DOCSLIB.ORG

Monsanto Improved Fatty Acid Profile MON 87705 Soybean, Petition 09-201-01P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monsanto Improved Fatty Acid Profile MON 87705 Soybean, Petition 09-201-01P Monsanto Improved Fatty Acid Profile MON 87705 Soybean, Petition 09-201-01p OECD Unique Identifier: MON-87705-6 Final Environmental Assessment September 2011 Agency Contact Cindy Eck USDA, APHIS, BRS 4700 River Road, Unit 147 Riverdale, MD 20737-1237 Phone: (301) 734-0667 Fax: (301) 734-8669 [email protected] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. MONSANTO 87705 SOYBEAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ iv 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 REGULATORY AUTHORITY ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 REGULATED ORGANISMS ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF NONREGULATED STATUS: IMPROVED FATTY ACID PROFILE MONSANTO 87705 SOYBEAN ....................................................... 2 1.4 PURPOSE OF PRODUCT ........................................................................................................... 3 1.5 APHIS RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR NONREGULATED STATUS .................................. 4 1.6 COORDINATED FRAMEWORK REVIEW .............................................................................. 5 1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................... 5 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 7 2.1 SOYBEAN BIOLOGY, USE, AND COMPOSITION ................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Soybean Taxonomy............................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Soybean Use and Composition ............................................................................................. 7 2.1.2.1 Soybean Use .................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.2.2 Soybean Composition ................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Cultivation of GE Soybeans ................................................................................................ 11 2.2 SOYBEAN PRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Acreage and Areas of Soybean Production ......................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Seed Production .................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.3 Organic Farming ................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.4 Specialty Soybean Production ............................................................................................ 15 2.2.5 Soybean Cultivation Practices ............................................................................................ 17 2.2.5.1 Pre-Season Preparation ............................................................................................... 18 2.2.5.2 Planting and Early Season ........................................................................................... 18 2.2.5.3 Mid- to Late Season .................................................................................................... 18 2.2.5.4 Harvest Season ............................................................................................................ 18 2.2.5.5 Soybean Crop Rotation and Control of Volunteers .................................................... 19 2.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................... 20 2.3.1 Soil and Land Use ............................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.3 Air Quality and Climate Change ......................................................................................... 22 2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 23 2.4.1 Gene Movement and Weediness ......................................................................................... 24 2.4.2 Animals ............................................................................................................................... 26 2.4.3 Plants ................................................................................................................................... 26 2.4.4 Microorganisms .................................................................................................................. 29 2.4.5 Biodiversity ......................................................................................................................... 30 i MONSANTO 87705 SOYBEAN TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED PAGE 2.5 PUBLIC HEALTH ..................................................................................................................... 31 2.5.1 Worker Safety ..................................................................................................................... 31 2.5.2 Human Health ..................................................................................................................... 32 2.6 ANIMAL FEED .......................................................................................................................... 32 2.7 SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 33 3 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ 36 3.1 NO ACTION: CONTINUATION AS A REGULATED ARTICLE ......................................... 36 3.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: DETERMINATION THAT MON 87705 SOYBEAN IS NO LONGER A REGULATED ARTICLE ..................................................................................... 36 3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................................................................... 37 3.3.1 Prohibit Any MON 87705 Soybean from Being Released ................................................. 37 3.3.2 Approve the petition in part ................................................................................................ 38 3.3.3 Isolation Distance between MON 87705 Soybean and Non-GE Soybean Production and Geographic Restrictions ..................................................................................................... 38 3.3.4 Requirement of Testing for MON 87705 Soybean ............................................................. 38 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................... 41 4.1 SOYBEAN PRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 42 4.1.1 Acreage and Areas of Soybean Production ......................................................................... 42 4.1.2 Seed Production .................................................................................................................. 43 4.1.3 Organic Farming ................................................................................................................. 44 4.1.4 Specialty Soybean Production ............................................................................................ 46 4.1.5 Soybean Cultivation Practices ............................................................................................ 47 4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................... 49 4.2.1 Soil and Land Use ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHESTNUT (CASTANEA Spp.) CULTIVAR EVALUATION for COMMERCIAL CHESTNUT PRODUCTION
