DOCSLIB.ORG

Variation in Harlequin Duck Distribution and Productivity: the Roles of Habitat, Competition, and Nutrient Acquisition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Variation in Harlequin Duck Distribution and Productivity: the Roles of Habitat, Competition, and Nutrient Acquisition Variation in Harlequin Duck Distribution and Productivity: The Roles of Habitat, Competition, and Nutrient Acquisition Prepared with Financial Support of: BC Hydro Bridge-Coastal Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program (BCRP) Fiscal Year 2005-06 (Year 3 of a 3-year project) BCRP Project Number: 05.W.Br.03 April 2007 Prepared by: Dr. Dan Esler, University Research Associate Dr. Ron Ydenberg, Professor and Director Jeanine Bond, MSc Student Sunny LeBourdais, MSc Student Centre for Wildlife Ecology Department of Biological Sciences Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project, led by the Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University, was designed to address the factors that influence harlequin duck distribution and productivity in the southern Coast Mountains. This research project supports the Bridge Coastal Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program mandate of habitat restoration by filling the information gaps that currently inhibit informed management. This work provides the scientific background necessary to understand how variation in habitat (including that related to hydroelectric operations and other human activity) affects harlequin ducks, and prescribe mitigation or restoration activities that would improve harlequin duck productivity. This project evaluated how variation in habitat would affect harlequin ducks in three ways. The first was to develop models describing the relationship between harlequin duck distribution and habitat attributes (for example, stream slope, width, substrate, vegetation, and prey availability) at a regional scale. The second was to evaluate the importance of breeding streams as a source of nutrients for reproduction. And, third, we considered factors that influence benthic invertebrate availability, particularly stream flow variability and the occurrence of fish. We found that many of the habitat attributes that we measured were not strong predictors of harlequin duck presence or variation in density. Stream slope was moderately supported, with streams with steeper gradients having lower densities of harlequin ducks. Therefore, modifications to streams for power production (e.g., independent power projects [IPP]) should be directed at reaches with higher slopes, from the perspective of harlequin duck conservation. Also, we found tendencies of harlequin ducks to occur at higher densities in reaches with higher densities of aquatic invertebrates. Because invertebrate densities are higher in streams with stable flow regimes, this has direct implications for management of streams for harlequin ducks. Using stable isotope analysis, we determined that female harlequin ducks build their eggs almost entirely from nutrients acquired on breeding streams, rather than from nutrient reserves built on coastal wintering sites. This indicates that maintenance of abundant prey resources on breeding streams is an appropriate management goal for conserving harlequin ducks. Finally, we detected a negative relationship between fish and harlequin ducks. We suggest that this relationship stems from changes to behaviour of aquatic insects in the presence of fish, namely that invertebrates hide in the substrate to avoid fish predation and subsequently are less available for harlequin ducks. We suggest that the widespread introduction of fish may be a factor in the broad-scale depression of harlequin duck productivity that has been described for harlequin ducks that winter in coastal BC. From a conservation perspective, this finding further illustrates that introductions of fish into previously fish-free streams, or enhancements of fish populations, will have consequences for other members of stream communities, ii including harlequin ducks. These consequences should be considered as part of fish management activities. Overall, we found that human-induced changes to breeding streams do not necessarily have negative consequences for harlequin ducks. For example, flow stability in the Bridge River due to the controlled release regime from Terzaghi Dam has led to high densities of aquatic invertebrates and, presumably, high habitat quality for harlequin ducks. Also, construction of IPPs on steeper sections of streams may not affect harlequin ducks; for example, we found high densities of harlequin ducks above the IPP on Rutherford Creek, including in the impoundment directly behind the dam. In addition, the power canal from the Seton River supports high densities of invertebrates and serves as a gathering site for harlequin ducks. However, changes to streams in higher quality harlequin duck habitat (i.e., areas with relatively low slopes and high invertebrate densities) can have negative consequences on abundance and productivity. For example, highly variable releases from dams would result in reductions in prey availability, and higher likelihood of flooding of harlequin duck nests. Also, introduction or enhancement of fish numbers could reduce habitat quality for harlequin ducks through changes to invertebrate densities and behaviour. Clearly, the original footprint of large dams constructed for power production affected large amounts of harlequin duck habitat. This study offers insights into the attributes of remaining habitats that can be maintained or enhanced, with the goal of increasing harlequin duck numbers and productivity. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................ii Table of Contents...............................................................................................iv List of Figures ...................................................................................................vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................x 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1 2. STUDY AREA ..............................................................................................3 3. METHODS....................................................................................................6 3.1. Habitat Associations..............................................................................6 3.1.1. Pair Surveys .....................................................................................6 3.1.2. Brood Surveys ..................................................................................6 3.1.3. Habitat Measurement .......................................................................9 3.1.4. Statistical Analyses.........................................................................11 3.2. Nutrient Allocation ...............................................................................13 3.2.1. Sample Collection...........................................................................13 3.2.2. Laboratory Methods........................................................................14 3.2.3. Statistical Analyses.........................................................................15 3.3. Biotic and Abiotic Influences on Food Availability................................15 3.3.1. Aquatic Insect Samples ..................................................................15 3.3.2. River Level Data .............................................................................15 3.3.3. Fish Data ........................................................................................16 3.3.4. Statistical Analyses.........................................................................16 4. RESULTS...................................................................................................17 4.1. Habitat Associations............................................................................17 4.2. Nutrient Allocation ...............................................................................20 4.3. Biotic and Abiotic Influences on Food Availability................................24 5. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................27 5.1. Habitat Associations............................................................................27 5.2. Nutrient Allocation ...............................................................................28 5.3. Biotic and Abiotic Influences on Food Availability................................29 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................30 7. ACCOMPLISHMENTS ...............................................................................32 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................33 9. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................34 10. APPENDIX I – Financial Report ...............................................................39 11. APPENDIX II - Performance Measures....................................................40 iv 12. APPENDIX III – Confirmation of BCRP Recognition ..............................40 13. APPENDIX IV – Jeanine Bond Thesis .....................................................43 13.1. Abstract ...............................................................................................44 13.2. General Introduction............................................................................45 13.2.1. Thesis Background.........................................................................45 13.2.2. Harlequin Duck Background ...........................................................46
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A 2010 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World by Paul A. Johnsgard Papers in the Biological Sciences 2010 The World’s Waterfowl in the 21st Century: A 2010 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciducksgeeseswans Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "The World’s Waterfowl in the 21st Century: A 2010 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World" (2010). Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World by Paul A. Johnsgard. 20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciducksgeeseswans/20 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 Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World by Paul A. Johnsgard by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The World’s Waterfowl in the 21st Century: A 200 Supplement to Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World Paul A. Johnsgard Pages xvii–xxiii: recent taxonomic changes, I have revised sev- Introduction to the Family Anatidae eral of the range maps to conform with more current information. For these updates I have Since the 978 publication of my Ducks, Geese relied largely on Kear (2005). and Swans of the World hundreds if not thou- Other important waterfowl books published sands of publications on the Anatidae have since 978 and covering the entire waterfowl appeared, making a comprehensive literature family include an identification guide to the supplement and text updating impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Duck Curriculum Revised
    Sea Ducks of Alaska Activity Guide Acknowledgments Contact Information: Project Coordinator: Marilyn Sigman, Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies Education: Written By: Sea Duck Activity Guide, Teaching Kit and Display: Elizabeth Trowbridge, Center for Alaskan Coastal Marilyn Sigman Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies Studies P.O. Box 2225 Homer, AK 99603 Illustrations by: (907) 235-6667 Bill Kitzmiller, Conrad Field and Fineline Graphics [email protected] (Alaska Wildlife Curriculum Illustrations), Elizabeth Alaska Wildlife Curricula Trowbridge Robin Dublin Wildlife Education Coordinator Reviewers: Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game Marilyn Sigman, Bree Murphy, Lisa Ellington, Tim Division of Wildlife Conservation Bowman, Tom Rothe 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 (907)267-2168 Funded By: [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Coastal Program and Scientific/technical Information: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, State Duck Tim Bowman Stamp Program Sea Duck Joint Venture Coordinator (Pacific) The Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies would like to thank U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service the following people for their time and commitment to sea 1011 E. Tudor Rd. duck education: Tim Bowman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Anchorage, AK 99503 Service, Sea Duck Joint Venture Project, for providing (907) 786-3569 background technical information, photographs and [email protected] support for this activity guide and the sea duck traveling SEADUCKJV.ORG display; Tom Rothe and Dan Rosenberg of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for technical information, Tom Rothe presentations and photographs for both the sea duck Waterfowl Coordinator traveling display and the activity guide species identifica- Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game tion cards; John DeLapp, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Histrionicus Histrionicus, Harlequin Duck
    The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ ISSN 2307-8235 (online) IUCN 2008: T22680423A132527785 Scope: Global Language: English Histrionicus histrionicus, Harlequin Duck Assessment by: BirdLife International View on www.iucnredlist.org Citation: BirdLife International. 2018. Histrionicus histrionicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22680423A132527785. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T22680423A132527785.en Copyright: © 2018 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London. If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided. THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ Taxonomy Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Animalia Chordata Aves Anseriformes Anatidae Taxon Name: Histrionicus histrionicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Regional Assessments: • Europe Common Name(s): • English: Harlequin Duck, Harlequin Taxonomic Source(s): Cramp, S.
