DOCSLIB.ORG

White-Tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus Leucura): a Technical Conservation Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
White-Tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus Leucura): a Technical Conservation Assessment White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project April 4, 2006 Richard W. Hoffman 1804 Wallenberg Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Hoffman, R.W. (2006, April 4). White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/ assessments/whitetailedptarmigan.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks Cynthia P. Melcher, Karin J. Eichhoff, and Jeromy W. Huntington for their assistance in preparing this assessment. The author also is grateful to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for providing office space and computer equipment. Jackie A. Boss, librarian for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, was extremely helpful in locating and obtaining many of the references used to prepare this assessment. The assessment benefited from discussions with Clait E. Braun, Grouse Inc., about the status and distribution of white-tailed ptarmigan in North America. The assessment further benefited from the critical reviews provided by Clait E. Braun and Ken M. Giesen. Finally, the author acknowledges Gary D. Patton with the Species Conservation Project for the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. His guidance and patience made the preparation of this document easier. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Richard W. Hoffman earned his B. Sc. and M. Sc. Degrees in wildlife biology from Colorado State University. He subsequently worked for the Colorado Division of Wildlife for over 30 years as an avian researcher specializing in upland game birds. He has conducted research on population dynamics, habitat relationships, and behavior of white- tailed ptarmigan, blue grouse, greater prairie-chickens, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and wild turkey. In retirement, he continues to work on projects involving white-tailed ptarmigan and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. COVER PHOTO CREDIT Photograph by Mark Parchman of male white-tailed ptarmigan in fall plumage, used with permission. 2 3 SUMMARY OF KEY COMPONENTS FOR CONSERVATION OF THE WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN Status The white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura) is endemic to alpine regions of western North America. Except for several transplants into previously unoccupied habitats, the distribution and abundance of this alpine grouse have remained relatively unchanged. Although it is not federally listed as threatened or endangered in any portion of its range, the white-tailed ptarmigan is listed as a sensitive species within the USDA. Forest Service (USFS) Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2), where it is found in suitable habitats throughout Colorado and in the Snowy Range of southern Wyoming. Colorado supports the largest population of white-tailed ptarmigan and greatest expanse of suitable habitat in the United States outside of Alaska. Approximately 84 percent of the occupied habitat in Region 2 is administered by the USFS. Primary Threats The greatest threat to the long-term survival of ptarmigan populations in Region 2 is global climate change, which may lead to a gradual loss of alpine habitats as the treeline moves upward in response to large-scale atmospheric temperature changes. More immediate and localized threats include grazing, mining, water development, and recreation. While alpine ecosystems are hardy and resilient to natural environmental factors, they are particularly vulnerable to human-related disturbances and may require decades, if not centuries, to recover from such disturbances. Although substantial progress has been achieved in developing techniques to restore damaged alpine landscapes, this technology is still not capable of restoring alpine plant communities to their pre-disturbance condition. The single most important feature of habitats used by ptarmigan in Region 2 is the presence of willow (Salix spp.), which is their primary food source from late fall through spring. Any activity that reduces the distribution and abundance of willow will likely have negative consequences to ptarmigan. Primary Conservation Elements, Management Implications and Considerations The primary information needed for effective conservation of white-tailed ptarmigan in Region 2 is a clearer understanding of how the species responds to alterations in habitat and changes in environmental conditions. The natural processes that perpetuate alpine ecosystems are still intact. Consequently, human intervention is not necessary other than to insure that these natural processes are not disrupted. The key to the successful management of ptarmigan populations and the alpine ecosystems upon which they rely is protection – protection against over-use due to grazing, recreation (including hunting), mining, and development, and protection from environmental perturbations that contribute to global climate change, pollution, and depletion of the ozone layer. In formulating management strategies, it is essential to account for the cumulative impacts that human activities and climate change have on ptarmigan and the alpine environment. 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................2 AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................................2 COVER PHOTO CREDIT .............................................