    CHESTNUT (CASTANEA spp.) CULTIVAR EVALUATION FOR COMMERCIAL CHESTNUT PRODUCTION IN HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE By Ana Maria Metaxas Approved: James Hill Craddock Jennifer Boyd Professor of Biological Sciences Assistant Professor of Biological and Environmental Sciences (Director of Thesis) (Committee Member) Gregory Reighard Jeffery Elwell Professor of Horticulture Dean, College of Arts and Sciences (Committee Member) A. Jerald Ainsworth Dean of the Graduate School CHESTNUT (CASTANEA spp.) CULTIVAR EVALUATION FOR COMMERCIAL CHESTNUT PRODUCTION IN HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE by Ana Maria Metaxas A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Environmental Science May 2013 ii ABSTRACT Chestnut cultivars were evaluated for their commercial applicability under the environmental conditions in Hamilton County, TN at 35°13ꞌ 45ꞌꞌ N 85° 00ꞌ 03.97ꞌꞌ W elevation 230 meters. In 2003 and 2004, 534 trees were planted, representing 64 different cultivars, varieties, and species. Twenty trees from each of 20 different cultivars were planted as five-tree plots in a randomized complete block design in four blocks of 100 trees each, amounting to 400 trees. The remaining 44 chestnut cultivars, varieties, and species served as a germplasm collection. These were planted in guard rows surrounding the four blocks in completely randomized, single-tree plots. In the analysis, we investigated our collection predominantly with the aim to: 1) discover the degree of acclimation of grower- recommended cultivars to southeastern Tennessee climatic conditions and 2) ascertain the cultivars’ ability to survive in the area with Cryphonectria parasitica and other chestnut diseases and pests present.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundup Ready Wheat – an Overview Based on Advancements in the Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Crops
    Roundup Ready Wheat – An Overview Based on Advancements in the Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Crops by Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D. Center for Science in the Public Interest 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009-5728 Phone: (202) 332-9110 www.cspinet.org TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Abstract................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 3 Background on the U.S. Regulatory System for GE Crops ............................................. 3 Characterization of the Transgene and Transgenic Protein............................................ 4 Human Safety....................................................................................................................... 6 Allergenicity ...................................................................................................................... 7 Unintended Adverse Effects.............................................................................................. 9 Environmental Issues ........................................................................................................ 11 Resistance Management ................................................................................................. 12 Gene Transfer..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Harness Xtra Herbicide, EPA Registration REPACKAGING LIMITATIONS
    ATTENTION: This specimen label is provided for general information only. • This pesticide product may not yet be available or approved for sale or use in your area. • It is your responsibility to follow all Federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding the use of pesticides. • Before using any pesticide, be sure the intended use is approved in your state or locality. • Your state or locality may require additional precautions and instructions for use of this product that are not included here. • Monsanto does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of this specimen label. The information found in this label may differ from the information found on the product label. You must have the EPA approved labeling with you at the time of use and must read and follow all label directions. • You should not base any use of a similar product on the precautions, instructions for use or other information you find here. • Always follow the precautions and instructions for use on the label of the pesticide you are using. 36021K6-29 3.0 PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE due to ground and surface water concerns. For retail sale to and use only by .1 Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals Certified Applicators, or persons under their direct supervision and only for those 3 uses covered by the Certified Applicator’s certification. Keep out of reach of children. CAUTION! HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF INHALED. CAUSES MODERATE EYE IRRITATION. ® MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION. Avoid contact with skin, eyes, or clothing. Avoid breathing spray mist. Prolonged or frequently repeated skin contact may cause allergic reactions in some individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans
    AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: BENEFITS OF TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS Leonard P. Gianessi Janet E. Carpenter April 2000 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy 1616 P Street, NW, First Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-328-5048 Fax: 202-328-5133 [email protected] Preparation of this report was supported financially with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. U.S. Soybean Production 3. Soybean Products 4. Soybean Physiology 5. Soybeans – Agronomic Factors 6. Soybean Genetic Improvements A. Introduction B. Reproductive Process C. Artificial Cross Breeding D. Mutation Breeding E. Transgenic Plants 7. Weed Competition – Soybeans 8. Weed Control in Soybeans: 1940’s – 1950’s 9. Herbicides – An Overview 10. Herbicide Use in Soybeans: 1960’s – 1995 A. Introduction B. Historical Overview 1. The Early 1960’s 2. Soil Applied Herbicides 3. Postemergence Herbicides 4. Sulfonylurea/Imidazolinone Herbicides 5. Burndown Herbicides C. Summary of Usage: 1995 11. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans A. Glyphosate – An Overview B. Performance of Roundup Ready Soybeans C. Herbicide Ratings D. Adoption Impacts: 1995 – 1998 1. Herbicide Costs 2. Soybean Yields 3. Returns 4. Other Aggregate Studies 5. Herbicide Treatments 6. Herbicide Use Amounts 7. Other Impacts 12. Summary and Conclusions 13. References Appendix 1: Soybean Processing – A Description 1. Introduction Soybeans and other crops have been improved genetically for many decades through traditional crop breeding – a technique that requires that species be sexually compatible. With the development of biotechnology methods, scientists have the ability to transfer single genes from one living organism into another, regardless of species or sexual compatibility. Varieties that are developed through the transfer of genes between species that are not sexually compatible are referred to as “transgenic.” Transgenic soybean plants have been developed with a gene from a soil bacteria that allows the use of an herbicide that would normally kill soybeans.
