Each year in the United States, fall-winter (sport) harvests of goose species are estimated from federal surveys coordinated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, including the Migratory Bird Harvest Survey to estimate total goose harvest and the Parts Collection Survey (PCS) to estimate the species and age composition. For the PCS, randomly selected hunters collect tail and wing feathers of each goose shot during the hunting season, and then biologists determine the age class and species of each sample at organized events (Wingbees) in each of the 4 flyways (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic). For similarly colored goose species, cackling (Branta hutchinsii) versus Canada (B. canadensis) geese (dark geese) and Ross's (Anser rossii) versus snow (A. caerulescens) geese (light geese), different protocols evolved among Wingbees to differentiate samples into groupings of management interest, leading to difficulties in estimating species-level harvests among the 4 flyways or nationally. We conducted a study among the United States flyways during 2019-2022 to derive thresholds of central tail feather length to discriminate between dark geese and between light geese. We compared morphological- and genetic-based approaches. There was support for 2 distinct mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) clades in dark and light geese, but only dark goose clades corresponded with central tail feather lengths (morphological size and species identification). Derived thresholds for central tail feather lengths of dark geese in the 3 westernmost flyways using genetic-based species' discrimination were 145 mm for adults and 134 mm for juveniles, approximately 13 mm and 9 mm less, respectively, than thresholds using morphological-based species' discrimination. There was limited ability to discriminate light geese based on either mtDNA or central tail feather lengths. We suggest managers use our derived thresholds based on genetic-based species' discrimination to classify dark goose PCS samples. More advanced genome analyses should be conducted before changing current Wingbee protocols for light geese. Lastly, we encourage more studies to incorporate genetic analyses to complement morphological discrimination.

The Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) Editor-in-Chief, P. R. Krausman, invited the lead author of this editorial to convene other senior and mid-career scientists to assess the good, bad, and ugly aspects of publication in JWM relative to similar journals. The 15 authors have considerable experience and are well published in JWM and other journals. The number of years of experience will go unreported here, but the number of papers published in JWM by each author ranges from 2 to 37, with a median of 13. We therefore bring a broad perspective to this editorial. What are the positive aspects of publishing in JWM? What are the negatives of doing so? Should The Wildlife Society (TWS) be concerned about the relatively low impact factor of JWM? Do we have any suggestions for improvements for JWM? Because the authors brought unique perspectives to the effort, our editorial is not intended to be a consensus document. Although most authors agreed with most of the comments, we chose not to water down any opinions to gain total agreement. Hence, although most of us are primarily researchers, we hope our views capture those of many members of TWS, recognizing that TWS members will also hold a diversity of views. The JWM is the flagship journal of our professional society and of wildlife ecology in general. Journal of Wildlife Management articles directly address the core TWS mission: to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through science-based management and conservation. Consequently, publishing in JWM directly supports and promotes the Society in many ways, such as enhancing its reputation as a source of reliable peer-reviewed information for policy makers. The journal is well respected by practitioners and scientists in the wildlife profession. Its readership is the most relevant and appropriate for wildlife science. Authors need not wonder if the right folks are reading what they published. For these reasons, JWM, along with its sister publication, the Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB), are the go-to journals for wildlife management science in North America. Both seek to publish research and commentary that address management questions, leaving most basic science to alternative journals. Other journals publish on wildlife conservation but provide little specific guidance for on-the-ground actions to conserve wildlife and its habitat. Many articles in JWM include scientists and managers as coauthors. This integration helps ensure the credibility and the relevance of those articles and acceptance by the management community. Criteria for earning authorship is a different question, which we do not address here. The main concerns voiced about publishing in JWM were 1) page charges, 2) slow publication, 3) a tedious and often rigid (not to be confused with rigorous) review process, 4) a perceived over-emphasis on game species, and 5) low impact factor, which we defer to a subsequent section. Page charges can be a deterrent for authors lacking funding support for publishing. Among such authors are retired scientists, state agency or nongovernmental organization staff, academics without grant funding, scientists from developing nations, and graduate students. In contrast, higher-profile journals and European journals do not assess page charges. Thus, JWM may lose some good papers simply because of financial considerations. Our sense regarding the slowness of publication is that the problem may not be as severe as it had been and relates primarily to a slow review process (next paragraph). Still, some authors prefer to publish in online journals because of their timelier publication of results and accessibility, especially on topics that are socially or politically sensitive for which timing and access can be important for decision making. Concerns about the review process were manifold and the process caused at least some of the slowness in publication mentioned above. Many wildlife biologists have had enough negative experiences with JWM's refereeing process such that they no longer consider JWM first as an outlet for their work. One concern was termed “draconian formatting,” noting that JWM submission guidelines run to 61 pages, whereas those of similar journals rarely exceed 15–20 pages. To this point, a colleague conducted an informal Twitter survey about JWM, and the formatting issue was offered as the single major deterrent to submitting a paper to the journal. Another concern was a dogmatic view of which statistical approaches are acceptable, with reference made to the “AIC police.” Similarly, individual writing styles should not be discouraged. For example, some authors felt as though certain referees and associate editors (AEs) act like territorial mammals, needing to leave signs of their presence on each manuscript they encounter. A final concern was the perception that AEs and editors sometimes blindly accepted recommendations of reviewers even when there were indications that the reviews were biased or inappropriate. Associate editors and editors should consider reviewer comments in context with their own review. This requires an array of AEs with expertise in the variety of topics encountered. Further, they also should help guide the author's revision by pointing out which elements of a reviewer's comments they believe have merit and which may not. The historical emphasis on game species in JWM has diminished in recent years but still persists. This pattern exists despite the greater number of nongame wildlife species and the fact that more of them are in trouble, and much less studied, than game species. Although we can acknowledge this disparity, emphasis on game species is not a policy of JWM. The historical dominance of papers about game species might be explained by several reasons. First, funding for research on game species is more plentiful than that for nongame species, as much management research is funded, directly or indirectly, by hunters. Better financial support will influence the numbers of publications. Second, research on game species likely is better integrated into management decisions than research on nongame species. Publications about nongame species may claim management relevance but may be less likely to represent work requested by, and therefore used by, a management agency. Finally, papers on nongame species are welcomed by taxon-specific journals, general ecology journals, and those that include “conservation” in their titles, whereas papers dealing with harvest management of game would not necessarily be well received by such journals, so JWM gets most of them. Our experience suggests, in fact, that the perception of an excess of game species articles is a mirage, in that JWM and WSB provide 2 of the very few refereed outlets for such research simply owing to a prejudicial dismissal of papers on game species by some ecological journals. True, relatively few nongame papers are published in JWM, but this is not because JWM discourages them but because many alternative conservation and taxon-specific journals welcome them. Thus, addressing this long-standing perception of game species dominating JWM may require the journal to be more proactive in soliciting nongame papers. Because game species are hunted, they are handled more frequently by humans, and thus we have much better information about important aspects of their population biology than we do for most nongame species. That fact, in combination with the greater research attention they have received, means we know much more about most game species than nongame species. Because much knowledge is transferable to nongame species, nongame investigators can learn a lot from studies of game species, such as modeling approaches. We believe that JWM could be instrumental in facilitating that information transfer by encouraging more nongame biologists to become readers of, and authors for, JWM. Many articles that would be suited to JWM but address nongame species go to biological conservation journals. Conservation biology is a relatively new field, whereas wildlife management is much longer established. The 2 disciplines appear to have very different objectives: the basic goal of conservation biology is to preserve natural biodiversity, whereas a traditional goal of wildlife management is typically to obtain sustainable yield of game species. To bring that distinction into clear focus, consider the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). This species is non-native to North America and thereby scorned by most conservation biologists. But it is a popular hunted species on much of the continent and many wildlife agencies and biologists seek to increase its numbers. Regardless of the objectives of the 2 disciplines, the tools they have available to address their objectives are very similar. They typically involve habitat management, at local through regional scales, although game managers have harvest regulation as an additional tool. Thus, conservation biology and wildlife management are closely related endeavors that share biological foundations and many research, conservation, and management methodologies. It seems entirely appropriate for JWM to be home to articles that are identified as belonging to either of these disciplines. Increasing the number of nongame publications in JWM could be accomplished through invited articles and special sections on topics of current interest. Increase visibility of and access to the journal; papers that are easy to find (e.g., via search engines) and have open access get more attention and are therefore more likely to be cited. This issue is especially relevant for international audiences. Ensure that the relevant ecological theory and findings are clearly articulated, particularly in the abstract. Many abstracts dwell on methods and results, rather than on any important implications of the study. Develop a better media strategy to disseminate key findings published in JWM and the Society's other journals beyond TWS members. One simple way to increase dissemination is through effective use of social media and better choices of key words. Despite the importance of this short but important list of terms for literature searches, many authors put little thought into their selection of key words. Continue to invite opinion pieces and essays dealing with current cutting-edge or controversial topics. Invitees could include high-profile individuals who might not normally consider JWM as an outlet. Dueling point-counterpoint essays could be especially appealing. Expand the focus beyond