DOCSLIB.ORG

Use of Nest Boxes by Barrow's Goldeneyes: Nesting Success and Effect on the Breeding Population Author(S): Jean-Pierre L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Use of Nest Boxes by Barrow's Goldeneyes: Nesting Success and Effect on the Breeding Population Author(S): Jean-Pierre L Use of Nest Boxes by Barrow's Goldeneyes: Nesting Success and Effect on the Breeding Population Author(s): Jean-Pierre L. Savard Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 125-132 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782178 Accessed: 05-08-2016 22:10 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782178?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Wildlife Society, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) This content downloaded from 132.174.255.47 on Fri, 05 Aug 2016 22:10:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MORTALITY IN GRIZZLY BEARS * Knight et al. 125 LITERATURE CITED Derivation of habitat component values for the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Pages 222-229 in G. P. CRAIGHEAD, J. J., J. R. VARNEY, AND F. C. CRAIGHEAD, Contreras and K. E. Evans, eds. Proc. of the grizzly JR. 1974. A population analysis of the Yellow- bear habitat symposium, Missoula, Montana. In- stone grizzly bears. Mont. For. and Conserv. Exp. termt. Res. Stn., Ogden, Ut. Stn. Bull. 40. 20pp. MEAGHER, M., AND J. PHILLIPS. 1983. Restoration of ELGMORK, K. 1978. Human impact on a brown bear natural populations of grizzly and black bears in population (Ursus arctos L.). Biol. Conserv. 13: Yellowstone National Park. Int. Conf. Bear Res. 81-103. and Manage. 5:152-158. JENNRICH, R. I., AND F. B. TURNER. 1969. Measure- SINIFF, D. B., AND J. R. TESTER. 1965. Computer anal- ment of non-circular home range. J. Theoret. Biol. ysis of animal movement data obtained by telem- 22:227-237. etry. BioScience 15:104-108. KNIGHT, R. R., AND L. L. EBERHARDT. 1984. Projected STOKES, A. W. 1970. An ethologist's views on man- future abundance of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. aging grizzly bears. BioScience 20:1154-1157. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1434-1438. ZUNINo, F., AND S. HERRERO. 1972. The status of the ,AND . 1985. Population dynamics of brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Abruzzo National the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Ecology 66:323-334. Park, Italy, 1971. Biol. Conserv. 4:263-272. , AND S. JUDD. 1983. Grizzly bears that kill livestock. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:186- Received 10 August 1987. 190. Accepted 16 December 1987. MATTSON, D., R. KNIGHT, AND B. BLANCHARD. 1986. Wildi. Soc. Bull. 16:125-132, 1988 USE OF NEST BOXES BY BARROWS GOLDENEYES: NESTING SUCCESS AND EFFECT ON THE BREEDING POPULATION JEAN-PIERRE L. SAVARD, Canadian Wildlife Service, Box 340, Delta, BC V4K 3Y3, Canada Nest boxes have been used extensively to the effect of nest boxes on size of the breeding enhance production of cavity-nesting water- population. fowl (Schreiner and Hendrickson 1951, McLaughlin and Grice 1952, Johnson 1967), METHODS and to establish populations of wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and common goldeneyes (Bucephala Between 1981 and 1984, I erected 278 nest boxes in a 100-km2 area 40 km west of Williams Lake, British clangula) (Doty and Kruse 1972, Dennis and Columbia. Boxes erected in 1981 and 1982 were larger Dow 1984). Barrow's goldeneyes (Bucephala (23 x 30 x 61 cm, hole diam of 12 cm, n = 183) than islandica) are known to use nest boxes (Savard those added in 1983 and 1984 (19 x 25 x 40 cm, n = 95). My analyses combine both types of boxes because 1982a), but there are no reported studies of Barrow's goldeneyes used them equally (X2 = 0.078, 1 their breeding success in areas where nest box- df, P = 0.78). es have been provided. Boxes were nailed on trees so the entrance was 4-5 m aboveground. Wood shavings were added as nest The objectives of my study were (1) to iden- material. Trees close to the water's edge were selected tify and quantify factors influencing the use whenever possible, but boxes ranged from 0 to 400 m of nest boxes by Barrow's goldeneyes; (2) to from the water's edge because several ponds were sur- rounded by open grassland. I added boxes each year determine the reproductive success of Bar- to ensure a surplus. I placed these boxes near existing row's goldeneyes in nest boxes; and (3) to assess boxes, or in similar habitat, to minimize habitat dif- This content downloaded from 132.174.255.47 on Fri, 05 Aug 2016 22:10:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 126 Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16(2) 1988 Table 1. Number of nest boxes used by breeding wildlife in central British Columbia, 1981-1984. Breeding species 1981 1982 1983 1984 Total Barrow's goldeneye 37 90 117 132 376 