FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2318518178> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2318518178 endingPage "233" @default.
• W2318518178 startingPage "233" @default.
• W2318518178 abstract "Periodic sampling of sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) in exclosures and plots open to waterfowl activity on the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, indicated an average utilization of 60.5 g/m2 (40.4 percent of peak standing crop) foliage and 26.3 g/m' (42.9 percent) tubers between July 1973 and June 1974. Intensity of use varied greatly among plots. Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria), and coots (Fulica americana) were the most commonly observed species on the study plots. A surplus of submerged aquatic plant food evidently existed on the Delta Marsh at observed waterfowl population levels. However, heavy utilization of certain plots in 1973 resulted in a relative decrease (open vs. control plots) in the 1974 midsummer standing crops of those stands. It seems likely that heavy use of a single stand over several consecutive seasons might result in decreased plant production. Selection of more productive sites by feeding waterfowl would eliminate such an effect. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 40(2):233-242 Sago pondweed is a perennial, submerged, cosmopolitan plant characterized by an extensive system of rootstocks and small tubers that typically grows in dense stands in shallow water. Martin and Uhler (1939) stated that sago pondweed is probably the single most important waterfowl food plant on the continent. However, its importance evidently varies greatly from area to area and among waterfowl species. Sago may form a significant portion of foods consumed by fall staging populations, premolting birds, flightless molting ducks, and older ducklings (e.g., Bartonek and Hickey 1969, Bergman 1973, Chura 1961, Hay 1974, Keith and Stanislawski 1960). Furthermore, sago pondweed beds harbor many macroinvertebrates used by waterfowl (Krull 1970, Collias and Collias 1963). Except for food habits studies there have been few attempts to estimate waterfowl use of an aquatic food resource (e.g., Hall 1963, Reichholf 1973, Sincock 1963, Sterling 1970, Stieglitz 1967). Sincock (1963:217220) estimated that waterfowl consumed 17.6 to 24.2 percent of the fall standing crop of all submerged aquatics and 9.2 percent of the sago pondweed during a 4-year period in Back Bay, Virginia, and Currituck Sound, North Carolina. His estimation tech ique did not account for disruption of food plants not actually consumed, so these estimates are probably low in terms of total plant destruction. Using similar methods, Stieglitz (1967:42, 43, 47-49) estimated that waterfowl consumed 32.3 percent of the standing crop of 2 preferred aquatic species at Apalachee Bay, Florida, and believed perhaps 50 percent or more of the vegetation could be harvested anually without decreasing productivity. Sterling (1970:95, 96) reported that 52 percent of the fall tuber crop of sago pondweed was removed at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah, but he believed that that much use had no significant effect on second-season productivity. Sago pondweed is the dominant submerged aquatic plant of the Delta Marsh (Anderson and Jones 1975), which historically has been an important area for fall staging populations of canvasbacks and other waterfowl (Hochbaum 1944:122147). The Marsh is a shallow complex wetland system bordering the southern shore of Lake Manitoba in south-central ManiJ. Wildl. Manage. 40 (2):1976 233 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.221 on Sun, 06 Nov 2016 04:14:37 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 234 WATERFOWL USE OF SAGO PONDWEED * Anderson and Low toba. The area was described in detail by Hochbaum (1944:3-12), Walker (1965:1634, 40-185, 195-225), Fenton (1970:7-37, 49-60, 62-68), and Anderson and Jones (1975). The present study was conducted on the East Unit of the Marsh, a maze of interconnected large and small shallow bays, channels, and isolated potholes, almost all less than 2.5 m in depth, set in a matrix of giant reed (Phragmites australis, formerly P. communis). Much variability in soil characteristics, water depth, turbidity, and other physical factors existed within the bays and surrounding potholes. The objectives of this study were to investigate the extent to which waterfowl use this food plant and the subsequent effect of various use rates on continuing plant production. Results would aid in formulating marsh management programs. Financial support by R. O. Naegele, the Delta Waterfowl Research Station, the Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management, Utah State University, and the Utah Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are due R. E. Jones, Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management, and P. Ward and B. D. J. Batt, Delta Waterfowl Research Station. B. E. Milne and the Manitoba Provincial Feed Analysis Service conducted the proximate analyses. D. Hartwell, N. Garrison, R. D. Jones, and J. Spry assisted with portions of the field work. MATERIALS AND METHODS Six study plots were located randomly in areas known to support nearly pure stands of sago pondweed in three general types of marsh habitats: bays (3), channels (1), and isolated ponds (2). Because vegetation growth would continue throughout the study period, it was necessary to construct pairs of plots-one protected from waterfowl use and the other open. Exclosures, 15 x 15 m, were constructed with 2.4-m wood fence posts and 1.5-m-wide, 5-cm mesh stucco wire. Wire was extended below the water surface to within about 20 cm of the bottom to allow carp (Cyprinus carpio) or muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) access to the plots. Brightly colored streamers and metal lids were strung on ropes over the top of the exclosures to discourage waterfowl from landing inside. I entical adjacent plots, open to waterfowl use, were marked with four small wood stakes. Green leafy vegetation (hereafter called foliage), tubers, and seeds were sampled in open and control plots, at approximately monthly intervals, from mid-July through late October 1973. The marsh froze on 3 November. Plots were sampled again in arly June 1974 (ice breakup occurred on 6 and 7 May) and lastly in late July 1974. The final sampling was used to estimate second-season standing crops in open and control areas before significant summer and fall utilization occurred. Sampling in 1973 indicated the coefficient of variation was smallest for samples of open plots taken f om midto late July. Ten foliage and seedhead samples and 20 tuber samples (cores) were collected from each plot on each sampling date. Sampling was confined to the central 13 x 13 m of the plots to avoid any bias of increased growth as a result of structural support of the exclosure wire. Individual sites were chosen at random from a grid of 1-m2 sections and approached from preselected walk lanes. Seedheads were picked within a 50x 50-cm floating wood frame, dried at 40 C, and weighed to the nearest 0.01 g. Foliage was clipped at soil level within a 50x 50x 65 cm aluminum sheet metal frame, sorted J. Wildl. Manage. 