DOCSLIB.ORG

Predation and the Management of Prairie Grouse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predation and the Management of Prairie Grouse rgt''::gi°:k..//iS, EiS>3g Uv¢ -m USs,,uI_E 0000 30 i9, . t9 i.<,es,9S<,-0se!<:mNs § | $,S3+: 29 i^. i XL_3r.X.5 i >Sm&23xz.e\3§* 7)iLi;i"v" 3 333.9 _ >i;.i;.is9u9\:S 9.93S9i><.,.::::;;.3i9.00.tl329s9,Z, <'i'-: 3* >gt 0 i =v i : uooBS; v.E.: :::.-.0)f L\j;t;f . gk ::i:::; :0 g 0 - n_ +s_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24 SPECIALCOVERAGE ;= E :2:i9'1J '3 i1 6w'S : 5R igis'3.333. d6Ci:9r9;,,e ",X,, :2- ,,,.,,, ,,,,D,: it 3 _ x s § tg > 3b.9; f :; 3 &.:i: :,':@,,: :, -,:: S EI II 1Ew °00; r r _i s 1ts\J11 1s t11 _ S: 9: m X _ 20 ,Q,FB ___Ff N_ .3_r: :. j,:. .,:: _ISIP.9IkP V :>> | Ttanagementof prairie . grouse _IIS. .: 9:::; E _3|6by ,:. ::: MichaelA. Schroeder and .:. .^. :%9: M:g9tW;x3&90Wt93FiXti-:::: LET:: lvlcllaruD* h 2 1x.r Davuacsn ,1 1 .9 : :9 .:13 ' :: . :<i:> 2 :$ . : 3:.v: . e°9'# ;;.3§2 ESe'E ,.,.,::. :::>':E ': .::ji :E:in: :: 1 .X.-72 , t0Ws:: :, x --: :piaper E ::: ii8.:.g ,:.E: examines the importanceof predationin the life cycles of sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), sharp-tailedgrouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), greaterprairie-chicken (17 cupido), and lesser prairie-chicken(l: pallidicinctus). Most individualprairie grouse eventuallysuccumb to predation,with substantial effects on nest success, juvenilesurvival, and adult survival. Predatorcontrol has occasionallybeen used as a managementtool with the belief that reducingpreda- tor numberscan enhance viabilityof game populationsin generaland prairie grouse in particular.Although some experimentalresearch has shown that direct reduction of predatornumbers can increase grouse recruitment,most currentman- agement plans recommendindirect management of the grouse-predatorrelation- ship by manipulatinghabitats. However,as habitatsbecome more fragmentedand alteredand populationsof prairiegrouse become more threatenedand endan- gered,it is importantto reconsiderpredator control as a managementoption and to evaluateits viabilitythrough experimentation. Key Words Centrocercus urophasianus, greaterprairie-chicken, grouse management,lesser prairie-chicken,population regulation, predator-prey relationships, sage grouse, sharp-tailedgrouse, Tympanuchus cupido, Tympanuchus phasianellus, Tympan- uchus pallidicinctus ife historiesof sage grouse,sharp-tailed grouse, greater We review availableinformation on the importanceof prairie-chicken,and lesser prairie-chickenhave been stud- predationin the life cycles of prairiegrouse and place iedjhroughout their ranges. Despite variationin behav- thatinformation into a managementcontext. Because abitat, and status,populations of prairiegrouse are predationpressure can be manipulateddirectly by con- similarregarding extent, timing, and significanceof mor- trollingpredator numbers (Batterson and Morse 1948) talityfrom predation (Schroeder and Robb 1993, and indirectlyby manipulatinghabitats (Hamerstrom et Connellyet al. 1998, Giesen 1998, Schroederet al. 1999). al. 1957), an additionalobjective of this paperwas to The consequencesof predationon the populationdynam- evaluatethe viabilityof alternativestrategies. ics of prairiegrouse are often consideredto be substantial enoughthat the effectivemanagement of prairiegrouse requiresthe directand indirectmanipulation of predation Descriptionof prairiegrouse predation pressure(Batterson and Morse 1948, Hamerstromet al. Sage grouse 1957, Lawrence1982, Riley et al. 1992). Averageclutch size for sage grousevaries from 6.6 to Addressfor MichaelA. Schroeder:Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife,P.O. Box 1077, Bridgeport,WA 98813, USA;e-mail: grouse@ televar.com.Address for RichardK. Baydack:Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba,Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(1):24-32 Peer refereed Predationand prairiegrouse * Schroederand Baydack 25 9.1 eggs, and the nest success ratevaries from 15 to 86% raven,and American crow (Corvusbrachyrynchos). (Wallestadand Pyrah1974, Connellyet al. 1993, Gregg Becausenest success is positivelycorrelated with the et al. 1994, Schroeder1997). Nest predatorsinclude presenceof relativelythick grass cover, activities such as groundsquirrel (Spermophilus spp.), badger(Taxidea grazingor hayingmay negativelyimpact nest success taxus),coyote (Canis latrans),and commonraven (Kohn 1976, Kirschet al. 1978, Marksand Marks1987, (Corvuscorax, Battersonand Morse 1948, Patterson Giesen and Connelly 1993) 1952, DeLong et al. 1995). Nest success is positively Primarypredators of sharp-tailedgrouse include coy- correlatedwith the presenceof big sagebrush(Artemisia ote, northerngoshawk (Accipiter gentilis), gyrfalcon tridentata)and relativelythick grass and forb cover (Falco rusticolus),rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), (Connellyet al. 1991, Gregg et al. 1994, DeLong et al. Predator controllLs are rarely recommended for North 1995, Sveumet al. 1998). Americanprairie grouse, even for increasinglythreatened Consequently,improper man- agementof habitathas often and endangeredpopulations living in altered,isolated, or been implicatedin declinesin fragmentedhabitats. This is due to...factorsincluding the nest success (Trueblood lack of informationabout the long-termconsequences of 1954, Klebenow1969, Braun et al. 1977, Fischeret al. predatorcontrol, the relativelyhigh cost of predatorcon- 1996). trol,the protected status of many potential predators,and Primarypredators of sage grouseinclude golden eagle concerns about public attitudestoward predatorcontrol (Aquilachrysaetos), red- | tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis), Swainson's hawk (B. northernharrier, red-tailed hawk, and greathorned owl swainsoni),ferruginous hawk (B. regalis),northern harri- (Bubovirginianus, Lano 1912, Gross 1930, Marshalland er (Circuscyaneus), common raven, weasel (A8ustela Jensen 1937, Blus 1967). Althoughmortality of juve- spp.), and coyote (Rasmussenand Griner1938, Scott niles is poorlydocumented, it appearsto be substantially 1942, Patterson1952, Dunkle 1977). Mortalityfor juve- greaterthan for breeding-agebirds (Ammann 1957, niles has been estimatedto be 63% duringthe first few Hillmanand Jackson1973, Connellyet al. 1998). weeks afterhatch (Wallestad 1975). Habitatalteration Annualmortality of breeding-agesharp-tailed grouse associatedwith grazing,drought, and wildfiremay variesfrom 17 to 55% (Robelet al. 1972, Moyles and increasethe rateof predationon juveniles,but the rela- Boag 1981, Giesen 1987, McDonald1998). Predation tionshipsare not clear (Battersonand Morse 1948, appearsto be particularlyimportant for breeding-age Klebenow1972). birdsduring the breedingseason (Bergerud1988, Annualmortality of breeding-agesage grousevaries McDonald1998). Predationalso may be substantialdur- from 55 to 75%for femalesand 38 to 60%for males; ing severewinters, particularly from avianpredators mortalityappears to be greaterin huntedpopulations (Ulliman1995, Connellyet al. 1998). (June 1963, Zablan1993, Connellyet al. 1994). Rela- tively little mortalityis causedby f1re,weather, and colli- Greaterprairie-chicken sions with wires, fences, andvehicles (Patterson1952, Averageclutch size for greaterprairie-chickens varies Dalke et al. 1963, Schroederet al. l999). Predation from 8.2 to 12.9 eggs and nest success ratefrom 22 to appearsto be particularlyimportant for femalesduring 65% (Yeatter1943, Ammann1957, Vanceand the incubationand brood-rearing seasons and for males Westemeier1979, Petersonand Silvy 1996). Nest preda- duringthe breedingseason (Patterson 1952, Schroederet tors includeground squirrel, badger, striped skunk, opos- al. 1999). Predationrate on breeding-agebirds may not sum (Didelphisvirginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), be influencedby harvestrate or habitat(Braun 