**2.2 Results and discussion**

The morphological characteristics, survival rates, use of the fenced acclimatization area, pheasant home range surfaces and dispersion (distances from the releasing points) and pheasant land uses, were opportunely summarized in tables and figures and separately discussed.

#### **2.2.1 Morphological characteristics**

The live weights, the tarsus length and diameter, the remiges length, the tarsus diameter and the spur + tarsus diameter, for each thesis, mean ± standard deviation, are shown in the Table n. 1 and Table n. 2.



Table 2. Female morphologic characteristics (means ± st.dev); different letters show differences per p<0.01.

From the observation of the tables, we can see great differences in the live weights, remiges length, tarsus diameters and spur length between the males bearing to the two groups. However, also in the females, the average larger sizes were measured in the Control group, even if only the differences between the body weights reached the minimum significant level. these results show that the maximum pheasant growth rate can be obtained only with the totally controlled rearing conditions used by the standard technology while the use of natural brooding does not allow the pheasant chicks to reach their maximum potential growth.

#### **2.2.2 Survival rates**

412 Modern Telemetry

fields, vineyards, olive orchards, Spring crops for game, winter crops for game, grassland and pastures, urban areas (such as cities and construction sites) and river and ponds. The environmental composition of each home range, and the type of environment assigned to each location were obtained using Hawth's Tool GIS (ArcGIS ®- ESRI). The environmental availability was calculated from random points used like centers of circles with an area equal to the average pheasant home range, calculated for each ZRV (Fearer & Stauffer 2004). Two criteria were used to evaluate the use of available habitat through the Composition Analysis

1. The home range choice = home range composition in relation to the composition of the

Surface area of a single type of environment in the home range Home range (MCP) surface area Surface area of a single type of environment in the study area Study surface area 2. The choice in the home range = the number of fixes in a particular habitat relative to

Total number of localization of a subject in a single type of environment Total number of localization of a subject Surface area of a single type of environment in the home range Home range surface area The environmental choices (log transformed) were then submitted, as in the previous case, to variance analysis for more categorical factors (Pendleton et al. 1998; SAS 2002). If there was an available habitat in the home range not being used by the animal, zero values were

The morphological characteristics, survival rates, use of the fenced acclimatization area, pheasant home range surfaces and dispersion (distances from the releasing points) and pheasant land uses, were opportunely summarized in tables and figures and separately

The live weights, the tarsus length and diameter, the remiges length, the tarsus diameter and the spur + tarsus diameter, for each thesis, mean ± standard deviation, are shown in the

group: Control – n. 29 Hen - n. 30 Live weight mean g 1,235 ± 23.2 **A** 960 ± 21.7 **B**  Tarsus length cm 8.53 ± 0.083 ns 8.50 ± 0.078 ns Remiges length cm 23.8 ± 0.170 **A** 22.7 ± 0.159 **B** Tarsus diameter min mm 6.93 ± 0.101 **a** 6.59 ± 0.095 **b** Tarsus diameter max mm 10.2 ± 0.169 **A** 8.84 ± 0.158 **B** Spur + tarsus diameter mm 18.6 ± 0.290 **A** 14.6± 0.269 **B** Table 1. Male morphologic characteristics (means ± st.dev), different letters show differences

(Aebisher et al. 1993; Manly et al. 2002; Pendleton et al. 1998):

how often that habitat appears in the home range, equal to:

converted to 0.01% before the log transformation. (Aebisher et al. 1993).

available habitat, equal to:

**2.2 Results and discussion** 

Table n. 1 and Table n. 2.

**2.2.1 Morphological characteristics** 

per p<0.05 if cursive or p<0.01 if capital.

discussed.

The results of the survival rates (Table n. 3) showed difference survivals in relationship to the different rearing technique; the pheasants of the group Hen showing an improvement of their survival rates, either with poncho or radio tags (90.0% *vs*. 57.1% and 35.0% *vs*. 21.1%, respectively).


Table 3. Survival rates of the reared pheasants: effect of different rearing and tag (\* show significant differences between percentages).

