DOCSLIB.ORG

P0549-P0553.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
P0549-P0553.Pdf SHORT COMMUNICATIONS 549 The Condor 99549-553 0 The Cooper Omithologlcal Society 1997 COMPARISON OF PELLETS VERSUS COLLECTED BIRDS FOR SAMPLING DIETS OF DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS CLAYTONE. DERBY AND JAMES R. LOVVORN~ Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 Abstract. For many fish-eating birds, two types of sample sizes of colonial diving birds in given months samplescan be usedto determine diets of adultsduring or years are usually < 25 and often < 10 (e.g., Baltz both breeding and nonbreedingperiods: esophagus and and Morejohn 1977, Kennedy and Greer 1988, Otten- gizzard contentsof birds collected at feeding sites,and bather et al. 1994), althoughgreater samples are some- pellets (indigestible residue) cast up at roostsor breed- times possibleat wintering concentrations(Glahn et al. ing colonies. We compared these two methods for 1995). Collecting birds also requiresthat all important Double-crested Cormorants (Phalucrocorux auritus) feeding sites be located and sampled. collected on the North Platte River, Wyoming and Gathering pellets at colonies or roosts does not re- nesting at a nearby colony both before and after fin- quire killing birds, can provide integrative samplesof gerling trout were stockedin the river. Before stocking, all feeding sites, and can result in larger sample sizes there were no significant differences between pellets with less time and effort (Veldkamp 1995, Warke and and collected birds in percent massesof different fish Day 1995). However, this method cannot be used if types in different length classes. After stocking, the colonies or roosts are inaccessible(e.g., on cliffs), are two methodsyielded similar resultsfor different length directly over water where pellets cannot be retrieved classes,but differed in relative proportionsof suckers (on pilings, etc.), or have too few birds to yield enough and trout. Patternsin percent occurrenceof crayfish in pellets in a given period. Also, disruption of colonies the diet suggestthat the time of day adults are col- while gatheringpellets, causingincreased predation on lected might affect comparability of the two methods. eggs and young and nest abandonment,might often Key words: diet sampling, Double-crested Cor- have greater impactson bird populationsthan shooting morant, Phalacrocoraxauritus, fish-eating birds, oto- adults away from colonies (Bunnell et al. 1981). For liths, pellets, trout, sucker. cormorants, the latter problem is especially great in areas such as the Intermountain region of western Two methodscan be used to sample diets of adult fish- North America, where colonies often contain only 20- eating birds during both breeding and nonbreedingpe- 200 cormorant nests (Findholt 1988) and many dep- riods. The first is analysisof esophagusor gizzard con- redating gulls. tents from birds that are collected, usually by shooting Otoliths (hard inner-ear bones of fish) found in pel- (Baltz and Morejohn 1977, Ottenbacher et al. 1994, lets or collected birds often are used to identify fish Glahn et al. 1995). The second method is analysis of species and estimate lengths of fish remains (Craven pellets (indigestible residue) cast up by adults at col- and Lev 1987, Martucci et al. 1993, Veldkamp 1995). onies or roosting sites (Keller 1995, Brown and Ewins However, in some studies of captive cormorants, di- 1996). A third type of sample, sometimes combined gestive acids partly or completely dissolvedsome oto- with pellets (e.g., Craven and Lev 1987), is more re- liths. These changescaused underestimates of size for cently ingestedmaterial regurgitatedwhen birds at col- larger fish and of total numbers of smaller fish, and onies are disturbed (Blackwell et al. 1995. Findholt distorted the apparent species composition of prey and Anderson 1995). However, when searchinga dis- (Johnstoneet al. 1990, Harris and Wanless 1993, Veld- turbed colony for regurgitationsit is often not possible kamp 1995). Other workers have concludedthat these to distinguish regurgitationsof adults versus chicks, effects are negligible (Martucci et al. 1993), do not which might be fed different foods (Harris and Wan- apply to field situations (Zijlstra and Van Eerden less 1993, Veldkamp 1995). In contrast,pellets usually 1995), and can be largely eliminated by excluding oto- are not producedby cormorant chicks < 7 weeks old liths that are clearly eroded (Suter and Morel 1996). (Russell et al. 1995, Trauttsmansdorffand Wassermann Regardlessof these concerns, otoliths continue to be 1995, Zijlstra and Van Eerden 1995). Collecting birds away from colonies or roosts, es- used (Suter 1995, Veldkamp 1995, Warke and Day pecially pelagic divers, can be difficult and time-con- 1995) because they greatly increase the number of suming. Also, sensitive population status of the birds food items identified. or proximity to people can make shooting birds bio- Despite variationsin desirability and possiblyresults logically or politically undesirable.For these reasons, of pellets versuscollected birds, the two methodshave not been comparedat the same location and time dur- ing known changesin prey availability. We performed r Received 1 June 1996. Accepted 14 January 1997. such an analysisfor Double-crestedCormorants (Phal- z Correspondingauthor. e-mail: [email protected] acrocorax auritus) feeding on an inland coldwater riv- 550 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS er before and after the river was stocked with finger- 1974) and the edge of the thick end of each otolith ling trout. was measuredwith an ocular micrometer.This method was intended to reduce error in measurementsof total METHODS otolith length caused by variable erosion of the op- Our study was conducted on the North Platte River posite, thinner end of the otolith. We also excluded near Casper, Wyoming, and on two nesting islands in from analysis otoliths that were clearly eroded (Suter Soda Lake, 2.5 km north of Casper. Nesters included and Morel 1996). Total fish length was estimatedfrom both Double-crested Cormorants (maximum of 243 separateregression equations relating otolith radius to and 77 pairs on the two islands, respectively, in 1994) total fish length for trout, suckers (Cutustomus com- and several hundred pairs of California Gulls (Larus mersoni and C. cutustomus), and minnows (mainly caZz@zicus). The 83-km section of river upstreamof Rhinichthys cutaractue and Pimephales promelus) Casper to Gray Reef Dam was stocked on 27 June (Derby and Lovvorn 1997). Fresh massesof fish in 1994 with 54,100 rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus my- each length class were calculated from allometric kiss) and 38,900 cutthroat trout (0. clarki), both spe- equations of mass versus total length for samples of cies 11.4-12.6 cm long. whole fish of the different species. From this section of river, we shot and collected 12 In both pellets and collected birds, we matchedpairs cormorantsfrom 2 to 23 June, and 11 cormorantsfrom of otoliths (two occur in each fish) whenever possible, 30 June to 14 July. In the previous year, we found that so numbers of fish analyzed equaled the number of cormorantscollected while actively foraging often had matched pairs plus the number of unmatchedotoliths. empty esophagi and gizzards, whereas birds collected These sucker species do not eat fish, nor do rainbow while drying their wings (typically on rocks in the riv- trout in all studies to date in Wyoming (e.g., Hubert er) usually containedfood. et al. 1994); electroshockingon 9-10 May 1994 re- Fresh pellets (moist, mucus-coatedcapsules cast up vealed almost no cutthroattrout of piscivoroussize in the study area. Thus, otoliths in diet samplesprobably bv. adult birds: Harris and Wanless 1993) were eath- ered from both nesting islandsbefore trout stockingon did not result from otoliths in the stomachsof prey 24 June (3 1 pellets) and after stocking on 1 July (15 eaten by cormorants.Percent massesof each fish type pellets). Lack of vegetation, high densities of cormo- (trout, sucker, minnow) in each of five length classes rant nests, and many breeding gulls made these colo- (8-cm intervals from 0 to 40 cm) were calculated for nies very sensitive to human disturbance;visits every each individual sample (pellet or collected bird) (ag- other week caused complete abandonmentof one of gregate percentage method of Swanson et al. 1974). the islandsthe previous year. Thus, we restrictedpellet Crayfish (Cambaridae) and tiger salamanders(Ambys- collection to single visits before and after stocking. tomu tigrinum) could not be counted based on miscel- The colony was searchedbetween 06:30 and 07:30 to laneousfragments, so for thesefoods we recordedonly minimize heat stress on nestlings not brooded during percent occurrence (percentageof individual samples our presence. containing the food item). We gathered pellets only in the area of cormorant To test for differences between samplingmethods in nests, which were generally < 1 m apart. In over 200 percent massesof fish in different length classes,we hr of dawn-to-duskobservations during incubationand performed analysesof variance (ANOVA) with PROC early brood-rearing the previous year, the dense nest- GLM (SAS Institute Inc. 1987). We used arcsine ing areas were seldom if ever entered by adults that squareroot transformationsto stabilize variances.For were not obviously paired. In studies of Great Cor- percent occurrence of crayfish and salamanders,we morants (Phalucrocorux turbo) and European Shags used percentagetests (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). (P. uristotelis), chicks < 7 weeks old did not produce RESULTS pellets,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Owl Pellet Dissection Activity
    Owl Pellet Dissection Activity: Background: Owl pellets are neat little packages of fur, bones, and other indigestible stuff that are regurgitated (spit up) sometime after an owl has finished digesting several meals. You can find owl pellets on the ground under trees where owls like to roost or nest. All owls cough up pellets as a part of how they digest their food. Most of the time, they swallow their prey whole without chewing or tearing the flesh apart. This means that owls naturally have a lot more bones, feathers, and fur in their diet. Owls can digest only the soft muscles and organs of their prey. The bones, teeth, fur, feathers, scales, or insect skeletons are too dense and cannot be converted into energy. The harder parts may also puncture an owl’s soft, curved intestines if passed through its digestive tract. Instead, the waste material is formed into a pellet in the gizzard, a muscular pouch in the owl’s digestive system. The gizzard operates like a trash compactor, pressing all the bones, fur, feathers, or other indigestible stuff into a firm, oval-shaped ball. When the pellet gets big enough, it is passed back up the esophagus to be cast out (thrown up) about twelve hours after eating. Although other birds, like eagles and hawks, also regurgitate pellets, owls are more efficient at it and they regurgitate more frequently. Owls swallow their prey whole, ingesting the entire skeleton. Other raptors selectively tear at their prey, eating only the soft digestible parts and leaving the indigestible bones. Also, unlike other birds, owls do not have a crop, which is an organ that holds food until the stomach is ready to receive it.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Specimen of Microraptor Provides Unique Evidence of Dinosaurs Preying on Birds
    Additional specimen of Microraptor provides unique evidence of dinosaurs preying on birds Jingmai O’Connor1, Zhonghe Zhou1, and Xing Xu Key Laboratory of Evolutionary Systematics of Vertebrates, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China Contributed by Zhonghe Zhou, October 28, 2011 (sent for review September 13, 2011) Preserved indicators of diet are extremely rare in the fossil record; The vertebral column of this specimen is complete except for even more so is unequivocal direct evidence for predator–prey its proximal and distal ends; pleurocoels are absent from the relationships. Here, we report on a unique specimen of the small thoracic vertebrae, as in dromaeosaurids and basal birds. Poor nonavian theropod Microraptor gui from the Early Cretaceous preservation prevents clear observation of sutures; however, Jehol biota, China, which has the remains of an adult