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF KEY COMPONENTS FOR CONSERVATION OF THE WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN.............3 Status..........................................................................................................................................................................3 Primary Threats..........................................................................................................................................................3 Primary Conservation Elements, Management Implications and Considerations.....................................................3 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................6 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................7 Goal............................................................................................................................................................................7 Scope..........................................................................................................................................................................7 Data Used to Produce This Assessment.....................................................................................................................7 Publication of Assessment on the World Wide Web ..................................................................................................8 Peer Review ...............................................................................................................................................................9 MANAGEMENT STATUS AND NATURAL HISTORY .............................................................................................9 Management Status ....................................................................................................................................................9 Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, Management Plans, and Conservation Strategies...............................................9 Biology and Ecology................................................................................................................................................11 Systematics and general species description.......................................................................................................11 Distribution and abundance.................................................................................................................................12 Activity patterns and movements........................................................................................................................16 Winter season .................................................................................................................................................16 Breeding season..............................................................................................................................................18 Nesting season................................................................................................................................................20 Summer/brood-rearing season........................................................................................................................21 Habitat .................................................................................................................................................................22 General habitat description.............................................................................................................................22 Breeding habitat..............................................................................................................................................24
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Importance of Tactile and Visual Stimuli of Eggs and Nest for Termination of Egg Laying of Red Junglefowl
    The Auk 112(2):483-488, 1995 IMPORTANCE OF TACTILE AND VISUAL STIMULI OF EGGS AND NEST FOR TERMINATION OF EGG LAYING OF RED JUNGLEFOWL THEO MEIJER Departmentof Ethology,University of BieIefeld,P.O. Box100131, 33501Bielefeld, Germany ABSTRACT.--Experimentswere conductedto separatethe influence of tactile and visual stimuli emanating from the nest or eggs on the development of incubation behavior, the terminationof egg laying, and the determinationof clutchsize. Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus)hens, whose eggswere left inside the nest (experiment 1), receivedboth tactile and visualinformation, remained in the nestbox longer,and stoppedlaying after eight days (or sixeggs). Sixteen or 17females incubated. Leaving only the firstegg in the nest(experiment 2) gavesimilar results. When the eggslaid were placedunder a wire-meshbasket (experiment 3) suchthat the hen couldsee but not touchthe accumulatingeggs, laying stopped two days (or one egg) later than in experiment1, and mosthens "incubated"on the empty nestuntil the nestbox wasremoved. Surprisingly, when eggswere continuallyremoved (experiment 4), hensalso incubated progressively more, stopped laying after two weeks(or nine eggs), and then sat on the empty nest for one or more days. Stimulation of the brood patch by the nest alone led to more incubationand to termination of egg laying. Visual stimuli alone providedby eggsaccelerated both processesand were sufficientfor one-half of the hens to maintainfull incubationbehavior. Red Junglefowl do not appearto judgeclutch size visually. Received9 December1993, accepted25 February1994. DURING THE BREEDINGSEASON, a female has to nest. The few experimentsby which tactile in- make two important "decisions":when to start formation coming from the brood patch was laying, and when to stop laying.