Control

Hen

Control

Hen

month after release.

the supplementary feed feeders.

outside/total n 11/37

outside/total n 10/48

Radiotracking of Pheasants (*Phasianus colchicus* L.): To Test Captive Rearing Technologies 415

The month of release Males Test Females Test Both Test ZRV Leccio Poneta - pheasant fixes within the fenced areas

20/53

5/31

Log-rank=0.01 P=0.98

Log-rank=8.48 P<0.01

Wilkoxson=6.61 P<0.01

Wilkoxson=0.01 P=0.98

31/90

15/79

Log-rank=0.84 P=0.36

Log-rank=9.43 P<0.01

Wilkoxson=8.70 P<0.01

Wilkoxson=0.84 P=0.36

Wilkoxson=1.87 P=0.17

fence use % **70.27 62.26 65.56** 

outside/total n 20/45 15/40 35/85

fence use % **55.56 62.50 58.82** 

ZRV Le Bartaline

fence use % **79.17 83.87 81.81**

Wilkoxson=2.92 P=0.08

outside/total n 3/39 0/38 3/77

fence use % **92.31 100.00 96.10**

Table 4a. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced area in the two ZRV the

During the 5th month, see Table 4b, in the "Le Bartaline" ZRV the trend changed: the pheasants of the Control group remained more in the fenced area than the Hen group (the comparison within female was not possible due to a lack of fixes for Control females). The same trend was shown in the "Leccio Poneta" ZRV but, again the differences did not reach the significant level. This can be explained by the smaller size of the acclimatization fenced area of the Leccio Poneta ZRV and the generally better environment of the acclimatization fenced area in Le

The results of the use of the fenced acclimatization areas of both ZRV are summarized in Table 5. As expected the fenced acclimatization areas is less used after 5 months than during the month following the pheasant release (high significant differences are shown for the Hen group, while the differences within the males of the Control group did not reach the statistical significance). The clear effect of dispersion which characterizes the 5th month (significant for both the group, but more evident in the Hen group than in the Control group and more clear for females than for males) show that with the approaching of the reproductive season the fenced area is abandoned by most females (the fenced area can be a good nesting only for few females) but the presence of pheasants in the fenced areas remains high in both sexes, probably for the presence of the strips of crops for game and of

Bartaline ZRV (olive orchards, crops for game, shrubs land and little woods).

Log-rank=1.89 P=0.17

Log-rank=3.10 P=0.08

Survival rates of the pheasants bearing a poncho was higher than the survival rates of the radio tagged pheasants. Surely the survival rates of the poncho tagged pheasants were deeply overestimated (not every dead pheasant can be found). For this reason ponchos can be used only for the comparison between different groups with equivalent subjects and cannot be used to evaluated absolute survival rates. However, also the survival rates estimated with the radio-tagged pheasants were very high, either in the Control or in the Hen group. Several factors hardly influences the survival rates of the captive reared pheasants (e.g. the use of nasal blinders or not, the age of the access to the flying pens and so on) and both our groups of pheasants were reared expressly with the aim of their future wild release. The Graphic n. 1 shows very well how the mortality of the Control group was higher than the Hen group after the release and how this phenomenon increased differently during the observation period.

Fig. 3. Survival rates of the two groups with the Kaplan-Meier method (SAS 2002)

#### **2.2.3 Effect of the fenced acclimatization area**

The position of the pheasants were arbitrary studied in two periods (the month of release and the 5th mouth after release), see Table 4a. Differences were evidenced in relation to sex and group, as well as by ZRV. In the "Le Bartaline" ZRV during the month after their release, the females of the Control group remained inside the fenced acclimatization area more than the Hen group, the same trend was shown by the males but differences did not reach the statistic significance. In the "Leccio Poneta" ZRV, on the contrary, during the month after their release the dispersion did not differ between thesis.

Survival rates of the pheasants bearing a poncho was higher than the survival rates of the radio tagged pheasants. Surely the survival rates of the poncho tagged pheasants were deeply overestimated (not every dead pheasant can be found). For this reason ponchos can be used only for the comparison between different groups with equivalent subjects and cannot be used to evaluated absolute survival rates. However, also the survival rates estimated with the radio-tagged pheasants were very high, either in the Control or in the Hen group. Several factors hardly influences the survival rates of the captive reared pheasants (e.g. the use of nasal blinders or not, the age of the access to the flying pens and so on) and both our groups of pheasants were reared expressly with the aim of their future wild release. The Graphic n. 1 shows very well how the mortality of the Control group was higher than the Hen group after the release and how this phenomenon increased differently

Fig. 3. Survival rates of the two groups with the Kaplan-Meier method (SAS 2002)

month after their release the dispersion did not differ between thesis.

