained grass­ land, with some weeds or shrubs, the cover varying in density from light to heavy; and with surface water available in summer; diversification within the gra881and type is essential. In the absence of ample refuges for the species, probably all other favorable factors together will fail to save Attwater's prairie chicken from extinction. This number continues the series of the North American Fauna issued by the Bureau of Biological Survey, of the United States Department of Agri­ culture, prior to its transfer and consolidation with the Bureau of Fisheries on June 30, 1940, to form the Fish and Wildlife Service, in the Department of the Interior. II CONTENTS Introduction _____________________________________________________ _ Page 1 Former distribution of prairie chickens in Tex8S ______________________ _ 2 Differences between Attwater's and the other prairie chickens __________ _ 4 Attwater's prairie chicken _____________________________________ _ 4 Lesser prairie chicken _________________________________________ _ 5 Former abundance of Attwater's prairiechickens _____________________ _ 6 Present distribution and numbers ___________________________________ _ lIabits __________________________________________________________ _ 7 10 Courtship and mating--- ______________________________________ _ 10 ~esting------------------------------------------------- ____ _ 14 Growth and development of young- ____________________________ _ Broodmze ___________________________________________________ _ 16 18 Juvenilemo~ity-----------------------------------------_~ __ 19 Family disintegration _________________________________________ _ 19 Annualinc~ ______________________________________________ _ 20 SeasonalmovementsF1ocking------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ _ 20 21 Spring--------------------------------------------------_Sununer _________________________________________________ _ 21 22 Fall and ~ter ___________________________________________ _ Food ________________________________________________________ _ 24 25 Habitat requirements _____________________________________________ _ 30 Kind of environment best suited ________________________________ _ 30 Character and density of vegetation----------------------------- 30 Topography---------------------------------------------VVater ___________________________________________________________ _ 30 31 Seasons of scarcity ____________________________________________ _ 31 Limiting factors __________________________________________________ _ 31 ~atura1 factors _______________________________________________ _ 32 Rainfall during the nesting season __________________________ _ F100ds __________________________________________________ _ 32 35 Drought------------------------------------------------__ 35 Hu~canes _______________________________________________ _ llail ____________________________________________________ _ 35 35 Lo~sto~ _____________________________________________ _ 36 D~ __________________________________________________ _ 36 Spread of woody vegetation--------------------------------- 36 ~tion ________________________________________________ _ 37 ~ests _______________________________________________ _ 37 Adultsyoung----------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________ _ 38 39 Review of natural factors __________________________________ _ 40 Artificial factors ______________________________________________ _ Agriculture ______________________________________________ _ 40 Pastureburning __________________________________________ _ 40 41 m IV CONTENTS Limiting factors-Continued. Artificial factors-Continued. Page Overgrazing---------------------------------------------- 42 Oil developmen t_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 43 I>rainage_________________________________________________ 43 Pasturemo~g------------------------------------------- 43 Mechanical accidents_ __ _________________ __ ______ ____ ______ 44 I1unting------------------------------------------------__ 44 Id&!lagement______________________________________________________ 45 ProtecuoD____________________________________________________ 45 liabitatimprovement__________________________________________ 46 Evaluating conditions___ ______________ ___________ __________ 47 Censusmethods___________________________________________ 47 Spring counts on the courtship grounds___________________ 47 ltopecount___________________________________________ 49 Car-dogcount---------------------------------------- 52 Using the census _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52 Spring----------------------------------------------- 53 Summer______________________________________________ 54 VVinter_______________________________________________ 55 General recommendations for habitat controL________________ 56 Predator controL___ _________________ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ______________ 57 Harvesting the BurpluB__ ___ ____________________ ________________ 57 Restocking-----------------------------------------------____ 58 Sum~~-------------------------------------------------________ Literature cited __________ ._ ______ ___ ___________ __ _____ __ _ __________ 5962 Index____________________________________________________________ 65 ILLUSTRATIONS PLA.TB Facing page 1. Attwater's prairie chickens (Tympanuchua cupido atttoaten1 on boom- ing ground ______________________________________ Frontispiece 2. Dense cordgrass areas in Aransas County, TelL___________________ 4 3. Male Attwater's prairie chicken, showing vocal sacs._______________ 10 4. Nest and eggs of Attwater's prairie chicken; Colorado County, Tex__ 14 5. Concealment of nests by Attwater's prairie Chicken; Colorado County, Tex _____________________ -__________________________________ 15 6. Chicks of Attwater's prairie chicken; Colorado County, Tex_________ 16 7. Wild indigo (BapUsia) in a closely grazed pasture; Austin County, Tex______________________________________________________ 22 8. Diversified cover-excellent prairie chicken range; Colorado County, Tex________________________________________________________ 30 9. Medium-heavy to heavy cover-excellent food-cover conditions in a moderately grazed pasture; Colorado County, Tex_ _ _____________ 31 10. Shells of eggs at prairie chicken nest destroyed by house cat; Colorado County, Tex________________________________________________ 38 11. Nativebluestemprairie-wellpopulated by prairie Chickens; Colorado County, Tex_____________________________________________ ___ 39 12. Excellent unburned cover at right of road; inferior burned cover at left; Colorado County, Tex____________________________________ 42 13. Rope counting of prairie chickens on Matagorda Island, Tex_________ 48 14. Fenced plot planted to begari; Wharton County, Tex______________ 56 FIGUD Page 1. Distribution of Attwater's prairie chickens in Texas________________ 3 2. Movements of a combined brood, Colorado County, Tex____________ 23 3. Rainfall conditions in May in the range of Attwater's prairie chicken in Tex88 ___________________________________________ Facing page 34 4. Diagram of the rope count_____________________________________ 50 v ATTWATER'S PRAIRIE CHICKEN By VALGERE W. LEHMANN OollGboro'or, DW£8ion of Wildlife Research, FiBh and WiUUfe 8ennce 1 INTRODUCTION Attwater's prairie chicken (TympatnuchU8 cwpido attwaten Ben­ dire) (see frontispiece), might well be called the heath-hen of the South. It is so closely related to the now extinct heath-hen (T. c. cupido) of northeastern North America as to be classified in the same species. Like the heath-hen, Attwater's prairie chicken once inhabited a large area, its former range including the coastal tall­ grass (An¢ropogO'Tt) prairies of southwestern Louisiana and in Texas west and south to Cameron County, nea·r Port Isabel. In certain areas the birds were abundant. Old-timers report that the deep booming courtship calls of the males once reverberated from the prairies with such force and monotony as actually to pain sensitive eardrums. The bird, however, is no longer abundant. It has de­ creased in numbers as man has exploited its habitat until
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recent Literature
    Vol.1940 XI RecentLiterature [63 RECENT LITERATURE Reviews by Margaret M. Nice and Thomas T. McCabe BANDING AND MIGRATION 1. Giiteborg's Natural History Museum's Ringing of Birds in 1938.-- (G6teborgs Naturhistoriska Museums Ringm•rkningar av Flyttf•g!er under 1938.) L. A. J•gerskiold1939. GOteborg'sMusei •rstryck, 1939; 91-108. In 1938 7,428 birds were ringed, making a total of 99,822 since 1911, with a retake figure of 3,482--3.5 per cent. Those ringed in greatest numbers were Black- headed and Common Gulls (Larus ridibundus and L. canus). Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), and Common, Arctic and Sandwich Terns (Sterna hitundo, S. paradisea, and S. sandvicensis). 2. Results from Ringing Birds in Belgium.--(Oeuvre du Baguage des Oiseaux en Belgique.) Charles Dupond. 1939. Le Gerfaut, 29: 65-98. With the Brambling (Fringilla montifringilla) seven individuals returned to the same place in later winters, while others did not: six banded in October were found in Spain, France and Holland the same winter or the next; one was taken in Sweden the following winter 900 kilometers northeast of the place of banding; and one in Norway 1300 kilometers northeast. "Individual Migration" was found in the case of three species--Stock Dove (Columba oenas), Blackbird (Turdus rnerula) and Song Thrush (Turdus ericetoru,m),for some birds banded in the nest were sedentary while others migrated. 3. Fourth Banding Report of the Czecho-Slovakian Ornithological Society for the Year 1938. (IV. Beringungsbericht der TscheehischenOrni- thologischenGesellschaft for dasJahr 1938.) Otta Kadlec. 1939. Sylvia, 4: 33-55. Seventy-threeco6perators ringed 10,478 birds of 125 speciesin 1938.