    [Show full text]
  • Gyrfalcon Diet in Central West Greenland During the Nesting Period
    The Condor 105:528±537 q The Cooper Ornithological Society 2003 GYRFALCON DIET IN CENTRAL WEST GREENLAND DURING THE NESTING PERIOD TRAVIS L. BOOMS1,3 AND MARK R. FULLER2 1Boise State University Raptor Research Center, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725 2USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 970 Lusk St., Boise, ID 83706 Abstract. We studied food habits of Gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus) nesting in central west Greenland in 2000 and 2001 using three sources of data: time-lapse video (3 nests), prey remains (22 nests), and regurgitated pellets (19 nests). These sources provided different information describing the diet during the nesting period. Gyrfalcons relied heavily on Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) and arctic hares (Lepus arcticus). Combined, these species con- tributed 79±91% of the total diet, depending on the data used. Passerines were the third most important group. Prey less common in the diet included waterfowl, arctic fox pups (Alopex lagopus), shorebirds, gulls, alcids, and falcons. All Rock Ptarmigan were adults, and all but one arctic hare were young of the year. Most passerines were ¯edglings. We observed two diet shifts, ®rst from a preponderance of ptarmigan to hares in mid-June, and second to passerines in late June. The video-monitored Gyrfalcons consumed 94±110 kg of food per nest during the nestling period, higher than previously estimated. Using a combi- nation of video, prey remains, and pellets was important to accurately document Gyrfalcon diet, and we strongly recommend using time-lapse video in future diet studies to identify biases in prey remains and pellet data. Key words: camera, diet, Falco rusticolus, food habits, Greenland, Gyrfalcon, time-lapse video.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BRITISH LIST the Official List of Bird Species Recorded in Britain
    THE BRITISH LIST The official list of bird species recorded in Britain This document summarises the Ninth edition of the British List (BOU, 2017. Ibis 160: 190-240) and subsequent changes to the List included in BOURC Reports and announcements (bou.org.uk/british-list/bourc-reports-and- papers/). Category A, B, C species Total no. of species on the British List (Cats A, B, C) = 623 at 8 June 2021 Category A 605 • Category B 8 • Category C 10 Other categories see p.13. The list below includes both the vernacular name used by British ornithologists and the IOC World Bird List international English name (see www.worldbirdnames.org) where these are different to the English vernacular name. British (English) IOC World Bird List Scientific name Category vernacular name international English name Capercaillie Western Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus C3E* Black Grouse Lyrurus tetrix AE Ptarmigan Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta A Red Grouse Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus A Red-legged Partridge Alectoris rufa C1E* Grey Partridge Perdix perdix AC2E* Quail Common Quail Coturnix coturnix AE* Pheasant Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus C1E* Golden Pheasant Chrysolophus pictus C1E* Lady Amherst’s Pheasant Chrysolophus amherstiae C6E* Brent Goose Brant Goose Branta bernicla AE Red-breasted Goose † Branta ruficollis AE* Canada Goose ‡ Branta canadensis AC2E* Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis AC2E* Cackling Goose † Branta hutchinsii AE Snow Goose Anser caerulescens AC2E* Greylag Goose Anser anser AC2C4E* Taiga Bean Goose Anser fabalis AE* Pink-footed Goose Anser
    [Show full text]
  • The Sleeping Habit of the Willow Ptarmigan
    638 GeneralNotes [Oct.[Auk day the bird was found dead by Mr. Wilkin at the edge of the marsh. It had been shot and left by someoneunknown. The bird was turned over to New York Con- servation Department officers and has now been placed in the New York State Museum collection. The bird was a female in excellentbreeding-plumage condition and contained eggs. It weighed 11s/{ pounds, had a wing-spreadof 97 inches,and a length of 54 inches. It was examined in the flesh by both authors of this note.-- GORDO• M. M•AD•, M.D., Strong Memorial Hospital, Rochester,New York, A•D C•,a¾•ro• B. S•ao•ms, Supt. of ConservationEducation, Albany, New York. The sleeping habit of the Willow Ptarmigan.--A frequent statement regard- ing the Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopuslagopus) is that in winter when it goesto roost it drops from flight into the snow, completely burying itself and leaving no tracks that might lead predators to it. E. W. Nelson made this observation years ago in Alaska, and it is given also by Sandys and Van Dyke in their book, 'Upland Game Birds.' Bent (U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull., 162: 194, 1932) in writing on Allen's Ptarmigan of Newfoundland, quotes •I. R. Whitaker as stating that they roost in a shallow scratchingin the snow and are frequently buried by drifts and imprisonedto their death. On Southampton Island, Sutton records the Willow Ptarmigan as roosting and feeding in the same area without attempt at concealment. One night seven slept for the night in sevenconsecutive footprints of his track acrossthe snow.