The position of the pheasants were arbitrary studied in two periods (the month of release and the 5th mouth after release), see Table 4a. Differences were evidenced in relation to sex and group, as well as by ZRV. In the "Le Bartaline" ZRV during the month after their release, the females of the Control group remained inside the fenced acclimatization area more than the Hen group, the same trend was shown by the males but differences did not reach the statistic significance. In the "Leccio Poneta" ZRV, on the contrary, during the

**2.2.3 Effect of the fenced acclimatization area** 

during the observation period.


Table 4a. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced area in the two ZRV the month after release.

During the 5th month, see Table 4b, in the "Le Bartaline" ZRV the trend changed: the pheasants of the Control group remained more in the fenced area than the Hen group (the comparison within female was not possible due to a lack of fixes for Control females). The same trend was shown in the "Leccio Poneta" ZRV but, again the differences did not reach the significant level. This can be explained by the smaller size of the acclimatization fenced area of the Leccio Poneta ZRV and the generally better environment of the acclimatization fenced area in Le Bartaline ZRV (olive orchards, crops for game, shrubs land and little woods).

The results of the use of the fenced acclimatization areas of both ZRV are summarized in Table 5. As expected the fenced acclimatization areas is less used after 5 months than during the month following the pheasant release (high significant differences are shown for the Hen group, while the differences within the males of the Control group did not reach the statistical significance). The clear effect of dispersion which characterizes the 5th month (significant for both the group, but more evident in the Hen group than in the Control group and more clear for females than for males) show that with the approaching of the reproductive season the fenced area is abandoned by most females (the fenced area can be a good nesting only for few females) but the presence of pheasants in the fenced areas remains high in both sexes, probably for the presence of the strips of crops for game and of the supplementary feed feeders.

The month of

release

5 month later

feeders.

outside/total n 61/84

**2.2.4 Pheasant Home range surfaces and dispersion** 

Radiotracking of Pheasants (*Phasianus colchicus* L.): To Test Captive Rearing Technologies 417

Log-rank=20.7\*\* P<0.01

Hen group Males Test Females Test Both Test

63/78

Log-rank=23.1\*\* P<0.01

Wilkoxson=23.2\*\*P<0.01

38/162

Log-rank=42.8\*\* P<0.01

Wilkoxson=42.9\*\*P<0.01

Wilkoxson=20.6\*\*P<0.01

fence use % **72.62 80.77 76.54** 

outside/total n 5/41 57/73 54/81

fence use % **46.75** 37.21 **43.14** 

Table 5b. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced areas in the Hen group.

There were not differences between the home range surfaces and dispersion (distances from the releasing points) of the two groups (Table 6 and 7). The similarity between the homerange sizes of the two groups can be well appreciated in Figure 4 and 5. This result is very interesting for the pheasants gamekeeper choices. In similar environments these parameters can be used as reference parameter to plan releasing points or for the creation of a new correctly dimensioned PA or to establish efficient networks of supplementary artificial

Fig. 4. Animals observations (fixes) by different groups within the two ZRV

Table 6. Average Max distances from the release sites (meters ± std.dev).

ZRV group Hen group Control

Le Bartaline 9 369 ± 191.5 9 401 ± 196.7 Leccio Poneta 10 408 ± 157.9 11 447 ± 279.8

pheasants avg - st.dev pheasants avg - st.dev


Table 4b. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced area in the two ZRC the 5th month after release.


Table 5a. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced areas in the Control group.

the different behavior shown by the Hen group and the Control group can be explained by the imprinting needed to find food, received by the Hen group but not received by the Control group and the greater antipredator capacity of the Hen group than the Control group.


Table 5b. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced areas in the Hen group.