American kestrel 24 14 10 20 68 European starling 27 5 22 14 68 Red squirrela 6 2 5 3 16 Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 2 2 4 Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) 1 1 2 Bufflehead 1 1 2 Mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides) 1 1 Boxes not used 41 44 37 82 204 Boxes available 136 157 196 252 741 Not always breeding. ferences between existing (old) and newly installed Barrow's goldeneyes (70%), American kestrels (new) boxes. (Falco sparverius) (13%), and European star- I checked nest boxes twice (during incubation and after hatching) in 1981, and 3-10 times (at least once lings (Sturnus vulgaris) (13%) (Table 1). Only after hatching) in 1982-1984. In 1984, 30 occupied 2 buffleheads (Bucephala albeola) nested in boxes were visited daily to estimate extent of parasitic boxes, and both were unsuccessful. From 19 to egg laying. I estimated clutch initiation dates by as- suming an incubation period of 30 days (Palmer 1976), 33% of the boxes were not used each year (Ta- and a laying rate of 1 egg/day. ble 1). I counted breeding pairs 4-5 times between 1 May Use of nest boxes by Barrow's goldeneyes and 20 May each year from 1980 through 1984. Isolated pairs, isolated lone males, and isolated lone females increased 257% from 1981 to 1984 (Table 1). were considered to represent a breeding pair. I aver- Barrow's goldeneyes used old boxes, which had aged these counts to obtain an estimate of the breeding been erected for several years, more than new population. Birds were counted from shore with a spot- ting scope, and each count took from 2 to 2.5 days to ones (Fig. 1). Nest boxes used by Barrow's gold- complete. After ducklings had hatched, I surveyed ponds eneyes were more likely to be used the follow- 3-4 times to count the number of broods on the study ing year (76%, n = 225) than those not used area. Brood count data were pooled to derive a single (58%, n = 234; X2 = 17.2, 1 df, P < 0.001). yearly estimate of the number of broods because hatch- Also, boxes in which Barrow's goldeneyes suc- ing extended over several weeks and some broods were cessfully hatched a brood were reused pro- not observed during all surveys. Most broods could be identified individually by a combination of their lo- portionally more often by goldeneyes (90%, cation, age of the young, and number of young. Broods n = 90) than boxes in which the reproductive of Barrow's goldeneyes often use territories for several attempt failed (67%, n = 135; x2 = 15.3, 1 df, weeks (Savard 1982b). This, along with their habit of swimming to open water when disturbed, greatly fa- P < 0.001). cilitated counts. Savard (1981) showed that >80% of broods present in an area could be located after 2 counts. Reproductive Success of Barrow's I defined successful nests as those in which -1 egg Goldeneyes hatched. Any box containing Barrow's goldeneye eggs was considered to have been used by this species. Un- Nesting Success.-On the average over 4 successful nests were classified as either preyed upon (? 1 egg disappeared or destroyed) or deserted (no sign years, 46% (SE = 4) of the Barrow's goldeneye of egg removal). nests were successful, 31% (SE = 3) were preyed upon, and 23% (SE = 3) were deserted. These RESULTS proportions did not differ among years (X2 = 10.07, 3 df, P = 0.12). Use of Nest Boxes Predation was an important cause of nest Three species accounted for 96% of 537 nest- failure. Black bears (Ursus americanus) de- ing attempts recorded in boxes during 4 years: stroyed 27 nest boxes during the study, 17 of This content downloaded from 132.174.255.47 on Fri, 05 Aug 2016 22:10:28 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BARROW'S GOLDENEYE NESTING * Savard 127 them occupied by incubating goldeneyes. Bear predation occurred throughout the study area and probably involved several different bears. Black bears usually attacked occupied nest boxes (85% of attacks) and often left nearby unoccupied boxes intact. There was no pre- dation by black bears in 1980, but in 1982, 1983, and 1984 they accounted for 13, 9, and 32%, respectively, of the predation cases.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MOVEMENTS of MARKED SEA and DIVING DUCKS in EUROPE Hugh Boyd
