DOCSLIB.ORG

Underwater Foraging Behavior of Canvasbacks, Lesser Scaups, and Ruddy Ducks’

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Underwater Foraging Behavior of Canvasbacks, Lesser Scaups, and Ruddy Ducks’ The Condor 90:16X-172 0 The Cooper Ornithological Society 1988 UNDERWATER FORAGING BEHAVIOR OF CANVASBACKS, LESSER SCAUPS, AND RUDDY DUCKS’ MICHAEL W. TOMES AND DALE A. WRUBLESKI~ Delta Waterfowl and WetlandsResearch Station, RR #I, Portage la Prairie, Manitoba RIN 3A1, Canada Abstract. We observedthe underwater behavior of captive Canvasbacks(Aythyu valisi- neria), LesserScaups (A. u&is), and Ruddy Ducks (Oxyurajamaicensis) while they foraged on a variety of food items in a large aquarium. Canvasbacksprobed into the substratewith the bill and body oriented perpendicular to the bottom. Lesser Scaupsand Ruddy Ducks strained food items from the substratesurface by moving their bills in short, lateral arcs while rapidly opening and closing their mandibles; their bills and bodies were oriented at a 3.5 to 45” angle to the substrate.Scaup also fed by grasping prey in the water column, where they appeared to locate prey visually. Ruddy Ducks did not appear to select prey visually. The speciesalso differed in their underwater locomotory behavior and postures; these differencesprobably are related to the prey and conditions typically encounteredby each. Key words: Canvasback;Aythya valisineria; LesserScaup; Aythya affinis; Ruddy Duck; Oxyura jamaicensis;foraging behavior;diving behavior. INTRODUCTION habitats and distributions of the three species Although the behavior of many speciesof diving overlap (Palmer 1976), but their diets differ ducks has been described,very little is known of markedly. During most of the year, Canvasbacks their underwater foraging and locomotory be- feed primarily on plant tubers or molluscs dis- havior. Diving behavior of some specieshas been tributed in wetland substrates,although prelay- observed in the wild from above the water sur- ing and laying females, and juveniles consume face (e.g., Brooks 1945; Humphrey 1957, 1958; large numbers of aquatic invertebrates (Bartonek Snell 1985) but turbid water hampered visibility and Hickey 1969). LesserScaups consume aquatic and the foraging actions of the birds were not invertebrates (primarily amphipods), both in the recorded.Only a few investigators have observed water column and on vegetation and substrate the underwater actions of captive waterfowl in surfaces(Bartonek and Hickey 1969, Hoppe et aquaria. Livezey and Humphrey (1984) ob- al. 1986). Ruddy Ducks feed almost exclusively served the underwater locomotory behavior of on benthic chironomid larvae during the breed- steamer-ducks(Tuchyeres spp.) and Suter (1982) ing season(Siegfried 1973, Tome 1981) and on briefly described some of the foraging behaviors oligochaetes(Stark 1978) or chironomid larvae of Common Goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula), (Hoppe et al. 1986) during the winter. Each of Common Pochards(Aythyaferina), Tufted Ducks these kinds of prey differs in mobility, antipred- (A. fi&z&z), and Eurasian Coots (IQ&u &-a). ator response,and the environmental conditions This paper describesthe underwater locomo- in which they are found; thus, we predicted that tory and foraging behavior of three species of the foraging behaviors of thesewaterfowl species diving ducks: the Canvasback (A. valisineriu), would vary accordingly. LesserScaup (A. a#%), and Ruddy Duck (Oxy- METHODS ura jamaicensis). The breeding and wintering During the summers of 1983 to 1985, we ob- served the foraging behavior of seven Ruddy Ducks (four males, three females), four Canvas- ’ ’ Received22 April 1987. Final acceptance8 August backs (two males, two females) and two male 1987. Lesser Scaup in a 5 x 2 x 2-m indoor concrete z Present address:Patuxent Wildlife ResearchCen- aquarium through four, 1 x 1-m plate-glasswin- ter, Laurel, MD 20708. 