enantiorni- there does not appear to be any separation between the neural thine bird preserved in its abdomen, most likely not scavenged, arches and vertebral centra, or any other indicators that the but captured and consumed by the dinosaur. We provide direct specimen is a juvenile. The number of caudal vertebrae cannot evidence for the dietary preferences of Microraptor and a nonavian be estimated, but the elongate distal caudals are tightly bounded dinosaur feeding on a bird. Further, because Jehol enantiorni- by elongated zygapophyses, as in other dromaeosaurids. The rib thines were distinctly arboreal, in contrast to their cursorial orni- cage is nearly completely preserved; both right and left sides are thurine counterparts, this fossil suggests that Microraptor hunted visible ventrally closed by the articulated gastral basket.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Center Classroom Series Owl Pellets: Little Packages of Owl Puke
    Wildlife Center Classroom Series Owl Pellets: Little Packages of Owl Puke Wednesday August 10, 2016 Raina Krasner, WCV: Hello, everyone! Welcome to today’s Wildlife Center Classroom Series! Raina Krasner, WCV: Today, we’re talking about something that I think many of you are familiar with – owl pellets! Otherwise known as owl puke, little furball gifts, tiny packages of bones. But let me stop myself before I give away too much of the good stuff. Comment From caleb (͡๏̯͡๏) WOO HOO! Kids think this may be one of the BEST Classroom Series EVER ~~ we LOVE to dissect Papa G'Ho pellets! Comment From Dave in Missouri Oh, oel puke, this will go good with my lunch!:) Raina Krasner, WCV: :) Raina Krasner, WCV: First, what is an owl pellet? Eagle Owl Pellet in Germany, Martin Lindner Wildlife Center Classroom Series: Owl Pellets: Little Packages of Owl Puke Page 1 Raina Krasner, WCV: When an owl eats its prey, it consumes most, if not all, parts of the animal. Raina Krasner, WCV: If you order a fast food hamburger (or a veggie burger!) and it comes to you in a neat little wax paper package, and on the hamburger there is lettuce, tomato, and pickles, you have the luxury of using your utensils or fingers to pull back the wax paper wrapper, and then pick apart the burger and pull off the parts you don’t like, don’t want, or can’t eat. Raina Krasner, WCV: An owl, however, has to eat everything – “wrapper”, toppings, and all. Raina Krasner, WCV: No handy little thumbs and fingers to pick apart the food.
    [Show full text]
  • For Creative Minds
    For Creative Minds The For Creative Minds educational section may be photocopied or printed from our website by the owner of this book for educational, non-commercial uses. Cross-curricular teaching activities, interactive quizzes, and more are available online. Go to ArbordalePublishing.com and click on the book’s cover to explore all the links. Biologist or Paleontologist? Scientists who study living things (biologists) often observe animals to learn about them. If they are working in the field, they might even see different animal signs (nests with eggs, footprints, or poop) that help them to better understand the animal they are studying. Scientists who study dinosaurs (paleontologists) learn about the animals by studying body or trace fossil clues. They sometimes use knowledge of today’s animals to help them understand the dinosaurs. Identify whether you think the following statements describe the work of a biologist or a paleontologist. Can you explain “why” to someone? 1. The scientist dissected the owl pellet to see what it had eaten. 2. The scientist discovered that the round-looking rock was fossilized poop (coprolite) containing bits of bone from a plant-eating dinosaur. 3. In 2011, scientists found several dinosaur feathers trapped in amber. 4. In 2007, scientists found a duckbilled dinosaur that was so well preserved that even the skin had fossilized. 5. Scientists watched the birds care for their young. 6. Scientists found fossils of an animal sitting on eggs in a nest in Mongolia. 7. Scientists used medical scanners to see inside fossils of a dino skull. Inside the crest were hollow passages similar to the inside of a horn.
