Age structure and reproduction rates of the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.) population in agricultural landscape (Czech Republic)

• Autorzy: Zika T. , Salek M. , Hola M. , Hanzal V. , Hart V. , Kusta T. , Jezek M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Detailed knowledge of demographic parameters (such as age structure and reproduction rates) is crucial for guiding conservation and management decisions regarding wildlife populations. Such parameters of wild ring-necked pheasant populations in the current agricultural landscape remain very poorly described. We researched age structure and reproduction rates of predominantly wild populations of the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.) across the intensively managed agricultural landscape of the Czech Republic. The study area is influenced only marginally by hand-reared pheasants (i.e. as shown by comparison of the average number of released individuals in the study area: 0.3 ♂/yr/1km2 and 0.9 ♀/yr/1km2 and average number of released individuals and harvested in the study area: 8.6 ♂/yr/1km2) and there is a long-term huntable pheasant population. To determine the age of individuals, we used proximal primary feather shaft diameters of 1487 feather samples from males hunted between 2009 and 2011. Moreover, we evaluated the age structure of females as well as both sexes together based on the sex ratio and annual game census. We found a relatively high proportion of adults in the population in comparison with other studies. However, the number of adults decreased throughout the years: 2009 (♂ 44.7%; ♀ 69.5%; ♂♀ 60.7%), 2010 (♂ 35.2%; ♀ 61.3%; ♂♀ 51.5%), 2011 (♂ 29.8%; ♀ 57.4%; ♂♀ 47.0%). The decrease of adults went hand in hand with increase of juveniles and reproduction rates of the study population: 2009 (♂ 124%; ♀ 44%; ♂♀ 65%), 2010 (♂ 184%; ♀ 63%; ♂♀ 94%), 2011 (♂ 236%; ♀ 74%; ♂♀ 113%). Only males were hunted in the study area so we determined higher proportions of females in population for all years. This is the main reason why the reproduction rate of females was lower in percentage expression. Generally, our results showed lower productivity of pheasants in the Czech agricultural landscape in comparison with earlier published studies conducted in the US and UK. However, these studies were published many years ago and thus do not reflect the actual environmental conditions and changes which took place recently (i.e. agricultural intensification).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

demographic parameter; wild population; ring-necked pheasant; Phasianus colchicus; age structure; reproduction rate; agricultural landscape; Czech Republic

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 62
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.751-759,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Zika T.

• Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165 21 Praha - Suchdol, Czech Republic

autor

Salek M.

• Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165 21 Praha - Suchdol, Czech Republic

autor

Hola M.

• Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165 21 Praha - Suchdol, Czech Republic

autor

Hanzal V.

• Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165 21 Praha - Suchdol, Czech Republic

autor

Hart V.

• Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165 21 Praha - Suchdol, Czech Republic

autor

Kusta T.

• Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165 21 Praha - Suchdol, Czech Republic

autor

Jezek M.

• Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165 21 Praha - Suchdol, Czech Republic

