schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Mallard Response to Experimental Walk‐In and Shooting Disturbance

Spatial and temporal closures of anthropogenic activities are a common management strategy to increase waterfowl usage of an area. However, empirical evidence, specifically how individual waterfowl respond to disturbance, is lacking to support their efficacy. We exposed radiomarked mallards () to wa... Full description

Journal Title: Journal of Wildlife Management November 2010, Vol.74(8), pp.1815-1824
Main Author: Dooley, Joshua L.
Other Authors: Sanders, Todd A. , Doherty, Paul F.
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language:
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0022-541X ; E-ISSN: 1937-2817 ; DOI: 10.2193/2009-284
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: wj10.2193/2009-284
title: Mallard Response to Experimental Walk‐In and Shooting Disturbance
format: Article
creator:
  • Dooley, Joshua L.
  • Sanders, Todd A.
  • Doherty, Paul F.
subjects:
  • Anas Platyrhynchos
  • Closure
  • Colorado
  • Disturbance
  • Hunting
  • Ymallard
  • Radiotelemetry
  • Regulations
  • South Platte River
ispartof: Journal of Wildlife Management, November 2010, Vol.74(8), pp.1815-1824
description: Spatial and temporal closures of anthropogenic activities are a common management strategy to increase waterfowl usage of an area. However, empirical evidence, specifically how individual waterfowl respond to disturbance, is lacking to support their efficacy. We exposed radiomarked mallards () to walk‐in, shooting, or no disturbance along the South Platte River corridor in Colorado, USA, from September to February during 2006–2007 and 2007–2008. Mallards exposed to shooting disturbance had greater mean flight distance after disturbance (FDAD) during September‐November (4.58 km, 95% CI = 3.55–5.62) than December‐February (3.04 km, 95% CI = 2.51–3.58) and were 35% and 17% greater than mean FDAD of mallards exposed to walk‐in disturbance, respectively. Walk‐in and shooting disturbance had a similar effect on return rates, and disturbed mallards had higher (0.09–0.41) movement probabilities away from and lower (0.15–0.20) probabilities of returning to treatment locations than controls. Probability of presence of disturbed mallards was 37% lower than controls during the daytime but was equal at night. Mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.38 [95% CI = 0.30–0.46]) and shooting (0.23 [95% CI = 0.17–0.30] disturbance had low return rates the first afternoon after a disturbance compared to controls (0.71 [95% CI = 0.65–0.77]). A high proportion of mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.75 [95% CI = 0.67–0.83]) and shooting (0.70 [95% CI = 0.64–0.76]) disturbance returned to treatment locations in ≤1 day. Managers may be able to more effectively manage disturbance regimes by 1) accounting for surrounding lands within
language:
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0022-541X ; E-ISSN: 1937-2817 ; DOI: 10.2193/2009-284
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0022-541X
  • 0022541X
  • 1937-2817
  • 19372817
url: Link