    [Show full text]
  • A Curious Pellet from a Great Horned Owl (Bubo Virginianus)
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2005 A Curious Pellet From a Great Horned Owl (Bubo Virginianus) Neal Woodman USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Carla J. Dove National Museum of Natural History, [email protected] Suzanne C. Peurach USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Woodman, Neal; Dove, Carla J.; and Peurach, Suzanne C., "A Curious Pellet From a Great Horned Owl (Bubo Virginianus)" (2005). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 619. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/619 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 2005NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 12(2):127–132 A Curious Pellet From a Great Horned Owl (Bubo Virginianus) 1, 2 1 NEAL WOODMAN *, CARLA J. DOVE , AND SUZANNE C. PEURACH Abstract – One of the traditional methods of determining the dietary preferences of owls relies upon the identification of bony remains of prey contained in regur- gitated pellets. Discovery of a pellet containing a large, complete primary feather from an adult, male Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) prompted us to examine in detail a small sample of pellets from a Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus). Our analyses of feather and hair remains in these pellets docu- mented the presence of three species of birds and two species of mammals, whereas bones in the pellets represented only mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Owl Pellet Project Review
    Owl Pellet Project Review: What have we learned about barn owls so far? Use this slideshow to quiz yourself. Write down the answers in your Journal in complete sentences that restate the questions, then check the next slide to see if you are correct. If you are incorrect, be sure to fix your answer! Owls are a type of carnivorous bird that is sometimes called a “bird of prey.” Q1. What term did we learn that means bird of prey? A1. A bird of prey is called a raptor. Q2. What are some other raptors besides owls? This is my friend Megan with an Eagle Owl. She works at the Cincinnati Zoo. Other raptors are eagles, hawks, ospreys, and falcons. Red-tailed Hawk Bald Eagle Falcons Osprey This Secretary Bird is also a raptor. I saw some of these crazy-looking birds in Namibia. Although they can fly very well, they usually hunt on the ground. These guys even kill and eat snakes! Q3. Are all carnivorous birds raptors? Support your answer with evidence! Pelicans eat fish. So do Penguins! FACTS: 1. A carnivorous animal eats other animals. 2. A raptor has sharp talons with which to catch its prey and a sharp beak for tearing it up. A3. Possible answer: Raptors are carnivorous birds of prey with sharp, hooked beaks and talons. There are some carnivorous birds which are not raptors. For example, penguins and pelicans eat fish, which are animals, but they do not possess sharp talons or beaks specialized for tearing. Make sure the question is restated and that you provided supporting evidence! An adaptation is a physical or behavioral trait which helps and organism survive in its environment.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ANALYSIS of BIRD PELLETS FOUND on LUNDY by ALAN ROWLAND Mole Cottage, Chapel Close, Woodford, Morwenstow, Cornwall, EX23 9JR E-Mail: [email protected]
    Journal of the Lundy Field Society, 4, 2014 AN ANALYSIS OF BIRD PELLETS FOUND ON LUNDY by ALAN ROWLAND Mole Cottage, Chapel Close, Woodford, Morwenstow, Cornwall, EX23 9JR e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Bird pellets are a potential source of information on food preferences and composition of local fauna. Sixteen pellets from three different bird taxa (raptors, gulls, corvids) were collected from Lundy over a period of two years and the contents subsequently analysed to identify prey and predator. Keywords: Lundy, bird pellets, raptors, gulls, corvids INTRODUCTION Owl pellets, especially those of owls such as Barn Owl (Tyto alba), are a useful source of identifying mammal distribution as well as predation statistics. Owls swallow their prey whole and eject the indigestible remains. These remains can be teased apart to reveal the bird’s choice of diet as well as the composition of the local small mammal, bird and invertebrate population. Some species, like Barn Owl, have preferred perches where they regularly return to digest their food. These perches are often inside barns or other buildings, or within sheltered areas, so the ejected pellets can be easily found and suffer minimal damage from wind and rain. Such devotion to a perch means that pellets can usually be identified to species with some degree of certainty (RSPB, undated). The pellets of species other than owls are occasionally described. Witherby et al., 1963, gives pellet sizes of Peregrines to be 40-45mm in length by 22-25mm in diameter though they can be much smaller and often taper at one end; Kestrel pellets are typically 30-35mm in length by 9-15mm in diameter and Sparrowhawk pellets 21-40mm long by 10-12mm in diameter.
