Webless Migratory Game Bird Program - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Top 10 detection models for mourning doves (k = 423, n = 372, w = 180 m). Key Series Covariate AIC �AIC Hazard rate None Detection form 3,793.86 0.00 Hazard rate 1 cosine Detection form 3,794.26 0.40 Half-normal 1 cosine Detection time 3,799.19 5.33 Half-normal None Detection form 3,805.03 11.16 Hazard rate None Detection time 3,820.06 26.19 Half-normal 1 cosine None 3,820.82 26.95 Hazard rate 1 cosine None 3,822.05 28.18 Hazard None None 3,822.83 28.97 Hazard rate None Traffic 3,823.72 29.86 Hazard rate None Time of day 3,824.00 30.14 Table 3. Mourning dove density and abundance estimates during 3 sampling periods (v = 3 visits/points). Period D SE CV N SE 2.5% 97.5% 1 0.098 0.021 0.208 2,512 523 1,654 3,635 2 0.097 0.033 0.339 2,484 845 1,548 4,315 3 0.146 0.048 0.331 3,731 1,233 2,006 6,579 Overall 0.114 0.025 0.215 2,913 626 1,939 4,444 Table 4. Mourning dove encounter rate, detection probability, and effective radius of detection (m) during 3 sampling periods (v = 3 visits/points). Period n/K SE Pd|a SE p 2.5% 97.5% 1 0.270 0.089 0.334 0.027 104 96 113 2 0.267 0.099 0.364 0.031 109 100 118 3 0.344 0.131 0.314 0.027 101 93 110 Overall 0.308 0.080 0.371 0.017 110 105 115 14
Table 5. Detection probability and effective radius of detection of mourning doves heard only and heard-seen or seen only Detection form Pd|a SE p 2.5% 97.5% Heard only 0.643 0.080 144 128 163 Heard-seen or seen only 0.221 0.033 85 73 98 Table 6. Estimated density of mourning doves heard only and heard-seen or seen only Detection form D SE CV 2.5% 97.5% Heard only 0.047 0.008 0.174 0.033 0.063 Heard-seen or seen only 0.061 0.014 0.224 0.037 0.090 Table 7. Detection probability and effective radius of detection of mourning doves detected along roads and away from roads Point location Pd|a SE p 2.5% 97.5% On road 0.339 0.045 105 92 119 Off road 0.271 0.046 94 67 131 Table 8. Estimated density of mourning doves detected along roads and away from roads Point location D SE CV 2.5% 97.5% On road 0.057 0.013 0.228 0.034 0.083 Off road 0.052 0.012 0.231 0.032 0.076 15
Page 1 and 2: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Webles
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Development and History of
Page 5 and 6: HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE W
Page 7 and 8: Program Administration The USFWS Pr
Page 9 and 10: Appendix A - Priority Information N
Page 11 and 12: Table 1. Harvest and crippling of m
Page 13 and 14: idge between current monitoring eff
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1. Estimated age ratios of m
Page 17: other, showing similar behavior (e.
Page 21 and 22: mechanism for accurate aging of whi
Page 23 and 24: Currently laboratory measurements o
Page 25 and 26: Band-tailed Pigeons BAND-TAILED PIG
Page 27 and 28: flux:rock), fused at 1000°C in a m
Page 29 and 30: The mineral station design was adju
Page 31 and 32: unripe], cascara, and blue elderber
Page 33 and 34: at the station each day ranged from
Page 35 and 36: that Interior birds tended to retai
Page 37 and 38: Sandhill Cranes POPULATION GENETIC
Page 39 and 40: distinguishing between nearly ident
Page 41 and 42: Table 2. Pairwise Fst Values betwee
Page 43 and 44: VHF transmitters were synchronized
Page 45 and 46: Alternatively, a different survey m
Page 47 and 48: (Bennett and Bennett 1990, Nesbitt
Page 49 and 50: Spatial Data Landscape-scale data
Page 51 and 52: time-dependent variable of minimum
Page 53 and 54: We found colt survival was lower on
Page 55 and 56: McWethy, D. B., and J. E. Austin. 2
Page 57 and 58: Recent advancements in technology a
Page 59 and 60: Wildlife Resource Agency, Obion (So
Page 61 and 62: Figure 4. Preliminary breeding terr
Page 63 and 64: American Woodcock HABITAT USE AND O
Page 65 and 66: Figure 2: Map of a pointing dog tra
Page 67 and 68: Figure 4: Kriged 13th secondary fea
Page 69 and 70:
Texas A&M University, College Stati
Page 71 and 72:
ASSESSMENT OF TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUA
Page 73 and 74:
ivers, marshes, and shrub swamps. V
Page 75 and 76:
adio-marked broods 5-7 days per wee
Page 77 and 78:
adult female, considerably lower th
Page 79 and 80:
FACTORS AFFECTING DETECTION OF AMER
Page 81 and 82:
We classified land-cover types at e
Page 83 and 84:
were neighbor = 1.0, observer = 1.0
Page 85 and 86:
was included within the official su
Page 87 and 88:
Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawth's Analysis
Page 89 and 90:
Marshbirds THE EFFECT OF WATERFOWL
Page 91 and 92:
Table 2. Relative Importance of mod
Page 93 and 94:
nests to account for repeated measu
Page 95 and 96:
Literature Cited Bogner, H. E. and
Page 97 and 98:
a common nest substrate. Tall forms
Page 99 and 100:
despite rails’ apparent ability t
Page 101 and 102:
EVALUATION OF AN EXPERT-BASED LANDS
Page 103 and 104:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL MARS
Page 105 and 106:
truthed before the actual survey. H
Page 107 and 108:
IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL MARSHB
Page 109 and 110:
Table 1. Numbers of individuals of
Page 111 and 112:
was required because it was not rea
Page 113 and 114:
ESTIMATING POPULATION TRENDS, RELAT
Page 115 and 116:
This abstract represents a final ab
Page 117 and 118:
Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), So
Page 119 and 120:
volunteers to cover new sites in la
Page 121 and 122:
Plain of Louisiana (Figure 1). We s
Page 123 and 124:
for concentrations of wintering sni
Page 125 and 126:
Table 1. Model selection results an
Page 127 and 128:
DEVELOPING OPTIMAL SURVEY TECHNIQUE
Page 129 and 130:
Conway, C. J., and J. P. Gibbs. 201
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 1. Red Slough Wildlife Manag
Page 133 and 134:
estimate visual obstruction 10 m fr
Page 135 and 136:
Table 3. Habitat measurements recor
Page 137 and 138:
Thesis, South Dakota State Universi
Page 139 and 140:
Reproductive Success and Survival i
Page 141 and 142:
The goal of the study is to address
Page 143 and 144:
When interacting with private lando
show all

Webless Migratory Game Bird Program - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?