1998). coyote,American crow, and fire ants (Solenopsisspp., Gross 1930, Lehmann1941, Bowen et al. 1976, Sharp-tailedgrouse Svedarsky1988). Nest success is greaterin areaswith Averageclutch size for sharp-tailedgrouse varies from relativelythick grassand forb cover (Yeatter1963, 10.9 to 12.3 eggs and nest success ratefrom 50 to 72Wo Bowen et al. 1976, Buhnerkempeet al. 1984, Lutzet al. (Hamerstrom1939, Hartet al. 1950, Ammann1957, 1994). Managementof habitatthat results in loss of Meints 1991). Nest predatorsinclude coyote, striped residualvegetation may resultin reducednest success skunk(Mephitis mephitis), ground squirrel, common (Lehmann1941, Arthaud1970, Kirschet al. 1973). 26 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(1):24-32 red-tailedhawk, rough-legged hawk, ferruginoushawk, prairiefalcon (Falco mexicanus), greathorned owl, gold- en eagle, and northernharrier (Campbell 1950, Copelin 1963, Merchant1982, Haukos 1988, Giesen 1998). Juvenilemortality appears to be substantialduring the first few weeks afterhatch (Giesen 1998). Annualmor- tality of adultmale lesser prairie-chickensranges between35 and 45% (Campbell1972). Relativelysmall amountsof mortalityare causedby drowningand colli- sions with wires, fences, and vehicles (Campbell1972, Sell 1979, Merchant1982). Thereis little informationon the annualdistribution of predationpressure (Giesen 1998). Greaterprairie-chicken nest in northeasternColorado. Researchon prairiegrouse has demonstrateda relationshipbetween nest success Predationand life history and habitatquality. Most prairiegrouse are eventuallykilled by predators (Bergerud1988). Predationhas the potentialto affect the Primarypredators of greaterprairie-chickens include annuallife cycle in 3 primaryways: 1) success of nests, red-tailedhawk, northern goshawk, rough-legged hawk, 2) survivalof juveniles duringthe f1rstfew weeks after broad-wingedhawk (Buteo platypterus), northernharrier,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Grassland Conservation Plan for Prairie Grouse
    A GRASSLAND CONSERVATION PLAN FOR PRAIRIE GROUSE Photo credit: Michael Schroeder Photo credit: Rick Baetsen Photo Credit: Tom Harvey North American Grouse Partnership 2008 Preferred Citation: Vodehnal, W.L., and J.B. Haufler, Editors. 2008. A grassland conservation plan for prairie grouse. North American Grouse Partnership. Fruita, CO. Page i A GRASSLAND CONSERVATION PLAN FOR PRAIRIE GROUSE 2008 STEERING COMMITTEE William L. Vodehnal (Coordinator), Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Rick Baydack, University of Manitoba Dawn M. Davis, University of Idaho Jonathan B. Haufler, Ph.D., Ecosystem Management Research Institute Rob Manes, Kansas-The Nature Conservancy Stephanie Manes, United States Fish and Wildlife Service James A. Mosher, Ph.D., North American Grouse Partnership Steven P. Riley, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Heather Whitlaw, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prairie grouse, including all species of prairie-chicken and the sharp-tailed grouse, have declined precipitously and steadily from historical levels throughout the Great Plains of North America. While many factors have contributed to these declines, the loss and fragmentation of expansive prairies to farming, and the reduction of habitat quality within remaining prairie fragments are known to be the primary causes. The social, political and economic drivers that have facilitated this loss of native grasslands throughout the United States and Canada generally fall beyond the jurisdiction of individual local, regional, state, and provincial wildlife management authorities. As a result, many grassland- dependent species requiring high-quality native grasslands are now threatened, endangered, or species of concern. Grasslands have been identified as some of the most endangered ecosystems in North America, so it is not surprising that many associated species are of concern for their level of decline.
