DOCSLIB.ORG

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS of RING-NECKED PHEASANT HENS (Phasianus Colchicus)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS of RING-NECKED PHEASANT HENS (Phasianus Colchicus) HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF RING-NECKED PHEASANT HENS (Phasianus colchicus) ON FARMLAND IN LOWER AUSTRIA DURING NESTING AND BROOD REARING by THOMAS HOESMAN BLISS (Under the Direction of John P. Carroll) ABSTRACT Ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) are an important game species in Austria where populations have declined precipitously during the last half century. Given the lack of knowledge of populations within Austria, this research was conducted to determine habitat use and survival of pheasant hens during the breeding season and for broods during the first 21 days after hatching. Hen pheasants establish home ranges around set-aside and wetland habitats and nest in set aside. Brooding hens prefer to use set aside habitat and that game crop positively affects brood survival. Predation is the main reason for loss of hens and broods. Therefore, in order to increase the population of pheasants I suggest increasing the availability of set aside, wetland, and game crop habitats while incorporating supplemental feeding and predator control. INDEX WORDS: Ring-necked pheasant, Austria, Brood, Habitat Use, Home Range, Survival HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF RING-NECKED PHEASANT HENS (Phasianus colchicus) ON FARMLAND IN LOWER AUSTRIA DURING NESTING AND BROOD REARING by THOMAS HOESMAN BLISS B.S., University of Tennessee: Chattanooga, 1997 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2004 © 2004 Thomas Hoesman Bliss All Rights Reserved HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF RING-NECKED PHEASANT HENS (Phasianus colchicus) ON FARMLAND IN LOWER AUSTRIA DURING NESTING AND BROOD REARING by THOMAS HOESMAN BLISS Major Professor: John P. Carroll Committee: Karl V. Miller William Palmer Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2004 DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my loving wife, Angela, who had the strength to allow me to pursue this endeavor and for her patience and understanding during my time in Austria. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The funding for this project was a joint effort between Gutsverwaltung Hardegg, Austria, The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge, England, and the University of Georgia Warnell School of Forest Resources, USA. I personally want to thank the following people. John Carroll, my major professor, who took me on as graduate student and gave me the wonderful opportunity to work in Austria. Also, for his patience and positive outlook even during the frustrating periods encountered while conducting research abroad. To Roger Draycott, for his friendship and support while conducting research. I appreciated the much needed change of pace during your visits. Additionally, for your invaluable knowledge of pheasants which helped me out tremendously in the field and while writing. To Maximilian and Alexandra Hardegg, for their friendship and for welcoming a total stranger into their home. Also, for their love of the outdoors which without this research would not have been possible. Finally, I want to thank Karl Pock, for his friendship and patience in helping out an American, who has no grasp of the German language, get adjusted to life in Seefeld. Also for his valuable knowledge of wildlife which was imparted to me, and his ability to get my mind off work when I needed a break. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1 STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF RING-NECKED PHEASANTS .......................1 LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................1 LITERATURE CITED..............................................................................................4 2 HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND SURVIVAL OF HEN PHEASANTS IN LOWER AUSTRIA ..................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................9 STUDY AREA........................................................................................................10 METHODS..............................................................................................................12 RESULTS................................................................................................................16 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................19 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................21 3 HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND SURVIVAL OF PHEASANT BROODS IN LOWER AUSTRIA ................................................................................................40 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................40 STUDY AREA........................................................................................................41 METHODS..............................................................................................................42 RESULTS................................................................................................................46 vi DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................48 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................51 4 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR RING-NECKED PHEASANTS