Stress Response of Captive Mallards to Nasal Saddles

Byers, Steven M.; Montgomery, Robert A.

doi:10.2307/3807933

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extent to which this method affects a duckling's ability to feed in the wild is unknown. Investigators have shown initial, albeit subtle, effects on behavior of adult waterfowl so marked (Byers and Montgomery 1981;Greenwood and Sargeant 1973). Erskine (1972) found nasal discs to adversely affect the survival of Common Mergansers (Mergus merganser) in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of various methods used to colour mark ducklings

Kehoe,

Mawhinney

1999

The Canadian Field-Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seven methods used to color mark ducklings for the purpose of individual identification were evaluated for retention on groups of domestic ducklings. Marker loss varied considerably among methods and only nasal discs gave satisfactory retention beyond five days. This method of marking ducklings is tentatively recommended for studies concentrating on duckling movement and behavior. Furthermore, it is recommended that before any technique is used, the rate of marker loss be considered in light of the potential to influence results.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of various methods used to colour mark ducklings

Kehoe,

Mawhinney

1999

The Canadian Field-Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the common use of this marking method in North America, there have been surprisingly few tests of the effect of nasal saddles on duck body mass. Sjöberg & Danell (1977) and Byers & Montgomery (1981) weighed simultaneously nasal-marked and control ducks in the aviary or fenced areas, and found no significant difference. The present study corroborates these results.…”

Section: Duck Body Massmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Some of these revealed no effect of the saddles on behaviour, at least a few days after the saddle was fitted (Bartonek & Dane 1964, Sudgen & Poston 1968, Byers & Montgomery 1981, while other studies showed differences in levels of bill-scratching or preening (McKinney & Derrickson 1979, Evrard 1996. We found no consistent difference between the behaviour of marked and unmarked Teal and Wigeon.…”

Section: Duck Time-budgetmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Attempts to test the potential effects of nasal saddles have, however, produced a range of results, from the lack of any detectable effect on body condition, behaviour or reporting rates (Bartonek & Dane 1964, Sudgen & Poston 1968, Sjöberg & Danell 1977, Byers & Montgomery 1981, Davey & Fullagar 1985, Rodrigues et al 2001, to limited effects on behaviour (more bill scratching: McKinney & Derrickson 1979), significant impacts on time-budget and breeding behaviour and success (Doty & Lee 1974, Evrard 1996, Howerter et al 1997, and more dramatic observations of birds being injured or dying (Greenwood & Bair 1974, Byers 1987, Lokemoen & Sharp 1985, Evrard 1986). The inconsistencies between some of these results are likely to be because: (i) most studies only tested the effect of marking on one or two parameters; and (ii) they were conducted for sometimes quite different nasal marking methods (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multiple tests of the effect of nasal saddles on dabbling ducks: combining field and aviary approaches

Guillemain¹,

Poisbleau²,

Denonfoux³

et al. 2007

Bird Study

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nasal marks Nasal discs and saddles have mainly been used for ducks and geese. No physical or behavioural effect has been found on Shovelers Anas clypeata (Sugden & Poston 1968), Canada Geese (Raveling 1969), Marabou Storks Leptoptilos crumeniferus (Pomeroy 1975), Mallards (Byers & Montgomery 1981) or Barrow's Goldeneyes Bucephala islándica (Savard 1988).…”

Section: Neck Collarsmentioning

confidence: 96%

A review of the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds

Calvo

Furness

1992

Ringing & Migration

160

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds. Although most papers reporting research on birds make use of marks or devices, very few studies test for harmful effects or data biases caused by these. Many research projects have used marks and devices without encountering any harmful effects of these on the birds being studied. However, where assessments have been made it is clear that all of the methods of marking can have adverse effects, while most devices attached to birds do alter their behaviour to some extent. We conclude that more attention should be given to these effects before the normal assumption of no influence on the biological parameters being studied can be made with confidence. There is a need for careful tests of the effects of marking methods to be undertaken. We hope that this review will assist people studying birds to plan their use of marks and devices in such a way as to minimize problems caused by these research tools.

show abstract

Stress Response of Captive Mallards to Nasal Saddles

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Evaluation of various methods used to colour mark ducklings

Evaluation of various methods used to colour mark ducklings

Multiple tests of the effect of nasal saddles on dabbling ducks: combining field and aviary approaches

A review of the use and the effects of marks and devices on birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About