    [Show full text]
  • Than a Meal: the Turkey in History, Myth
    More Than a Meal Abigail at United Poultry Concerns’ Thanksgiving Party Saturday, November 22, 1997. Photo: Barbara Davidson, The Washington Times, 11/27/97 More Than a Meal The Turkey in History, Myth, Ritual, and Reality Karen Davis, Ph.D. Lantern Books New York A Division of Booklight Inc. Lantern Books One Union Square West, Suite 201 New York, NY 10003 Copyright © Karen Davis, Ph.D. 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of Lantern Books. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data For Boris, who “almost got to be The real turkey inside of me.” From Boris, by Terry Kleeman and Marie Gleason Anne Shirley, 16-year-old star of “Anne of Green Gables” (RKO-Radio) on Thanksgiving Day, 1934 Photo: Underwood & Underwood, © 1988 Underwood Photo Archives, Ltd., San Francisco Table of Contents 1 Acknowledgments . .9 Introduction: Milton, Doris, and Some “Turkeys” in Recent American History . .11 1. A History of Image Problems: The Turkey as a Mock Figure of Speech and Symbol of Failure . .17 2. The Turkey By Many Other Names: Confusing Nomenclature and Species Identification Surrounding the Native American Bird . .25 3. A True Original Native of America . .33 4. Our Token of Festive Joy . .51 5. Why Do We Hate This Celebrated Bird? . .73 6. Rituals of Spectacular Humiliation: An Attempt to Make a Pathetic Situation Seem Funny . .99 7 8 More Than a Meal 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Birdobserver12.6 Page358 Index, Volume 12, 1984.Pdf
    INDEX, VOLUME 12, 1984 VOLUME 12: N o . 1: pp. 1-60 N o . 2: pp. .-124. No. 3: pp. 125 -176 N o. 4; pp. 177-244 N o . 5: pp. [5-300 No. 6: pp. 301 -360 At A Glance; Black Scoter Female Wayne R. Petersen 59, 122 Brambling H. Christian Floyd 243, 297 Clay-colored Sparrow Pat Fox and Mary Baird 58 Heath Hen Dorothy R. Arvidson 123, 172 Kentucky Warbler George W. Gove 175, 242 Swamp Sparrow Richard Walton 299, 356 Birding at a Solar Eclipse Leif J. Robinson 277 Book Reviews; Erma J. Fisk: The Peacocks of Baboquivari Patricia N. Fox 91 National Geographic Society's The Wonder of Birds Michael R. Greenwald 26 Bridled Tern Sighting off Gloucester, Massachusetts Walter G. Ellison 351 A Decade of Wintering Brant in Boston Harbor Leif J. Robinson 52 The Decline and Fall of Tympanuchus cupido cupido Dorothy R. Arvidson 172 E. B. White, Forbush, and the Birds of Massachusetts Barbara Phillips and Dorothy R. Arvidson 145 The Field Identification of Arctic Loon Terence A. Walsh 309 Field Notes from Here and There; Arctic Encounter at Plum Island David Lange 117 Clever Jackdaw Robert Abrams 119 Foolish Pelican Robert H. Stymeist 119 High Arctic Spectacle Dorothy S . Long 117 A Leucistic Black-bellied Plover George W. Gove 355 News About Jackdaws Martha Vaughan 355 Starling Fracas Lee E. Taylor 118 Field Records: George W. Gove, October 1983 29 April 1984 215 Robert H. Stymeist, November 1983 41 May 1984 226 and Lee E. Taylor December 1983 95 June 1984 280 January 1984 107 July 1984 289 February 1984 155 August 1984 328 March 1984 162 September 1984 337 A Fuddle of Falcons Nancy Clayton 267 Further Notes on the Field Identification of Winter- plumaged Arctic Loons Terence A.