IN LOWER AUSTRIA ................................................................................................69 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS.......................................................................69 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................72 APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................74 A Patagial tag, date captured, weight (g), tarsus (mm), condition index (weight/tarsus), feather shaft (mm), age, capture location, and cover at trap of hen pheasants on Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2002 ..........................................................74 B Patagial tag, date captured, weight (g), tarsus (mm), condition index (weight/tarsus), feather shaft (mm), age, capture location, and cover at trap of hen pheasants on Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2003 ..........................................................76 C Models considered to determine the effect of dispersal (A), condition index (B), age (C), agriculture (D), set aside (E), woodland (F), amount edge within the home range (G), game crop (H), and wetland (I) upon the survival of pheasant hens on Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2002 – 2003 ..............................................78 D Models considered to determine the effect of condition index of hen (A), age (B), game crop (C), wetland (D), amount edge within the home range (E) nesting habitat (F), woodland (G), agriculture (H), and set aside (I) upon survival of pheasant broods on Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2001 – 2003 ..............81 vii E Example of a small breeding season 100% MCP home range (2.7 ha) using #1577. Observe mixture of preferred hen habitats, set aside and wetland, along with male territory habitat, woodland edge and coppice. Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2002-2003...................................................................................................84 F Example of a large breeding season 100% MCP home range (264 ha) using #1595. Notice low amount of male territory habitat, woodland and coppice, within the home range. Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2002-2003 ...........................85 G Example of hen dispersal using #1570 showing the 100% MCP home range during the breeding season on Seefeld Estate, Austria during 2002 ..................................86 H Example of a small 100% MCP brood home range (2.6 ha) using #1512. Home range is comprised of well managed set aside, game crop and wetland habitats which provide food and cover. Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2002-2003.........87 I Example of an average 100% MCP brood home range (11 ha) using #1573, which contains a good mixture of set aside, game crop, wetland, and agricultural land. Notice that majority of locations lie within game crop. Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2002-2003 .....................................................................................88 J Example of a large 100% MCP brood home range (44 ha) using #1568. Observe that the home range is dominated by agricultural land which increased the area covered in order to find preferred set aside habitat. Seefeld Estate, Lower Austria, Austria 2002-2003................................................................................................................89 viii CHAPTER 1 STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF RING-NECKED PHEASANTS LITERATURE REVIEW The Common (or Ring-necked) pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) is native from the shores of the Black and Caspian seas east to Manchuria and Korea and to Taiwan and Japan (Hill and Robertson 1988, Johnsgard 1999). Its name is derived from the Phasis Valley in Colchis, an area within the Republic of Georgia, where it was found by Jason and the Argonauts who is believed to have brought it to Europe around 1300 BC (Robertson
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transcript for Tracks in the Snow by Wong Herbert Yee (Square Fish, an Imprint of Macmillan)
    Transcript for Tracks in the Snow by Wong Herbert Yee (Square Fish, an Imprint of Macmillan) Introduction (approximately 0:00 – 5:16) Hi everyone! It's Colleen from the KU Natural History Museum, and I am so excited for today's Story Book Science. I'm so excited to read the Book Tracks in the Snow. But while we wait, Because I want to give some opportunity for folks to join us, I want to ask you a question that's related to the Book. Now, when we look at the Book cover, we see the word tracks is in the title. So what are tracks? Well, tracks are markings or impressions that animals, including humans, can leave Behind. And they leave them Behind in suBstances like snow or dirt. Alright? So, these tracks can tell us about what animals are in an area. And we can use them to identify the animals. Okay? Now, what animals do you think we can identify By their tracks? We can definitely identify animals like cottontail rabBits and mallard ducks. So I have the tracks of a cottontail rabBit and a mallard duck. So I'm going to grab those. And this is the track of a cottontail rabBit. You can see it's very oval – oops – very oval in shape. And it's very long. So this is how we can identify a cottontail rabBit, looking for this really long oval shape. So I'm going to put this down. And now, we're going to look at the track of a mallard duck.