    [Show full text]
  • GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A
    U N I V E R S I T Y OF N E B R A S K A – L I N C O L N EC305 MANAGEMENT OF SANDHILLS RANGELANDS FOR GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A. Powell, Conservation Biologist and Animal Ecologist, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Walter H. Schacht, Range Scientist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lars C. Anderson, Range Ecologist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln William L. Vodehnal, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission reater prairie-chickens fascinate landowners, hunters, and birders Galike. They are a symbol of the natural heritage of the Great Plains. Their colorful mating rituals decorate pastures, and their booming calls add charm to meadows. Many landowners want to learn more about managing pastures to increase the number of greater prairie-chickens. Some have a personal desire to conserve the species. Others recognize that these native grouse offer income opportunities in the form of fee hunting and ecotourism. The more information landowners have, the easier it will be to find these birds and make sure they flourish year after year. Whatever your interest in greater prairie-chickens, learning more about this interesting species will help you maintain their habitat while you maintain your land. Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer Millions of greater prairie-chickens once inhabited the vast prairies in the Midwest. Their numbers were so great that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a so- called “chicken hunting culture” was created. The loss of habitat was, by far, the biggest reason for the dramatic decline in prairie-chicken numbers, but hunting was another factor.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights of the Museum of Zoology Highlights on the Blue Route
    Highlights of the Museum of Zoology Highlights on the Blue Route Ray-finned Fishes 1 The ray-finned fishes are the most diverse group of backboned animals alive today. From the air-breathing Polypterus with its bony scales to the inflated porcupine fish covered in spines; fish that hear by picking up sounds with the swim bladder and transferring them to the ear along a series of bones to the electrosense of mormyrids; the long fins of flying fish helping them to glide above the ocean surface to the amazing camouflage of the leafy seadragon… the range of adaptations seen in these animals is extraordinary. The origin of limbs 2 The work of Prof Jenny Clack (1947-2020) and her team here at the Museum has revolutionised our understanding of the origin of limbs in vertebrates. Her work on the Devonian tetrapods Acanthostega and Ichthyostega showed that they had eight fingers and seven toes respectively on their paddle-like limbs. These animals also had functional gills and other features that suggest that they were aquatic. More recent work on early Carboniferous sites is shedding light on early vertebrate life on land. LeatherbackTurtle, Dermochelys coriacea 3 Leatherbacks are the largest living turtles. They have a wide geographical range, but their numbers are falling. Eggs are laid on tropical beaches, and hatchlings must fend for themselves against many perils. Only around one in a thousand leatherback hatchlings reach adulthood. With such a low survival rate, the harvesting of turtle eggs has had a devastating impact on leatherback populations. Nile Crocodile, Crocodylus niloticus 4 This skeleton was collected by Dr Hugh Cott (1900- 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to PRAIRIE GROUSE VIEWING Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, Near Crookston, Minnesota
    Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Education GUIDE TO PRAIRIE GROUSE VIEWING Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge, near Crookston, Minnesota Reserve your chance today for an experience of a lifetime. In April, small 3-person blinds are placed on the dancing grounds or leks of Greater Prairie-Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse near Crookston, Minnesota. Blinds are placed adjacent to the lek so they do not disturb the birds, yet are close to the action. Past blinds have been close enough so that birds occasionally perched or danced on top of them to the delight of the human visitors. Greater Prairie- Greater Prairie‐Chicken by Ross Hier, Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse are shy birds. Every precaution Area Wildlife Manager, MnDNR should be taken to minimize disturbance during their courtship display. GUIDELINES FOR USE OF PRAIRIE GROUSE BLINDS 1. Arrive and settle in the blind no later than 60 minutes before sunrise (while it is still very dark), or 5:30 p.m. for evening viewing. Keep in mind that blinds are typically at least a ½ mile walk from the parking area. Usually you want to be leaving the parking area at least 80 minutes before sunrise. The prairie chickens usually come to the booming grounds in the dark and begin booming before daylight. You will hear them before you can see them. The best displays are at sunrise if the birds are not disturbed earlier in the morning. If you arrive late, the birds will flush from the lek or dancing ground and will probably return, but the display will not be as spectacular.
