Search

Waterfowl use a diversity of resources (e.g., food, structure, sanctuary) to meet energetic, social, and other life‐history demands during the non‐breeding period. Waterfowl often seek areas with limited human disturbance (i.e., sanctuary) during autumn and winter when hunting seasons are open perhaps to reduce exposure to mortality risks, minimize energy expenditure, and increase foraging efficiency, all of which should enhance survival and subsequent fitness. Prior studies of sanctuary use by waterfowl have mostly focused on patterns of abundance and behavior, with many documenting differential diel movements of marked birds in and around sanctuaries. Although reduced mortality risk is likely associated with sanctuary use, much less is known about the potential effects on energy expenditure, body condition, reproductive consequences at the individual level, and seasonal distribution with respect to viewing and harvest potential. We consider these aforementioned factors among the most significant gaps in our understanding of the function of sanctuary in waterfowl management. As waterfowl hunter recruitment, retention, and reactivation have become a major initiative of many natural resource agencies and a core principle of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, we discuss the potential role of sanctuary relative to these efforts. Herein, we review historical aspects of waterfowl sanctuary, introduce hypotheses about its potential role in habitat resource management and conservation planning during autumn and winter, discuss our knowledge of the effects of sanctuary on waterfowl, and share insights to inform decisions about the role of sanctuary in waterfowl management given currently available evidence and remaining uncertainties. Our review describes the existing evidence for the biological and social outcomes of sanctuary, draws some conclusions about the role of sanctuary in natural resource management given the available evidence, and outlines potential research opportunities to help us make informed decisions regarding sanctuary implementation for waterfowl. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geographical distributions of waterfowl exhibit annual variation in response to spatiotemporal variation in weather conditions, habitat availability, and other factors. Continuing changes in climate and land use could lead to persistent shifts of waterfowl distributions, potentially causing a mismatch with habitat conservation planning, wetland restoration efforts, and harvest management decisions informed by historical distributions. We used band recoveries and harvest records (i.e., hunter‐harvested wings) from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey as indices of duck distribution in autumn and winter, and quantified intra‐annual, interannual, and interspecific variation in their geographic distributions across 6 decades (1960–2019) for 15 duck species in the Central and Mississippi flyways in North America. Specifically, we tested for annual and decadal shifts in mean latitude and longitude of recoveries for each month (Oct–Jan) by species and taxonomic guild (i.e., dabbling, diving ducks). Overall, species varied in the extent, timing, and sometimes direction, of distributional change in recoveries. From 1960–2019, mean recovery locations for dabbling ducks shifted south 105–296 km in October and 27 km in November (wings only), whereas mean latitudes shifted north 144–234 km in December and 186–301 km in January. Mean recovery locations for diving ducks shifted north 162 km in October (wings only), 84–173 km in December, and 66–120 km in January, but shifted 99–512 km south in November. Shifts in longitude were less consistent between guilds and data types. Finally, distributional change rarely accelerated during recent decades, except for southward shifts of band recoveries of diving ducks in November and northward shifts of band and wing recoveries of dabbling ducks in January. Although anecdotal accounts of large‐scale northward shifts in duck distributions are prolific in the land management and hunting communities, our data demonstrate more subtle shifts that vary considerably by species and month. Observed changes in recovery distributions could necessitate changes in timing of habitat management practices throughout the Central and Mississippi flyways and may result in fewer hunting and recreational opportunities for some species in southern states. Quantifying patterns of historical change is a necessary first step to understanding temporal and interspecific variation in waterfowl distributions, which will help with landscape‐scale conservation and management efforts in the future and enable effective communication to core constituencies regarding ongoing changes and their implications for recreational engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite a historically large degree of philopatry to the Gulf Coastal Plains wintering area in the United States and Mexico, the midcontinent population of greater white‐fronted geese (Anser albifrons) has demonstrated changes in their winter distribution in recent decades, warranting investigation into the timing and magnitude of change. We evaluated spatiotemporal patterns in winter band recovery distribution from 1974–2018 and midwinter waterfowl survey counts for midcontinent greater white‐fronted geese. We used an overlap similarity index to compare annual winter band recovery distributions with a historical reference distribution of 1955–1974, followed by a changepoint analysis to assess the timing and magnitude of distributional change. Our analyses revealed a 2‐stage shift in the distribution of winter band recoveries from midcontinent greater white‐fronted geese that occurred following the 1994–1995 season and the 2009–2010 season. As a result, the spatiotemporal distribution of midcontinent greater white‐fronted goose band recoveries can be explained in 3 distinct time eras: the historical era (1974–1995), the transitional era (1995–2010), and the current era (2010–2018). Patterns in midwinter