3Present address: Department of Entomology, Uni- dows. We photographed underwater behavior versity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Can- using a 35-mm camera and both super-8 and 16- ada. mm movie cameras. f1681 DIVING DUCK FORAGING BEHAVIOR 169 The bottom of the aquarium consisted of a the bird. The birds used simultaneous strokesof 4 x 4arrayof 1.0 x 0.5 x O.l-mwoodentrays the legsto propel themselves towards the aquar- filled with 6 cm ofsand that provided a substrate ium substrate. At the end of each power stroke, for the benthic prey. In 1985, we anchored into the feet convergedmedially, below the tail. Dur- the substrateone end of several 50-cm long, 0.6- ing the “recovery stroke” (the portion ofthe stroke cm diameter polypropyleneropes which had been when the leg is brought forward), the toes and separatedinto fine strands. The free end of the web were folded posteriorly, reducing resistance rope floated in the water column; this simulated to the water. All speciesswam to the bottom with submerged vegetation and provided a refuge for necks stretchedforward. None of the speciesex- benthic and pelagic invertebrates. tended their wings for propulsion or stabilization We attempted to observe each speciesforage while underwater. on prey that they normally consumed in the wild; Upon reaching the bottom, the birds main- however, in some instances we could not obtain tained their location with leg strokes directed numbers of natural prey necessaryto conduct our perpendicular to the water surface. The Lesser observations and, thus, we provided substitute Scaup and Ruddy Ducks always used simulta- prey. In some of the Ruddy Duck observations, neous leg strokes;the Canvasbacks,however, oc- we used wheat grains to simulate patchesof ben- casionally used alternate leg strokes. When for- thic prey. The grains were placed approximately aging,the birds positionedtheir bodies at an angle 1 cm below the surface of the sand in densities to the substratewhich varied among species(see of 500 to 1,000 grains/m2. For all Canvasback next section). When its body was angled away trials, we placed corn kernels in the sand in den- from perpendicular to the substrate, the power sities of 100 to 500 kernels/m2 to simulate plant stroke moved the bird forward and also pre- tubers distributed beneath the substrate surface. vented the bird from floating toward the water For all LesserScaup and some Ruddy Duck trials, surface.All speciesmoved forward along the bot- we releasedseveral thousand amphipods into the tom with the power stroke of the legs parallel to aquarium at least 4 hr before feeding trials began. the axis of the body. This provided time for the invertebrates to ac- To return to the water surface,the birds stopped climatize to the experimental habitat. The ma- moving their legs and briefly (< 1 set) floated jority of the amphipods attached to the substrate backwards, towards the water surface, until a or to the walls near the bottom of the aquarium. power stroke and an upward motion of the head At least 5 hr before each observation session, oriented the body towardsthe water surface.They we placed the birds in pens beside the aquarium floated to the water surfacewith little or no effort. and deprived them of food. We observed each The feet normally trailed behind the bird in a speciesseparately, but also observed the Lesser relaxed position with the webbing folded so that Scaupand Ruddy Ducks together. During all ob- the legsand feet provided little resistanceagainst servation sessionsat least two individuals of a the water. Occasionally, however, the birds specieswere in the aquarium. moved their feet to changedirection; e.g.,to swing to the right, the bird extended the right foot lat- RESULTS erally with its web spread open. As the birds GENERAL UNDERWATER LOCOMOTORY neared the water surface,they extended both legs BEHAVIOR laterally and spread the foot webbing, which de- All speciesinitiated dives similarly. Immediately creased their velocity. Occasionally, the birds before diving, the birds exhaled and brought both adopted this posture to slow their upward ve- feet forward, close to the body on each side of locity and maneuvered to grasp a food item. the mid-sternum region. Each dive began when The Ruddy Ducks floated to the water surface the bird swept both feet simultaneously in a ven- with the neck and bill slightly forward of the tral-posterior direction (“power stroke”) while posture adopted when sitting on the surface.The arching the neck forward into the water. The Lesser Scaup and Canvasback arched the neck head and neck entered the water when the feet so the distal end of the bill was near or against were approximately half-way through the power the upper chest or lower neck. These positions stroke. During the descent,the legs were rotated were maintained until the head broke the water laterally from the normal swimming posture to surface and the birds returned to the normal a position near or above the horizontal plane of swimming position. 