    [Show full text]
  • (Harlequin Duck) European Red List of Birds Supplementary Material
    Histrionicus histrionicus (Harlequin Duck) European Red List of Birds Supplementary Material The European Union (EU27) Red List assessments were based principally on the official data reported by EU Member States to the European Commission under Article 12 of the Birds Directive in 2013-14. For the European Red List assessments, similar data were sourced from BirdLife Partners and other collaborating experts in other European countries and territories. For more information, see BirdLife International (2015). Contents Reported national population sizes and trends p. 2 Trend maps of reported national population data p. 4 Sources of reported national population data p. 7 Species factsheet bibliography p. 8 Recommended citation BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Further information http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/euroredlist http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/european-red-list-birds-0 http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/ Data requests and feedback To request access to these data in electronic format, provide new information, correct any errors or provide feedback, please email [email protected]. THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds Histrionicus histrionicus (Harlequin Duck) Table 1. Reported national breeding population size and trends in Europe1. Country (or Population estimate Short-term
    [Show full text]
  • Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus Histrionicus): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project October 17, 2005 David A. Wiggins, Ph.D. Strix Ecological Research 1515 Classen Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73106 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Wiggins, D. (2005, October 17). Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/ assessments/harlequinduck.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Frances Cassirer for providing a number of publications as well as perspectives on harlequin duck biology. Greg Robertson and Ian Goudie also provided helpful information and publications. Lucie Metras supplied me with information on harlequin duck status and recovery plans in Canada. Dan Esler and Steve Sheffield reviewed the manuscript and provided a wealth of information and suggestions. Greg Hayward and Gary Patton gave many useful tips for enhancing the structure and quality of this assessment. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY David Wiggins developed an early interest in Ornithology. During his high school years, he worked as a museum assistant under George Sutton and Gary Schnell at the University of Oklahoma. He later earned degrees from the University of Oklahoma (B.Sc. in Zoology), Brock University (M.Sc.- Parental care in Common Terns, under the supervision of Ralph Morris), and Simon Fraser University (Ph.D. – Selection on life history traits in Tree Swallows, under the supervision of Nico Verbeek). This was followed by a U. S. National Science Foundation Post-doctoral fellowship at Uppsala University in Sweden, where he studied life history evolution in Collared Flycatchers, and later a Fulbright Fellowship working on the reproductive ecology of tits (Paridae) in Namibia and Zimbabwe.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird List Upper Mississippi River NWR
    Upper Mississippi River Important Bird Area - Bird List NWR IBA August 2010 Checklist of Minnesota Birds Red: PIF Continental Importance Compiled list from all available data sources (BOLD RED are Nesting Species as Green: Stewardship Species documented by one of the sources) Blue: BCR Important Species Purple: PIF Priority in one or more regions REGULAR Ducks, Geese, Swans Greater White-fronted Goose 1 Snow Goose 1 Ross's Goose Cackling Goose (tallgrass prairie) Canada Goose 1 Mute Swan 1 Trumpeter Swan 1 Tundra Swan 1 Wood Duck 1 Gadwall 1 American Wigeon 1 American Black Duck 1 Mallard 1 Blue-winged Teal 1 Cinnamon Teal Northern Shoveler 1 Northern Pintail 1 Green-winged Teal 1 Canvasback 1 Redhead 1 Ring-necked Duck 1 Greater Scaup 1 Lesser Scaup 1 Harlequin Duck Surf Scoter White-winged Scoter 1 Black Scoter 1 Long-tailed Duck 1 Bufflehead 1 Common Goldeneye 1 Page 1 of 12 Publication date January 2015 http://mn.audubon.org/ Upper Mississippi River Important Bird Area - Bird List NWR IBA August 2010 Checklist of Minnesota Birds Red: PIF Continental Importance Compiled list from all available data sources (BOLD RED are Nesting Species as Green: Stewardship Species documented by one of the sources) Blue: BCR Important Species Purple: PIF Priority in one or more regions Hooded Merganser 1 Common Merganser 1 Red-breasted Merganser 1 Ruddy Duck 1 Partridge, Grouse, Turkey Gray Partridge Ring-necked Pheasant 1 Ruffed Grouse 1 Spruce Grouse Sharp-tailed Grouse Greater Prairie-Chicken Wild Turkey 1 Loons Red-throated Loon Pacific Loon Common
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Variation and Differentiation of North American Waterfowl (Anatidae)