    [Show full text]
  • Importance of Dewlap Display in Male Mating Success in Free- Ranging Brown Anoles (Anolis Sagrei) Author(S): Richard R
    Importance of Dewlap Display in Male Mating Success in Free- Ranging Brown Anoles (Anolis sagrei) Author(s): Richard R. Tokarz, Ann V. Paterson, Stephen McMann Source: Journal of Herpetology, 39(1):174-177. 2005. Published By: The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2005)039[0174:IODDIM]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/ full/10.1670/0022-1511%282005%29039%5B0174%3AIODDIM%5D2.0.CO %3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 174–177, 2005 Copyright 2005 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Importance of Dewlap Display in Male Mating Success in Free-Ranging Brown Anoles (Anolis sagrei) 1,2 3,4 3,5 RICHARD R.
    [Show full text]
  • Diets of Greater Prairie Chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands1,2 3 4 Mark A
    Diets of Greater Prairie Chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands1,2 3 4 Mark A. Rumble, Jay A. Newell, and John E. Toepfer Abstract.-- Diets of greater prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National Grassland of North Dakota were examined. During the winter months agricultural crops (primarily corn) were the predominant food items. Green vegetation was consumed in greater quantities as spring progressed. Dandelion flowers and alfalfa/sweetclover were the major vegetative food items through the summer. Both juvenile and adults selected diets high in digestible protein obtained through consumption of arthropods and some plants. INTRODUCTION The Sheyenne National Grassland is an island of suitable prairie chicken habitat in eastern North Initially, the development of agriculture on Dakota. Because the population of prairie the prairies was credited with increasing the chickens on the Sheyenne National Grassland population and range of the greater prairie increased during the period 1974-1980 (Manske and chicken (Tympanuchus cupido (Hamerstrom et al. Barker 1981), the possibility of an annual 1957). Further development however, of harvest arose. Yet, the reasons for this agriculture, primarily "clean farming", population increase were not clear. As a result, contributed to their decline (Yeatter 1963, this study was initiated by the Rocky Mountain Westemier 1980). Prairie chicken populations are Forest and Range Experiment Station, in highest in areas where agriculture is cooperation with Montana State University to interspersed with grasslands in approximately a determine food habits of greater prairie chickens 1:2 ratio (Evans 1968). The quality of the on the Sheyenne National Grassland. grassland habitats is also important, however (Christisen and Krohn 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • MANAGEMENT of SANDHILLS RANGELANDS for GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A
    U N I V E R S I T Y OF N E B R A S K A – L I N C O L N EC305 MANAGEMENT OF SANDHILLS RANGELANDS FOR GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKENS Larkin A. Powell, Conservation Biologist and Animal Ecologist, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Walter H. Schacht, Range Scientist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lars C. Anderson, Range Ecologist, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln William L. Vodehnal, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission reater prairie-chickens fascinate landowners, hunters, and birders Galike. They are a symbol of the natural heritage of the Great Plains. Their colorful mating rituals decorate pastures, and their booming calls add charm to meadows. Many landowners want to learn more about managing pastures to increase the number of greater prairie-chickens. Some have a personal desire to conserve the species. Others recognize that these native grouse offer income opportunities in the form of fee hunting and ecotourism. The more information landowners have, the easier it will be to find these birds and make sure they flourish year after year. Whatever your interest in greater prairie-chickens, learning more about this interesting species will help you maintain their habitat while you maintain your land. Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer Millions of greater prairie-chickens once inhabited the vast prairies in the Midwest. Their numbers were so great that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a so- called “chicken hunting culture” was created. The loss of habitat was, by far, the biggest reason for the dramatic decline in prairie-chicken numbers, but hunting was another factor.