    [Show full text]
  • 422 Part 180—Tolerances and Ex- Emptions for Pesticide
    Pt. 180 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–16 Edition) at any time before the filing of the ini- 180.124 Methyl bromide; tolerances for resi- tial decision. dues. 180.127 Piperonyl butoxide; tolerances for [55 FR 50293, Dec. 5, 1990, as amended at 70 residues. FR 33360, June 8, 2005] 180.128 Pyrethrins; tolerances for residues. 180.129 o-Phenylphenol and its sodium salt; PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EX- tolerances for residues. 180.130 Hydrogen Cyanide; tolerances for EMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEM- residues. ICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 180.132 Thiram; tolerances for residues. 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues. Subpart A—Definitions and Interpretative 180.145 Fluorine compounds; tolerances for Regulations residues. 180.151 Ethylene oxide; tolerances for resi- Sec. dues. 180.1 Definitions and interpretations. 180.153 Diazinon; tolerances for residues. 180.3 Tolerances for related pesticide chemi- 180.154 Azinphos-methyl; tolerances for resi- cals. dues. 180.4 Exceptions. 180.155 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; tolerances 180.5 Zero tolerances. for residues. 180.6 Pesticide tolerances regarding milk, 180.163 Dicofol; tolerances for residues. eggs, meat, and/or poultry; statement of 180.169 Carbaryl; tolerances for residues. policy. 180.172 Dodine; tolerances for residues. 180.175 Maleic hydrazide; tolerances for resi- Subpart B—Procedural Regulations dues. 180.176 Mancozeb; tolerances for residues. 180.7 Petitions proposing tolerances or ex- 180.178 Ethoxyquin; tolerances for residues. emptions for pesticide residues in or on 180.181 Chlorpropham; tolerances for resi- raw agricultural commodities or proc- dues. essed foods. 180.182 Endosulfan; tolerances for residues. 180.8 Withdrawal of petitions without preju- 180.183 Disulfoton; tolerances for residues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conversion of Abandoned Chestnut Forests to Managed Ones Does Not Affect the Soil Chemical Properties and Improves the Soil Microbial Biomass Activity
    Article The Conversion of Abandoned Chestnut Forests to Managed Ones Does Not Affect the Soil Chemical Properties and Improves the Soil Microbial Biomass Activity Mauro De Feudis 1,* , Gloria Falsone 1, Gilmo Vianello 2 and Livia Vittori Antisari 1 1 Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna, Via Fanin, 40, 40127 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] (G.F.); [email protected] (L.V.A.) 2 Centro Sperimentale per lo Studio e l’Analisi del Suolo (CSSAS), Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 June 2020; Accepted: 19 July 2020; Published: 22 July 2020 Abstract: Recently, several hectares of abandoned chestnut forests (ACF) were recovered into chestnut stands for nut or timber production; however, the effects of such practice on soil mineral horizon properties are unknown. This work aimed to (1) identify the better chestnut forest management to maintain or to improve the soil properties during the ACF recovery, and (2) give an insight into the effect of unmanaged to managed forest conversion on soil properties, taking in consideration sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) forest ecosystems. The investigation was conducted in an experimental chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) forest located in the northern part of the Apennine chain (Italy). We identified an ACF, a chestnut forest for wood production (WCF), and chestnut forests 1 for nut production with a tree density of 98 and 120 plants ha− (NCFL and NCFH, respectively). WCF, NCFL and NCFH stands are the result of the ACF recovery carried out in 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Lack of Glyphosate Resistance Gene Transfer from Roundup Ready
    Lack of Glyphosate Resistance Gene Transfer from Roundup Ready® Soybean to Bradyrhizobium japonicum under Field and Laboratory Conditions Laura Arango Isazaa, Katja Opelta, Tobias Wagnera,b, Elke Mattesa, Evi Biebera, Elwood O. Hatleyc, Greg Rothc, Juan Sanjuánd, Hans-Martin Fischere, Heinrich Sandermanna, Anton Hartmannf, and Dieter Ernsta,* a Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany. Fax: +49 89 3187 3383. E-mail: [email protected] b Present address: Applied Biosystems, Frankfurter Strasse 129B, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany c The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University Park, PA 16802, USA d Departamento de Microbiologia del Suelo y Sistemas Simbióticos, Estación Experimental del Zaidin, CSIC, Prof. Albareda 1, Granada, Spain e ETH, Institute of Microbiology, Wolfgang-Pauli-Str. 10, Zürich, Switzerland f Department Microbe-Plant Interactions, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany * Author for correspondence and reprint requests Z. Naturforsch. 66 c, 595 – 604 (2011); received March 25/October 14, 2011 This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Dr. Heinrich Sandermann, former director of the Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology, Helmholtz Zentrum München A fi eld study was conducted at the Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center to de- termine the effect of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in combination with herbicide (Roundup) application on its endosymbiont Bradyrhizobium japonicum. DNA of bacteroids from isolated nodules was analysed for the presence of the transgenic 5-enolpyruvylshiki- mate-3-phosphate synthase (CP4-EPSPS) DNA sequence using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Intensive Agriculture: High Technology and Environmental Benefits