the traditional management audience. The most-cited papers in JWM's recent history are quantitative, methodological contributions. The most-read articles largely address the conservation of nongame species or transparency in decision processes. In addition to traditional concerns such as harvest management, conservation agencies face problems associated with climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, emerging infectious diseases, human-wildlife conflicts, and others. The content of JWM should reflect these important issues. Recommendation 3 was not unanimously endorsed by all co-authors, in part because the scientific community already has many good outlets for general ecological papers, so is there a need to include JWM in this group? Counterpoint to this discussion is a fundamental question: should JWM have a high impact factor? If JWM continues to strive to publish applied research that provides useful management guidance, then impact factor ratings could be a low priority. Impact factors are important primarily to researchers; managers care little how often a publication is referenced by others. It is likely that papers in JWM are read more often than they are cited because many consumers of JWM papers apply their findings without citing them. Also, they are often cited in agency management plans and other gray literature that is not covered by journal citation indices. These citations are no less important to the core purpose of TWS and JWM than are formal citations in journal articles. Some sort of application factor by which papers are rated according to how their results are incorporated into wildlife management and conservation decisions could be developed, but what journals other than JWM and WSB would adopt it? Most research with direct management application is specific in terms of species, location, and management treatments. There generally is an inverse relationship between such specificity and the number of times a paper is cited. So, theoretical articles focusing on general ecology or ecological principles (or just have well-articulated arm waving) may be cited numerous times, whereas articles dealing with particular species, places, and treatments that are management-focused, such as those published in JWM, are less likely to be cited, leaving JWM with a lower impact factor. Impact factor may be a poor reflection of actual impact if the average reader is a manager who rarely publishes in scientific journals, especially those with high impact factors. But we wonder how many managers actually read JWM anymore (a survey among state and federal wildlife agencies may be enlightening). So perhaps a better goal would be to increase readership especially by managers as opposed to increasing the journal's impact factor. Beyond addressing the drawbacks mentioned above, we offer several suggestions to improve JWM. One is to remove the requirement for a Management Implications section. One author randomly selected 100 Management Implications sections from the last decade or so and assessed whether the article was consistent with their interpretation of the current guidance for a Management Implications section. Examples of articles without direct management implications involved topics such as monitoring designs, human dimensions surveys, a new method to estimate a critical parameter in a population model that heretofore had not been possible, and an analysis of potential disease transmission between an invasive and native species. These noncompliant articles constituted 43% of the sample, acknowledging their relevance to the readership. That these articles were published indicates a broad interpretation of management was taken and suggests that a separate Management Implications section may be superfluous. Such a section might be perfectly suitable for many articles but should not be required for all. Eliminating the Management Implications section also might end the presumption of management being narrowly defined based on traditional TWS foci such as game species and hunting. For a time, JWM was a preferred outlet for accessible quantitative methods articles (accessible, in contrast to, say, Biometrics). The JWM is no longer the only game in town. Methods in Ecology & Evolution, for example, is one appealing alternative. The inconsistent support by JWM editors of quantitative papers has reduced the desire of authors to publish these papers in TWS journals. For example, the seminal papers on occupancy estimators, one of the most widely used quantitative methods in wildlife monitoring and surveillance, were published in other journals (e.g., Ecology). The TWS should encourage, but not require, authors to archive their data and code used in TWS publications in open repositories, available to other researchers. Archiving data and programs is increasingly a requirement of many universities and journals. Making them readily available to others is less common. Doing so, however, will encourage greater use of data published in JWM by other investigators and enhance JWM's impact. As Simon Levin (Princeton University, personal communication) noted, “science is best when it is viewed as a team sport where everyone is on the same team.” Reasons for not making data available include governmental regulations inhibiting releasing sensitive information, legal restrictions, and ongoing analysis of those data. One longstanding problem in the wildlife profession is the lack of integration of research and management. Researchers often see managers as resistant to new information and recommendations, whereas managers frequently view researchers as concerned more with their own interests and favorite projects than with informing difficult management decisions. Perhaps JWM could play a more active role in encouraging integration of research and management by publishing special sections featuring papers that demonstrate true and effective collaborations between researchers and managers. Such papers would typically be authored by researchers and managers and could describe ongoing management programs that are based on research-informed decisions. An emphasis could be on specification of exactly how research results and other (e.g., monitoring) information are used to make decisions. Such encouragement by JWM would hopefully broaden the appeal of JWM to managers and encourage research scientists to focus on exactly the questions and information that would be most useful to managers. The emphasis would be on science serving management (one possible title for such a JWM section), with the perspective that science is 1 component of a larger decision process that affects wildlife management. We hope that such an effort would not only increase the interest of managers in JWM but also promote integration and collaboration within the wildlife profession. We believe that the JWM continues to play a key role in conservation efforts. This role may be enhanced by capturing (or re-capturing) the attention of managers and mid- to upper-level administrators, many of whom have little interest in or time for reading journal articles. Opinion pieces, essays, and point-counterpoint discussions on controversial and high-visibility topics and less emphasis on nuts-and-bolts techniques might be a good way of stimulating interest. For example, review articles on critical issues would capture wider audiences, especially if they effectively translate research to broadly interest a wide audience of researchers, managers, and policy makers. A first principle of marketing a product, such as a journal, is identifying its target audience. Historically JWM was oriented toward on-the-ground and harvest managers. We suspect that over the years the journal has become more read by researchers and students and less used by actual managers. An argument could be made in favor of changing its title to the Journal of Wildlife Science, but much history would be lost causing a reset in the impact factor rating. We believe that both audiences can be served, but it will not be easy. Collectively, our group offers a wide set of perspectives stemming from our personal experiences publishing in many journals including JWM, but we certainly do not reflect the entire spectrum of members of TWS. Therefore, we offer the following conclusions in support of our general comments above with the expectation that others may either endorse our ideas or refute them. All of us have long held high regard for our society's primary journal. Yet we also believe that JWM could be improved. Some of our suggestions are easily implemented (e.g., focus more on facilitating author submissions than on the format of papers—layout and format of a journal are never as important as its content); others will be more challenging (e.g., deciding if the focus of JWM should be on game species because other journals provide more options to publish nongame research). In TWS, a possible way forward is for leadership to assess whether new directions in emphasis for JWM are warranted. But even if new directions are desired, given a more thorough evaluation than we have provided, we believe there is a perception among many potential authors that structural impediments discourage submission to JWM. Therefore, we hope our comments are taken in the context with which we wrote them: to improve the quality and stature of JWM. All decisions, including any recommended changes to JWM, should be guided by objectives. For example, if our primary objective is to increase the impact factor of JWM, then we might take certain actions, whereas if we want to increase the value of JWM to managers we might do something very different. If we prefer a compromise that includes both objectives, perhaps unequally weighted, then our actions would again differ from those that focus only on one of them. We believe that any recommendations for changes to JWM must be preceded by a clear statement of what we would like these changes to accomplish. We authors differ in our opinions about the importance of journal impact factor, with some of us concerned that it is too low and others believing that it does not closely relate to the use of the journal. This variation suggests that the TWS membership should be involved in developing the objectives that are required to guide decisions about any changes to JWM. The comments in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers. We are grateful to P. R. Krausman for the opportunity to express our views on a subject we care deeply about. J. E. Hines and T. R. Van Deelen commented on an earlier draft of this editorial.