170 MICHAEL W. TOME AND DALE A. WRUBLESIU FORAGING BEHAVIOR consumed prey distributed on the artificial vege- Ruddy Duck. When foraging on prey distributed tation; but unlike them, they often pursued and in the substrate,the Ruddy Ducks inserted their consumed amphipods that would drop to the bills at a 35 to 45” angle into the substrate to a substrate when the vegetation was disturbed. point slightly distal to the nares. The birds swam Canvasback. The body and bill of the Can- forward and rapidly opened and closedthe man- vasbackswere oriented perpendicular to the sub- dibles while also moving their heads in short, strate when they foraged on prey distributed in lateral arcs so that an area of about 1.5 times the the substrate. The Canvasback used the bill as a bill width was searchedfor food. This mandib- probe to locate and extract food items from the ular movement caused substrate and associated substrate. When searching for corn kernels dis- benthos to be drawn into the bird’s mouth when tributed beneath the substrate, Canvasbacks in- the mandibles were opened. Upon closing, sub- serted their bills into the substrate using slight, strate was forced out the sides of the bill while lateral head shaking motions. The bill remained the lamellae retained items that were consumed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bears in Oklahoma
    April 2010 Bears in Oklahoma Our speaker for the April 19 meeting of the Oklahoma City Audubon Society will be Jeremy Dixon, wildlife biologist at the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. His presentation is titled “The Strange But True History of Bears in Oklahoma.” For many years Jeremy was a biologist in Florida where he studied the interactions between black bears and humans. His master’s research was on the Conservation Genetics of the Florida Black Bear. Jeremy moved to Lawton in 2009 to experience life out here in the middle of the continent. Our grass prairie and ancient granite mountains are a new living environment for him. However, the black bears are coming back across Oklahoma from the east presenting birders an experience with a new and large predator to which we are unaccustomed. With an education from Jeremy, hopefully we can learn how to watch the birds while not feeding the bears ourselves. Come out for bear-hugging good time at bird club and bring a friend. County Birding: Kingfisher Jimmy Woodard On March 11, the group of 7 birders entered Kingfisher County in the far southeast corner. We located several small lakes with waterfowl: Canada Geese, Gadwall, Mallard, Green- Winged Teal and Ruddy Duck. We also found an adult Bald Eagle, the first of two found during the trip. Driving the back roads, we observed Great Horned Owl, Phoebe, King- fisher, and a bunch of sparrows – Harris, White Crowned, Song, Savannah, & Lincoln’s. We visited fields along the Cimarron River southeast of Dover. Carla Brueggen & her hus- band lease fields in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Migration Chronology of Waterfowl in the Southern High Plains of Texas
    Migration Chronology of Waterfowl in the Southern High Plains of Texas LAURA BAAR1,2, RAYMOND S. MATLACK1,3, WILLIAM P. JOHNSON4 AND RAYMOND B. BARRON1 1Department of Life, Earth and Environmental Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Box 60808, Canyon, TX 79016-0001 2Current address: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, P.O.Box 226, Karnack, TX 75661 3Corresponding author; Internet: [email protected] 4Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, P.O. Box 659, Canyon, TX 79015 Abstract.—Migration chronology was quantified for 15 waterfowl species on 58 playa wetlands in the Southern High Plains of Texas from February 2004 through April 2006. Abundance of each species was estimated on playas once every two weeks during the nonbreeding season (16 August to 30 April); presence of ice was also recorded. Dabbling ducks were most common (N = 250,668) and most tended to exhibit either a bimodal migration pattern (lower abundance in winter than during fall and spring passage) or a unimodal pattern (one defined peak). Abun- dance of the most common dabbling ducks was skewed toward late winter and spring. Most species of diving ducks (N = 15,128) tended to exhibit irregular migration patterns. Canada Geese (both Branta canadensis and B. hutchinsii, N = 15,347) had an abundance pattern that gradually increased, peaking in midwinter, and then decreased, which is typical for a terminal wintering area. Ice was most common on playas during the first half of December, which coincided with the lowest winter abundance in dabbling ducks. Data from this study will support management ef- forts focused on playa wetlands, including the development of population goals and habitat objectives that span the entire non-breeding season.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilization of Hydrilla Verticillata by Wintering Waterfowl on the Tidal Potomac River