    [Show full text]
  • Pellet Egestion in Modern Carnivorous Snakes
    Current Zoology, 2020, 66(5), 593–595 doi: 10.1093/cz/zoaa009 Advance Access Publication Date: 7 March 2020 Letter to the Editor Letter to the Editor Pellet egestion in modern carnivorous snakes a,b, c Stanisław BURY * and Agnieszka DROHOBYCKA-WAWRYKA aInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, Krako´w, 30-387, Poland, bNATRIX Herpetological Association, Legnicka 65, Wrocław, 54-206, Poland and cMedicavet Veterinary Clinic, Kapelanka Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article/66/5/593/5799074 by guest on 01 October 2021 13c, Krako´w, 30-347, Poland *Address correspondence to Stanisław Bury. E-mail: [email protected]. Handling editor: Xiang Ji Received on 7 January 2020; accepted on 2 March 2020 Food resources vary in terms of digestibility and constraints in food mass: 23.4 g), 7 days after ingestion of a vole, prior next feeding, a processing are an essential factor driving the evolution of adapta- compact mass of distinguishable shape was palpated. The location tions to cope with them, for example, a complex morphology of of the object in the mid-body at approximately half of the snout– gastric tract, symbiosis with microorganisms, enzymatic specializa- vent length indicated its location in the stomach, which was further tion (McNab 2002). Pellet egestion is another important adaptation confirmed by the X-ray examination (performed in MedicaVet that enables to remove indigestible food particles and is observed in Veterinary Clinic, Cracow, Poland; Figure 1A). One day later the several vertebrate taxa. Pellets are most commonly reported in sau- specimen was observed to eject orally a structure resembling avian ropsids, particularly birds, but published records indicate pellet for- pellet, that is, containing bones and fur, being dry and lacking any mation also in the 2nd groups of sauropsids, that is, nonavian soft tissues (Figure 1B).
    [Show full text]
  • Discovering Owl Pellets
    Discovering Owl Pellets Essential Question: Location: Indoors Do all animals digest their food in the same way? Objectives: Learners will At a Glance: 1) dissect an owl pellet and Learners will dissect an owl pellet and interpret clues to owl interpret clues to owl eating and digestion habits. eating and digestion habits. Next they will identify small 2) identify small mammal skulls mammal skulls and bones using a bone identification chart. and bones using a bone identification chart. Background: More than 300 species of birds in several different orders are Skills: communication, observation, data collection, known to regurgitate pellets of indigestible material listening, analysis including all owl species. Owl pellets are very useful in understanding owls’ feeding habits. Supplies: owl pellets (easy to locate Owls, like other birds, cannot chew their food. Small sources on internet) dissecting tools (toothpicks, prey is swallowed whole, skull intact. Larger prey, like a tweezers) skunk eaten by a Great Horned owl, may be torn into smaller paper plates pieces before being eaten. owl pellet bone ID sheet Discovering Owl Pellets Unlike most other birds, owls have no crop, and the Worksheet food passes straight into the foregut (they do not possess a Pencils gloves true stomach). The acid in the owls gut is rather weak with a pH of 2.2 - 2.5 which is the same as vinegar. This compares Subjects: science to diurnal birds of prey which have a pH of 1.3 - 1.8, which is approaching the pH of concentrated hydrochloric acid. Time: 40 minutes This means that only the soft tissues are digested; the bones and even fur and feathers remain virtually intact.