Bibliografia

• Abraham K.F., Jefferies R.L., Alisauskas R.T. 2005 − The dynamics of landscape change and snow geese in mid-continent North America − Glob. Change Biol. 11: 841−855.
• Andreska J., Andresková E. 1993 − Tisíc let české myslivosti [Thousand years of Czech game management] − Tina, Vimperk, 442 pp. (in Czech).
• Baldi A., Farago S. 2007 − Long-term changes of farmland game populations in a post-socialist country (Hungary) − Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118: 307−311.
• Batcheller G., Swift B., Gordon B., Kandel M. 2010 − Management plan for ring-necked pheasants in New York state 2010-2020 − Department of Environmental Conservation, New York, 21 pp.
• Berner A.H. 1988 − Federal pheasants-impact of federal agricultural programs on pheasant habitat, 1934-1985 (In: Pheasants: Symptoms of Wildlife Problems on Agricultural Lands, Eds: D.L. Hallett, W.R. Edwards, G.V. Burger) − North Central Section of The Wildlife Society, Milwaukee, pp. 45−93.
• Bibby C.J., Burgess N.D., Hill D.A. 1992 − Bird census techniques − Academic Press, London, 302 pp.
• Cole F.R., Loope L.L., Medeiros A.C., Raikes J.A., Wood C.S. 1995 − Conservation Implications of Introduced Game Birds in High-Elevation Hawaiian Shrubland − Conserv. Biol. 9: 306−313.
• Chamberlain D.E., Fuller R.J., Bunce R.G.H., Duckworth J.C., Shrub M. 2000 − Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to changes in agricultural practises in England and Wales − J. Appl. Ecol. 37: 771−788.
• Dale F.H. 1952 − Sex ratios in pheasant research and management − J. Wildl. Manag. 16: 156−163.
• Draycott R.A.H., Hoodless A., Sage R. 2008a − Effects of pheasant management on vegetation and birds in lowland woodlands – J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 334−341.
• Draycott R.A.H., Hoodless A.N., Woodburn M.I.A., Sage R.B. 2008b − Nest predation of Common Pheasants Phasianus colchicus − Ibis, 150: 37−44.
• Draycott R.A.H., Pock K., Carroll J.P. 2002 − Suistainable management of a wild pheasant population in Austria − Z. Jagdwiss, 48: 346−353.
• Einoder L.D. 2009 − A review of the use of seabirds as indicators in fisheries and ecosystem management – Fish. Res. 95: 6−13.
• Enbring J. 1976 − Survival and reproduction of wild game-farm pheasants in Western Oregon − Northwest Sci. 50: 222−230.
• Farris A.L., Klonglan E.D., Nomsen R.C. 1977 − The ring-necked pheasant in Iowa − Conservation Commission, Des Moines, 147 pp.
• Gates J.M., Hale J.B. 1975 − Reproduction of east-central Wisconsin pheasant population − Tech. Bull. Wisc. Dep. Nat. Resour. 85: 45−57.
• Grahn M. 1993 − Mortality in the pheasant Phasianus colchicus during the breeding season − Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 95−101.
• Greenberg R.E., Etter S.L., Anderson W.L. 1972 − Evaluation of proximal feather criteria for ageing wild pheasant − J. Wildl. Manag. 36: 700−705.
• Hartman F.E., Sheffer D.E. 1971 − Population dynamics and hunter harvest of ring-necked pheasant populations in Pennsylvania’s primary range − Proc. Northeast Sect. Wildl. Soc. 28: 179−205.
• Hill D.A., Robertson P.A. 1988 − The pheasant: ecology, management, and conservation − BSP Professional Books, Boston, 294 pp.
• Hudec K., Šťastný K., Balát F., B ejček V., Bělka T., Černý V., Černý W., Ferianc O., Formánek J., Folk Č., Hachler E., Hájek V., Havlín J., Honza M., Chalupský J., Kůz Z., Kožená I., Kurka P., Kux Z., Málková P., Matoušek B. 2005 − Fauna ČR: Ptáci 2 [Fauna CR: Birds 2] − Nakladatelství akademie věd ČR, Praha, 1300 pp. (in Czech).
• Janson S. 1963 − Distribution of pheasant hatching dates and age ratios − Michigan Department of Conservation, Report no 2415.
• Johnsgard P.A. 1999 − The Pheasants of the World: biology and natural history − Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 432 pp.
• Jolli V., Pandit M.K. 2011 − Monitoring pheasants (Phasianidae) in the Western Himalayas to measure the impact of hydro-electric projects − Ring, 33: 37−46.
• Klinger S.R. 2008 − Ring-necked pheasant management plan for Pennsylvania − Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, 121 pp.
• Madge S., McGowan P. 2002 − Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse − Christopher Helm, London, 408 pp.