    MOVEMENTS OF MARKED SEA AND DIVING DUCKS IN EUROPE Hugh Boyd R inging of dabbling ducks in Europe has helped considerably in discovering the patterns of their distribution and movement through the year. By comparison our knowledge of the behaviour of British species of the tribes Aythyini and Mergini is meagre, chiefly because they are harder to catch outside the breeding season. The numbers marked in Britain have been small, and seem unlikely to be rapidly increased, but ringers in some countries where these ducks breed more plentifully have marked considerably more. Captures of adults, mostly females taken on the nest, have been particularly informative. This paper reviews the results so far apparent. It is based on published and unpublished British records, and on the published material of foreign ringing schemes. I am indebted to the British Trust for Ornithology for permission to use data relating to ducks not ringed at Wildfowl Trust stations. A card index of recoveries compiled by Dr. W. Rydzewski for the International Wildfowl Research Bureau provides a convenient summary of all but the most recent records published abroad, and I am grateful to Dr. Rydzewski and the officers of the Bureau for access to this index. Table I summarises the amount of information obtainable from recoveries and reveals many of its inadequacies. Clearly samples as small as these cannot provide highly reliable and detailed guides to distribution, especially of species which are treated as sporting birds in some countries but not in others. However, by considering the recoveries against the background provided by published studies on the distribution of each species it is possible to form some ideas on the breeding distribution of the populations visiting Britain in winter.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Seabird Demographic Rates and Density Dependence
    JNCC Report No: 552 Review of Seabird Demographic Rates and Density Dependence Catharine Horswill1 & Robert A. Robinson1 February 2015 © JNCC, Peterborough 2015 1British Trust for Ornithology ISSN 0963 8901 For further information please contact: Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY http://jncc.defra.gov.uk This report should be cited as: Horswill, C. & Robinson R. A. 2015. Review of seabird demographic rates and density dependence. JNCC Report No. 552. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Review of Seabird Demographic Rates and Density Dependence Summary Constructing realistic population models is the first step towards reliably assessing how infrastructure developments, such as offshore wind farms, impact the population trends of different species. The construction of these models requires the individual demographic processes that influence the size of a population to be well understood. However, it is currently unclear how many UK seabird species have sufficient data to support the development of species-specific models. Density-dependent regulation of demographic rates has been documented in a number of different seabird species. However, the majority of the population models used to assess the potential impacts of wind farms do not consider it. Models that incorporate such effects are more complex, and there is also a lack of clear expectation as to what form such regulation might take. We surveyed the published literature in order to collate available estimates of seabird and sea duck demographic rates. Where sufficient data could not be gathered using UK examples, data from colonies outside of the UK or proxy species are presented. We assessed each estimate’s quality and representativeness.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Copyright © 2008 Ducks Unlimited Canada ISBN 978-0-9692943-8-2
    Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Nest Box Guide For Waterfowl Copyright © 2008 Ducks Unlimited Canada ISBN 978-0-9692943-8-2 Any reproduction of this present document in any form is illegal without the written authorization of Ducks Unlimited Canada. For additional copies please contact the Edmonton DUC office at (780)489-2002. Published by: Ducks Unlimited Canada www.ducks.ca Acknowledgements Photography provided by : Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC), Jim Potter (Alberta Conservation Association (ACA)), Darwin Chambers (DUC), Jonathan Thompson (DUC), Lesley Peterson (DUC contractor), Sherry Feser (ACA), Gordon Court ( p 16 photo of Pygmy Owl), Myrna Pearman ,(Ellis Bird Farm), Bryan Shantz and Glen Rowan. Portions of this booklet are based on a Nest Box Factsheet prepared by Jim Potter (ACA) and Lesley Peterson (DUC contractor). Myrna Pearman provided editorial comment. Table of Contents Table of Contents Why Nest Boxes? ......................................................................................................1 Natural Cavities ......................................................................................................................................2 Identifying Wildlife Species That Use Your Nest Boxes .....................................3 Waterfowl ..................................................................................................................4 Common Goldeneye .........................................................................................................................5 Barrow’s Goldeneye
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically
