scholarly journals William Rowan and Canada’s 5¢ Whooping Crane stamp: the proposal and a Saskatchewan photograph

Blue Jay ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 19-26
Author(s):  
Spencer G. Sealy
Keyword(s):  
Whooping Crane ◽  
Whooping Cranes

This article focused on the photograph of two Whooping Cranes in Saskatchewan that William Rowan used as a basis of a stamp issued by Canada Post in 1955. Details of the proposal submitted in support of this issue are outlined.

Host–Parasite Behavioral Interactions in a Recently Introduced, Whooping Crane Population

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 220-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. King ◽  
Patrick C. McKann ◽  
Brian R. Gray ◽  
Michael S. Putnam
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Performance ◽  
Black Flies ◽  
Behavioral Differences ◽  
Whooping Crane ◽  
Black Fly ◽  
Grus Canadensis ◽  
Sandhill Crane ◽  
Conservation History ◽  
Whooping Cranes ◽  
Sandhill Cranes

Abstract The whooping crane Grus americana has a long conservation history, but despite multiple attempts across North America, introduction success is lacking. Recently introduced, captively reared whooping cranes have had periods of poor reproductive performance in central Wisconsin that sometimes coincided with black fly (Diptera: Simuliidae) emergences. Sandhill crane Grus canadensis reproductive performance in central Wisconsin is approximately double that of whooping cranes. We used comfort behaviors as a measure of black fly harassment to infer whether behavioral differences existed between nesting sandhill cranes and nesting whooping cranes and between successful and unsuccessful whooping crane pairs. To further explore the interaction between black flies and incubating whooping cranes, we examined differences in behaviors between incubating birds and their off-nest mates. Compared to their off-nest mates, incubating whooping cranes exhibited elevated comfort behaviors, suggesting a bird at a nest may experience greater harassment from black flies. Sandhill cranes had elevated head-flicks over whooping cranes. Whooping cranes exhibited more head-rubs than sandhill cranes, and successful whooping crane pairs had elevated head-rubs over pairs that deserted their nests. Behavioral differences between sandhill cranes and whooping cranes as well as differences in reproductive performance, could be explained by exposure to local breeding conditions. Whereas sandhill cranes have nested in the area for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, whooping cranes were only recently introduced to the area. Behavioral differences between the species as well as those between successful and unsuccessful whooping crane pairs could also be explained by the effect of captive exposure, which could affect all whooping crane introductions.

231 SEMINAL QUALITY IN WHOOPING CRANE (GRUS AMERICANA) IS AFFECTED BY STAGE OF BREEDING SEASON BUT NOT BY AGE OF INDIVIDUAL

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 214
Author(s):  
M. E. Brown ◽  
A. Crosier ◽  
W. Lynch ◽  
S. J. Converse ◽  
J. Chandler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breeding Season ◽  
Captive Breeding ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Sperm Concentration ◽  
Adult Life ◽  
Whooping Crane ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Critically Endangered Species ◽  
Whooping Cranes ◽  
Significant Difference

The whooping crane is one of the most critically endangered species in North America. The species underwent a severe genetic bottleneck with only 16 individuals remaining in the wild as of 1942. Captive breeding began in 1966 and continues to produce chicks for release in order to establish new wild populations. However, captive birds experience poor reproduction with approximately 40% of eggs being infertile. Males have been known to reach sexual maturity at 5 years of age and continue to reproduce almost as long as the duration of their adult life (i.e. 40 years). Understanding factors affecting seminal quality may assist in identifying and correcting causes of suboptimal reproduction. Our objectives were to determine the influence of age and reproductive seasonality on seminal quality. We hypothesised that seminal quality variations among whooping cranes and ejaculates within a given individual over time were due to bird age and stage of breeding season. In 2010, twenty-nine whooping cranes of 5 age groups housed at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Laurel, MD, USA) were studied: ≤5 years (n = 3); 6–10 years (n = 7); 11–15 years (n = 7); 16–20 years (n = 4); >20 years old (n = 8). Semen was collected using a manual manipulation technique at 3 stages of the breeding season: early (March, n = 29) mid (April, n = 24), and late (May, n = 14). Samples were evaluated for seminal volume and sperm concentration, motility, and morphology, with data evaluated by analysis of variance. Bird age had no influence on seminal quality, whereas stage of breeding season affected seminal volume and the proportion of sperm with normal morphology (95% confidence interval). Specifically, samples collected during Mid breeding season had the highest volume (mean ± SEM; early: 42.0 ± 8.0 μL; mid: 66.0 ± 15.2 μL; late: 39.7 ± 17.8 μL), but lowest proportions of structurally normal sperm (early: 78.4 ± 3.7%: mid: 61.5 ± 3.2%; late: 69.7 ± 3.4%). There was a significant difference (P = 0.06) in sperm concentration among stages of the breeding season (early: 66.3 ± 18.8 × 106 sperm mL–1; mid: 179.2 ± 46.2 × 106 sperm mL–1; late: 91.4 ± 47.8 × 106 sperm mL–1). Sperm motility was unaffected by season (early: 36.4 ± 3.5%; mid: 45.9 ± 4.1%; late: 48.0 ± 4.9%). In summary, there is a peak in seminal quality that corresponds with higher volume and more sperm during the mid stage of the season, although with higher instances of structural abnormalities. Despite the small founder base for this species, males in this population produce sperm with no variation in seminal quality across a wide variation in age.