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 1994 Genetic Variation and Differentiation of North American Waterfowl (Anatidae) David W. Oates Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, [email protected] Joann D. Principato Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Oates, David W. and Principato, Joann D., "Genetic Variation and Differentiation of North American Waterfowl (Anatidae)" (1994). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 108. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/108 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 1994. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 21: 127-145 GENETIC VARIATION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL (ANATIDAE) David W. Oates and Joann D. Principato Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 2200 North 33rd Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68503 ABSTRACT were recognized as being of value to avian taxonomy, beginning with Sibley's (1960) electrophoretic evalua­ This study examines the genetic variation in 45 taxa of tion of avian egg-white proteins. all tribes and most species of North American waterfowl (Anatidae) with a starch-gel electrophoretic survey of protein While Sibley's avian studies (e.g. Sibley, 1968, 1970; variation at 25 loci. Relationships were estimated using the resulting data from the patterns of allozyme variation and Sibley and Ahlquist, 1972; Sibley et aI., 1969) were summarized in both phenetic and cladistic branching dia­ focused at the generic and familial levels, later studies grams.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Data Book of European Vertebrates : a Contribution to Action Theme N° 11 of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, Final Draft
    Strasbourg, 5 July 2001 T-PVS (2001) 31 [Bern\T-PVS 2001\tpvs31e_2001] English only CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS Standing Committee Preliminary European Red List of Vertebrates Draft for comments - Volume 1 - Joint project between the Council of Europe and the European Environment Agency, based on WCMC draft from 1998. Co-ordinated by the European Topic Centre/Nature Conservation – Paris This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. T-PVS (2001) 31 - II - Comments should be sent to: European Topic Centre for Nature Protection and Biodiversity MNHN 57 rue Cuvier 75231 PARIS Cedex, France [email protected] - III - T-PVS (2001) 31 About this draft Red List This document is the result of a joint project between the European Environment Agency and the Council of Europe to develop a preliminary European Red List of Vertebrates. It is based on a first draft by WCMC in 1998. Except for Birds (Birdlife International, 1994), no assessment is yet available on the conservation status of Vertebrate species at European level, while Red Books exist at national level in almost all European countries. On the other hand, a global list of threatened species is published and maintained up-dated by IUCN according to well defined criteria (IUCN, 2000). The present assessment is a first attempt to identify the most threatened Vertebrates species at European level, building upon a first analysis of the list of globally threatened species present in Europe (WCMC, 1998) and taking into account the most recent available overviews on European species distribution provided by the various European atlas committees (European Bird Census Council; Societas Europaea Herpetologica, Societas Europea Mammalogica).
    [Show full text]
  • THE FAMILY ANATIDAE Ernst Mayr 37
    J. Delacour THE FAMILY ANATIDAE Ernst Mayr 37 A LIST OF THE GENERA AND SPECIES OF ANATIDAE On the basis of the considerations in the above section of our paper, we propose the following list* of genera and species of Anatidae: I SUBFAMILY ANSERINAE 1. TRIBE ANSERINI. GEESE AND SWANS Bra&a canadensis, Canada Goose sandwicensis (“Nesochelz”), Hawaiian Goose leucopsis, Barnacle Goose bernicla, Brant rujcollis, Red-breasted Goose Anser cygnoides (“Cygnopsis”), Swan-goose jabalis (inc. neglectusand brachyrhynchus), Bean Goose, Sushkin’s Goose, and Pink-footed Goose albijrons, White-fronted Goose 1 erythropus, Lesser White-fronted Goose anser, Grey-Lag Goose indicus (“Eulabeia”), Bar-headed Goose canagicus (“Philucte”), Emperor Goose caerulescens(“Cherz”, inc. hyperboreusand atlanticus), Blue Goose, Lesser and Greater Snow Geese rossi (“Chen”), Ross’s Goose Cygnus columbianus (inc. bewicki), Whistling and Bewick’s Swans Cygnus (inc. buccinator), Whooper and Trumpeter Swans melanocoryphus, Black-necked Swan olor, Mute Swan stratus (“Chenopis”), Black Swan Coscoroba coscoroba,Coscoroba 2. TRIBE DENDROCYGNINI. WHISTLING DUCKS (TREE DUCKS) Dendrocygna arborea, Black-billed Whistling Duck g&tutu, Spotted Whistling Duck autumn&s, Red-billed Whistling Duck javanica, Indian Whistling Duck bicolor, Fulvous Whistling Duck 1 arcuata, Wandering Whistling Duck eytoni, Plumed Whistling Duck viduata, White-faced Whistling Duck 8Additional genera and speciesrecognized by Peters are given in parenthesis. Each pair or group of speciesunited by a bracket constitutesa
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Sea Duck Management Strategies Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Waterfowl Section June 2013