    UTILIZATION OF HYDRILLA VERTICILLATA BY WINTERING WATERFOWL ON THE TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER by Jeffrey A. Browning Advisor: Dr. Albert Manville Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Johns Hopkins University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Johns Hopkins University May 2008 ABSTRACT Submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) communities in the tidal Potomac River were decimated during the 20th century by multiple environmental and anthropogenic factors. With the major declines of SAV communities, waterfowl populations have declined greatly as well (Hindman 1989). Hydrilla verticillata, an introduced submersed aquatic plant, was first discovered in the tidal Potomac River in 1982 (Steward et al. 1984). One hundred nine waterfowl were collected from the tidal Potomac River and its tributaries during the 2007-2008 Virginian and Maryland waterfowl hunting seasons. The esophagi and gizzards were dissected and analyzed to determine the utilization of H. verticillata by wintering waterfowl. Only 2 duck species, Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis), consumed small amounts of H. verticillata, 2.52% and 0.20% aggregate percentage of esophageal content, respectively. An inverse relationship between H. verticillata and gastropod consumption was observed as the season progressed. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Albert Manville for his guidance and input during this research. Dr. Manville helped me reach decisions and get past certain obstacles. I would also like to thank Dr. Matthew Perry and Mr. Peter Osenton at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center for advice and consultation during the design of this study and analysis of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Populations in Texas
    Wildlife Populations in Texas • Five big game species – White-tailed deer – Mule deer – Pronghorn – Bighorn sheep – Javelina • Fifty-seven small game species – Forty-six migratory game birds, nine upland game birds, two squirrels • Sixteen furbearer species (i.e. beaver, raccoon, fox, skunk, etc) • Approximately 900 terrestrial vertebrate nongame species • Approximately 70 species of medium to large-sized exotic mammals and birds? White-tailed Deer Deer Surveys Figure 1. Monitored deer range within the Resource Management Units (RMU) of Texas. 31 29 30 26 22 18 25 27 17 16 24 21 15 02 20 28 23 19 14 03 05 06 13 04 07 11 12 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 08 Blackland Prairie 20 731,745 21 367,820 Cross Timbers 22 771,971 23 1,430,907 24 1,080,818 25 1,552,348 Eastern Rolling Plains 26 564,404 27 1,162,939 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 29 1,091,385 Post Oak Savannah 11 690,618 Edwards Plateau 4 1,308,326 12 475,323 5 2,807,841 18 1,290,491 6 583,685 19 2,528,747 7 1,909,010 South Texas Plains 8 5,255,676 28 1,246,008 Southern High Plains 2 810,505 Pineywoods 13 949,342 TransPecos 3 693,080 14 1,755,050 Western Rolling Plains 30 4,223,231 15 862,622 31 1,622,158 16 1,056,147 39,557,788 Total 17 735,592 Figure 2. Distribution of White-tailed Deer by Ecological Area 2013 Survey Period 53.77% 11.09% 6.60% 10.70% 5.89% 5.71% 0.26% 1.23% 4.75% Edwards Plateau Cross Timbers Western Rolling Plains Post Oak Savannah South Texas Plains Pineywoods Eastern Rolling Plains Trans Pecos Southern High Plains Figure 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the American and Lesser Scaup Ducks in Ohio
    Vol. XL'VIII1 j No. 257 a LesserScaup Duck swimmingabout. We approachedslowly and were ableto verify it as this form, the bird flying then alighting,flying and again alightingon the lake. It wasa malebird and the latenessof the date made us wonderif it couldbe possiblethat this speciesnested anywhere as far south as this. Giles, a very careful observer,had recorded 14 of these birds, 6 male• and 8 females,on this samelake on June 11, 1930; and had recordsfor June10, 11, 12, 13, and 15, 1929 alsoon Lake Rabun. Arthur H. Howell in 'Birds of Alabama' givesseveral records around the middle of May and Thos. D. Burleigh,writing from Athens, Ga., says:"A rather un- expectedrecord was that of three birds, all females,seen June 21, 1926." Probablythe bird we sawon June28 was a very late migrant or liked the high altitude of north Georgiabetter than a sectionfurther north among its kindred.