    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (and 113 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 62nd AOU Supplement (2021), sorted taxonomically Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Highland Tinamou HITI Nothocercus bonapartei NOTBON Great Tinamou GRTI Tinamus major TINMAJ Little Tinamou LITI Crypturellus soui CRYSOU Thicket Tinamou THTI Crypturellus cinnamomeus CRYCIN Slaty-breasted Tinamou SBTI Crypturellus boucardi CRYBOU Choco Tinamou CHTI Crypturellus kerriae CRYKER White-faced Whistling-Duck WFWD Dendrocygna viduata DENVID Black-bellied Whistling-Duck BBWD Dendrocygna autumnalis DENAUT West Indian Whistling-Duck WIWD Dendrocygna arborea DENARB Fulvous Whistling-Duck FUWD Dendrocygna bicolor DENBIC Emperor Goose EMGO Anser canagicus ANSCAN Snow Goose SNGO Anser caerulescens ANSCAE + Lesser Snow Goose White-morph LSGW Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Intermediate-morph LSGI Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Blue-morph LSGB Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Greater Snow Goose White-morph GSGW Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Intermediate-morph GSGI Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Blue-morph GSGB Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Snow X Ross's Goose Hybrid SRGH Anser caerulescens x rossii ANSCAR + Snow/Ross's Goose SRGO Anser caerulescens/rossii ANSCRO Ross's Goose
    [Show full text]
  • And Bufflehead (Bucephala Albeola) in Alberta, Canada
    Copyright © 2011 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Corrigan, R. M., G. J. Scrimgeour, and C. Paszkowski. 2011. Nest boxes facilitate local-scale conservation of common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) in Alberta, Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 6(1): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00435-060101 Research Papers Nest Boxes Facilitate Local-Scale Conservation of Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) in Alberta, Canada Les nichoirs favorisent la conservation à l’échelle locale du Garrot à œil d’or (Bucephala clangula) et du Petit Garrot (Bucephala albeola) en Alberta, Canada Robert M. Corrigan 1,2, Garry J. Scrimgeour 3, and Cynthia Paszkowski 1 ABSTRACT. We tested the general predictions of increased use of nest boxes and positive trends in local populations of Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) following the large-scale provision of nest boxes in a study area of central Alberta over a 16-year period. Nest boxes were rapidly occupied, primarily by Common Goldeneye and Bufflehead, but also by European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). After 5 years of deployment, occupancy of large boxes by Common Goldeneye was 82% to 90% and occupancy of small boxes by Bufflehead was 37% to 58%. Based on a single-stage cluster design, experimental closure of nest boxes resulted in significant reductions in numbers of broods and brood sizes produced by Common Goldeneye and Bufflehead. Occurrence and densities of Common Goldeneye and Bufflehead increased significantly across years following nest box deployment at the local scale, but not at the larger regional scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Courtship Activities of the Anatidae in Eastern Washington
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Ornithology Papers in the Biological Sciences 1955 Courtship Activities of the Anatidae in Eastern Washington Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciornithology Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Courtship Activities of the Anatidae in Eastern Washington" (1955). Papers in Ornithology. 66. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciornithology/66 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 Papers in Ornithology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Johnsgard in CONDOR (January-February 1955) 57(1). Copyright 1955, University of California and the Cooper Ornithological Society. Used by permission. Jan., 1955 19 COURTSHIP ACTIVITIES OF THE ANATIDAE IN EASTERN WASHINGTON By PAUL A. JOHNSGARD The many interesting and sometimes spectacular aspects of waterfowl courtship have been observed and recordedby several writers. Among the best and most complete descriptionsare those of Bent (1923, 1925), Townsend (1910, 1916), Wetmore (1920), and Hochbaum (1944). However, for the most part these are unillustrated, deal with only a few species, or are based on limited observations. In the summerof 1953 and the spring and summer of 1954 the writer did extensive field work in the Potholes Region of Grant County, Washington, gathering data for an ecological study of the birds and vegetation of that section. In the spring of 1954 he had occasion to observe epigamic activities of most species of waterfowl that are found in that region and was able roughly to delimit the periods of courtship and mating for several species.
