Transcript Mallard Hen House Project

Utilization and Colonization of Artificial
Nesting Cylinders by Mallards (Anas
platyrhynchos) and Wood Ducks (Aix sponsa)
in Northwest Pennsylvania and Southern
Ontario
Jeremy Stempka: M.Sc. Candidate
Dr. Scott Petrie: Supervisor
Dr. Robert Bailey: Co Supervisor
Partners & Cooperators
Partners
•Pennsylvania Game Commission – NW Region & BWM
•Flyway Foundation (SC)
•Long Point Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Fund
•Delta Waterfowl
•University of Western Ontario
•NW Pennsylvania Duck Hunters Association
•Susquehanna River Waterfowlers Association
Cooperators
•Canadian Wildlife Service
•Pennsylvania Conservation Corps
•Western Pennsylvania Chapter Delta Waterfowl
•DCNR - Presque Isle State Park
•Private landowners
Hen Houses?
• Nest success rates typically
range between 60% and
100%.
• Increase duckling survival.
• Increase hen survival.
• Relatively inexpensive.
Photo by Kevin Jacobs
Tripod
Advantages
•
•
•
•
Very inexpensive (< $10).
Easily made and installed.
Requires no predator guard.
Can be relocated very easily.
Disadvantages
• Placement influenced by water
depth and substrate type.
• Susceptible to ice damage.
• Strong winds may blown over
HH if not firmly installed.
Photo by Kevin Jacobs
Delta Design
Advantages
• Well built and very sturdy.
• Easily adaptable for
different water and soil
depth.
• Easy to install through ice
in the winter.
Disadvantages
Photo by Kevin Jacobs
• Expense ($50 + labor).
Study Objectives
•
Conduct a regional comparison of hen house occupancy and nest
success between Northwest Pennsylvania and Southern Ontario.
•
Determine variables that influence hen house occupancy (wetland
type, size, food availability, surrounding habitat, land use, mount)
•
Investigate philopatry of mallard hens and female offspring to
nesting structures.
•
Conduct an interspecific comparison of success rates and parameters
associated with HH’s utilized by mallards and wood ducks (i.e.
surrounding habitat, wetland type, wetland productivity).
Data Collection
• Classifying each wetland type and measuring size.
• Measuring water depth and distance of HH above water.
• Invertebrate sampling.
• Banding hen mallards to measure return rates.
• Web tagging ducklings to investigate offspring philopatry.
• Using satellite imagery to define surrounding habitat and land use.
Hen House Monitoring
• Hen houses were checked every
20 days for use.
• Occupied nests checked and
candled every 7-10 days to
estimate hatch date.
• Nests checked daily near
estimated hatch date.
Photo by Kevin Jacobs
Capturing Hens
• Hens captured and banded
to detect homing.
• Hens banded on day 16 of
incubation or later to
decrease nest
abandonment.
• Captured primarily by
sneaking perpendicular to
the nest with dip nets.
Photo by Scott Petrie
Banding Hens
Photo by Scott Petrie
•
In 2006, 18 Hens were banded with
standard leg bands in Northwest PA and
Southern Ontario.
•
50% of those hens returned to nest in
the same or adjacent hen house.
•
In 2007 an additional 25 hen mallards
were banded, 24 ASY, 1 SY
•
Hen immobilized by placing the
mallard’s head under the wing and
rocking it back and forth until it is
relaxed and then placing the hen back
into the HH.
•
No post banding nest abandonment.
Web Tagging
•
In 2006, 180 mallard ducklings
were web tagged to investigate
offspring philopatry.
•
No offspring philopatry in 2007
from ducklings tagged in 2006.
•
In 2007, an additional 250 mallard
ducklings were web tagged.
•
Majority were web tagged in the
egg.
Photo by Kevin Jacobs
Summary Comparison of Hen House Occupancy in
Northwest Pennsylvania and Southern Ontario
35
30
25
20
Wood duck
Mallard
15
10
5
0
2006
2007
Ontario
2006
2007
Pennsylvania
Summary Comparison of Hen House Success Rates
in Northwest Pennsylvania and Southern Ontario
100
90
80
70
60
Wood duck
50
Mallard
40
30
20
10
0
2006
2007
Ontario
2006
2007
Pennsylvania
2008 Plans
• Winter HH maintenance.
• Complete 2008 fieldwork
March – July.
• Data analysis and thesis
completion target date of
December 2008.
Photo by Kevin Jacobs