**2.1.4 Localization techniques**

The radio tagged pheasants were monitored through radio-tracking (Godfrey & Bryant, 2003), the poncho equipped pheasants were monitored by direct sighting through the aid of binoculars and then by telescope. A portable radio receiver with a modulation ranging from 151,000 to 151,999 MHz was used to localize the radio signals (Biotrack Sica-receiver). The operator could select the desired frequency on the receiver and then identify and locate each pheasant. A Yaghi, four element, manual antenna (a characteristically directional antenna) was used to locate the signal's direction of the tag. Having a small number of birds, most of the radio localization were made via direct sighting; triangulation was rarely used. All locations were made from late September to early April, 2 or 3 times a week, and always from the early morning until early afternoon. A GPS (Global Positioning System) on a handheld device (Garmin eTrex Legend navigator) was used to record the direct sighting localization. The data were then transferred on a geo-referencing program (ArcGIS ®-ESRI), which had been previously loaded with the maps of the ZRV through a specific software (GPS-Utility ltd. 1998-2006). The geographical coordinates of points on the earth's surface obtained by satellites orbiting the earth (Betti et al., 2001), in our study were saved as Northeast Cartesian coordinates (Gauss-Boaga), referring to the reference system ROMA 1940 (Galetto & Spalla, 1995). when the pheasants was not clear to the observer (did not succeed in direct observation of the pheasant) a triangulation obtained with a single worker was used to obtain the fix. The observer, made the first detection, quickly moved to a second point of listening in order to minimize the possible pheasant movement, and then to calculate the pheasant triangulation as precise as possible (Hessler et al. 1970; Warner & Etter, 1983). The two identified directions were manually reported on the regional technical maps (1:10,000) using a still rule and a pencil. If an animal was not seen or triangulated more than twice in the same place, direct sighting was always used the next time, to verify the conditions of the subject (death or not). All locations were analyzed for survival, dispersion, home range and land use. The locations obtained through triangulation were manually entered into the geo-referencing program, in the same file where the direct locations were automatically transferred. Cards were also used, together with the GPS devices to complete the daily data collection; frequency of tag or poncho number, time, habitat where the pheasant was observed, weather conditions and other features were recorded for each pheasant in the cards.

#### **2.1.5 Data processing**

410 Modern Telemetry

• **Spur Length:** the transverse diameter or tarsus including the spur was taken by the

• **Remiges Length:** a metal tape measure was used to externally measure the distance

Radio collars (TW3 Biotrack + ½AA cell) were supplied to 40 pheasants (20 from the Hen group and 20 from the Control group) while the remaining 77 (40 from the Hen group and 37 from the Control group) were provided with numbered and differently colored ponchos (Figure 2). The frequencies of all tags ranged between 151,045 and 151,975 MHz. (crystal

The radiotags did not affect the animals' survival as the weight of the radio (with cell, antenna and collar) was well below 3% of the animals' own weight (Perez et al., 2004). The radio was always attached to the neck (Bardi et al., 1983), eliminating the potential risk of diseases and/or injury caused by the other types of fixing. Once all the measurements had been taken and the radio transmitters had been fixed on all the pheasants, they were placed in the acclimatization aviary: a tunnel-shaped, 30\*3 m, entirely constructed of soft plastic square mesh netting to prevent head injuries during attempts to escape. The pheasants remained in the aviaries for 24 hours in order to test the proper working of their tags, and to ensure that the attached collar did not create problems for the pheasants. Only 114 pheasants were released

The radio tagged pheasants were monitored through radio-tracking (Godfrey & Bryant, 2003), the poncho equipped pheasants were monitored by direct sighting through the aid of binoculars and then by telescope. A portable radio receiver with a modulation ranging from 151,000 to 151,999 MHz was used to localize the radio signals (Biotrack Sica-receiver). The operator could select the desired frequency on the receiver and then identify and locate each pheasant. A Yaghi, four element, manual antenna (a characteristically directional antenna) was used to locate the signal's direction of the tag. Having a small number of birds, most of the radio localization were made via direct sighting; triangulation was rarely used. All locations were made from late September to early April, 2 or 3 times a week, and always from the early morning until early afternoon. A GPS (Global Positioning System) on a handheld device (Garmin eTrex Legend navigator) was used to record the direct sighting

Fig. 2. Pheasants with mounted radio collar (left) and poncho + radio collar (right).

due to damage occurred during handling for collar supplying or measuring.

between the bird hand and the longest primary flight feather.