    [Show full text]
  • Importance of Tactile and Visual Stimuli of Eggs and Nest for Termination of Egg Laying of Red Junglefowl
    The Auk 112(2):483-488, 1995 IMPORTANCE OF TACTILE AND VISUAL STIMULI OF EGGS AND NEST FOR TERMINATION OF EGG LAYING OF RED JUNGLEFOWL THEO MEIJER Departmentof Ethology,University of BieIefeld,P.O. Box100131, 33501Bielefeld, Germany ABSTRACT.--Experimentswere conductedto separatethe influence of tactile and visual stimuli emanating from the nest or eggs on the development of incubation behavior, the terminationof egg laying, and the determinationof clutchsize. Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus)hens, whose eggswere left inside the nest (experiment 1), receivedboth tactile and visualinformation, remained in the nestbox longer,and stoppedlaying after eight days (or sixeggs). Sixteen or 17females incubated. Leaving only the firstegg in the nest(experiment 2) gavesimilar results. When the eggslaid were placedunder a wire-meshbasket (experiment 3) suchthat the hen couldsee but not touchthe accumulatingeggs, laying stopped two days (or one egg) later than in experiment1, and mosthens "incubated"on the empty nestuntil the nestbox wasremoved. Surprisingly, when eggswere continuallyremoved (experiment 4), hensalso incubated progressively more, stopped laying after two weeks(or nine eggs), and then sat on the empty nest for one or more days. Stimulation of the brood patch by the nest alone led to more incubationand to termination of egg laying. Visual stimuli alone providedby eggsaccelerated both processesand were sufficientfor one-half of the hens to maintainfull incubationbehavior. Red Junglefowl do not appearto judgeclutch size visually. Received9 December1993, accepted25 February1994. DURING THE BREEDINGSEASON, a female has to nest. The few experimentsby which tactile in- make two important "decisions":when to start formation coming from the brood patch was laying, and when to stop laying.
    [Show full text]
  • 1471-2148-10-132.Pdf
    Shen et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010, 10:132 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/132 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access AResearch mitogenomic article perspective on the ancient, rapid radiation in the Galliformes with an emphasis on the Phasianidae Yong-Yi Shen1,2,3, Lu Liang1,2,3, Yan-Bo Sun1,2,3, Bi-Song Yue4, Xiao-Jun Yang1, Robert W Murphy1,5 and Ya- Ping Zhang*1,2 Abstract Background: The Galliformes is a well-known and widely distributed Order in Aves. The phylogenetic relationships of galliform birds, especially the turkeys, grouse, chickens, quails, and pheasants, have been studied intensively, likely because of their close association with humans. Despite extensive studies, convergent morphological evolution and rapid radiation have resulted in conflicting hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships. Many internal nodes have remained ambiguous. Results: We analyzed the complete mitochondrial (mt) genomes from 34 galliform species, including 14 new mt genomes and 20 published mt genomes, and obtained a single, robust tree. Most of the internal branches were relatively short and the terminal branches long suggesting an ancient, rapid radiation. The Megapodiidae formed the sister group to all other galliforms, followed in sequence by the Cracidae, Odontophoridae and Numididae. The remaining clade included the Phasianidae, Tetraonidae and Meleagrididae. The genus Arborophila was the sister group of the remaining taxa followed by Polyplectron. This was followed by two major clades: ((((Gallus, Bambusicola) Francolinus) (Coturnix, Alectoris)) Pavo) and (((((((Chrysolophus, Phasianus) Lophura) Syrmaticus) Perdix) Pucrasia) (Meleagris, Bonasa)) ((Lophophorus, Tetraophasis) Tragopan))). Conclusions: The traditional hypothesis of monophyletic lineages of pheasants, partridges, peafowls and tragopans was not supported in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Ducks Nesting in Enclosed Areas and Ducks in the Pool
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ducks Nesting In Enclosed Areas and Ducks in the Pool After about 25 days of incubation, the chicks will hatch. Duck migration: The mother will lead her chicks to the water within 24 Mallards often migrate unless there is sufficient food hours after hatching. Keep children and pets away and water available throughout the year. Many from the family. migrating individuals spend their winters in the Gulf Coast and fly to the Northern U.S. and Canada in the Ducks in enclosed areas and in the pool: spring. For migrating Mallards, spring migration Your yard may be providing ducks with the ideal place begins in March. In many western states, Mallards are to build a nest. You may have vegetation and water present year-round. that provides them with resources to live and build a nest in hopes they will succeed in