    [Show full text]
  • Nesting Behavior of Female White-Tailed Ptarmigan in Colorado
    SHORT COMMUNICATIONS 215 Condor, 81:215-217 0 The Cooper Ornithological Society 1070 NESTING BEHAVIOR OF FEMALE settling on the clutches. By lifting the hens off their WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN nests, we learned that eggs were laid almost immedi- ately after settling. IN COLORADO After eggs were laid, the hens remained relatively inactive until they prepared to depart from the nest. Observations of six hens in 1975 indicated that they KENNETH M. GIESEN remained on the nest for longer periods as the clutch AND approached completion. One hen depositing her sec- ond egg remained on her nest for 44 min, whereas CLAIT E. BRAUN another, depositing the fifth egg of a six-egg clutch, remained on the nest more than 280 min. Three hens remained on their nests 84 to 153 min when laying Few detailed observations on behavior of nesting their second or third eggs. Spruce Grouse also show grouse have been reported. Notable exceptions are this pattern of nest attentiveness (McCourt et al. those of SchladweiIer (1968) and Maxson (1977) 1973). who studied feeding behavior and activity patterns of Before departing from the nest, the hen began to Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Minnesota, and peck at vegetation and place it at the rim of the McCourt et al. ( 1973) who documented nest atten- nest, or throw it over her back. This behavior lasted tiveness of Spruce Grouse (Canachites canudensis) in 34, 40 and 64 min for three hens. Vegetation was southwestern Alberta. White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lugo- deposited on the nest at the rate of 20 pieces per pus Zeucurus) have been intensively studied in Colo- minute.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Ecology of Tibetan Eared Pheasant Crossoptilon Harmani in Scrub Environment, with Special Reference to the Effect of Food
    Ibis (2003), 145, 657–666 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Reproductive ecology of Tibetan Eared Pheasant Crossoptilon harmani in scrub environment, with special reference to the effect of food XIN LU1* & GUANG-MEI ZHENG2 1Department of Zoology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China 2Department of Ecology, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China We studied the nesting ecology of two groups of the endangered Tibetan Eared Pheasants Crossoptilon harmani in scrub environments near Lhasa, Tibet, during 1996 and 1999–2001. One group received artificial food from a nunnery prior to incubation whereas the other fed on natural food. This difference in the birds’ nutritional history allowed us to assess the effects of food on reproduction. Laying occurred between mid-April and early June, with a peak at the end of April or early May. Eggs were laid around noon. Adult females produced one clutch per year. Clutch size averaged 7.4 eggs (4–11). Incubation lasted 24–25 days. We observed a higher nesting success (67.7%) than reported for other eared pheasants. Pro- visioning had no significant effect on the timing of clutch initiation or nesting success, and a weak effect on egg size and clutch size (explaining 8.2% and 9.1% of the observed variation, respectively). These results were attributed to the observation that the unprovisioned birds had not experienced local food shortage before laying, despite spending more time feeding and less time resting than the provisioned birds. Nest-site selection by the pheasants was non-random with respect to environmental variables. Rock-cavities with an entrance aver- aging 0.32 m2 in size and not deeper than 1.5 m were greatly preferred as nest-sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Birds & Wildlife
    Alaska Birds & Wildlife Pribilof Islands - 25th to 27th May 2016 (4 days) Nome - 28th May to 2nd June 2016 (5 days) Barrow - 2nd to 4th June 2016 (3 days) Denali & Kenai Peninsula - 5th to 13th June 2016 (9 days) Scenic Alaska by Sid Padgaonkar Trip Leader(s): Forrest Rowland and Forrest Davis RBT Alaska – Trip Report 2016 2 Top Ten Birds of the Tour: 1. Smith’s Longspur 2. Spectacled Eider 3. Bluethroat 4. Gyrfalcon 5. White-tailed Ptarmigan 6. Snowy Owl 7. Ivory Gull 8. Bristle-thighed Curlew 9. Arctic Warbler 10. Red Phalarope It would be very difficult to accurately describe a tour around Alaska - without drowning the narrative in superlatives to the point of nuisance. Not only is it an inconceivably huge area to describe, but the habitats and landscapes, though far north and less biodiverse than the tropics, are completely unique from one portion of the tour to the next. Though I will do my best, I will fail to encapsulate what it’s like to, for example, watch a coastal glacier calving into the Pacific, while being observed by Harbour Seals and on-looking Murrelets. I can’t accurately describe the sense of wilderness felt looking across the vast glacial valleys and tundra mountains of Nome, with Long- tailed Jaegers hovering overhead, a Rock Ptarmigan incubating eggs near our feet, and Muskoxen staring at us strangers to these arctic expanses. Finally, there is Denali: squinting across jagged snowy ridges that tower above 10,000 feet, mere dwarfs beneath Denali standing 20,300 feet high, making everything else in view seem small, even toy-like, by comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • Anchorage Birding Map ❏ Common Redpoll* C C C C ❄ ❏ Hoary Redpoll R ❄ ❏ Pine Siskin* U U U U ❄ Additional References: Anchorage Audubon Society