    [Show full text]
  • Diet Composition of Common Ravens Across the Urban-Wildland Interface of the West Mojave Desert
    Diet 244 RAVEN DIET AND URBANIZATION Diet composition of common ravens across the urban-wildland interface of the West Mojave Desert William B. Kristan III, William I. Boarman, and John J. Crayon Abstract Common ravens (Corvus corax) are human-subsidized scavengers and predators in the Mojave Desert. They have increased dramatically in number and have been implicated as contributors to the decline in desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) populations. Known patterns of increased fledging success near human developments suggested that food was the most likely resource subsidy received by ravens. Because ravens are opportunistic foragers with a generalist diet, we predicted that the types of resource subsidy provided by different kinds of human developments should be reflected in measures of diet com- position of breeding ravens. We estimated diet composition from contents of raven pel- lets collected at nests and related diet composition to distance of the nests from roads and point sources of resource subsidies, such as towns or landfills. Ravens that nested close to point subsidies far from major roads had the greatest incidence of trash in their diets. Ravens that nested close to roads but far from point subsidies had a low incidence of trash and a higher incidence of presumably road-killed mammals and reptiles. Ravens far from both roads and point subsidies had more plant material and arthropods, and ravens close to both roads and point subsidies had more birds and amphibians. Diet diversity was not related to distance from roads or developments. Fledging success was correlated with diet composition, such that birds with diets consistent with trash or road-kill subsidies fledged the greatest number of chicks.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedagogical Guide: the Raptor Pellet
    PEDAGOGICAL GUIDE: THE RAPTOR PELLET PEDAGOGICAL GUIDE : The Raptor Pellet TABLE OF CONTENTS PELLET PRELUDE Introduction…………......……………………………….............2 Formation of the raptor pellet….......…..............................….2 Pellet analysis ……………………….......…...............…....…..3 Amazing pellets!…………………………......……................…3 THE PELLET DISSECTION ACTIVITY Preparation.........………………………………………..…........4 List of materials......................................................................4 Dissection Instruction Sheet...................................................5 Activity wrap-up…………………………………….….....…...…6 SCIENTIFIC METHOD OPTION The Scientific Method....……............................................…..6 Scientific Report Worksheet...................................................7 Appendix I: THE BIRD DIGESTIVE SYSTEM..........……………..8 Appendix II: REFERENCE BOOKS......………..……………...…..9 © All rights reserved –Falcon Environmental Services, inc. 1 www.falcon.bz PEDAGOGICAL GUIDE : The Raptor Pellet PELLET PRELUDE INTRODUCTION Birds of prey are carnivorous birds that possess 3 important adaptations for hunting. They have an excellent vision which allows them to see prey a great distance away. They have powerful feet called talons which they use to catch the prey, and they have a hooked beak to break their prey’s neck and tear off meat. FORMATION OF THE RAPTOR PELLET Most raptors eat their entire prey. Some owls even eat them whole, in one gulp, when they are small enough of course! The bird’s stomach can digest the meat, the fat and other tissues but not the feathers, fur or bones of the prey. All these non-digested parts create a pellet in the bird’s gizzard, an organ of the digestive system. The process of digestion and of forming a pellet can take between 6 and 24 hours depending on the type and the size of the prey eaten. It is important the bird coughs up this mass of non- digested parts because it could get in the way of the absorption of nutrients and cause certain health problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Observations on the Predator-Prey Complex in The
    Some observations on the predator-prey complex in the Gallatin valley by Cecil P Haight A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Committee in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Zoology Montana State University © Copyright by Cecil P Haight (1941) Abstract: Some observations of predator-prey relations were made on a section of land in the midst of first grade irrigated farming land lying just west of the Montana State College campus. The study was carried out between October 1, 1939 and April 1, 1941. Scat and pellet analyses and field observations were made to try to establish some of the relations between the raptores and predators and the prey species on the area. Despite ample opportunity to prey on domestic animals all predation was on wild populations, mainly on meadow mice. Insects were taken in significant quantities when they were available. All the predators ate a considerable amount of carrion in the winter. Predators on this area had no detrimental effect on normal prey populations. SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THB PREDATOR-PREY COMPLEX IN THE GALLATIN VALIEY b y CECIL P. HAJGHT A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Committee in partial fulfillment of the requirements for.the degree of Master of Science in Zoology a t Montana S tate College Approved* Bozeman, Montana June, 1937 f(37S - 2- IABUD OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables and Plates 5 Abstract • • • ................. li. Introduction ...... 5 A Development of Ideas • 5 Description of Area . 10 Techniques Employed in the Study 13 The Fauna ............................................................................................. I ) The Biologival Complex .................... l£ Weather and Animal Movements 16 Flora-fauna relationships .
    [Show full text]