#### **2.2.4 Pheasant Home range surfaces and dispersion**

416 Modern Telemetry

the 5th months after release Males Test Females Test Both Test ZRV Leccio Poneta

fence use % **55.56 42.42 47.06** 

Log-rank=1.81 P=0.18

outside/total n 12/18 19/27 31/45

fence use % **33.33 29.6**3 **39.58** 

ZRV le Bartaline

Log-rank=9.19\*\* P<0.01

fence use % **71.43 - 71.43** 

fence use % **25.00 50.00 36.11** 

Table 4b. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced area in the two ZRC the

Log-rank=1.61 P=0.20

Table 5a. Contingency tables of the use of the acclimatization fenced areas in the Control

group and the greater antipredator capacity of the Hen group than the Control group.

the different behavior shown by the Hen group and the Control group can be explained by the imprinting needed to find food, received by the Hen group but not received by the Control

Control group Males Test Females Test Both Test

25/84

Log-rank=7.66\*\* P<0.01

Wilkoxson=7.81\*\* P<0.01

46/169

Wilkoxson=1.65 P=0.20

outside/total n 14/39 19/33 33/72

fence use % **64.10 42.42 54.17** 

fence use % **75.29 70.24 72.78** 

outside/total n 15/20 8/16 23/36

Wilkoxson=8.84\*\*P<0.01

Wilkoxson=1.80 P=0.18

19/33

Log-rank=1.06 P=0.30

Wilkoxson=1.05 P=0.31


27/51

Log-rank=2.56 P=0.11

Log-rank=6.78\*\* P<0.01

Log-rank=7.73\*\* P<0.01

Wilkoxson=7.94\*\* P<0.01

Wilkoxson=6.62\*\*P<0.01

Wilkoxson=2.54 P=0.11

outside/total n 8/18

outside/total n 6/21

outside/total n 21/85

Control

Hen

Control

Hen

The month of

release

the 5th month

group.

5th month after release.

There were not differences between the home range surfaces and dispersion (distances from the releasing points) of the two groups (Table 6 and 7). The similarity between the homerange sizes of the two groups can be well appreciated in Figure 4 and 5. This result is very interesting for the pheasants gamekeeper choices. In similar environments these parameters can be used as reference parameter to plan releasing points or for the creation of a new correctly dimensioned PA or to establish efficient networks of supplementary artificial feeders.

Fig. 4. Animals observations (fixes) by different groups within the two ZRV


Table 6. Average Max distances from the release sites (meters ± std.dev).

Radiotracking of Pheasants (*Phasianus colchicus* L.): To Test Captive Rearing Technologies 419

The winter crops-for-game, the spring crops-for-game, the fallow lands and the wood were more represented within the home ranges of both group of pheasants. However the home ranges of the Hen group were characterized by a greater presence of shrub land and olive orchards. The home ranges of the Control group were characterized by a greater presence of shrub land. In general these results confirmed the great importance of crops for game. Winter crops for game in this experiment represented old crops, since they were seeded the year before the release of the pheasants (wheat, broad beans and oats). In this phenological state these crops are able to provide feeding but also good protection and hiding places for the pheasants. There were not evident differences between the different crops for game. We

The presence of pheasants fixes in the different land uses, referring to both sexes, are shown

Woods 5.356ab 5.628a 5.497a Shrubs area 1.456abc 1.738abc 1.597bcd Uncultivated fields 6.226a 5.388ab 5.797a Vineyards 0.830c 0.597cd 0707d Olive orchards 0.945bc 1.098bc 0.981bcd Spring crops for game 3.916abc 4.208ab 4.067ab Winter crops for game 2.176abc 3.858ab 3.047ab Grasses and pastures 0.937bc 1.008bc 0.970cd Urban areas (biased) 0.016de 0.015de 0.015de River and ponds (biased) 0.016de 0.015de 0.015de Standard error of means 0.1067 0.0988 0.0720 note: Least square means > 1 show greater number of fix in the land use than the incidence of the land use in the home range; Least square means < 1 show smaller number of fix in the land use than the incidence of the land use in the home range; Land uses bearing different superscripts differ within the

Table 9. Land use location of the pheasant fixes in respect to the land use incidence in the

The fix locations of the pheasants within their home range showed that wood, uncultivated fields and crops for-game were the most frequented within the home range. No fix was observed during the trial in the artificial areas (extractive, construction sites and urban areas) or river and ponds. Considering only the Control group the shrubs area, the olive orchards and the grasses and pastures acquire greater importance while in the Hen group the majority of fix were found in the uncultivated fields; followed by both types of crops for game and the shrubs area. Also in this case the importance of the uncultivated fields and the crops for game were confirmed by the pheasant fixes. The preference for the woods was

Hen Control Overall values

choices in the home range

note, however, that the Hen group preferred a greater number of types.

in Table 9.

same column per p<0.05;

MCP (analysis on log-values, Aebischer et al., 1993).