    BIRDS OF ANCHORAGE (Knik River to Portage) SPECIES SP S F W ❏ Greater White-fronted Goose U R ❏ Snow Goose U ❏ Cackling Goose R ? ❏ Canada Goose* C C C ❄ ❏ Trumpeter Swan* U r U ❏ Tundra Swan C U ❏ Gadwall* U R U ❄ ❏ Eurasian Wigeon R ❏ American Wigeon* C C C ❄ ❏ Mallard* C C C C ❄ ❏ Blue-winged Teal r r ❏ Northern Shoveler* C C C ❏ Northern Pintail* C C C r ❄ ❏ Green-winged Teal* C C C ❄ ❏ Canvasback* U U U ❏ Redhead U R R ❄ ❏ Ring-necked Duck* U U U ❄ ❏ Greater Scaup* C C C ❄ ❏ Lesser Scaup* U U U ❄ ❏ Harlequin Duck* R R R ❄ ❏ Surf Scoter R R ❏ White-winged Scoter R U ❏ Black Scoter R ❏ Long-tailed Duck* R R ❏ Bufflehead U U ❄ ❏ Common Goldeneye* C U C U ❄ ❏ Barrow’s Goldeneye* U U U U ❄ ❏ Common Merganser* c R U U ❄ ❏ Red-breasted Merganser u R ❄ ❏ Spruce Grouse* U U U U ❄ ❏ Willow Ptarmigan* C U U c ❄ ❏ Rock Ptarmigan* R R R R ❄ ❏ White-tailed Ptarmigan* R R R R ❄ ❏ Red-throated Loon* R R R ❏ Pacific Loon* U U U ❏ Common Loon* U R U ❏ Horned Grebe* U U C ❏ Red-necked Grebe* C C C ❏ Great Blue Heron r r ❄ ❏ Osprey* R r R ❏ Bald Eagle* C U U U ❄ ❏ Northern Harrier* C U U ❏ Sharp-shinned Hawk* U U U R ❄ ❏ Northern Goshawk* U U U R ❄ ❏ Red-tailed Hawk* U R U ❏ Rough-legged Hawk U R ❏ Golden Eagle* U R U ❄ ❏ American Kestrel* R R ❏ Merlin* U U U R ❄ ❏ Gyrfalcon* R ❄ ❏ Peregrine Falcon R R ❄ ❏ Sandhill Crane* C u U ❏ Black-bellied Plover R R ❏ American Golden-Plover r r ❏ Pacific Golden-Plover r r ❏ Semipalmated Plover* C C C ❏ Killdeer* R R R ❏ Spotted Sandpiper* C C C ❏ Solitary Sandpiper* u U U ❏ Wandering Tattler* u R R ❏ Greater Yellowlegs*
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Somerset Birds
    A Checklist of Somerset Birds The Somerset List to the end of 2014 contains 357 species. Using the BOURC classification 336 are in Category A, 18 in B and three in C. Golden Pheasant has been removed from the list as it is considered that there never was a self-sustaining population in Somerset. An explanation of the BOUC classification is given below. A Species that have been recorded in an apparently natural state at least once since 1 January 1950. B Species that have been recorded in an apparently natural state at least prior to 31 December 1949, but have not been recorded subsequently. C1 Naturalized introduced species - species that have occurred only as a result of introduction, e.g. Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus C2 Naturalized established species – species with established populations resulting from introduction by Man, but which also occur in an apparently natural state, e.g. Greylag Goose Anser anser C3 Naturalized re-established species – species with populations successfully re-established by Man in areas of former occurrence, e.g. Red Kite Milvus milvus. C4 Naturalized feral species – domesticated species with populations established in the wild, e.g. Rock Pigeon (Dove)/Feral Pigeon Columba livia C5 Vagrant naturalized species – species from established naturalized populations abroad, e.g. possibly some Ruddy Shelducks Tadorna ferruginea occurring in Britain. There are currently no species in category C5. C6 Former naturalized species - species formerly placed in C1 whose naturalized populations are either no longer self-sustaining or are considered extinct, e.g. Lady Amherst’s Pheasant Chrysolophus amherstiae. D Species that would otherwise appear in Category A except that there is reasonable doubt that they have ever occurred in a natural state.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Paul Johnsgard Collection Papers in the Biological Sciences 1983 Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants" (1983). Paul Johnsgard Collection. 17. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Paul Johnsgard Collection by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. HYBRIDIZATION & ZOOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PHEASANTS PAUL A. JOHNSGARD The purpose of this paper is to infonn members of the W.P.A. of an unusual scientific use of the extent and significance of hybridization among pheasants (tribe Phasianini in the proposed classification of Johnsgard~ 1973). This has occasionally occurred naturally, as for example between such locally sympatric species pairs as the kalij (Lophura leucol11elana) and the silver pheasant (L. nycthelnera), but usually occurs "'accidentally" in captive birds, especially in the absence of conspecific mates. Rarely has it been specifically planned for scientific purposes, such as for obtaining genetic, morphological, or biochemical information on hybrid haemoglobins (Brush. 1967), trans­ ferins (Crozier, 1967), or immunoelectrophoretic comparisons of blood sera (Sato, Ishi and HiraI, 1967). The literature has been summarized by Gray (1958), Delacour (1977), and Rutgers and Norris (1970). Some of these alleged hybrids, especially those not involving other Galliformes, were inadequately doculnented, and in a few cases such as a supposed hybrid between domestic fowl (Gallus gal/us) and the lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae) can be discounted.