raising a brood. Male Mallard Tim Ludwick/USFWS Female Mallard Tim Ludwick/USFWS Territory and Breeding: Breeding season varies among individuals, locations, Here, we provide you with some suggestions when and weather. Mallards begin to defend a territory ducks have decided to make your yard a temporary about 200 yards from where the nesting takes place. home. They often defend the territory to isolate the female from other males around February-mid May. Mallards What to do to discourage nesting and swimming in build their nests between March-June and breed pools: through the beginning of August. These birds can be secretive during the breeding seasons and may nest in • When you see a pair of ducks, or a female quacking places that are not easily accessible.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Ecology of Tibetan Eared Pheasant Crossoptilon Harmani in Scrub Environment, with Special Reference to the Effect of Food
    Ibis (2003), 145, 657–666 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Reproductive ecology of Tibetan Eared Pheasant Crossoptilon harmani in scrub environment, with special reference to the effect of food XIN LU1* & GUANG-MEI ZHENG2 1Department of Zoology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China 2Department of Ecology, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China We studied the nesting ecology of two groups of the endangered Tibetan Eared Pheasants Crossoptilon harmani in scrub environments near Lhasa, Tibet, during 1996 and 1999–2001. One group received artificial food from a nunnery prior to incubation whereas the other fed on natural food. This difference in the birds’ nutritional history allowed us to assess the effects of food on reproduction. Laying occurred between mid-April and early June, with a peak at the end of April or early May. Eggs were laid around noon. Adult females produced one clutch per year. Clutch size averaged 7.4 eggs (4–11). Incubation lasted 24–25 days. We observed a higher nesting success (67.7%) than reported for other eared pheasants. Pro- visioning had no significant effect on the timing of clutch initiation or nesting success, and a weak effect on egg size and clutch size (explaining 8.2% and 9.1% of the observed variation, respectively). These results were attributed to the observation that the unprovisioned birds had not experienced local food shortage before laying, despite spending more time feeding and less time resting than the provisioned birds. Nest-site selection by the pheasants was non-random with respect to environmental variables. Rock-cavities with an entrance aver- aging 0.32 m2 in size and not deeper than 1.5 m were greatly preferred as nest-sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Specimen Record of a Long-Billed Murrelet from Eastern Washington, with Notes on Plumage and Morphometric Differences Between Long-Billed and Marbled Murrelets
    SPECIMEN RECORD OF A LONG-BILLED MURRELET FROM EASTERN WASHINGTON, WITH NOTES ON PLUMAGE AND MORPHOMETRIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LONG-BILLED AND MARBLED MURRELETS CHRISTOPER W. THOMPSON, WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek, Washington98012, and Burke Museum,Box 353100, Universityof Washington,Seattle, Washington 98195 KEVIN J. PULLEN, ConnerMuseum, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash- ington 99164 RICHARD E. JOHNSON, Conner Museumand School of BiologicalSciences, WashingtonState University,Pullman, Washington 99164 ERICB. CUMMINS, WashingtonDepartment of Fishand Wildlife, 600 CapitolWay North, Olympia,Washington 98501 ABSTRACT:On 14 August2001, RobertDice found a Brachyramphusmurrelet approximately12 mileseast of Pomeroyin easternWashington state more than 200 milesfrom the nearestmarine waters. The bird died later that day. It had begun definitiveprebasic body molt, but not flightfeather molt. Necropsy indicated that the birdwas a female,probably in her secondcalendar year. Johnson and Thompson identifiedthe birdas a Long-billedMurrelet, Brachyramphus perdix, on the basisof plumageand measurements;it is the firstspecimen of thisspecies for Washington state. Contrary to many recent publicationsstating that Long-billedand Marbled Murreletshave white and brownunder wing coverts, respectively, we confirmedthat bothspecies typically have white under wing coverts prior to definitiveprebasic molt andbrown under wing coverts after this molt. Absence of anyextensive storm systems in the North Pacificin
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management
    Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of Wildlife Damage Management Methods by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services Chapter I Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management MAY 2017 Introduction to Risk Assessments for Methods Used in Wildlife Damage Management EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS) Program completed Risk Assessments for methods used in wildlife damage management in 1992 (USDA 1997). While those Risk Assessments are still valid, for the most part, the WS Program has expanded programs into different areas of wildlife management and wildlife damage management (WDM) such as work on airports, with feral swine and management of other invasive species, disease surveillance and control. Inherently, these programs have expanded the methods being used. Additionally, research has improved the effectiveness and selectiveness of methods being used and made new tools available. Thus, new methods and strategies will be analyzed in these risk assessments to cover the latest methods being used. The risk assements are being completed in Chapters and will be made available on a website, which can be regularly updated. Similar methods are combined into single risk assessments for efficiency; for example Chapter IV contains all foothold traps being used including standard foothold traps, pole traps, and foot cuffs. The Introduction to Risk Assessments is Chapter I and was completed to give an overall summary of the national WS Program. The methods being used and risks to target and nontarget species, people, pets, and the environment, and the issue of humanenss are discussed in this Chapter. From FY11 to FY15, WS had work tasks associated with 53 different methods being used.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Somerset Birds
    A Checklist of Somerset Birds The Somerset List to the end of 2014 contains 357 species. Using the BOURC classification 336 are in Category A, 18 in B and three in C. Golden Pheasant has been removed from the list as it is considered that there never was a self-sustaining population in Somerset. An explanation of the BOUC classification is given below. A Species that have been recorded in an apparently natural state at least once since 1 January 1950. B Species that have been recorded in an apparently natural state at least prior to 31 December 1949, but have not been recorded subsequently. C1 Naturalized introduced species - species that have occurred only as a result of introduction, e.g. Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus C2 Naturalized established species – species with established populations resulting from introduction by Man, but which also occur in an apparently natural state, e.g. Greylag Goose Anser anser C3 Naturalized re-established species – species with populations successfully re-established by Man in areas of former occurrence, e.g. Red Kite Milvus milvus. C4 Naturalized feral species – domesticated species with populations established in the wild, e.g. Rock Pigeon (Dove)/Feral Pigeon Columba livia C5 Vagrant naturalized species – species from established naturalized populations abroad, e.g. possibly some Ruddy Shelducks Tadorna ferruginea occurring in Britain. There are currently no species in category C5. C6 Former naturalized species - species formerly placed in C1 whose naturalized populations are either no longer self-sustaining or are considered extinct, e.g. Lady Amherst’s Pheasant Chrysolophus amherstiae. D Species that would otherwise appear in Category A except that there is reasonable doubt that they have ever occurred in a natural state.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Paul Johnsgard Collection Papers in the Biological Sciences 1983 Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants" (1983). Paul Johnsgard Collection. 17. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Paul Johnsgard Collection by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. HYBRIDIZATION & ZOOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PHEASANTS PAUL A. JOHNSGARD The purpose of this paper is to infonn members of the W.P.A. of an unusual scientific use of the extent and significance of hybridization among pheasants (tribe Phasianini in the proposed classification of Johnsgard~ 1973). This has occasionally occurred naturally, as for example between such locally sympatric species pairs as the kalij (Lophura leucol11elana) and the silver pheasant (L. nycthelnera), but usually occurs "'accidentally" in captive birds, especially in the absence of conspecific mates. Rarely has it been specifically planned for scientific purposes, such as for obtaining genetic, morphological, or biochemical information on hybrid haemoglobins (Brush. 1967), trans­ ferins (Crozier, 1967), or immunoelectrophoretic comparisons of blood sera (Sato, Ishi and HiraI, 1967). The literature has been summarized by Gray (1958), Delacour (1977), and Rutgers and Norris (1970). Some of these alleged hybrids, especially those not involving other Galliformes, were inadequately doculnented, and in a few cases such as a supposed hybrid between domestic fowl (Gallus gal/us) and the lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae) can be discounted.