--EARLER. GREENE,6/• OrmeCircle, Atlanta, Ga. Status of the American and Lesser Scaup Ducks in Ohio.--Consider- able confusionstill existsamong Ohio ornithologisteand sportsmencon- cerningthe relative numbersand abundanceof the AmericanScaup Duck (NFroc• •/l• •arct•) and the LesserScaup Duck (Nyroca Of the former,Dr. Wheaton('Report on the Birdsof Ohio,'1879, p. 530) saysit is a "not uncommonspring and fall migrant in the interior of the State; more commonon Lake Erie, but nowhereabundant." Jonesin 'TheBirds of Ohio,'1903, p. 42and Dawson's 'Birds of Ohio,'1903, p. 604 statesthat in his experiencethe ScaupDuck is about one-fourthas numer- ous as the LesserScaup, especially in northernOhio. Amongthe sporte- men a largespecimen of the LesserScaup is usuallycalled a '•Big Bluebill" whilea smallindividual is a "Little Bluebill." It is agreedthat at present the LesserScaup Duck is one of, if not, the mostcommon Duck occurring in Ohio.
    [Show full text]
  • Canvasback Aythya Valisineria
    Canvasback Aythya valisineria Class: Aves Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae Characteristics: A large diving duck, in fact the largest in its genus, the canvasback weighs about 2.5-3 pounds. The male has a chestnut-red head, red eyes, light white-grey body and blackish breast and tail. The female has a lighter brown head and neck that gets progressively darker brown toward the back of the body. Both sexes have a blackish bill and bluish-grey legs and feet. Range & Habitat: Behavior: Breeds in prairie potholes and A wary bird that is very swift in flight. They prefer to dive in shallow water winters on ocean bays to feed and will also feed on the water surface (Audubon). Reproduction: Several males will court and display to one female. Once a female chooses the male, they will form a monogamous bond through breeding season. They build a floating nest in stands of dense vegetation above shallow water and lay 7-12 olive-grey eggs. Often redheads will lay their eggs in canvasback nests which will result in canvasbacks laying fewer eggs. The female incubates the eggs which hatch after 23-28 days. The young feed themselves and mom leads them to water within hours of hatching. Lifespan: up to 20 years in Diet: captivity, 10 years in the wild. Wild: Seeds, plant material, snails and insect larvae, they dive to eat the roots and bases of plants Special Adaptations: They go Zoo: Scratch grains, greens, waterfowl pellets from freshwater marshes in summer to saltwater ocean bays in Conservation: winter. Some say the populations are decreasing while others say they are increasing due to habitat restoration and the ban on lead shot.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl in Iowa, Overview
    STATE OF IOWA 1977 WATERFOWL IN IOWA By JACK W MUSGROVE Director DIVISION OF MUSEUM AND ARCHIVES STATE HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT and MARY R MUSGROVE Illustrated by MAYNARD F REECE Printed for STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION DES MOINES, IOWA Copyright 1943 Copyright 1947 Copyright 1953 Copyright 1961 Copyright 1977 Published by the STATE OF IOWA Des Moines Fifth Edition FOREWORD Since the origin of man the migratory flight of waterfowl has fired his imagination. Undoubtedly the hungry caveman, as he watched wave after wave of ducks and geese pass overhead, felt a thrill, and his dull brain questioned, “Whither and why?” The same age - old attraction each spring and fall turns thousands of faces skyward when flocks of Canada geese fly over. In historic times Iowa was the nesting ground of countless flocks of ducks, geese, and swans. Much of the marshland that was their home has been tiled and has disappeared under the corn planter. However, this state is still the summer home of many species, and restoration of various areas is annually increasing the number. Iowa is more important as a cafeteria for the ducks on their semiannual flights than as a nesting ground, and multitudes of them stop in this state to feed and grow fat on waste grain. The interest in waterfowl may be observed each spring during the blue and snow goose flight along the Missouri River, where thousands of spectators gather to watch the flight. There are many bird study clubs in the state with large memberships, as well as hundreds of unaffiliated ornithologists who spend much of their leisure time observing birds.