    University of Arkansas School of Law [email protected] $ (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article Sustainable Intensive Agriculture: High Technology and Environmental Benefits by Drew L. Kershen Originally published in KANSAS JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 16 KAN. J. L. & PUB. POL’Y 424 (2007) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org SUSTAINABLE INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE: HIGH TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Drew L. Kershen- I. PREFACE In the coming decades, agriculture faces three significant challenges. While these challenges will manifest themselves in ways unique to the cultural, socio-economic, and political conditions of different countries, developed and developing nations alike will face these challenges. Moreover, for the purposes of this article, the author assumes these challenges are truisms; consequently, there is no need to cite authority to support the author's identification and assertions. 1 Agriculture faces an agronomic challenge. Millions of people are still hungry in our world. Moreover, the world's population will continue to grow . for at least several decades. Agriculture must produce the food necessary to provide the people of the world-including those who presently have the money to feel secure about their daily bread-with an adequate supply of nutritious food'. "Agriculture must first be about food production for the survival and health of human beings, Agriculture faces an environmental challenge. It cannot produce the food needed for human beings if it exhausts or abuses Earth's soil, water, air, and biodiversity. Moreover, the general public, governments, and civil organizations from all societal sectors (academic, business, consumer, for­ profit and non-profit, public interest, and scientific) demand that agriculture Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma, College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • World Resources Institute the Monsanto Company
    World Resources Institute Sustainable Enterprise Program A program of the World Resources Institute The Monsanto Company: Quest for Sustainability (A) “Biotechnology represents a potentially sustainable For more than a decade, WRI's solution to the issue, not only of feeding people, but of providing Sustainable Enterprise Program (SEP) the economic growth that people are going to need to escape has harnessed the power of business to poverty…… [Biotechnology] poses the possibility of create profitable solutions to leapfrogging the industrial revolution and moving to a post- environment and development industrial society that is not only economically attractive, but challenges. BELL, a project of SEP, is also environmentally sustainable.i ” focused on working with managers and academics to make companies --Robert Shapiro, CEO, Monsanto Company more competitive by approaching social and environmental challenges as unmet market needs that provide Upon his promotion to CEO of chemical giant The business growth opportunities through Monsanto Company in 1995, Robert Shapiro became a vocal entrepreneurship, innovation, and champion of sustainable development and sought to redefine the organizational change. firm’s business strategy along principles of sustainability. Shapiro’s rhetoric was compelling. He captured analysts’ Permission to reprint this case is attention with the specter of mass hunger and environmental available at the BELL case store. degradation precipitated by rapid population growth and the Additional information on the Case
    [Show full text]
  • Nut Production, Marketing Handout