ZRV Le Bartaline & ZRV Leccio Poneta

Fig. 5. Animals home ranges (MCP) by thesis inside the two Protected Areas


Table 7. Average Home Range areas (MCP) (hectare ± std.dev).

#### **2.2.5 Pheasant land use**

The data concerning the pheasant land uses (considering both the ZRV), referring to both sexes, are shown in Table 8.


note: Least square means > 1 show larger incidences of the land use in the home range than in the study area; Least square means < 1 show smaller incidences of the land use in the home range than in the study area; Land uses bearing different superscripts differ within the same column per p<0.05;

Table 8. Land uses in the pheasant home range (MCP) in respect to the overall land uses (analysis carried out on log-values, Aebischer et al., 1993).

pheasants avg - st.dev pheasants avg - st.dev

Hen Control Overall values

home range uses

Fig. 5. Animals home ranges (MCP) by thesis inside the two Protected Areas

Table 7. Average Home Range areas (MCP) (hectare ± std.dev).

**2.2.5 Pheasant land use** 

sexes, are shown in Table 8.

"Le Bartaline" & ZRV "Leccio Poneta"

ZRV group Hen group Control

Le Bartaline 9 11.1 ± 8.26 9 10.1 ± 8.06 Leccio Poneta 10 12.9 ± 11.92 11 12.9 ± 7.59

The data concerning the pheasant land uses (considering both the ZRV), referring to both

Woods 0.945abc 0.883abc 0.917ab Shrubs area 0.881abc 0.777abc 0.833bc Uncultivated fields 2.010a 1.920ab 1.970ab Vineyards 0.397cd 0.399cd 0.397cd Olive orchards 0.805abc 0.705bcd 0.760bc Spring crops for game 1.620ab 2.630ab 2.130ab Winter crops for game 2.900a 3.810a 3.370a Grasses and pastures 0.484bcd 0.314cd 0.406cd Urban areas 0.073 0.273cd 0.164d River and ponds 0.015d 0.019d 0.017d Standard error of means 0.0938 0.0899 0.0646 note: Least square means > 1 show larger incidences of the land use in the home range than in the study area; Least square means < 1 show smaller incidences of the land use in the home range than in the

study area; Land uses bearing different superscripts differ within the same column per p<0.05; Table 8. Land uses in the pheasant home range (MCP) in respect to the overall land uses

(analysis carried out on log-values, Aebischer et al., 1993).

The winter crops-for-game, the spring crops-for-game, the fallow lands and the wood were more represented within the home ranges of both group of pheasants. However the home ranges of the Hen group were characterized by a greater presence of shrub land and olive orchards. The home ranges of the Control group were characterized by a greater presence of shrub land. In general these results confirmed the great importance of crops for game. Winter crops for game in this experiment represented old crops, since they were seeded the year before the release of the pheasants (wheat, broad beans and oats). In this phenological state these crops are able to provide feeding but also good protection and hiding places for the pheasants. There were not evident differences between the different crops for game. We note, however, that the Hen group preferred a greater number of types.

The presence of pheasants fixes in the different land uses, referring to both sexes, are shown in Table 9.


note: Least square means > 1 show greater number of fix in the land use than the incidence of the land use in the home range; Least square means < 1 show smaller number of fix in the land use than the incidence of the land use in the home range; Land uses bearing different superscripts differ within the same column per p<0.05;

Table 9. Land use location of the pheasant fixes in respect to the land use incidence in the MCP (analysis on log-values, Aebischer et al., 1993).