40 (2):1976 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.221 on Sun, 06 Nov 2016 04:14:37 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms WATERFOWL USE OF SAGO PONDWEED ? Anderson and Low 235 by species, dried, and weighed. Tubers were sampled with a modified-diaphragm version of the tubular aluminum core sampler developed by Craner (1964:18-20). It extracted soil cores 30 cm long and 10.2 cm in diameter. These were divided into 10-cm segments and sifted through a 0.16-cm mesh sieve. Tubers were counted, dried, and weighed. The conversion factor calculated for 40 C dry weights to 105 C dry weights for sago pondweed seeds, tubers, and foliage was 0.957 + 0.005 (SD). A simple model, incorporating sampled standing crop values for open and control plots, was used to estimate plant use. The model assumed equal relative growth rates in adjacent open and control plots between consecutive sampling dates. Sampling provided estimates for X1, the initial standing crop of control plot, X2, the final standing crop of control plot, Y1, the initial standing crop of open plot, and Y'2, the final standing crop of open plot after waterfowl use. We needed to determine Y2, the final standing crop of open plot if vegetation was not consumed. This could be estimated, if equal growth rates were assumed, by Y2 = XY1 (X1)-1. Then consumption for a sampling interval, C = Y2 Y'2, could be calculated by a standard formula, C = X2Y1 (XI)-l Y'2. Observations of waterfowl activity on the study plots were made periodically during all daylight hours throughout the study. Birds on plots were tallied by species and age-class when possible. Feeding rates were recorded as tips or dives per minute. A total of 129 observation periods, most lasting 1.5 to 2 hours, was recorded. Samples for proximate analyses were collected in August and September (tubers) 1974. Analyses were conducted by standard AOAC methods (Horwitz 1965:242-247) at the Manitoba Provincial Feed Analysis Laboratory. East Marsh waterfowl population data were adapted from regular aerial censuses conducted by the Delta Waterfowl Research Station." @default.
• W2318518178 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2318518178 creator A5034960293 @default.
• W2318518178 creator A5076680203 @default.
• W2318518178 date "1976-04-01" @default.
• W2318518178 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2318518178 title "Use of Sago Pondweed by Waterfowl on the Delta Marsh, Manitoba" @default.
• W2318518178 cites W1492697451 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W155056686 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W1596502857 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W1989220995 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2010524335 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2058116004 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2092496687 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2314718353 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2317789908 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2318315561 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2318640224 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2325765082 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2330625450 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2464274668 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2500632758 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2792642764 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2795774633 @default.
• W2318518178 cites W2797379657 @default.
• W2318518178 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/3800420" @default.
• W2318518178 hasPublicationYear "1976" @default.
• W2318518178 type Work @default.
• W2318518178 sameAs 2318518178 @default.
• W2318518178 citedByCount "94" @default.
• W2318518178 countsByYear W23185181782012 @default.
• W2318518178 countsByYear W23185181782013 @default.
• W2318518178 countsByYear W23185181782016 @default.
• W2318518178 countsByYear W23185181782019 @default.
• W2318518178 countsByYear W23185181782020 @default.
• W2318518178 countsByYear W23185181782022 @default.
• W2318518178 countsByYear W23185181782023 @default.
• W2318518178 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2318518178 hasAuthorship W2318518178A5034960293 @default.
• W2318518178 hasAuthorship W2318518178A5076680203 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C146978453 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C185933670 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C2776834261 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C5072461 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C67268981 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C67715294 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C127413603 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C146978453 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C185933670 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C18903297 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C205649164 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C2776834261 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C39432304 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C5072461 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C67268981 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C67715294 @default.
• W2318518178 hasConceptScore W2318518178C86803240 @default.
• W2318518178 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2318518178 hasLocation W23185181781 @default.
• W2318518178 hasOpenAccess W2318518178 @default.
• W2318518178 hasPrimaryLocation W23185181781 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W1993335586 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W2030799412 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W2138466938 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W2174045144 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W2292572235 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W2368313204 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W2977665201 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W2990551827 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W4230571391 @default.
• W2318518178 hasRelatedWork W565499830 @default.
• W2318518178 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W2318518178 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2318518178 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2318518178 magId "2318518178" @default.
• W2318518178 workType "article" @default.