@attributes
ID1680115084
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10.2193/2009-284
sourceidwj
recordidTN_wj10.2193/2009-284
sourcesystemOther
pqid853474594
galeid244838127
display
typearticle
titleMallard Response to Experimental Walk‐In and Shooting Disturbance
creatorDooley, Joshua L. ; Sanders, Todd A. ; Doherty, Paul F.
ispartofJournal of Wildlife Management, November 2010, Vol.74(8), pp.1815-1824
identifier
subjectAnas Platyrhynchos ; Closure ; Colorado ; Disturbance ; Hunting ; Ymallard ; Radiotelemetry ; Regulations ; South Platte River
descriptionSpatial and temporal closures of anthropogenic activities are a common management strategy to increase waterfowl usage of an area. However, empirical evidence, specifically how individual waterfowl respond to disturbance, is lacking to support their efficacy. We exposed radiomarked mallards () to walk‐in, shooting, or no disturbance along the South Platte River corridor in Colorado, USA, from September to February during 2006–2007 and 2007–2008. Mallards exposed to shooting disturbance had greater mean flight distance after disturbance (FDAD) during September‐November (4.58 km, 95% CI = 3.55–5.62) than December‐February (3.04 km, 95% CI = 2.51–3.58) and were 35% and 17% greater than mean FDAD of mallards exposed to walk‐in disturbance, respectively. Walk‐in and shooting disturbance had a similar effect on return rates, and disturbed mallards had higher (0.09–0.41) movement probabilities away from and lower (0.15–0.20) probabilities of returning to treatment locations than controls. Probability of presence of disturbed mallards was 37% lower than controls during the daytime but was equal at night. Mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.38 [95% CI = 0.30–0.46]) and shooting (0.23 [95% CI = 0.17–0.30] disturbance had low return rates the first afternoon after a disturbance compared to controls (0.71 [95% CI = 0.65–0.77]). A high proportion of mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.75 [95% CI = 0.67–0.83]) and shooting (0.70 [95% CI = 0.64–0.76]) disturbance returned to treatment locations in ≤1 day. Managers may be able to more effectively manage disturbance regimes by 1) accounting for surrounding lands within <10 km, especially lands within <5 km, 2) being conscientious when establishing regulations that will affect levels of disturbance 1–2 days after a previous disturbance, and 3) considering shooting and walking disturbance equally for refuge design.
source
version9
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
search
creatorcontrib
0Dooley, Joshua L.
1Sanders, Todd A.
2Doherty, Paul F.
titleMallard Response to Experimental Walk‐In and Shooting Disturbance
descriptionSpatial and temporal closures of anthropogenic activities are a common management strategy to increase waterfowl usage of an area. However, empirical evidence, specifically how individual waterfowl respond to disturbance, is lacking to support their efficacy. We exposed radiomarked mallards () to walk‐in, shooting, or no disturbance along the South Platte River corridor in Colorado, USA, from September to February during 2006–2007 and 2007–2008. Mallards exposed to shooting disturbance had greater mean flight distance after disturbance (FDAD) during September‐November (4.58 km, 95% CI = 3.55–5.62) than December‐February (3.04 km, 95% CI = 2.51–3.58) and were 35% and 17% greater than mean FDAD of mallards exposed to walk‐in disturbance, respectively. Walk‐in and shooting disturbance had a similar effect on return rates, and disturbed mallards had higher (0.09–0.41) movement probabilities away from and lower (0.15–0.20) probabilities of returning to treatment locations than controls. Probability of presence of disturbed mallards was 37% lower than controls during the daytime but was equal at night. Mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.38 [95% CI = 0.30–0.46]) and shooting (0.23 [95% CI = 0.17–0.30] disturbance had low return rates the first afternoon after a disturbance compared to controls (0.71 [95% CI = 0.65–0.77]). A high proportion of mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.75 [95% CI = 0.67–0.83]) and shooting (0.70 [95% CI = 0.64–0.76]) disturbance returned to treatment locations in ≤1 day. Managers may be able to more effectively manage disturbance regimes by 1) accounting for surrounding lands within <10 km, especially lands within <5 km, 2) being conscientious when establishing regulations that will affect levels of disturbance 1–2 days after a previous disturbance, and 3) considering shooting and walking disturbance equally for refuge design.
subject
0Anas Platyrhynchos
1Closure
2Colorado
3Disturbance
4Hunting
5Ymallard
6Radiotelemetry
7Regulations
8South Platte River
general
0Blackwell Publishing Ltd
110.2193/2009-284
2Wiley Online Library
sourceidwj
recordidwj10.2193/2009-284
issn
00022-541X
10022541X
21937-2817
319372817
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2010
addtitleThe Journal of Wildlife Management
searchscope
0wj
1wiley
scope
0wj
1wiley
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pages, pqid, galeid]
sort
titleMallard Response to Experimental Walk‐In and Shooting Disturbance
authorDooley, Joshua L. ; Sanders, Todd A. ; Doherty, Paul F.
creationdate20101100
facets
frbrgroupid3522919327461294629
frbrtype5
creationdate2010
topic
0Anas Platyrhynchos
1Closure
2Colorado
3Disturbance
4Hunting
5Ymallard
6Radiotelemetry
7Regulations
8South Platte River
collectionWiley Online Library
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Dooley, Joshua L.
1Sanders, Todd A.
2Doherty, Paul F.
jtitleJournal of Wildlife Management
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Dooley
1Sanders
2Doherty
aufirst
0Joshua L.
1Todd A.
2Paul F.
au
0Dooley, Joshua L.
1Sanders, Todd A.
2Doherty, Paul F.
atitleMallard Response to Experimental Walk‐In and Shooting Disturbance
jtitleJournal of Wildlife Management
risdate201011
volume74
issue8
spage1815
epage1824
issn0022-541X
eissn1937-2817
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractSpatial and temporal closures of anthropogenic activities are a common management strategy to increase waterfowl usage of an area. However, empirical evidence, specifically how individual waterfowl respond to disturbance, is lacking to support their efficacy. We exposed radiomarked mallards () to walk‐in, shooting, or no disturbance along the South Platte River corridor in Colorado, USA, from September to February during 2006–2007 and 2007–2008. Mallards exposed to shooting disturbance had greater mean flight distance after disturbance (FDAD) during September‐November (4.58 km, 95% CI = 3.55–5.62) than December‐February (3.04 km, 95% CI = 2.51–3.58) and were 35% and 17% greater than mean FDAD of mallards exposed to walk‐in disturbance, respectively. Walk‐in and shooting disturbance had a similar effect on return rates, and disturbed mallards had higher (0.09–0.41) movement probabilities away from and lower (0.15–0.20) probabilities of returning to treatment locations than controls. Probability of presence of disturbed mallards was 37% lower than controls during the daytime but was equal at night. Mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.38 [95% CI = 0.30–0.46]) and shooting (0.23 [95% CI = 0.17–0.30] disturbance had low return rates the first afternoon after a disturbance compared to controls (0.71 [95% CI = 0.65–0.77]). A high proportion of mallards exposed to walk‐in (0.75 [95% CI = 0.67–0.83]) and shooting (0.70 [95% CI = 0.64–0.76]) disturbance returned to treatment locations in ≤1 day. Managers may be able to more effectively manage disturbance regimes by 1) accounting for surrounding lands within <10 km, especially lands within <5 km, 2) being conscientious when establishing regulations that will affect levels of disturbance 1–2 days after a previous disturbance, and 3) considering shooting and walking disturbance equally for refuge design.
copOxford, UK
pubBlackwell Publishing Ltd
doi10.2193/2009-284
pages1815-1824
date2010-11