    [Show full text]
  • Banding the Last Heath Hen [99
    Vol.19311II1 Gaoss,Banding the Last Heath Hen [99 BANDING THE LAST HEATH HEN By ALFREDO. GROSS THE last Heath Hen, the sole survivor of his race since December8, 1928, a bird which'isfree to roam the scrub-oak plains of Martha's Vineyard Island, Massachusetts, was trapped and marked with two numbered metal bands on April 1, 1931. As soonas the bird was banded and photo- graphedit was again liberatedin his favorite retreat among the scrub oaks, apparently none the worsefor his experience. In the past the Heath Hens cameeach spring to the clearings or open grasslandsto go through their weird courtship per- formances. The last bird, true to the traditions of his race, visits the meadow on the farm of James Green, near West 100] Gaoss,Banding theLast Heath Hen [JulyI'Bircl-Baadiag . Tisbury, which is its ancestralbooming-field. Becauseof this curious instinctive trait it is possible to entice this bird to within a few feet of a woodenblind set up in the midst of the field where it comeswith unfailing regularity. The blind en- abled the observersto trap the bird as well as to study and photograph it at closerange. The trap employed was a simple iron frame covered over with fish-seinenetting, the latter being used instead of wire to prevent injury to the bird. The trap was releasedby a string running from the trigger stick to the blind. The day on which the Heath Hen was trapped there was a steady down- pour of rain. The bird came ou.tof the scrub oaks at 6.45 x..•.
    [Show full text]
  • Grouse of the Lewis & Clark Expedition, by Michael A. Schroeder
    WashingtonHistory.org GROUSE OF THE LEWIS & CLARK EXPEDITION By Michael A. Schroeder COLUMBIA The Magazine of Northwest History, Winter 2003-04: Vol. 17, No. 4 “The flesh of the cock of the Plains is dark, and only tolerable in point of flavour. I do not think it as good as either the Pheasant or Grouse." These words were spoken by Meriwether Lewis on March 2, 1806, at Fort Clatsop near present-day Astoria, Oregon. They were noteworthy not only for their detail but for the way they illustrate the process of acquiring new information. A careful reading of the journals of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (transcribed by Gary E. Moulton, 1986-2001, University of Nebraska Press) reveals that all of the species referred to in the first quote are grouse, two of which had never been described in print before. In 1803-06 Lewis and Clark led a monumental three-year expedition up the Missouri River and its tributaries to the Rocky Mountains, down the Columbia River and its tributaries to the Pacific Ocean, and back again. Although most of us are aware of adventurous aspects of the journey such as close encounters with indigenous peoples and periods of extreme hunger, the expedition was also characterized by an unprecedented effort to record as many aspects of natural history as possible. No group of animals illustrates this objective more than the grouse. The journals include numerous detailed summary descriptions of grouse and more than 80 actual observations, many with enough descriptive information to identify the species. What makes Lewis and Clark so unique in this regard is that other explorers of the age rarely recorded adequate details.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Population Sizes and Adaptive Genetic Variation in a Captive Bird Population
    Effective population sizes and adaptive genetic variation in a captive bird population Giridhar Athrey1,2, Nikolas Faust1, Anne-Sophie Charlotte Hieke1 and I. Lehr Brisbin3 1 Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States of America 2 Faculty of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States of America 3 Savannah River Ecology Lab, Aiken, SC, United States of America ABSTRACT Captive populations are considered a key component of ex situ conservation programs. Research on multiple taxa has shown the differential success of maintaining demo- graphic versus genetic stability and viability in captive populations. In typical captive populations, usually founded by few or related individuals, genetic diversity can be lost and inbreeding can accumulate rapidly, calling into question their ultimate utility for release into the wild. Furthermore, domestication selection for survival in captive conditions is another concern. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the dynamics of population sizes, particularly the effective population size, and genetic diversity at non- neutral and adaptive loci in captive populations. In this study, we assessed effective population sizes and genetic variation at both neutral microsatellite markers, as well as SNP variants from the MHC-B locus of a captive Red Junglefowl population. This population represents a rare instance of a population with a well-documented history in captivity, following a realistic scenario of chain-of-custody, unlike many captive lab populations. Our analyses, which included 27 individuals comprising the entirety of one captive population show very low neutral and adaptive genetic variation, as well as low effective sizes, which correspond with the known demographic history.