scholarly journals Nest-Site Selection Patterns of Coexisting Sandhill and Whooping Cranes in Wisconsin

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 588-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley N. Strobel ◽  
Gina F. Giorgi
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Success ◽  
Blood Feeding ◽  
Nest Site Selection ◽  
Black Flies ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Whooping Crane ◽  
Nest Sites ◽  
Whooping Cranes ◽  
Sandhill Cranes ◽  
Species Specific

Abstract Breeding sandhill cranes Antigone canadensis and released captive-reared whooping cranes Grus americana have coexisted in central Wisconsin since 2001. Despite 15 y of reintroduction efforts, the reproductive success of these whooping cranes has been near zero. Preliminary data suggest sandhill cranes nesting in central Wisconsin have apparent nest success rates that are similar to those reported from other populations in the region (∼50%). One hypothesized cause of the whooping crane population's low reproductive success is nest abandonment induced by blood-feeding ornithophilic black flies Diptera: Simuliidae. Species-specific differences in selection of nest sites could influence the abundance of black flies at nests and affect reproductive success rates. We measured multiple vegetative and hydrologic characteristics at 35 sandhill crane nests, 20 whooping crane nests, and 164 randomly selected locations at 5- and 200-m scales. We were unable to detect a species-specific difference in vegetation characteristics within 5 m of nest sites. At the 200-m scale, sandhill cranes built nests at sites with slightly greater coverage of woody vegetation than whooping cranes. Differences observed between nest sites of sandhill and whooping cranes appeared to be slight and likely insufficient to explain the dramatic differences in reproductive success in central Wisconsin.

scholarly journals Identifying, Protecting and Managing Stopover Habitats for Wild Whooping Cranes on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lakes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chester McConnell
Keyword(s):  
Gulf Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Whooping Crane ◽  
Recovery Plan ◽  
Whooping Cranes ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Migration Corridor

AbstractThe Whooping Crane (Grus americana) is one of North America’s most endangered species. There is only one wild, self-sustaining migratory population of Whooping Cranes, the Aransas–Wood Buffalo population (AWBP). The birds of the AWBP migrate 4,000 km twice each year between their nesting grounds in northern Canada and their wintering grounds on the Texas Gulf Coast. During migration, AWBP Whooping Cranes must land at suitable ponds or wetlands to forage, rest or roost. The Whooping Crane Recovery Plan, developed by federal wildlife agencies in Canada and the USA, calls for the protection and management of Whooping Crane stopover locations within the migration corridor. Although major stopover areas have been protected, many other smaller sites remain to be identified. However, the Recovery Plan offers no specific entity to identify, protect and manage the latter. To address these deficiencies in information and activity, Friends of the Wild Whoopers partnered with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) within the AWBP migration corridor to share information about Whooping Cranes and their habitat needs and identify potential stopover locations on USACE properties that could be protected and managed for cranes. This partnership identified 624 potential stopover sites on 34 USACE lakes, principally in North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, with commitments to manage the habitats as resources allow.

scholarly journals Can The Whooping Crane be Saved?

Oryx ◽  
1953 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-122
Author(s):  
Freda Davies
Keyword(s):  
Grus Americana ◽  
Whooping Crane ◽  
Wildlife Refuge ◽  
Whooping Cranes

In the autumn of 1952 two wounded birds were flown to the Aransas Wildlife Refuge in Texas, U.S.A. Both were whooping cranes (Grus americana) and were suffering from shotgun wounds. Both subsequently died despite the best efforts of ornithologists.

Evaluation of nocturnal roost and diurnal sites used by whooping cranes in the Great Plains, United States

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron T. Pearse ◽  
Mary J. Harner ◽  
David M. Baasch ◽  
Greg D. Wright ◽  
Andrew J. Caven ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Plains ◽  
Whooping Cranes

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard P. Urbanek ◽  
James C. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Grus Americana ◽  
Whooping Crane

Decision analysis for conservation breeding: Maximizing production for reintroduction of whooping cranes

2011 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Des H.V. Smith ◽  
Sarah J. Converse ◽  
Keith W. Gibson ◽  
Axel Moehrenschlager ◽  
William A. Link ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Whooping Cranes ◽  
Conservation Breeding

The Status of the Whooping Crane on the Aransas Refuge, Texas

The Condor ◽  
1946 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earl Craven
Keyword(s):  
Whooping Crane ◽  
The Status

Sex Determination of the Whooping Crane by Analysis of Vocalizations

The Condor ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 532-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn Carlson ◽  
Charles H. Trost
Keyword(s):  
Sex Determination ◽  
Whooping Crane
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document