• Manchester S.J., Bullock J.M. 2000 − The impacts of non-native species on UK biodiversity and the effectiveness of control – J. Appl. Ecol. 37: 845−864.
• McGowan P.J.K., Zhang Y.Y., Zhang Z.W. 2009 − Galliformes - barometers of the state of applied ecology and wildlife conservation in China − J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 524−526.
• Musil D.D., Connelly J.W. 2009 − Survival and reproduction of pen-reared vs translocated wild pheasants Phasianus colchicus − Wildl. Biol. 15: 80−88.
• Nielson R.M., McDonald L.L., Sullivan J.P., Burgess C., Johnson D.S., Johnson D.H., Bucholtz S., Hyberg S., Howlin S. 2008 − Estimating response of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) to the Conservation Reserve Program − Auk, 125: 434−444.
• Nováková E. 1980 − Rozporné trendy očekávaných a skutečných stavů zajíce polního, koroptve polní a bažanta obecného a analýza jejich příčin [Contradictory trends of expected and current density of the brown hare, the grey partridge a the ring-necked pheasant and analysis of causes] − Československá akademie věd, Praha, 56 pp. (in Czech).
• Padoa-Schioppa E., Baietto M., Massa R., Bottoni L. 2006 − Bird communities as bioindicators: The focal species concept in agricultural landscapes – Ecol. Indic. 6: 83–93.
• Rasouli S., Makhdoum Farkhondeh M., Jafari H.R., Suff ling R., Kiabi B., Yavari A.R. 2012 − Assessment of Ecological integrity in a landscape context using the Miankale peninsula of Northern Iran − Int. J. Environ. Res. 6: 443−450.
• Santilli F., Bagliacca M. 2008 − Factors influencing pheasant Phasianus colchicus harvesting in Tuscany, Italy − Wildl. Biol. 14: 281−287.
• Shipley K.L., Scott D.P. 2006 − Survival and Nesting Habitat use by Sichuan and Ring-necked Pheasants Released in Ohio − Ohio J. Sci. 106: 78−85.
• Stoate C. 1999 − The role of game management in songbird conservation − Game Conserv. Trust Rev. 30: 68−73.
• Stoate C. 2002 − Multifunctional use of a natural resource on farmland: wild pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) management and the conservation of farmland birds – Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 561−573.
• Stokes A.W. 1968 − An eight-year study of a northern Utah pheasant population − J. Wildl. Manag. 32: 867−874.
• Switzer C.T. 2009 − Ring-necked pheasant management plan for South Dakota 2009- 2014 − Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, 76 pp.
• Šťastný K., B ejček V., Hudec K. 2006 − Atlas hnízdního rozšíření ptáků v České republice [Atlas of the breeding birds in the Czech Republic] − Aventinum, Praha, 463 pp. (in Czech, English summary).
• Veverka B., Bogenschutz T., Emmerich B., Fandel S., Dahlgren D., Haroldson K., Kohn S., Lusk J., McCanna J., Rodgers R., Runia T., Walter S., Wefer M. 2013 − National wild pheasant conservation plan − Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Bloomington, 111 pp.
• Warner R.E. 1981 − Illiinois pheasants: population, ecology, distribution and abundance, 1900-1978 – Ill. Natl. Hist. Surv. Biol. Notes 115: 1−22.
• Warner R.E, Etter S.L., Joselyn B.B., Ellis J.A. 1984 − Declining survival of ring-necked pheasant chicks in Illinois agricultural ecosystems − J. Wildl. Manag. 48: 82−88.
• Wechsler C. 1985 − The Pheasant in Minnesota − Department of Natural Resources, St Paul, 48 pp.
• Woodburn M.I.A., Carroll J.P., Robertson P.A., Hoodless A.N. 2006 − Age determination of pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) using discriminant analysis (In: Proceedings of Gamebird 2006, Eds: S.B. Cederbaum, B.C. Faircloth, T.M. Terhune, J.J. Thompson, J.P. Carroll) − University of Georgia, Athens, pp. 505−516.
• Xu J.L., Zhang Z.W., Zheng G.M., Zhang X.H., Sun Q.H., McGowan P. 2007 − Home range and habitat use of Reeves’s pheasant Syrmaticus reevesii in the protected areas created from forest farms in the Dabie Mountains, central China − Bird Conserv. Int. 17: 319–330.
• Zhang Z.W., Ding C.Q., Ding P., Zheng G.M. 2003 – [The current status and a conservation strategy for species of Galliformes in China] – Biodivers. Sci. 11: 414–421 (in Chinese, English summary).