    [Show full text]
  • Infectious Agents of Prairie Grouse (Tympanuchus Spp.) (PG) Mirrored Trends in How North American Wildlife Scientists Perceived Host–Para- Site Interactions
    05-SC_Peterson x.qxd 4/6/04 12:09 PM Page 35 SPECIAL COVERAGE 35 Parasites and infectious diseases of prairie grouse: should managers be concerned? by Markus J. Peterson Abstract Historically, interest in the infectious agents of prairie grouse (Tympanuchus spp.) (PG) mirrored trends in how North American wildlife scientists perceived host–para- site interactions. Increased ecological interest in host–parasite interactions since the 1980s led to increased awareness of PG–parasite interactions beginning in the 1990s. Prairie grouse are hosts to parasitic arthropods (e.g., lice, mites, ticks) and helminths (e.g., nematodes, cestodes, trematodes), as well as microparasites such as protozoa, bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Although many of these infectious agents cause disease in individual PG, few data address their potential influence on host population dynamics. Based on existing data on the parasites of PG, studies of other grouse species, and the- oretical perspectives, the macroparasites Dispharynx nasuta and Trichostrongylus cramae; the microparasites Eimeria dispersa, E. angusta, Leucocytozoon bonasae, and Plasmodium pedioecetii; and the infectious bronchitis and reticuloendotheliosis viruses exhibit characteristics that suggest they have the potential to regulate PG pop- ulations. Infectious agents such as Histomonas meleagridis, Pasteurella multocida, E. dispersa, E. angusta, and other microparasites that cause high mortality across a broad range of galliform hosts have the potential to extirpate small, isolated PG popu- lations. Nonparasitic diseases caused by mycotoxins, pesticides, and other toxic com- pounds also have the potential to influence population dynamics. Because there appears to be a behavioral component to PG population extinction, the fact that para- sites might influence breeding behavior also requires further evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoreau's Birds
    Guide to Thoreau’s Birds1 Acadian Owl (Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus) American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus (Great Bittern) American Coot Fulica americana (Marsh Hen) (cinereus) (coot)[Thoreau saw in Minnesota] American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis American linnet (Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus) American Pipit Anthus spinoletta American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla American Robin Turdus migratorius American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea American Woodcock Scolopax minor Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker (Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus) Auk, Little (Dovekie Alle alle) Auk, Great (garefowl) Pinguinis impennis (extinct) Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus (White-headed Eagle) Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Barred Owl Strix varia Bay-wing (Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus) Beach-bird (Piping Plover Charadrius melodus) Belcher-squelcher (American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus) Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Bicknell’s Thrush: We believe that, in the White Mountains, Thoreau heard this subspecies of the Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus. Bitterns American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus (Great Bittern) Green Bittern, Small Bittern (Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus) Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis [American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus] Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia (Black-and-white Creeper) Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus (St. Domingo Cuckoo) Blackbirds Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Population Sizes and Adaptive Genetic Variation in a Captive Bird Population
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/307728; this version posted April 24, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Effective population sizes and adaptive genetic variation in a captive bird population 2 3 Giridhar Athrey1,2∔, Nikolas Faust1, Anne-Sophie Charlotte Hieke1, I. Lehr Brisbin3 4 1Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, 2472 TAMU, College Station, TX, 5 77843. 6 2Faculty of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Texas A&M University, 2472 TAMU, College 7 Station, TX, 77843. 8 3University of Georgia/Savannah River Ecology Lab, Drawer E, Aiken, SC, 29802. 9 10 ∔Corresponding author: Giridhar Athrey, Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M 11 University, 2472 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843. Email: [email protected] 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/307728; this version posted April 24, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Abstract 2 Captive populations are considered a key component of ex situ conservation programs. Research 3 on multiple taxa have shown the differential success of maintaining demographic versus genetic 4 stability and viability in captive populations. In typical captive populations, usually founded by 5 few or related individuals, genetic diversity can be lost and inbreeding can accumulate rapidly, 6 calling into question their ultimate utility for release into the wild.