    [Show full text]
  • Mating Systems and Parental Investment Mating Systems
    Mating systems and parental investment Mating systems Pattern of matings in a population green anole Antithesis = promiscuity Polygyny Polygyny Scramble: no attempts to defend females, resources horseshoe crabs Northern barred frog Female defense: must be clustered elk Montezuma’s oropendola Dulichiella spp. Polygyny Resource distribution Resource defense: males defend food, nest sites Distribution of females affects Red-winged blackbird Lamprologus cichlid males’ ability to guard them Males cannot monopolize wide-ranging females dunnock 1 Polygyny threshold Polygyny threshold Male with no other females (monogamy) Male with other female(s) polygyny threshold ??? Quality of male’s territory Polygyny threshold Male dominance polygyny When females and sage grouse Polygyny threshold = point at which it’s resources too dispersed, better to be polygynous on a good territory males compete Leks = communal display arenas hammerhead bat Uganda kob Leks Leks High variance in male mating success – 10-20% males achieve >50% copulations – one male got 75% copulations Classical lek: males display in sight of each other Exploded lek: males rely wire-tailed manakin on vocal communication, e.g. kakapo 2 Leks Leks • Hotshots • Hotshots – Females attracted to lek by dominant male – Females attracted to lek by dominant male • Hotspots – Leks located in high-use areas Leks Leks • Hotshots Position of most successful – Females attracted to lek by dominant male male territory shifts (hot shot?) • Hotspots black grouse – Leks located in high-use areas • Female
    [Show full text]
  • Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative Report
    Lesser Prairie-Chicken Conservation Beyond Boundaries Initiative Report February 2012 Background/ Did You Know? • The lesser prairie-chicken is a Purpose ground-nesting bird native to the rangelands of the south central Lesser prairie-chicken populations have plains of the U.S. and best declined dramatically during the past several known for its unique courtship decades due to loss of native prairie, habitat displays and “booming” sounds. fragmentation, and degradation of habitat on both private and public lands. The • A lek is an area where lesser Natural Resources Conservation Service prairie-chicken males display (NRCS), its partners and cooperating during the breeding season to landowners are working to increase the number and the range of the lesser attract females; may also be prairie-chicken through the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Initiative (LPCI). At the referred to as a booming ground same time, the initiative is promoting the overall health of grazing lands and or strutting ground. the long-term sustainability of ranching operations.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has worked cooperatively with NRCS to ensure the initiative’s • The lesser prairie-chicken is conservation practices provide long-term benefits to the overall lesser prairie- comparable in morphology, chicken population; minimize or eliminate short-term harmful effects to those plumage and behavior to the populations, and cause no negative effects to other listed and candidate species greater prairie-chicken, although that share habitat with the lesser prairie-chicken. the lesser prairie-chicken is smaller and has distinctive NRCS State Conservationists in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma courtship displays and and Texas (states within the lesser prairie-chicken’s range), with the assistance vocalizations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Body Size on Sexual Dimorphism
