Nesting Ecology of Greater Sandhill Cranes(Grus canadensis tabida)in Riparian and Palustrine Wetlands of Eastern Idaho

Waterbirds ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. McWethy ◽  
Jane E. Austin

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 294-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy K. Businga ◽  
Julie Langenberg ◽  
LaVinda Carlson


1983 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald M. Windingstad ◽  
Sarah S. Hurley ◽  
Louis Sileo


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 220-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. King ◽  
Patrick C. McKann ◽  
Brian R. Gray ◽  
Michael S. Putnam

Abstract The whooping crane Grus americana has a long conservation history, but despite multiple attempts across North America, introduction success is lacking. Recently introduced, captively reared whooping cranes have had periods of poor reproductive performance in central Wisconsin that sometimes coincided with black fly (Diptera: Simuliidae) emergences. Sandhill crane Grus canadensis reproductive performance in central Wisconsin is approximately double that of whooping cranes. We used comfort behaviors as a measure of black fly harassment to infer whether behavioral differences existed between nesting sandhill cranes and nesting whooping cranes and between successful and unsuccessful whooping crane pairs. To further explore the interaction between black flies and incubating whooping cranes, we examined differences in behaviors between incubating birds and their off-nest mates. Compared to their off-nest mates, incubating whooping cranes exhibited elevated comfort behaviors, suggesting a bird at a nest may experience greater harassment from black flies. Sandhill cranes had elevated head-flicks over whooping cranes. Whooping cranes exhibited more head-rubs than sandhill cranes, and successful whooping crane pairs had elevated head-rubs over pairs that deserted their nests. Behavioral differences between sandhill cranes and whooping cranes as well as differences in reproductive performance, could be explained by exposure to local breeding conditions. Whereas sandhill cranes have nested in the area for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, whooping cranes were only recently introduced to the area. Behavioral differences between the species as well as those between successful and unsuccessful whooping crane pairs could also be explained by the effect of captive exposure, which could affect all whooping crane introductions.



1997 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn G. Spalding ◽  
William J. Wrenn ◽  
Stephen T. Schwikert ◽  
James A. Schmidt


1989 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 511???516 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Ludders ◽  
Jennifer Rode ◽  
Gordon S. Mitchell


2003 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 224
Author(s):  
Ann M. Burke

Surveys for Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) were conducted near Yorkton, Saskatchewan during the summers of 1995, 1996 and 1997. Seven nesting territories were identified and habitat measurements were taken at six nests. All nests were located in the emergent deep marsh zone of open water marshes within residual stands of Hardstem Bulrush (Scirpus acutus). Seven eggs were measured in four nests. Estimated hatching dates ranged from 20 May to 9 June. Total productivity for the three years was 0.80 chick per breeding pair (12 offspring fledged by 15 pairs). Individual pair productivity was impacted by disturbance, mate change, adult mortality, and predation. Hunting mortality may also impact the population.



The Auk ◽  
1950 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-513
Author(s):  
Lawrence H. Walkinshaw


2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Carpenter ◽  
Meliton N. Novilla ◽  
Jeff S. Hatfield


1975 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Forrester ◽  
Albert O. Bush ◽  
Lovett E. Williams


1975 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles H. Courtney ◽  
Donald J. Forrester ◽  
John V. Ernst ◽  
Stephen A. Nesbitt


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document