We determined the geographic range of Arkansas resident Canada geese from 2004 to 2012 using volume contour maps from citizen science observations using eBird, a citizen science website, and hunter recovery locations from the U.S. The reintroduced Canada goose (Branta canadensis) population in Arkansas has grown in range and abundance in recent decades. We recommend more research on Avipel to assess rates and timing of application to make this product efficacious and economical in the field. Additionally, soybean damage was less on Avipel-treated plots than on reference plots (P < 0.01). Less time was spent on plots treated with the anthraquinone-based product, Avipel (44 minutes/day) than on reference plots (132 minutes/day P < 0.01). Use of plots significantly increased (P < 0.02) between the pretreatment and postreatment periods for Rejex-It (180 minutes/day and 313 minutes/day) and Bird Shield (200 minutes/day and 299 minutes/day) whereas, use was similar (P = 0.99) between plots treated with Avian Control (111 minutes/day) and reference plots (104 minutes/day).
Damage was 100% on all plots treated with these products. The methyl anthranilate products (Rejex-It, Bird Shield, and Avian Control) were ineffective at reducing crop damage. Damage was estimated after geese had abandoned the plots (August). We began treating the plots after geese had begun using them (late June through mid-July). We monitored activity in the plots using time-lapse photography. We used a ground sprayer to apply the treatments every 7 days to plots in soybean fields in Day County, South Dakota. In 20, we evaluated Rejex-It Migrate Turfguard®, Bird Shield®, Avian Control®, and Avipel® as grazing deterrents. Foliar applications of a chemical feeding deterrent could provide an effective alternative to the methods currently being used to reduce damage. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks annually spends >$500,000 managing crop damage caused by grazing Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Refinement of harvest management strategies at multiple spatial scales may be required. Waterfowl managers need to consider that recovery rates and harvest chronology of banded giant Canada geese may vary geographically within a state or province. In contrast, for ER-banded geese, 19 to 38% and 15 to 19% of direct and indirect recoveries, respectively, occurred in December. For WR-banded geese, 40 to 52% and 30 to 34% of direct and indirect recoveries, respectively, occurred in December. Distribution of recoveries suggests a south-southwesterly movement for WR-banded geese compared to a south-southeasterly movement for ER-banded geese. Overall, Canada geese banded in South Dakota were recovered in 23 states and 5 Canadian provinces, and recovery distribution varied relative to banding region. Although recovery rates for Canada geese west of the Missouri River (WR) and east of the Missouri River (ER) were relatively similar, recovery distribution and harvest chronology indicate spatial and temporal differences for geese banded in these 2 geographic regions. We studied spatial and temporal recovery patterns of molting Canada geese during annual banding efforts in South Dakota between 19. Patterns in Canada goose band recoveries can provide insight into the distribution, chronology, and harvest pressures to which a given goose population segment is exposed. Information on important parameters, such as survival and recovery rates, are generally lacking for giant Canada geese in the northern Great Plains. interior) while still protecting lesser abundant Arctic breeding Canada geese and cackling geese (e.g., B. In South Dakota, breeding giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis maxima) have increased substantially, and harvest management strategies have been implemented to maximize hunting opportunity (e.g., special early-September seasons) on local, as well as molt-migrant giant Canada geese (B.
0 kommentar(er)