    WDFW Sea Duck Management Strategies Draft – Do Not Cite Without Permission of WDFW Waterfowl Section Draft Report to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission Washington Sea Duck Management Strategies Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Waterfowl Section June 2013 Introduction Eleven species of sea ducks commonly occur in western Washington, including scoters (surf, white-winged, black), long-tailed duck, harlequin duck, goldeneyes (common, Barrow’s), bufflehead, and mergansers (common, red-breasted, hooded). Sea ducks are game species, managed under state and federal migratory waterfowl regulations cooperatively through the Pacific Flyway Council. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has improved monitoring of Puget Sound sea duck populations as part of the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) since 1991. Long-term declines in wintering numbers of scoters and limited populations of harlequin and long-tailed ducks have lead to more conservative regulations in Washington than provided by federal frameworks. In addition to improving surveys to document status and trends, WDFW has also completed specific management studies and upgraded harvest monitoring programs for these species over the past 15 years. WDFW presented a summary of sea duck management activities to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) in August 2007. At that time, the scoter population had been relatively stable for the previous 6 years, and an evaluation of scoter harvest management indicated that current overall harvest rates in Puget Sound were within sustainable levels. WDFW proposed additional banding and monitoring of scoters and other sea ducks over a three year period, with an evaluation report planned for presentation to the Commission in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Species Account from European Red List of Birds
    Histrionicus histrionicus -- (Linnaeus, 1758) ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- ANSERIFORMES -- ANATIDAE Common names: Harlequin Duck; Harlequin European Red List Assessment European Red List Status LC -- Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1) Assessment Information Year published: 2015 Date assessed: 2015-03-31 Assessor(s): BirdLife International Reviewer(s): Symes, A. Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) EU27 regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA) This species has a very large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend is not known, but the population is not believed to be decreasing sufficiently rapidly to approach the thresholds under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in Europe. The bird is considered vagrant in the EU27 and is assessed as Not Applicable (NA) for this region. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Greenland (to DK); Iceland Vagrant: Austria; Belgium; Croatia; Denmark; France; Germany; Italy; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Poland; Serbia; Slovakia; Sweden; Switzerland; Ukraine; United Kingdom Population The European population is estimated at 4,000-7,000 pairs, which equates to 8,000-14,000 mature individuals. The species does not occur in the EU27. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF . Trend In Europe the population size trend is unknown. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF.
    [Show full text]
  • Harlequin Happenings
    Harlequin Happenings Newsletter of the Olympic Peninsula Audubon Society (OPAS) www.olympicpeninsulaaudubon.org (www.olybird.org) Clallam County, Washington A Chapter of the National Audubon Society Issue 1 Jan-Feb 2012 “Promoting Birding and Conservation as Community Educators, Volunteers, and Stewards” OPAS Programs for January and February by Loretta Flanders and Bill Parker Elwha River Restoration, presented by ONP Superintendant Karen Gustin, Jan 18 at the River Center, 7 p.m. Please join ONP Superintendent Karen Gustin for a presentation on the ins and outs of the Elwha River Restoration project, the largest dam removal project to date. Removal of both dams is currently underway, and Superintendent Gustin will be on hand to answer questions on all aspects of the project. Prior to Olympic National Park, Karen has served as park manager at a variety of locations, including an archeological site in Iowa called Effigy Mounds National Monument, in Alaska at Kenai Fjords and Katmai National Parks, the Pacific Islands at War in the Pacific National Historical Park on Guam, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, and Big Cypress National Preserve. She has a B.S. in Outdoor Recreation from Colorado State University. Wild Olympics Campaign, presented by Jon Owen and Jim Gift, Feb 15 at the River Center, 7 p.m. Jon Owen is a member of the Campaign for America’s Wilderness, one of ten conservation and recreation groups in the Wild Olympics Campaign. Along with OPAS’ Conservation Committee Co-Chair Jim Gift, Jon will present highlights of the spectacular ancient forests and wild rivers in the Wild Olympics proposal, and describe OPAS’s role in the multi-year local stakeholder consultation process that led to the broad peninsula support Wild Olympics enjoys today.
    [Show full text]