    [Show full text]
  • 4-H-993-W, Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Food Flash Cards
    Purdue extension 4-H-993-W Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Food Flash Cards Authors: Natalie Carroll, Professor, Youth Development right, it goes in the “fast” pile. If it takes a little and Agricultural Education longer, put the card in the “medium” pile. And if Brian Miller, Director, Illinois–Indiana Sea Grant College the learner does not know, put the card in the “no” Program Photos by the authors, unless otherwise noted. pile. Concentrate follow-up study efforts on the “medium” and “no” piles. These flash cards can help youth learn about the foods that wildlife eat. This will help them assign THE CONTEST individual food items to the appropriate food When youth attend the WHEP Career Development categories and identify which wildlife species Event (CDE), actual food specimens—not eat those foods during the Foods Activity of the pictures—will be displayed on a table (see Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Program (WHEP) Figure 1). Participants need to identify which contest. While there may be some disagreement food category is represented by the specimen. about which wildlife eat foods from the category Participants will write this food category on the top represented by the picture, the authors feel that the of the score sheet (Scantron sheet, see Figure 2) and species listed give a good representation. then mark the appropriate boxes that represent the wildlife species which eat this category of food. The Use the following pages to make flash cards by same species are listed on the flash cards, making it cutting along the dotted lines, then fold the papers much easier for the students to learn this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Trichostrongylus Cramae N. Sp. (Nematoda), a Parasite of Bob-White Quail (Colinus Virginianus) M.-C
    Ann. Parasitol. Hum. Comp., Key-words: Trichostrongylus. Birds. Europe. USA. Trichos- 1993, 68 : n° 1, 43-48. trongylus tenuis. T. cramae n. sp. Lagopus scoticus. Pavo cris- tatus. Perdix perdix. Phasianus colchicus. Colinus virginianus. Mémoire. Mots-clés : Trichostrongylus. Oiseaux. Europe. USA. Trichos­ trongylus tenuis. T. cramae n. sp. Lagopus scoticus. Pavo cris- tatus. Perdix perdix. Phasianus colchicus. Colinus virginianus. TRICHOSTRONGYLUS CRAMAE N. SP. (NEMATODA), A PARASITE OF BOB-WHITE QUAIL (COLINUS VIRGINIANUS) M.-C. DURETTE-DESSET*, A. G. CHABAUD*, J. MOORE** Summary ---------------------------------------------------------- Cram (1925, 1927) incorrectly identified as T. pergracilis (now the cuticular striation, the relative distances between the second, a synonym of T. tenuis) what was in reality an undescribed spe­ third and fourth bursal papillae and the configuration of the dorsal cies in Colinus virginianus. ray. Red grouse (Lagopus scoticus), the type host of T. pergra­ Trichostrongylus cramae n. sp. is proposed for T. pergracilis cilis, was in fact found to be parasitized by T. tenuis, confirming sensu Cram, 1927 nec Cobbold, 1873 from C. virginianus from the synonymy of T. pergracilis and T. tenuis. USA. It differs from T. tenuis (Mehlis in Creplin, 1846) as regards Résumé : Trichostrongylus cramae n. sp. (Nematoda) parasite de Colinus virginianus. Cram (1925, 1927) a identifié par erreur comme étant T. per­ Il se différencie de T. tenuis (Mehlis in Creplin, 1846) par la gracilis, maintenant considéré comme un synonyme de T. tenuis, striation cuticulaire, les distances relatives entre les papilles bur- ce qui était en réalité une espèce non décrite parasite de Colinus sales 2, 3 et 4, et par la configuration de la côte dorsale.
    [Show full text]
  • Bobcats/Town Forest
    artford onservation ommission H C C The Hartford Conservation Commission (HCC) invites you to The HCC became custodians of the Hartford Town Forest enjoy a hidden jewel, the Hartford Town Forest. What makes it (HTF) in 1997. We strive to balance three forestry so special? It is one of the largest parcels of undeveloped land objectives: in Hartford and is home to numerous animals from secretive amphibians to large mammals; even wide-ranging bear and • Forest Products: to sustainably grow and harvest moose pass through the forest. trees while respecting the natural communities • WildliFe: to provide and enhance diverse habitats for The Hartford Town Forest is a 423-acre parcel that abuts the native wildlife C 142-acre Hurricane Forest Wildlife Refuge (HFWR). Both • recreation: to promote recreation that will a) parcels are almost entirely forested and collectively contain ensure all users’ safety, and b) ‘tread lightly’ on the three old reservoirs, several miles of recreational trails, seasonal forest and its wildlife and permanent streams, varied topography, and diverse wildlife This newsletter focuses on the HTF. We’ll review what the O habitats. The Parks and Recreation Commission oversees the HFWR, with its recreation and wildlife protection focus. The HCC is doing to manage the HTF and what we can all do to HCC manages the more remote Hartford Town Forest. be good stewards of this special place. N 2010 HCC EvEnts CalEndar April 17, Saturday Vernal Pool Walk, 10:00 a.m. — noon, Hartford Town Forest* April 22, Thursday Earth Day, Kim Royar (VT Fish and Wildlife) Lecture on Bobcats and the Linking Lands Alliance S presents its Wildlife Habitat Map, 7 p.m., Vermont Institute of Natural Science (VINS), Quechee April 24–May 1 Green-Up Hartford Days, green-up bags available at Municipal Office* May 1, Saturday Green-Up Day/Arbor Day Celebration, 9:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]