ABSTRACTUnderstanding how land cover and potential competition with invasive species shape patterns of occupancy, extirpation, and colonization of native species across a landscape can help target management for declining native populations. Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) populations have declined throughout the United States from 1965–2015. The expansion of the Eurasian collared‐dove (Streptopelia decaocto), an introduced species with similar food preferences, may further threaten mourning dove populations. We analyzed data from 2009–2016 from a large‐scale monitoring program in the Western Great Plains of the United States in a 2‐species occupancy model to assess the effects of collared‐doves on mourning dove distributions, while accounting for imperfect detection and variation in land cover across the landscape. Mourning dove occupancy was stable or increasing across our study area, and despite overlap in resource use and co‐occurrence between mourning doves and Eurasian collared‐doves, we found no evidence that collared‐doves are extirpating mourning doves from preferred habitat during the breeding season. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

Amphibian conservation studies often rely on auditory call surveys to determine distribution, abundance, and habitat associations of anuran species. Call surveys omit important life stages, however, and conservation recommendations from call surveys alone risk creating population sinks or ecological traps. To more effectively determine the effects of a catastrophic flood on an amphibian community, we surveyed tadpoles and metamorphs of six anuran species in the Missouri River floodplain in 2012 and 2013. Inference gleaned from these surveys was compared to inference from previous work with call surveys. For 8 of 10 species-years, extinction probabilities were >0 for tadpole and metamorph stages, indicating there may be habitat factors affecting tadpoles and metamorphs beyond those affecting calling adult males. In several cases we discovered habitat associations for tadpoles and metamorphs that were not present during call surveys. We had previously recommended shallow slopes for Blanchard's Cricket Frog, but we found slopes that were too shallow were detrimental for metamorph emergence. Woodhouse's Toad metamorphs had opposite preferences for slope than adults and preferred larger wetlands with less emergent vegetation. Gray Treefrog tadpoles had preferences for emergent vegetation that differed from adult requirements. Our work highlights the need to consider habitat factors affecting life stages beyond calling adult males. Amphibian conservation and management should proceed with sufficient information on critical aquatic life stages.