    Nut Production, Marketing Handout Why grow nuts in Iowa??? Nuts can produce the equivalent of a white-collar salary from a part-time job. They are up to 12 times more profitable per acre than corn was, even back when corn was $8/bushel. Nuts can accomplish the above with just a fraction of the investment in capital, land, and labor. Nuts can be grown in a biologically diverse perennial polyculture system with the following benefits: Builds soil instead of losing it to erosion Little or no chemical inputs needed Sequesters CO2 and builds soil organic matter Increases precipitation infiltration and storage, reduces runoff, building resilience against drought Produces high-quality habitat for wildlife, pollinating insects, and beneficial soil microbes Can build rural communities by providing a good living and a high quality of life for a whole farm family, on a relatively few acres If it’s so great, why doesn’t everybody do it? “Time Preference” economic principle: the tendency of people to prefer a smaller reward immediately over having to wait for a larger reward. Example: if an average person was to be given the choice between the following…. # 1. $10,000 cash right now, tax-free, no strings, or #2. Work part-time for 10 years with no pay, but after 10 years receive $100,000 per year, every year, for the rest of his/her life, and then for his/her heirs, in perpetuity… Most would choose #1, the immediate, smaller payoff. This is a near-perfect analogy for nut growing. Nut growing requires a substantial up-front investment with no return for the first five years, break-even not until eight to ten years, then up to $10,000 per acre or more at maturity, 12-15 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations on Food Habits of Asiatic Black Bear in Kedarnath Wildlifesanctuary, India: Preliminaryevidence on Their Role in Seed Germination and Dispersal
    SHORT COMMUNICATIONS Observations on food habits of Asiatic black bear in Kedarnath WildlifeSanctuary, India: preliminaryevidence on their role in seed germination and dispersal S. Sathyakumar1'3 and S. Viswanath2'4 food and feeding habits of the Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) in Central Borneo, Indonesia, 1WildlifeInstitute of India,P.O. Box 18, indicated that this species could be an importantseed Chandrabani,Dehradun 248 001, India dispenser depending upon the species consumed, 2Instituteof Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding, numberof seeds ingested, and the deposition site. Forest Campus, Coimbatore641002 India Asiatic black bears are well known seed predators. that acorns Key words: Asiatic black bear, food habits, germination Manjrekar(1989) reported (Quercus robur) and walnuts were crushed tests, seed dispersal,seed germination,seed predator, (Juglans regia) totally by black bears while on them, Symplocos theifolia, Ursus thibetanus feeding thereby hindering Ursus14(1):99-103 (2003) dispersal. Black bears were also reported to feed on seeds fallen on the ground,and signs of regenerationof species, walnut in particular,were reportedto be low. We presentobservations on the food and feeding habits In India, the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) of Asiatic black bearand observationson germinationof occurs in forested habitats of the GreaterHimalaya at bear food plants in Kedarath Wildlife Sanctuary(WS), 1,200-3,000 m elevation (Sathyakumar2001). Informa- Western Himalayaduring 1989-92. tion on the feeding and movement patternsof Asiatic black bear in India is limited to 2 short studies (Manjrekar1989, Saberwal 1989) and some observa- Study area tions by Schaller (1969), all in Dachigam National Park Kedarath WS (975 km2) is located in Uttaranchal, (NP) in Jammu and Kashmir,India.
    [Show full text]
  • Acorn Abundance Patterns and Their Implication for Wildlife
    2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 Acorn Abundance Patterns and Their Implication for Wildlife By Michael Gregonis Wildlife Biologist 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory Why Are Acorns Important ??? ‐Valuable Food Resource ‐Highly Nutritious ‐ Survival ‐ Reproductive Output ‐Population Dynamics ‐Hunting Opportunities ‐Hunter Success 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 1 2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 Acorn Predators Acorn Weevil 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory Acorn Moth 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 2 2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 White‐footed Mouse 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory Eastern Chipmunk 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 3 2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 Gray Squirrel 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory Wood Duck 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 4 2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 Wild Turkey 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory Black Bear 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 5 2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 White‐tailed Deer 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory Acorn Surveys 1) Regional Mast Survey 2) Deer Hunter Survey 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 6 2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 Regional Mast Survey ‐Originated 2004 ‐NEWTTC ‐NEWAA ‐CT Implementation 2007 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory Cooperating States 7/12/2018 2018 Siviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7 2018 Silviculture Institute‐‐Mixed Oak‐Hickory 7/12/2018 12 Connecticut Sites (575 Trees) 1.
    [Show full text]