    [Show full text]
  • North American Game Birds Or Animals
    North American Game Birds & Game Animals LARGE GAME Bear: Black Bear, Brown Bear, Grizzly Bear, Polar Bear Goat: bezoar goat, ibex, mountain goat, Rocky Mountain goat Bison, Wood Bison Moose, including Shiras Moose Caribou: Barren Ground Caribou, Dolphin Caribou, Union Caribou, Muskox Woodland Caribou Pronghorn Mountain Lion Sheep: Barbary Sheep, Bighorn Deer: Axis Deer, Black-tailed Deer, Sheep, California Bighorn Sheep, Chital, Columbian Black-tailed Deer, Dall’s Sheep, Desert Bighorn Mule Deer, White-tailed Deer Sheep, Lanai Mouflon Sheep, Nelson Bighorn Sheep, Rocky Elk: Rocky Mountain Elk, Tule Elk Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Stone Sheep, Thinhorn Mountain Sheep Gemsbok SMALL GAME Armadillo Marmot, including Alaska marmot, groundhog, hoary marmot, Badger woodchuck Beaver Marten, including American marten and pine marten Bobcat Mink North American Civet Cat/Ring- tailed Cat, Spotted Skunk Mole Coyote Mouse Ferret, feral ferret Muskrat Fisher Nutria Fox: arctic fox, gray fox, red fox, swift Opossum fox Pig: feral swine, javelina, wild boar, Lynx wild hogs, wild pigs Pika Skunk, including Striped Skunk Porcupine and Spotted Skunk Prairie Dog: Black-tailed Prairie Squirrel: Abert’s Squirrel, Black Dogs, Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs, Squirrel, Columbian Ground White-tailed Prairie Dogs Squirrel, Gray Squirrel, Flying Squirrel, Fox Squirrel, Ground Rabbit & Hare: Arctic Hare, Black- Squirrel, Pine Squirrel, Red Squirrel, tailed Jackrabbit, Cottontail Rabbit, Richardson’s Ground Squirrel, Tree Belgian Hare, European
    [Show full text]
  • Greater and Lesser Scaup: Beyond Crown Shape
    IN THE SCOPE Greater and Lesser Scaup: Beyond Crown Shape Tony Leukering Despite the fact that separation of Greater and Lesser Scaup has bedeviled generations of birders, the problem has not been particu- larly well treated in the primary birding literature. The recent treat- ment of the subject in Barry et al. (2006) does a better job than most, but nearly lacks illustrations. As part of a larger effort by me and oth- ers to provide a more thorough treatment of the problem, this essay summarizes some of the key aspects of head shape that make scaup identification in the field much more efficient and accurate than rely- ing solely on the shape of the crown in profile. The primary problem with using crown shape to identify scaup is that crown shape is malleable, varying according to the whim and ac- tivity of the individual bird in question. Birds at rest are much more likely to exhibit the stereotypical crown shape than are active birds. In fact, if birders only looked at actively-foraging scaup (that is, indi- vidual birds that spend less time at the water’s surface than beneath it) and only used crown shape to determine identification, we would believe that Lesser Scaup is quite rare. That is because actively-forag- ing scaup tend to hold their head feathers more depressed, presenting Back Cover Photo Key Upper left photo: Female (left) and first-year male (right) Greater Scaup, Palo Alto, Santa Clara Co., CA; 2 March 2009; photograph by Tony Leukering Greater Scaup (left, all rows) and Lesser Scaup (right, all rows).