    [Show full text]
  • RSPB RESERVES 2009 Black Park Ramna Stacks & Gruney Fetlar Lumbister
    RSPB RESERVES 2009 Black Park Ramna Stacks & Gruney Fetlar Lumbister Mousa Loch of Spiggie Sumburgh Head Noup Cliffs North Hill Birsay Moors Trumland The Loons and Loch of Banks Onziebust Mill Dam Marwick Head Brodgar Cottasgarth & Rendall Moss Copinsay Hoy Hobbister Eilean Hoan Loch na Muilne Blar Nam Faoileag Forsinard Flows Priest Island Troup Head Edderton Sands Nigg and Udale Bays Balranald Culbin Sands Loch of Strathbeg Fairy Glen Drimore Farm Loch Ruthven Eileanan Dubha Corrimony Ballinglaggan Abernethy Insh Marshes Fowlsheugh Glenborrodale The Reef Coll Loch of Kinnordy Isle of Tiree Skinflats Tay reedbeds Inversnaid Balnahard and Garrison Farm Vane Farm Oronsay Inner Clyde Fidra Fannyside Smaull Farm Lochwinnoch Inchmickery Loch Gruinart/Ardnave Baron’s Haugh The Oa Horse Island Aird’s Moss Rathlin Ailsa Craig Coquet Island Lough Foyle Ken-Dee Marshes Kirkconnell Merse Wood of Cree Campfield Marsh Larne Lough Islands Mersehead Geltsdale Belfast Lough Lower Lough Erne Islands Portmore Lough Mull of Galloway & Scar Rocks Saltholme Haweswater St Bees Head Aghatirourke Strangford Bay & Sandy Island Hodbarrow Leighton Moss & Morecambe Bay Bempton Cliffs Carlingford Lough Islands Hesketh Out Marsh Fairburn Ings Marshside Read’s Island Blacktoft Sands The Skerries Tetney Marshes Valley Wetlands Dearne Valley – Old Moor and Bolton Ings South Stack Cliffs Conwy Dee Estuary EA/RSPB Beckingham Project Malltraeth Marsh Morfa Dinlle Coombes & Churnet Valleys Migneint Freiston Shore Titchwell Marsh Lake Vyrnwy Frampton Marsh Snettisham Sutton
    [Show full text]
  • Common Goldeneye Bucephala Clangula ILLINOIS RANGE
    common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata The common goldeneye averages 20 inches in length Class: Aves (tail tip to bill tip in preserved specimen). The male Order: Anseriformes has black feathers on the back and white feathers on the lower body with green head feathers and a Family: Anatidae white facial spot. The female and immature ILLINOIS STATUS goldeneyes have brown head feathers and gray body feathers with a white ring on the neck. Three of the common, native toes are webbed to help with swimming. The bill is flattened and has a toothlike fringe on its edge to ILLINOIS RANGE help strain food from the water. BEHAVIORS The common goldeneye is a common migrant and winter resident in Illinois. This bird is a good diver and may be seen around ponds, sewage lagoons, large rivers and lakes. Its wings produce a whistling sound in flight. The male makes a “pee-ik” sound while the female makes a “quack” sound. Spring migration begins in April. The goldeneye breeds in Canada and the northern United States. Courtship displays may begin as early as January. In the display the male throws his head back and swiftly brings it forward while giving a nasal call. The nest is built in a tree cavity. The female deposits five to 15, green eggs that she alone incubates over the 28-day incubation period. Fall migrants begin arriving in September and do not go much further south than Illinois. The common goldeneye eats small plants and animals found in the water. © Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Wildlife Identification Guide
    TEXAS WILDLIFE IDENTIFICATION GUIDE A guide to game animals, game birds, furbearers and other wildlife of Texas. INTRODUCTION Texas game animals, game birds, furbearers and other wildlife are important for many reasons. They provide countless hours of viewing and recreational opportunities. They benefit the Texas economy through hunting and “nature tourism” such as birdwatching. Commercial businesses that provide birdseed, dry corn and native landscaping may be devoted solely to attracting many of the animals found in this book. Local hunting and trapping economies, guiding operations and hunting leases have prospered because of the abun- dance of these animals in Texas. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department benefits because of hunting license sales, but it uses these funds to research, manage and protect all wildlife populations – not just game animals. Game animals provide humans with cultural, social, aesthetic and spiritual pleasures found in wildlife art, taxidermy and historical artifacts. Conservation organiza- tions dedicated to individual species such as quail, turkey and deer, have funded thousands of wildlife projects throughout North America, demonstrating the mystique game animals have on people. Animals referenced in this pocket guide exist because their habitat exists in Texas. Habitat is food, cover, water and space, all suitably arranged. They are part of a vast food chain or web that includes thousands more species of wildlife such as the insects, non-game animals, fish and i rare/endangered species. Active management of wild landscapes is the primary means to continue having abundant populations of wildlife in Texas. Preservation of rare and endangered habitat is one way of saving some species of wildlife such as the migratory whooping crane that makes Texas its home in the winter.
    [Show full text]
  • Barrow's Goldeneyes Feed Mostly on Aquatic Insects and Crustaceans in Inland Waters During
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Eastern Population in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2000 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: Please note: Persons wishing to cite data in the report should refer to the report (and cite the author(s)); persons wishing to cite the COSEWIC status will refer to the assessment (and cite COSEWIC). A production note will be provided if additional information on the status report history is required. COSEWIC. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica, Eastern population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 65 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Robert, M., R. Benoit and J.-P.L Savard. 2000. COSEWIC status report on the Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-65 pp. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Garrot d’Islande (Bucephala islandica) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Barrow’s Goldeneye — photo by Denis Faucher. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Bucephala Clangula
    Bucephala clangula -- (Linnaeus, 1758) ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- ANSERIFORMES -- ANATIDAE Common names: Common Goldeneye; Goldeneye 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: Least Concern (LC) In Europe this species has an extremely 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 appears to be stable, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable 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. Within the EU27 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). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in the EU27. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Albania; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Faroe Islands (to DK); Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Barrow's Goldeneye Species Assessment
    BARROW’S GOLDENEYE ASSESSMENT February 5, 2002 Amy Meehan Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Wildlife Division Resource Assessment Section 650 State Street Bangor, Maine 04401 BARROW’S GOLDENEYE ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................3 NATURAL HISTORY.....................................................................................................4 Description..........................................................................................................4 Distribution..........................................................................................................4 Taxonomy...........................................................................................................5 Habitat and Diet..................................................................................................6 Breeding Biology ................................................................................................7 Territoriality.........................................................................................................8 Survival and Longevity .......................................................................................9 MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................................................10 Regulatory Authority .........................................................................................10 Past and Current Management.........................................................................10
    [Show full text]