The fix locations of the pheasants within their home range showed that wood, uncultivated fields and crops for-game were the most frequented within the home range. No fix was observed during the trial in the artificial areas (extractive, construction sites and urban areas) or river and ponds. Considering only the Control group the shrubs area, the olive orchards and the grasses and pastures acquire greater importance while in the Hen group the majority of fix were found in the uncultivated fields; followed by both types of crops for game and the shrubs area. Also in this case the importance of the uncultivated fields and the crops for game were confirmed by the pheasant fixes. The preference for the woods was

Radiotracking of Pheasants (*Phasianus colchicus* L.): To Test Captive Rearing Technologies 421

Ciuffreda, M.; Ballerini, C.; Berti, A.; Binazzi, R.; Cilio, A.; Ferretti, M.; Giannelli, C.; Nesti,

Cocchi, R.; Riga, F. & Toso, S. (1998). *Biologia e gestione del Fagiano*. Documento Tecnico n° 22.

Cramp, S. & Simmons, K.E.L. (Eds) (1980). *Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and* 

Dessì Fulgheri, F.; Papeschi, A.; Bagliacca, M.; Mani, P. & Mussa P.P. (1998). *Linee guida per* 

Efron, B. (1988). Logistic regression, survival analysis and the Kaplan-Meier curve. *Journal of* 

Fearer, T.M. & Stauffer, D.F. (2004). Relationship of ruffed grouse *Bonasa umbellus* to landscape characteristics in southwest Virginia, USA. - *Wildlife Biology* 10: 81-89. Fronte, B.; Porrini, S.; Ferretti, M.; Zalli, F.; Bagliacca, M. & Mani, P. (2005). Performance

Godfrey, J.D. & Bryant, D.M. (2003). Effect of radio transmitters on energy expenditure of

Hessler, E.; Tester, J.R.; Sniff, D.B. & Nelson, M.M. (1970). A biotelemetry study of survival

Hill, D.A. & Robertson, P.A. (1988). *The pheasant: ecology, management and conservation*.

Lee, E.T. (1980). *Statistical Method for Survival Data Analysis*. Lifetime Learning Publications,

Manly, B.F.; McDonald, L.; Thomas, D.L.; McDonald, T.L. & Erickson, W.P. (2002). *Resource* 

Meriggi, A. (1998). Interventi diretti sulle popolazioni di animali selvatici. Immissioni.

Papeschi, A. & Petrini, R. (1993). Predazione su fagiani di allevamento e selvatici immessi in

*l'allevamento di galliformi destinati al ripopolamento e alla reintroduzione.* Ed. Regione

riproduttive in condizioni di cattività di fagiani (*Phasianus colchicus*) di origine selvatica in allevamento. *Annali Facoltà Medicina Veterinaria di Pisa*, 58: 177-218. Galletto, R. & Spalla, A. (1995). I sistemi informativi territoriali per la gestione del territorio

e dell'ambiente. In: *Il telerilevamento e i sistemi informativi territoriali nella gestione* 

takahe. in: Williams M. (Comp): *Conservation application of measuring energy expenditure of New Zealand birds: assessing habitat quality and costs of carrying radio* 

of penrearend pheasants released in selected habitats. *Journal of Wildlife Management* 

*selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies*. Kluwer academic

Metodi e tecniche di immissione. In: Simonetta, A. M. & Dessì-Fulgheri F. editors,

For., Ed. Grafiche 3B Toscanella di Dozza (BO): 135-154.

*the American Statistical Association*. 83: 414-425.

*delle risorse ambientali.* Lussemburgo: 21-30.

*transmitters*. Science for conservation 214: 69-81.

Blackwell Scientific Publ., Oxford.

*North Africa*. Vol 2: Hawks to bustard. Oxford University Press.

Game Conservancy (1994). *Gamebird Rearing*. - Game Conservancy Limited. UK.

Johnsgard, P.A. (1986). *The phesant of the world.* Oxford University Press. Oxford.

*Principi e tecniche di gestione faunistico-venatoria*, Greentime: 59-74.

natura. *Supplemento Ricerca Biolologia della Selvaggina*, 21: 651-659.

INFS.

Toscana – Arsia.

*34: 267-274.* 

Belmont, CA.

publishers.