Extreme ecological disturbances such as floods, wildfires, and droughts are difficult to study because they are rare and unpredictable. We had the opportunity to study the effect of an historic flood on an anuran community in the Missouri River floodplain. We used occupancy estimation to estimate the proportion of wetlands occupied by calling adult male anurans. Three species—the plains leopard frog (Lithobates blairi), Woodhouse's toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii), and Blanchard's cricket frog (Acris blanchardi)—had only minor changes in occupancy rate two years after the flood. Colonization rates for these species were positively associated with wetlands that were shallower near the shore and they did not appear to be affected by reduced vegetation. Three other species or species complexes—the northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), the gray treefrog complex (Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysocelis), and the boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata)—had greatly reduced occupancy rates two years after the flood. Colonization rates for these species were relatively low, while they had high extinction rates. Colonization rates for these species were not associated with any habitat characteristic we measured. Future flood events will likely continue to make northern leopard frogs, gray treefrogs, and boreal chorus frogs a less important part of the ecological community. While some species may fare well under extreme climate events, such as this flood, that are forecast under climate change scenarios, many species will struggle.

Estimates of range-wide abundance, harvest, and harvest rate are fundamental for sound inferences about the role of exploitation in the dynamics of free-ranging wildlife populations, but reliability of existing survey methods for abundance estimation is rarely assessed using alternative approaches. North American mallard populations have been surveyed each spring since 1955 using internationally coordinated aerial surveys, but population size can also be estimated with Lincoln's method using banding and harvest data. We estimated late summer population size of adult and juvenile male and female mallards in western, midcontinent, and eastern North America using Lincoln's method of dividing (i) total estimated harvest, , by estimated harvest rate, , calculated as (ii) direct band recovery rate, , divided by the (iii) band reporting rate, . Our goal was to compare estimates based on Lincoln's method with traditional estimates based on aerial surveys. Lincoln estimates of adult males and females alive in the period June–September were 4.0 (range: 2.5–5.9), 1.8 (range: 0.6–3.0), and 1.8 (range: 1.3–2.7) times larger than respective aerial survey estimates for the western, midcontinent, and eastern mallard populations, and the two population estimates were only modestly correlated with each other (western: r = 0.70, 1993–2011; midcontinent: r = 0.54, 1961–2011; eastern: r = 0.50, 1993–2011). Higher Lincoln estimates are predictable given that the geographic scope of inference from Lincoln estimates is the entire population range, whereas sampling frames for aerial surveys are incomplete. Although each estimation method has a number of important potential biases, our review suggests that underestimation of total population size by aerial surveys is the most likely explanation. In addition to providing measures of total abundance, Lincoln's method provides estimates of fecundity and population sex ratio and could be used in integrated population models to provide greater insights about population dynamics and management of North American mallards and most other harvested species.