    [Show full text]
  • Canvasback and Lesser Scaup Activities and Habitat-Use on Pool 19, Upper Mississippi River
    Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science (1993), Volume 86, 1 and 2, pp. 33 - 45 Canvasback and Lesser Scaup Activities and Habitat-Use on Pool 19, Upper Mississippi River David M. Day1, Richard V. Anderson and Michael A. Romano Department of Biological Sciences Western Illinois University Macomb, IL 61455 1Current address: Illinois Department of Conservation Streams Program Aledo, IL 61231 ABSTRACT Behavior and habitat use of canvasback (Aythya valisineria) and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) were assessed on Pool 19 of the Upper Mississippi River during the spring and fall of 1982 and the spring of 1983. Ducks were frequently observed in three sections of the study area; on the Illinois side of the river from Hamilton to Nauvoo; between Montrose and Niota; and in spring near Dallas City. Resting behavior was most prevalent, followed by diving (feeding) and loafing (sleeping). Lesser scaup dove more and spent less time loafing than canvasbacks. For all three seasons, within nonvegetated habitat, no significant seasonal or behavioral differences were found between male and female canvasbacks, but significant differences were found between the sexes of lesser scaup. Differences in activities between male and female lesser scaup did not persist when fall observations were excluded, suggesting seasonal differences in use of Pool 19. No significant seasonal or behavioral differences between species were observed in ducks using submergent vegetation during the spring periods. Activity patterns for both species, during the combined spring periods, were significantly different between submergent vegetation and nonvegetated areas. It appears these differences were due largely to changes in the distribution of diving and loafing activities between habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Derivation of Non-Breeding Duck
    North American Waterfowl Management Plan Science Support Team Technical Report No. 2019–01 Derivation of Regional, Non-breeding Duck Population Abundance Objectives to Inform Conservation Planning in North America — 2019 Revision Kathy K. Fleming U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management Michael K. Mitchell Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Southern Regional Office Michael G. Brasher Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Gulf Coast Joint Venture John M. Coluccy Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Great Lakes and Atlantic Regional Office J. Dale James Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Southern Regional Office Mark J. Petrie Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Western Regional Office, Pacific Coast Joint Venture Dale D. Humburg Ducks Unlimited, Inc., National Headquarters Gregory J. Soulliere U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture ABSTRACT During the early 2000s, a methodology was developed to derive regional non-breeding population abundance objectives from continental abundance estimates (M. Koneff, USFWS, unpublished data). This information was foundational to North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Joint Venture (JV) habitat conservation planning and implementation for non-breeding waterfowl, especially wintering ducks. The 2012 NAWMP Revision and its amended population objectives motivated JVs to begin updating their waterfowl implementation plans. Fleming et al. (2017) revisited the initial work to derive non- breeding abundance objectives and developed an updated approach. Although Fleming et al. (2017) made use of the least biased and most geographically consistent datasets, they identified outstanding issues to be resolved before the derivation technique could be effectively applied across all regions of North America. We updated the work of Fleming et al. (2017) by addressing 3 of those issues.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Waterfowl Population Status Survey
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 August 19, 2019 In the United States the process of establishing hunting regulations for waterfowl is conducted annually. This process involves a number of scheduled meetings in which information regarding the status of waterfowl is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. This report includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America and is a result of cooperative eforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. In addition to providing current information on the status of populations, this report is intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for the 2020–2021 hunting season. i Acknowledgments Waterfowl Population and Habitat Information: The information contained in this report is the result of the eforts of numerous individuals and organizations. Principal contributors include the Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife conservation agencies, provincial conservation agencies from Canada, and Direcci´on General de Conservaci´on Ecol´ogica de los Recursos Naturales, Mexico. In addition, several conservation organizations, other state and federal agencies, universities, and private individuals provided information or cooperated in survey activities. Appendix A.1 provides a list of individuals responsible for the collection and compilation of data for the “Status of Ducks” section of this report.
    [Show full text]