Band Returns from Male Ring-Necked Pheasants in New Jersey

MacNamara, Liam; Kozicky, Edward L.

doi:10.2307/3795870

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The death rate during the first year after release was over 98% in this study, similar to figures given in the literature of 99% (Macnamara & Kozicky, 1949;Harper et al, 1951); 95-99% (Mallette & Harper, 1964) and over 90% in six months (Burger, 1964;Jarvis & Engbring, 1976). The survival of hand-reared birds between their first and second winters can also be calculated from shooting recoveries of marked birds, estimates ranging from 8-20% (Paludan, 1958;Bray, 1967;Gindre, 1974;Robertson, 1986).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Despite the large investments involved in releasing birds on this scale, relatively little is known regarding their subsequent survival or the timing and causes of non-hunting losses. Most studies of the survival of hand-reared pheasants present either the proportions of the numbers released that are shot during the hunting season, minimum estimates of survival dependent on shooting pressure (Ginn, 1947;Macnamara & Kozicky, 1949;Harper, Chester & Shaffer, 1951;Burger, 1964), or the rate ofsurvival between successive winters (Paludan, 1958;Bray, 1967;Gindre, 1974). Hessler,Tester,Siniff & Nelson (1 970) have produced estimates of survival which show that the majority of losses occur immediatly after release, but these results were for birds placed directly into the field without the use of a release pen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Survival of released pheasants, Phasianus colchicus, in Ireland

Robertson

1988

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With 9 figures in the text)The survival of 250 hand-reared pheasants was assessed by resightings of tagged individuals following their release into an open-roofed pen on an estate in Ireland. The death rates per 10 days after release were approximated as 5.5% during the first 30 days, 1 1.6% between 3 1-70 days, 6.0% between 70-240 days and 2.3% between 241 -365 days. The birds suffered their highest rate of loss (48.2%) during their first 10 days after leaving the release pen. This emergence-related mortality was the major factor influencing changes in the observed death rate following release. Predators, mainly foxes, were initially attracted to the area by the presence of inaccessible prey. Males suffered a higher rate of loss following their emergence from the release pen than did the females, possibly associated with the greater proportion of time thereafter spent outside the pen and hence at risk. The factors affecting the survival of hand-reared pheasants are discussed. It is suggested that reducing densities of birds within pens may increase subsequent survival without resorting to predator control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival of released pheasants, Phasianus colchicus, in Ireland

Robertson

1988

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pheasants typically remain within a few kilometres of their release point. In the US, reared pheasants dispersed 1.6-3.2 km (Burger 1964;Harper et al 1951;Kabat 1955;MacNamara and Kozicky 1949;Wilson et al 1992). In the USA, pheasants that dispersed post-winter on average 3.2 km moved to areas with more open ground (Leif 2005).…”

Section: Dispersalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pheasants released on areas with poor food and cover disperse more widely than those released in good pheasant habitat (Burger and Oldenburg 1972;Leopold et al 1938;MacNamara and Kozicky 1949). Being reared under artificial conditions may cause different search and movement behaviour in released birds compared to their wild conspecifics.…”

Section: Factors That Exacerbate Dispersal In Released Birdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, the provision of numerous small supplementary feeding sites that cannot be monopolised may encourage retention of a higher density of territoryholding males during the breeding season (Hill and Robertson 1988b). Pheasants released on areas with sufficient food and cover disperse less widely than those released on poor pheasant habitat (Burger and Oldenburg 1972;MacNamara and Kozicky 1949). In the USA, a more diverse habitat allowed females to occupy smaller home ranges and hence disperse less (Schmitz and Clark 1999).…”

Section: Mitigation That May Reduce Dispersalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why do many pheasants released in the UK die, and how can we best reduce their natural mortality?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around 60% of pheasants released for shooting in the UK, an estimated 21 million birds, do not end up at their intended fate: being shot. This constitutes wastage, raising economic, environmental and ethical questions. We review what is known of the fates of released pheasants and consider why they do not directly contribute to the numbers harvested. We focus on four main explanations: predation, disease, starvation and dispersal, and highlight other important causes of mortality. For each explanation, we attempt to attribute levels of loss and identify timings or conditions when such losses may be heaviest. We review factors that exacerbate losses and methods available to mitigate them. Opportunities for amelioration may arise at all stages of the rearing and release of pheasants and involve changes to the conditions under which eggs are produced, the way young pheasants are reared or the management of the environment into which they are released. We found few studies investigating impacts of post-release management techniques on pheasant survival outside of the breeding season within a UK context. We found that a number of less commonly deployed practices focusing on early-life, pre-release management may improve survival. Given the scale of pheasant releasing in the UK, even improvements in survival of 1% would mean that~350,000 fewer birds die of natural causes. Complementing current post-release management with proven novel pre-release management interventions could reduce the number of pheasants required for release, whilst maintaining current shooting levels. Lowering release numbers would lower financial costs, benefit the environment and reduce some ethical concerns over the release and shooting of reared pheasants.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Surrogator® system to increase pheasant and quail abundance

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Captive-rearing and release programs have been used to augment populations of ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and other gamebirds to provide additional hunting opportunities. However, many question the efficacy of the rear-and-release technique to increase huntable gamebird populations. The Surrogator 1 (hereafter, surrogator) is a captive-rearing system purported to establish huntable gamebird populations within a property. Little research has been conducted to inform land managers and sportsmen and sportswomen about the effectiveness of this system. We evaluated the use of the surrogator for ring-necked pheasants and northern bobwhites from May to October 2009 and 2010 in Kiowa County, Kansas, USA. The 4-week in-surrogator survival rates for pheasant chicks were 85% AE 5% (SE) in 2009 (n ¼ 840) and 79% AE 8% in 2010 (n ¼ 420). The 5-week insurrogator survival of bobwhite chicks was 78% AE 12% (n ¼ 765) in 2009 and 79% AE 3% in 2010 (n ¼ 783). Released pheasant chicks had an overall survival rate of 8% AE 6% (n ¼ 58) over 12 weeks. Eight-week postrelease survival for bobwhites was 35% AE 5% (n ¼ 59). Postrelease survival of pheasants or bobwhites was not appreciably greater than conventional rear-and-release programs, suggesting that population establishment with surrogator birds may be difficult. Although 1,150 pheasants and 1,105 bobwhites were released, only 5.5% and 7.2% of bands were returned from harvested pheasants and bobwhites, respectively. The surrogator may not be effective for establishing or re-establishing pheasant and bobwhite populations, but it may be an effective tool to supplement existing gamebird populations to enhance hunting opportunities. Ó 2016 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Band Returns from Male Ring-Necked Pheasants in New Jersey

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Survival of released pheasants, Phasianus colchicus, in Ireland

Survival of released pheasants, Phasianus colchicus, in Ireland

Why do many pheasants released in the UK die, and how can we best reduce their natural mortality?

Evaluation of the Surrogator® system to increase pheasant and quail abundance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About