V.; Papeschi, A.; Rastelli, V.; Silli, M.A.; Zaccaroni, M. & Dessì Fulgheri, F. (2007). Alcuni fattori che influenzano la riuscita dei ripopolamenti di fagiano comune (*Phasianus colchicus* ). in Lucifero & Genghini (editors) *Valorizzazione agro-forestale e faunistica dei territori collinari e montani.* Ist. Naz. Fauna Selv. Min. Pol. Agr. Alim. e

explained by their reduced dimensions (several small woods) which allowed the pheasants to find perches for the night and refuges for the day.

#### **2.3 Conclusion**

The high survival rates of the pheasants, reared according to the disciplinary rules set forth for the production of pheasants to be released in the wild as part of game repopulating programs, can be further increased with the adoption of the technique of mother fostering applied to the artificially hatched pheasants chicks. With the aim to estimate the future survival of the pheasants to be released, the simple evaluation of the morphological traits is of reduced or none interest; in our case, the brooded pheasants were worse than the artificially heated one. Radio tracking is not the only methodology to check the survival rates of the pheasants after release. The efficiency of radio tracking pheasants can be greatly increased by the simple use of ponchos which did not cause any increase of the research costs, on condition to tests groups with similar numbers. The increase of the production costs of hen brooded pheasants, mainly space and man working time, however, must be evaluated on the positive effect on survivals linked with the use of this technology. The same problem concerns the positive results obtained with the adaptation of pheasants to be released in fenced areas located in the releasing sites with the presence of artificial feeding and crops-for-game.

#### **3. References**


explained by their reduced dimensions (several small woods) which allowed the pheasants

The high survival rates of the pheasants, reared according to the disciplinary rules set forth for the production of pheasants to be released in the wild as part of game repopulating programs, can be further increased with the adoption of the technique of mother fostering applied to the artificially hatched pheasants chicks. With the aim to estimate the future survival of the pheasants to be released, the simple evaluation of the morphological traits is of reduced or none interest; in our case, the brooded pheasants were worse than the artificially heated one. Radio tracking is not the only methodology to check the survival rates of the pheasants after release. The efficiency of radio tracking pheasants can be greatly increased by the simple use of ponchos which did not cause any increase of the research costs, on condition to tests groups with similar numbers. The increase of the production costs of hen brooded pheasants, mainly space and man working time, however, must be evaluated on the positive effect on survivals linked with the use of this technology. The same problem concerns the positive results obtained with the adaptation of pheasants to be released in fenced areas located in the releasing sites with the presence of artificial feeding

Aebischer, N.J.; Robertson, P.A. & Kenword, R.E. (1993). Compositional analysis of habitat

Bagliacca, M.; Paci, G.; Marzoni, M.; Santilli, F. & Calzolari G. (1994). Diete a basso e alto

Bagliacca, M.; Santilli, F. & Marzoni M. (1996). Valutazione del volo dei fagiani. Nota 1:

Bagliacca, M.; Cappuccio, I.; Paci, G. & Valentini A. (2007). Problemi genetici nella

Bagliacca, M.; Falcini, F.; Porrini, S.; Zalli, F.& Fronte B. (2008). Pheasant hens (Phasianus

Bardi, A.; Bendini, L.; Coppola, F.; Fasola, M. & Spina F. (1983). *Manuale per l'inanellamento* 

Betti, B.; Casella, B.; Manzino, A.; Pinto, L.; Spalla, A. & Tornatore B. (2001). Trattamento dei dati GPS e datum altimetrico. *Bollettino SIFET*, supplemento al n. 2: 39-54. Brichetti, P. (1984). Distribuzione attuale dei Galliformi (Galliformes) in Italia. In*: Biologia dei* 

contenuto di fibra per fagiani in accrescimento. *Annali della Facoltà di Medicina* 

ripetibilità delle caratteristiche dell'involo misurate in voliera. *N=K Ricerche di* 

produzione in allevamento di fagiani (*Phasianus colchicus* L.) di qualità – in Lucifero & Genghini (editors) *Valorizzazione agro-forestale e faunistica dei territori collinari e montani*. Ist. Naz. Fauna Selv. Min. Pol. Agr. Alim. e For., Ed. Grafiche 3B

colchicus L.) of different origin. Dispersion and habitat use after release. *Italian* 

*Galliformi*. F. Dessì-Fulgheri & T. Mingozzi (EDS). Università della Calabria,

use from animal radio-tracking data. *Ecology* 74 (5): 1313-1325.

to find perches for the night and refuges for the day.

