Geology topics

J.T. Nelson

Publications and source records attributed to J.T. Nelson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2005

Quantitative assessment of pair formation behavior in captive whooping cranes (Grus americana)

Instantaneous scan sampling for mean distance and synchronous action patterns and all-occurrence sampling for unison call, dance, strut, and hoover-up behaviors were conducted for five potential whooping crane pairs at Patuxent Environmental Science Center, Laurel, Maryland. Dance, strut, and hoover-up differed among pairs, as did total frequency of social behaviors. It was unclear whether or not total frequency of social behaviors during pair formation can be used as an index for potential breeding success. The relative importance of different action patterns should be used as indices of pair compatibility in captive whooping cranes.

Zoo Biology↗

USGS1997

Food consumption and retention time in captive whooping cranes (Grus americana)

Food consumption, digesta retention time, and food preference were measured for captive whooping cranes fed pelleted diets. The basal commercial diet was compared to four mixtures containing 70% basal and 30% of one of four important winter foods for the whooping crane: blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus ), wolfberry fruit ( Lycium carolinianum ), live oak acorn ( Quercus virginiana ), or common Rangia clam ( Rangia cuneata ). Because captive birds would not eat whole foods, we were prevented from direct food preference tests. Food passed through the gut rapidly, with almost complete elimination within 7 hr. There was some indication that retention time was shorter for the low fiber and high ash and calcium clam diet. Cranes ate less wolfberry feed (g/day) than the other feeds, and all birds ate less wolfberry feed on the day it was first fed, compared to basal diet the previous day. Birds ate more low energy feed than high energy feed. Due to combined effects of low energy content, lower metabolizable energy coefficients, and reduced feed consumption, less energy was assimilated for study diets than basal diet. Apparent shorter retention times for some diets containing whooping crane foods may partly explain lower digestibilities and metabolizable energy of winter whooping crane foods compared to commercial crane diet.

Zoo Biology↗

USGS1996

Nutritional value of winter foods for whooping cranes

We measured metabolizable energy and digestibility of Whooping Crane (Grus americana) winter foods (blue crab [Callinectes sapidus]), common Rangia clam (Rangia cuneata), wolfberry fruit (Lycium carolinianurn [wolfberry]), and live oak acorn (Ouercus virginiana [acorn])] with feeding trials to captive-reared Whooping Cranes. Apparent metabolizable energy coefficients (expressed as %) were for crab (34.1), Rangia clam (75.0), wolfberry (44.8), and acorn (43.2). Digestion coefficients for protein were lower for plant foods (48.9 and 53.4) than for animal foods (69.4 and 75.2). Digestion coefficients for total lipid differed among foods: highest and lowest lipid digestibility was for acorn (87.2) and wolfberry (60.0), respectively. We also determined total energy and percent protein and lipid of the four foods and stout razor clam (Tagelus plebeius); gross energy was 2-5x higher for acorn and wolfberry on a dry-weight basis than for blue crab and stout razor clam. Crude protein was 2-3x higher for blue crab than for wolfberry and stout razor clam. Wolfberry ranked the highest of five foods for metabolic energy and total lipid nutrient availability per kg of food ingested, and blue crab ranked highest for crude protein availability.

The Wilson Bulletin↗