ABSTRACT This year marks the 100th anniversary of the passenger pigeon's ( Ectopistes migratorius ) extinction. Our goal is to review the bird's abundance and extinction along with several valuable lessons. The tragic extinction of the passenger pigeon helped launch the modern conservation era, and it is a story providing a stark reminder of potential consequences of reactionary and ineffective management decision processes. Similar to the extinction of passenger pigeons, we suggest multiple complex and polarized issues provide modern examples of pending ecological challenges that are effectively being ignored. Using climate change as an example, it is just as easy for people today to ignore emerging environmental system changes as it was for people in the late 19th century to ignore the implications of their actions. Although we have successfully recovered many wildlife species in the past 100 years, we have important work ahead of us requiring a more comprehensive problem‐solving paradigm if we are to have a meaningful effect. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

Justification for investment in restored or constructed wetland projects are often based on presumed net increases in ecosystem services. However, quantitative assessment of performance metrics is often difficult and restricted to a single objective. More comprehensive performance assessments could help inform decision-makers about trade-offs in services provided by alternative restoration program design attributes. The primary goal of the Iowa Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is to establish wetlands that efficiently remove nitrates from tile-drained agricultural landscapes. A secondary objective is provision of wildlife habitat. We used existing wildlife habitat models to compare relative net change in potential wildlife habitat value for four alternative landscape positions of wetlands within the watershed. Predicted species richness and habitat value for birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles generally increased as the wetland position moved lower in the watershed. However, predicted average net increase between pre- and post-project value was dependent on taxonomic group. The increased average wetland area and changes in surrounding upland habitat composition among landscape positions were responsible for these differences. Net change in predicted densities of several grassland bird species at the four landscape positions was variable and species-dependent. Predicted waterfowl breeding activity was greater for lower drainage position wetlands. Although our models are simplistic and provide only a predictive index of potential habitat value, we believe such assessment exercises can provide a tool for coarse-level comparisons of alternative proposed project attributes and a basis for constructing informed hypotheses in auxiliary empirical field studies.

Federal migratory bird bands have been inscribed with a postal address and toll-free telephone number (toll-free bands) since 1995 for their reporting, but in 2007 the postal mail address was replaced with an internet address (web-address bands). The reporting rate of web-address bands is unknown, and knowledge of band reporting probabilities is an integral part of bird band-recovery studies designed to obtain unbiased estimates of harvest rates and recovery rates if use of band types differs across space and time. We estimated web-address band reporting probabilities for mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) in the United States by comparing the relative recovery rate (ratio) of web-address to toll-free bands and applying this as an adjustment factor to the known reporting probabilities of toll-free bands. Cooperators banded 132,386 doves representing 57,982 (44%) web-address and 74,404 (56%) toll-free bands in July and August during 20082010 across 34 states, 12 regions, and 3 management units. Of the birds banded, 4,642 (3.5%) were direct recoveries, as a result of being shot, and all but 3 were reported via telephone or internet. Nationally, internet reporting accounted for 16.3% of toll-free bands and 42.9% of web-address bands recovered. Web-address bands had a greater recovery rate than toll-free bands (ratio?=?1.081, SE?=?0.027). We found some evidence of spatial variation in ratio estimates at management unit and regional scales, but the variation was primarily at the regional level where it was not great (range?=?1.0151.213) and statistical support for this variation was not particularly strong (SE?=?0.129). Nationally, the web-address band reporting probability was 0.535 (SE?=?0.021), an absolute increase of 0.040 compared to the reporting probability of toll-free bands. The additional reporting probability of web-address bands relative to toll-free bands must be accounted for in band-recovery studies used to obtain estimates of harvest rates and recovery rates if use of band types differs across space and time for mourning doves and possibly other species. (c) 2011 The Wildlife Society.

from chronic wasting disease-positive areas in Colorado during 2003-6 ..........