Vernier caliper in the males;

**2.1.4 Localization techniques** 

modulation radios, maximum instability ±4.2 MHz).

The two groups, **Hen** and **Control**, were studied in many ways over time from late September to early April. Data on biometrics measurement (live weight, tarsus length, diameters, spur length, and remiges length), recorded before release, were submitted to variance analysis in relation to the two groups and different sex (SAS 2002). Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, which allows to follow the survival pattern over time and probabilistically classify the missing animals in relation to tag, group, sex and within the different ZRV of release (Efron 1988, Lee 1980, Petrini 1995, Pollock et al. 1989a, Pollock et al. 1989b, SAS 2002). In particular, when the animal was checked alive or changed its position in two consecutive sightings, it was coded as alive, whereas if the poncho or the radiotag was found, with the remains or not, the birds was coded as dead. Animals sighted up to a certain period and then no longer detected, were consequently considered "missing" (probabilistically live/dead), and considered alive only up until the last time they were seen. The causes of death of the animals were only recorded and not submitted to statistical analysis, due to the little number of necroscopies. The maximum distances reached from the point of release calculated on GIS (ArcGIS ®- ESRI) were submitted to variance analysis in relation to tag, group and sex within the different release ZRV (nested model; SAS, 2002). The home range of each subject was determined using the Hawth's Tool GIS (ArcGIS ®- ESRI), evaluating the Minimum Convex Polygon or maximum area (MCP) obtained by joining the outermost points where each subject had been detected. The MCP was determined only for pheasants with a radio collar that had been observed at least 5 different times. The MCP areas were then subjected, as in the previous cases, to variance analysis (SAS 2002). The land use maps, in digitized format, were produced by a preliminary process of photo-interpretation, then verified by a location scout view into the field to identify the crops that were not identifiable through aerial photos or were changed, and to correctly define the polygon vectors. The ten environmental types summarized and categorized were: woods, shrub area, uncultivated

Radiotracking of Pheasants (*Phasianus colchicus* L.): To Test Captive Rearing Technologies 413

group: Control – n. 28 Hen - n. 30 Live weight g 945 ± 16.9 **A** 749 ± 17.2 **B**  Tarsus length cm 7.44 ± 0.174 ns 7.43 ± 0.177 ns Remiges length cm 21.7 ± 0.118 ns 21.3 ± 0.131 ns Tarsus diameter min mm 5.92 ± 0.092 ns 5.69 ± 0.094 ns Tarsus diameter max mm 8.42 ± 0.112 **A** 7.68 ± 0.114 **B** 

Table 2. Female morphologic characteristics (means ± st.dev); different letters show

brooding does not allow the pheasant chicks to reach their maximum potential growth.

tag

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

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%,

> Chi square Tests

Log-rank=5.50\* P=0.02

Released/Dead n 40/4 20/13 60/17

Survived % **90.0 35.0 71.7**

Released/Dead 75/19 39/28 114/47

Survived **74.4 28.2 58.8** 

Wilkoxson 0.23 P= 0.63 Table 3. Survival rates of the reared pheasants: effect of different rearing and tag (\* show

Survived % **57.1 21.1 44.4**

Wilkoxson=4,07\* P=0.04

Radio tag

19/15

Chi square Tests

Log-rank=1.34 P=0.24

Wilkoxson=1,80 P=0,18

Both tags Tests

Log-rank=5.50\* P=0.02

Wilkoxso5.48\* P=0.02

54/30

differences per p<0.01.

**2.2.2 Survival rates** 

Poncho

Released/Dead n 35/15

Chi square Test Log-rank 1.14\* P= 0.02

significant differences between percentages).

respectively).

Control

Hen

Both

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

1. The home range choice = home range composition in relation to the composition of the available habitat, equal to:

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


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