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-2017 The Influence of Body Size on Sexual Dimorphism Haley Elizabeth Horbaly University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Horbaly, Haley Elizabeth, "The Influence of Body Size on Sexual Dimorphism. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4970 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Haley Elizabeth Horbaly entitled "The Influence of Body Size on Sexual Dimorphism." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Dawnie W. Steadman, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Benjamin M. Auerbach, Michael W. Kenyhercz Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) The Influence of Body Size on Sexual Dimorphism A Thesis Presented for the Master of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Haley Elizabeth Horbaly December 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Haley Elizabeth Horbaly All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically
    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (and 113 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 62nd AOU Supplement (2021), sorted taxonomically Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Highland Tinamou HITI Nothocercus bonapartei NOTBON Great Tinamou GRTI Tinamus major TINMAJ Little Tinamou LITI Crypturellus soui CRYSOU Thicket Tinamou THTI Crypturellus cinnamomeus CRYCIN Slaty-breasted Tinamou SBTI Crypturellus boucardi CRYBOU Choco Tinamou CHTI Crypturellus kerriae CRYKER White-faced Whistling-Duck WFWD Dendrocygna viduata DENVID Black-bellied Whistling-Duck BBWD Dendrocygna autumnalis DENAUT West Indian Whistling-Duck WIWD Dendrocygna arborea DENARB Fulvous Whistling-Duck FUWD Dendrocygna bicolor DENBIC Emperor Goose EMGO Anser canagicus ANSCAN Snow Goose SNGO Anser caerulescens ANSCAE + Lesser Snow Goose White-morph LSGW Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Intermediate-morph LSGI Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Blue-morph LSGB Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Greater Snow Goose White-morph GSGW Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Intermediate-morph GSGI Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Blue-morph GSGB Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Snow X Ross's Goose Hybrid SRGH Anser caerulescens x rossii ANSCAR + Snow/Ross's Goose SRGO Anser caerulescens/rossii ANSCRO Ross's Goose
    [Show full text]
  • Zoology Lab Manual
    General Zoology Lab Supplement Stephen W. Ziser Department of Biology Pinnacle Campus To Accompany the Zoology Lab Manual: Smith, D. G. & M. P. Schenk Exploring Zoology: A Laboratory Guide. Morton Publishing Co. for BIOL 1413 General Zoology 2017.5 Biology 1413 Introductory Zoology – Supplement to Lab Manual; Ziser 2015.12 1 General Zoology Laboratory Exercises 1. Orientation, Lab Safety, Animal Collection . 3 2. Lab Skills & Microscopy . 14 3. Animal Cells & Tissues . 15 4. Animal Organs & Organ Systems . 17 5. Animal Reproduction . 25 6. Animal Development . 27 7. Some Animal-Like Protists . 31 8. The Animal Kingdom . 33 9. Phylum Porifera (Sponges) . 47 10. Phyla Cnidaria (Jellyfish & Corals) & Ctenophora . 49 11. Phylum Platyhelminthes (Flatworms) . 52 12. Phylum Nematoda (Roundworms) . 56 13. Phyla Rotifera . 59 14. Acanthocephala, Gastrotricha & Nematomorpha . 60 15. Phylum Mollusca (Molluscs) . 67 16. Phyla Brachiopoda & Ectoprocta . 73 17. Phylum Annelida (Segmented Worms) . 74 18. Phyla Sipuncula . 78 19. Phylum Arthropoda (I): Trilobita, Myriopoda . 79 20. Phylum Arthropoda (II): Chelicerata . 81 21. Phylum Arthropods (III): Crustacea . 86 22. Phylum Arthropods (IV): Hexapoda . 90 23. Phyla Onycophora & Tardigrada . 97 24. Phylum Echinodermata (Echinoderms) . .104 25. Phyla Chaetognatha & Hemichordata . 108 26. Phylum Chordata (I): Lower Chordates & Agnatha . 109 27. Phylum Chordata (II): Chondrichthyes & Osteichthyes . 112 28. Phylum Chordata (III): Amphibia . 115 29. Phylum Chordata (IV): Reptilia . 118 30. Phylum Chordata (V): Aves . 121 31. Phylum Chordata (VI): Mammalia . 124 Lab Reports & Assignments Identifying Animal Phyla . 39 Identifying Common Freshwater Invertebrates . 42 Lab Report for Practical #1 . 43 Lab Report for Practical #2 . 62 Identification of Insect Orders . 96 Lab Report for Practical #3 .
    [Show full text]