    [Show full text]
  • Serologic Surveillance of Wild and Pen-Reared Ring-Necked Pheasants (Phasianus Colchicus) As a Method of Understanding Disease Reservoirs
    DOI: 10.7589/2017-08-191 Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 54(2), 2018, pp. 414–418 Ó Wildlife Disease Association 2018 Serologic Surveillance of Wild and Pen-reared Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) as a Method of Understanding Disease Reservoirs Ian A. Dwight,1 Peter S. Coates,1,5 Simone T. Stoute,2 C. Gabriel Senties-Cue,2,4 Radhika V. Gharpure,3 and Maurice E. Pitesky3 1US Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, 800 Business Park Drive, Dixon, California 95620, USA; 2California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory, 1550 N Soderquist Road, Turlock, California 95380, USA; 3University of California Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Cooperative Extension, 1 Garrod Drive, Davis, California 95616, USA; 4Current address: Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, 365 Malone Drive, Center, Texas 75965, USA; 5Corresponding author (email: [email protected]) ABSTRACT: We investigated exposure to infectious and Mandeville Island Duck Club (Fig. 1). diseases in wild (n¼33) and pen-reared (n¼12) Using night spotlighting techniques adapted Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus)in from Wakkinen et al. (1992), we captured and the Central Valley of California, US during 2014 and 2015. Serologic tests were positive for collected antemortem blood from wild and antibodies against hemorrhagic enteritis, infec- pen-reared pheasants at our study sites, not tious bursal disease, and Newcastle disease including breeding farms. We classified indi- viruses in both wild and pen-reared pheasants. viduals that were not reared in captivity as ‘‘wild,’’ and individuals reared in captivity as The practice of pen rearing and releasing ‘‘pen-reared’’ pheasants. Wild pheasants sam- Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) pled at Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, GLWA, on public and private wildlands coupled with and Mandeville Island Duck Club spatially the widespread distribution of hunting areas overlapped with pen-reared pheasants re- (CDFW 2017; USFWS 2017) within Califor- leased at these sites during both years of the nia, US (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Heath Hen Project Advances Quickly
    DNA samples from the greater prairie chicken have been instrumental. Heath Hen Project Advances Quickly Sara Brown Thursday, March 5, 2015 - 4:49pm A complex and groundbreaking project that aims to bring back the heath hen is advancing “at lightning speed,” scientists said this week. The small bird that is a member of the grouse family went extinct more than 80 years ago when the last known male died on Martha’s Vineyard. Now, using DNA plucked from the toes of heath hen specimens in Canada and Chicago, DNA samples from a greater prairie chicken from the plains of Nebraska and funding from donors with Vineyard ties, a team of scientists from around the country hopes to complete the first phase of the heath hen de-extinction project by early summer. Even if the effort falls short of its end goal — to bring the heath hen back into existence — scientists involved said the quest to bring back a long-lost bird could help existing bird species. “This has opened up the idea whereby we might approach many species,” said Tom Chase, a Vineyard conservationist who is a key advisor for the project. “It’s probably not just a Vineyard, heath hen thing anymore. It’s probably much bigger than that.” The rapid speed at which the work has advanced, the strength of the team working on the project, “and the technological frontiers I see ahead of us may mean that this is going to be a much more important project,” he said. “Even if nothing comes to the Vineyard, in a way it doesn’t matter much.
    [Show full text]
  • Tions on Quail Hunting in Dukes, Es
    ——Other legislation included provisions for the spearing of carp and eels88, prohibi- tions on quail hunting in Dukes, Essex, and Nantucket counties until 192289, autho- rization for the Commissioners to regulate the taking of smelt in great ponds90, imple- mentation of a closed season on the hunting and trapping of raccoons91, provision for a bounty on seals92, and the requirement for a freshwater fishing license and provision for a “combined” hunting and fishing license93,94. THE DIVISION OF FISHERIES & GAME—THE EARLY YEARS, 1920-1947: A SUMMARY The “Commission on Fisheries & Game” was replaced on December 1, 1919, by the “Division” of Fisheries & Game, with an appointed “Director” as Chief Executive Officer, subordinate to the “Commissioner” of the Department of Conservation ——After the first Director, William C. Adams, served several terms (resigning in 1931), the Division entered a lengthy period with Directors serving short terms or a single 3-year term. ——The Department was reorganized in 1939, splitting off “Marine Fisheries” and “Wildlife Research & Management” as separate Divisions. ——The Director’s editorials firmly emphasized the role of outdoor recreation as healthy and inspiring, the benefits and services provided by the Division to all the state’s citi- zens, the need for sustained and adequate funding, the modernization of fish and game propagation facilities, the requirement for scientific surveys and investigations, and the values of public education projects. ——The Division briefly formed an unofficial Advisory Council with several sports- men’s, birding, and agricultural organizations, and the Director met on a regular basis with representatives from the various sporting County Leagues.
    [Show full text]