    [Show full text]
  • Europe's Huntable Birds a Review of Status and Conservation Priorities
    FACE - EUROPEAN FEDERATIONEurope’s FOR Huntable HUNTING Birds A Review AND CONSERVATIONof Status and Conservation Priorities Europe’s Huntable Birds A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities December 2020 1 European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE) Established in 1977, FACE represents the interests of Europe’s 7 million hunters, as an international non-profit-making non-governmental organisation. Its members are comprised of the national hunters’ associations from 37 European countries including the EU-27. FACE upholds the principle of sustainable use and in this regard its members have a deep interest in the conservation and improvement of the quality of the European environment. See: www.face.eu Reference Sibille S., Griffin, C. and Scallan, D. (2020) Europe’s Huntable Birds: A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities. European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE). https://www.face.eu/ 2 Europe’s Huntable Birds A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities Executive summary Context Non-Annex species show the highest proportion of ‘secure’ status and the lowest of ‘threatened’ status. Taking all wild birds into account, The EU State of Nature report (2020) provides results of the national the situation has deteriorated from the 2008-2012 to the 2013-2018 reporting under the Birds and Habitats directives (2013 to 2018), and a assessments. wider assessment of Europe’s biodiversity. For FACE, the findings are of key importance as they provide a timely health check on the status of In the State of Nature report (2020), ‘agriculture’ is the most frequently huntable birds listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Trichostrongylus Cramae N. Sp. (Nematoda), a Parasite of Bob-White Quail (Colinus Virginianus) M.-C
    Ann. Parasitol. Hum. Comp., Key-words: Trichostrongylus. Birds. Europe. USA. Trichos- 1993, 68 : n° 1, 43-48. trongylus tenuis. T. cramae n. sp. Lagopus scoticus. Pavo cris- tatus. Perdix perdix. Phasianus colchicus. Colinus virginianus. Mémoire. Mots-clés : Trichostrongylus. Oiseaux. Europe. USA. Trichos­ trongylus tenuis. T. cramae n. sp. Lagopus scoticus. Pavo cris- tatus. Perdix perdix. Phasianus colchicus. Colinus virginianus. TRICHOSTRONGYLUS CRAMAE N. SP. (NEMATODA), A PARASITE OF BOB-WHITE QUAIL (COLINUS VIRGINIANUS) M.-C. DURETTE-DESSET*, A. G. CHABAUD*, J. MOORE** Summary ---------------------------------------------------------- Cram (1925, 1927) incorrectly identified as T. pergracilis (now the cuticular striation, the relative distances between the second, a synonym of T. tenuis) what was in reality an undescribed spe­ third and fourth bursal papillae and the configuration of the dorsal cies in Colinus virginianus. ray. Red grouse (Lagopus scoticus), the type host of T. pergra­ Trichostrongylus cramae n. sp. is proposed for T. pergracilis cilis, was in fact found to be parasitized by T. tenuis, confirming sensu Cram, 1927 nec Cobbold, 1873 from C. virginianus from the synonymy of T. pergracilis and T. tenuis. USA. It differs from T. tenuis (Mehlis in Creplin, 1846) as regards Résumé : Trichostrongylus cramae n. sp. (Nematoda) parasite de Colinus virginianus. Cram (1925, 1927) a identifié par erreur comme étant T. per­ Il se différencie de T. tenuis (Mehlis in Creplin, 1846) par la gracilis, maintenant considéré comme un synonyme de T. tenuis, striation cuticulaire, les distances relatives entre les papilles bur- ce qui était en réalité une espèce non décrite parasite de Colinus sales 2, 3 et 4, et par la configuration de la côte dorsale.
    [Show full text]