*Veterinaria di Pis*a. 46: 367-375.

Toscanella di Dozza (BO): 135-154.

*Journal of Animal Science* (7): 321-333.

*degli uccelli a scopo di studio*. Ed. INBS, Bologna.

*Ecologia Venatoria* 2: 3-8.

Arcavacata: 15-27.

**2.3 Conclusion** 

and crops-for-game.

**3. References** 


**20** 

*South Africa* 

**The Use of Acoustic Telemetry in** 

Warwick Sauer and Larvika Singh *Bayworld Centre for Research and Education* 

**South African Squid Research (2003-2010)** 

Nicola Downey, Dale Webber, Michael Roberts, Malcolm Smale,

The South African chokka squid*, Loligo reynaudii* is found along the coast of South Africa, from Southern Namibia in the west to Port Alfred in the east (Augustyn, 1991). Inshore spawning, however, is limited to the South Coast between Plettenberg Bay and Port Alfred (Figure 1) (Augustyn, 1990). As it is these inshore spawning aggregations that are targeted by the squid jigging fishery (Sauer et al., 1992), an in depth knowledge of the spawning process is essential to the development of effective management strategies for this fishery. In addition squid catches are determined to a large extent by the successful formation and size of these aggregations. As a result, the majority of research on the chokka squid has focused on inshore spawning, i.e. environmental effects on spawning (Augustyn, 1990, Roberts, 1998, 2005; Roberts & Sauer, 1994; Roberts & van den Berg, 2002, 2005; Sauer et al. 1991, 1992), the impact of fishing on spawning concentrations (Hanlon et al., 2002; Oosthuizen et al., 2002a; Sauer, 1995; Schön et al. 2002), biological studies (Augustyn 1990; Lipinski & Underhill, 1995; Melo & Sauer, 1999; Olyott et al., 2006; Roel et al., 2000; Sauer & Lipinski, 1990; Sauer, 1995; Sauer et al., 1992, 1999), life cycle (Augustyn, 1990, 1991; Olyott et al. 2007; Roberts & Sauer, 1994), feeding on the spawning grounds (Augustyn, 1990; Sauer & Lipinski, 1991; Sauer & Smale, 1991, 1993; Sauer et al., 1992), spawning behaviour (Hanlon et al, 1994, 2002; Sauer, 1995; Sauer & Smale, 1993; Sauer et al. 1992, 1993, 1997; Shaw & Sauer, 2004), the inshore spawning environment (Augustyn, 1990; Roberts, 1998, 2002; Roberts & Sauer, 1994; Roberts and van den Berg, 2002; Sauer et al. 1991, 1992), the location of spawning grounds (Augustyn, 1990; Roberts, 1995; Roberts & Sauer, 1994; Sauer, 1995; Sauer et al., 1992, 1993), predation on spawning grounds (Hanlon et al. 2002; Roberts, 1998; Sauer & Smale, 1991, 1993; Smale et al., 1995, 2001), migration / movement on spawning grounds (Augustyn, 1990, 1991; Lipinski et al. 1998; Roberts & Sauer, 1994; Sauer & Smale, 1993) and paralarval development (Oosthuizen & Roberts, 2009; Oosthuizen et al. 2002b; Roberts &

A number of these studies have, however, been limited by certain factors. The inshore spawning grounds extend from ~20 to 70 m. Diving observations are only possible up to a depth of 30 m, are limited in terms of the amount of time that can be spent underwater and are highly dependent on water visibility. Many of these limitations can be overcome by the use of underwater cameras, however, the issue of water visibility remains. Not only has the

**1. Introduction** 

van den Berg, 2002; Vidal et al. 2005).


Simonetta, A. (1975). *Ecologia*. Ed. Boringhieri, Torino.

Warner, R.E. & Etter, S.L. (1983). Reproduction and survival of radio-marked hen ringnacked pheasants in Illinois. *Journal of Wildlife Management* 47: 369-375.