waterfowl survey counts were consistent with changes in winter band recovery distributions, providing further support that midcontinent greater white‐fronted geese have shifted their core winter distribution nearly 750 km northeast over the last 5 decades from the Gulf Coastal Plain to the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Quantifying the timing and magnitude of this shift in winter distribution of midcontinent greater white‐fronted geese provides clarity to previous patterns in and changes to harvest distribution and could be used to facilitate future decisions regarding harvest management, regulatory frameworks, and habitat conservation planning efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biomass estimates of potential waterfowl foods are fundamental to estimating foraging carrying capacity of waterfowl habitat by conservation planners and managers of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan‐Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV). Rice and moist‐soil seeds in Gulf Coast rice fields provide principal sources of energy for waterfowl during migration and winter. We investigated spatio‐temporal biomass dynamics of these seeds and modeled their variation in production and idled rice fields in southwestern Louisiana, southeastern Texas, and the Texas Mid‐Coast, USA, in August and November 2010–2013. We hypothesized that previous estimates of November rice and moist‐soil seed biomass from the Mississippi Alluvial Valley were not applicable to the GCJV region because climate and agricultural production practices (e.g., ratooning, crayfish [Procambrus spp.] aquaculture) are primary inter‐regional contrasts. Waste‐rice biomass was greatest in November in fields with an unharvested second crop of rice from tillers of original plants (i.e., ratoon crop; 837.7 kg[dry]/ha; CV = 16.7%) and least in fields without a ratoon crop (119.3 kg/ha; CV = 18.5%). Moist‐soil seed biomass was greatest in idled rice fields in October (477.3 kg/ha; CV = 24.8%), where substrate and rice stubble were disked at the time of sampling, and in idled fields with standing native vegetation in November (304.8 kg/ha; CV = 17.1%). Field‐level variation in waste rice in production fields in November was best explained by an interaction between field management (e.g., harvested ratoon) and rice variety. We were unable identify a reliable predictor of field‐level variation in moist‐soil seed biomass in idled fields for July–August or November (i.e., null model was best or competitive). Substituting existing seasonal moist‐soil and rice seed biomass estimates in GCJV planning models with those from our study would result in a seasonally flooded habitat objective 76% (101,974 ha) greater than the current GCJV estimate for 3 rice‐growing planning areas. We encourage conservation planners in the GCJV region to use biomass estimates from our study because they are reasonably precise for planning and implementation (i.e., CV ~ 20%) and represent most contemporary patterns of farming practices and food abundance in this region. Further, programs and incentives that promote production of ratoon rice crops and allow growth of naturally occurring vegetation in idled rice fields, followed by shallow flooding during November–February, would significantly enhance food resources for waterfowl and other waterbirds in this important landscape for North American avifauna. © 2020 The Wildlife Society. Substituting existing seasonal moist‐soil and rice seed biomass estimates in Gulf Coast Joint Venture planning models with those from our study would result in a seasonally flooded habitat objective 76% greater than the current GCJV estimate for 3 rice‐growing planning areas. We encourage conservation planners in the GCJV region to adopt biomass estimates from our study because they are reasonably precise for planning and implementation and represent most contemporary patterns of farming practices and food abundance in this region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) has established a model for wildlife conservation planning over the last 3 decades. Management at a continental scale, leveraged funding, regional partnerships, and a strong science basis have been notable features. Periodic updates to the NAWMP occurred since implementation in 1986; however, a fundamental revision was accomplished in 2012 after extensive stakeholder engagement. An explicit fundamental goal for waterfowl conservation supporters was added in 2012, complementing existing goals for sustainable populations and sufficient habitat found in previous updates. We present a synopsis of progress toward implementation of the 2012 NAWMP and challenge the waterfowl management community to continue with meaningful steps toward achieving NAWMP goals. Adding goals and objectives for supporters increases potential relevance of NAWMP; however, it also presents a level of complexity that was not entirely anticipated. Additionally, the 2012 NAWMP recognized that traditional support from waterfowl hunters alone will not be sufficient to support waterfowl conservation in the future. Simultaneous consideration of multiple objectives, although implicit before, now is a specific focus for habitat and harvest management affecting hunters and other users of the waterfowl resource. The waterfowl management community is faced with revisiting objectives and management actions related to harvest regulations, landscape priorities, habitat conservation, and public engagement to garner broader support. These persistent management challenges are tangible and relevant candidates for greater integration. Ultimately, the structures and processes supporting waterfowl management also will need to be reconsidered. © 2017 The Wildlife Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study which radiomarked and observed paired and unpaired male mallards in Manitoba in 1998 and Saskatchewan in 1999 to document their sociability and evaluate accuracy of indicated breeding pair criteria. Description of the study area; Methods used; Results of the study; Discussion.