The presence of conspecific individuals may provide important cues about habitat quality for territorial songbirds. We tested the ability of a conspecific song playback system to attract Henslow's sparrows to previously unoccupied restored habitat. We successfully attracted Heslow's sparrows to 3 of 7 treatment plots using conspecific song playbacks and we found no Henslow's sparrows in control plots. The addition of social cues using playback systems in restored grassland habitats may aid conservation efforts of Henslow's sparrows to available habitat.

Range-wide declines in northern bobwhite populations (Colinus virginianus) have been attributed to concomitant loss of breeding habitat. Bobwhite management efforts to restore this habitat resource can be informed by empirical studies of associations between breeding success and multi-scale habitat attributes. We compared bobwhite nest success in 2 southern Iowa landscapes as a function of microhabitat and landscape composition. Lake Sugema Fish and Wildlife Area (LSWA) was managed to promote bobwhite recruitment, and Harrisburg Township (HT) was an adjacent landscape dominated by private agricultural production. Survival rate modeling based on telemetry data provided evidence for age-specific daily nest survival rate. Daily survival rates decreased as nest age increased, but the decline was more severe at HT. Nest survival at LSWA (S = 0.495, SE = 0.103) was nearly twice that on HT (S = 0.277, SE = 0.072). We found no evidence that habitat composition or spatial attributes within 210 m of a nest site significantly influenced nest success. Forb canopy at the nest site had a positive influence on nest success at HT but not at LSWA. We suggest nesting habitat with greater forb canopy cover will increase the opportunity for nesting success in landscapes with limited nesting habitat. (C) 2011 The Wildlife Society.

We report that an adult-sized Zenaida macroura (Mourning Dove), presumably a parent, rapidly decreased risk taken in defense of a juvenile as the likelihood of predation to the juvenile increased. We attribute this decrease in risk taken to (1) the parent's perception that the risk of predation had increased to the extent that a continuation of defensive behaviors would not prevent the death of the juvenile, and (2) its attempt to minimize its own risk of death. It may be that there is a threshold beyond which Mourning Dove parents will forgo the risk of additional defense of offspring in favor of making another reproductive attempt.

Three of the 4 forms of albinism that occur in avifauna have been detected in Zenaida macroura (Mourning Dove). Albinism is rare in this species, and the incidence rate of each age and sex cohort is not well known. Consequently, we examined the pigmentation of Mourning Doves encountered in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, and classified the age and sex of all individuals. One adult male Mourning Dove had unusually light coloration of some feathers and the upper mandible. This pigmentation is consistent with partial albinism. This was the only individual out of 10,749 examined that appeared to be albinistic. This low incidence rate of albinism supports the conclusion that this condition is relatively rare in Mourning Doves (Mirarchi 1993).

ABSTRACT We examined results from the first national‐scale effort to estimate mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) age ratios and developed a simple, efficient, and generalizable methodology for calibrating estimates. Our method predicted age classes of unknown‐age wings based on backward projection of molt distributions from fall harvest collections to preseason banding. We estimated 1) the proportion of late‐molt individuals in each age class, and 2) the molt rates of juvenile and adult birds. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated our estimator was minimally biased. We estimated model parameters using 96,811 wings collected from hunters and 42,189 birds banded during preseason from 68 collection blocks in 22 states during the 2005–2007 hunting seasons. We also used estimates to derive a correction factor, based on latitude and longitude of samples, which can be applied to future surveys. We estimated differential vulnerability of age classes to harvest using data from banded birds and applied that to harvest age ratios to estimate population age ratios. Average, uncorrected age ratio of known‐age wings for states that allow hunting was 2.25 (SD 0.85) juveniles:adult, and average, corrected ratio was 1.91 (SD 0.68), as determined from harvest age ratios from an independent sample of 41,084 wings collected from random hunters in 2007 and 2008. We used an independent estimate of differential vulnerability to adjust corrected harvest age ratios and estimated the average population age ratio as 1.45 (SD 0.52), a direct measure of recruitment rates. Average annual recruitment rates were highest east of the Mississippi River and in the northwestern United States, with lower rates between. Our results demonstrate a robust methodology for calibrating recruitment estimates for mourning doves and represent the first large‐scale estimates of recruitment for the species. Our methods can be used by managers to correct future harvest survey data to generate recruitment estimates for use in formulating harvest management strategies.

