Geology topics

T.G. Moore

Publications and source records attributed to T.G. Moore.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2006

Effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys varies among dabbling duck species and locations

Spinning-wing decoys are strong attractants to ducks and inc rease kill rates over traditional decoying methods. However, it is unknown whether all duck species are attracted similarly to spinning-wing decoys and whether the effectiveness of these decoys changes with latitude. We examined the effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys for 9 species of dabbling ducks during 545 experimental hunts in California (1999-2000), Minnesota (2002), Manitoba (2001-2002), Nebraska (2000-2002), Missouri (2000-2001), and Arkansas (2001-2003). During each experimental hunt, we systematically alternated between 2 paired decoy treatments every 15-30 min (depending on study site): traditional decoys only and traditional decoys with a spinning-wing decoy. Overall, 70.2% (n=1,925) of dabbling ducks were harvested (shot and retrieved) when spinning-wing decoys were turned on, ranging from 63.6% (n=187) in Missouri to 76.4% (n=356) in Minnesota. Effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys increased with latitude of study sites. Proportions of ducks shot when spinning-wing decoys were turned on differed among species, from a low of 50.0% (n=8) for cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera) to a high of 79.0% (n=119) for American wigeon (A. americana). The probability of being shot when spinning-wing decoys were turned on increased with annual survival rates among species; for example, spinning-wing decoys were more effective for American wigeon and mallard (A. platyrhynchos) than they were for cinnamon teal and American green-winged teal (A. crecca). Effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys did not differ consistently by age or sex of harvested ducks. Our results indicate that the effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys differs among duck species and changes with latitude; thus, consideration of these effects may be warranted when setting harvest regulations and methods of take.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2006

Does life history predict risk-taking behavior of wintering dabbling ducks?

Life-history theory predicts that longer-lived, less fecund species should take fewer risks when exposed to predation than shorter-lived, more fecund species. We tested this prediction for seven species of dabbling ducks (Anas) by measuring the approach behavior (behavior of ducks when approaching potential landing sites) of 1099 duck flocks during 37 hunting trials and 491 flocks during 13 trials conducted immediately after the 1999-2000 waterfowl hunting season in California, USA. We also experimentally manipulated the attractiveness of the study site by using two decoy treatments: (1) traditional, stationary decoys only, and (2) traditional decoys in conjunction with a mechanical spinning-wing decoy. Approach behavior of ducks was strongly correlated with their life history. Minimum approach distance was negatively correlated with reproductive output during each decoy treatment and trial type. Similarly, the proportion of flocks taking risk (approaching landing sites to within 45 m) was positively correlated with reproductive output. We found similar patterns of approach behavior in relation to other life-history parameters (i.e., adult female body mass and annual adult female survival rate). Thus, species characterized by a slower life-history strategy (e.g., Northern Pintail [A. acuta]) were more risk-averse than species with a faster life-history strategy (e.g., Cinnamon Teal [A. cyanoptera]). Furthermore, although we were able to reduce risk-averseness using the spinning-wing decoy, we were unable to override the influence of life history on risk-taking behavior. Alternative explanations did not account for the observed correlation between approach behavior and life-history parameters. These results suggest that life history influences the risk-taking behavior of dabbling ducks and provide an explanation for the differential vulnerability of waterfowl to harvest. ?? The Cooper Ornithological Society 2006.

Condor↗