This final project report is a compendium of 3 previously submitted progress reports and a 4th report for work accomplished from August – December, 2009.

Endocrine systems have an important mechanistic role in structuring life-history trade-offs. During breeding, individual variation in prolactin (PRL) and corticosterone (CORT) levels affects behavioral and physiological processes that drive trade-offs between reproduction and self-maintenance. We examined patterns in baseline (BL) and stress induced (SI; level following a standard capture-restraint protocol) levels of PRL and CORT for breeding mourning doves (Zenaida macroura). We determined whether the relationship of adult condition and parental effort to hormone levels in wild birds was consistent with life-history predictions. Both BL PRL and BL CORT level in adults were positively related to nestling weight at early nestling ages, consistent with the prediction of a positive relationship of hormone levels to current parental effort of adults and associated increased energy demand. Results are consistent with the two hormones acting together at baseline levels to limit negative effects of CORT on reproduction while maintaining beneficial effects such as increased foraging for nestling feeding. Our data did not support predictions that SI responses would vary in response to nestling or adult condition. The magnitude of CORT response in the parents to our capture-restraint protocol was negatively correlated with subsequent parental effort. Average nestling weights for adults with the highest SI CORT response were on average 10–15% lighter than expected for their age in follow-up visits after the stress event. Our results demonstrated a relationship between individual hormone levels and within population variation in parental effort and suggested that hormonal control plays an important role in structuring reproductive decisions for mourning doves.

The development of statistical methods for the analysis of demographic processes in marked animal populations has brought with it the challenges of communication between the disciplines of statistics, ecology, evolutionary biology and computer science. In order to aid communication and comprehension, we sought to root out a number of cases of ambiguity, redundancy and inaccuracy in notation and terminology that have developed in the literature. We invited all working in this field to submit topics for resolution and to express their own views. In the ensuing discussion forum it was then possible to establish a series of general principles which were, almost without exception, unanimously accepted. Here we set out the background to the areas of confusion, how these were debated and the conclusions which were reached in each case. We hope that the resulting guidelines will be widely adopted as standard terminology in publications and in software for the analysis of demographic processes in marked animal populations

Disease surveillance in wildlife populations involves detecting the presence of a disease, characterizing its prevalence and spread, and subsequent monitoring. A probability sample of animals selected from the population and corresponding estimators of disease prevalence and detection provide estimates with quantifiable statistical properties, but this approach is rarely used. Although wildlife scientists often assume probability sampling and random disease distributions to calculate sample sizes, convenience samples (i.e., samples of readily available animals) are typically used, and disease distributions are rarely random. We demonstrate how landscape-based simulation can be used to explore properties of estimators from convenience samples in relation to probability samples. We used simulation methods to model what is known about the habitat preferences of the wildlife population, the disease distribution, and the potential biases of the convenience-sample approach. Using chronic wasting disease in free-ranging deer (Odocoileus virginianus) as a simple illustration, we show that using probability sample designs with appropriate estimators provides unbiased surveillance parameter estimates but that the selection bias and coverage errors associated with convenience samples can lead to biased and misleading results. We also suggest practical alternatives to convenience samples that mix probability and convenience sampling. For example, a sample of land areas can be selected using a probability design that oversamples areas with larger animal populations, followed by harvesting of individual animals within sampled areas using a convenience sampling method.

It has long been accepted that amphibians can skip breeding in any given year, and environmental conditions act as a cue for breeding. In this paper, we quantify temporary emigration or nonbreeding probability for mole and spotted salamanders (Ambystoma talpoideum and A. maculatum). We estimated that 70% of mole salamanders may skip breeding during an average rainfall year and 90% may skip during a drought year. Spotted salamanders may be more likely to breed, with only 17% avoiding the breeding pond during an average rainfall year. We illustrate how superpopulations can be estimated using temporary emigration probability estimates. The superpopulation is the total number of salamanders associated with a given breeding pond. Although most salamanders stay within a certain distance of a breeding pond for the majority of their life spans, it is difficult to determine true overall population sizes for a given site if animals are only captured during a brief time frame each year with some animals unavailable for capture at any time during a given year.