Species: Anas rubripes Common Name: Black Duck
Download 130.25 Kb.
|
1 2
- Navigate this page:
- Type
- Ecosystem association(s)
- Challenges (including climate change)
7. Faulhaber, C. A. & Smith, A. T. (2008). "Sylvilagus palustris". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. 8. Jones, M. 1997. "North Carolina Wildlife Profiles" (On-line). Wildlife Profiles: Marsh Rabbit, Sylvilagus palustris. 9. Nelson, E, W. 1909. The Rabbits of North America.. North American Fauna: Number 29: pp. 1 – 314. 10. Red Orbit: your Universe Online. Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris. 11. Thompson, leah. Animal Diversity Web. Sylvilagus palustris Marsh Rabbit. 12. Tomkins, I. R. 1935. The marsh rabbit: an incomplete life history. J. Mamm., 16:201-205. 13. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (1999, May 18). Lower Keys Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri. Retrieved from Multi-Species Recovery Plan for South Florida: 14. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2007. Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris). Type: Endangered Species: Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Common Name: Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel The Carolina Northern flying squirrel is a small, nocturnal rodent. A subspecies of the Northern flying squirrel, it is found across southern regions of the Appalachian mountains, more specifically across North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. As the name describes, the squirrel can “fly,” but perhaps glide is a better word. A lightly furred membrane, attached along the sides, arms, and legs of the animal, flattens out and allows the squirrel to move efficiently from tree to tree. Unfortunately, this squirrel is not able to “flap” its webbing and begin flying from any location; it has to have momentum and the help of gravity to glide to it’s desired destination. Biologists first noted the presence of the Carolina Northern flying squirrel in North Carolina in the 1950’s, but before then it had been presented in other states, namely Virginia. Ecosystem association(s) The Carolina Northern flying squirrel prefers high-elevation forests of the mountain ranges it resides in, most often in hardwood and spruce/fir conifers (Currie). The forest or stand usually will contain old trees and debris on the forest floor, both characteristics that are specific to an old-growth forest. Because of the different aspects required by the squirrel in a habitat, it’s range in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia is limited. Northern Hardwood and Spruce/conifer forests found at the elevation best suited to the squirrels; usually above 4500 feet; are increasingly rare, due to the previous and current value of those wood types, and with clear-cutting of forests in general (Currie). Most large populations of the close relative, Glaucomys Sabrinus, are found in old-growth stands, as these forests are generally more suited to producing the mycorrhizal fungi component of the squirrels diet. Although this research was collected using a relative of the Carolina Northern flying squirrel, it is generally accepted that the eating patterns would be similar. It is not believed that the Carolina Northern Squirrel absolutely must live in an old growth forest, especially if the new-growth forest contains at least some trees with old-growth characteristics. Individuals captured and scat samples found in new growth forest suggest a lower intake of fungi, but overall health was not affected (Rosenberg.) Population Ecology Nest sites and relative distance are used to define populations. The actual distance varies based on the regions and states where the squirrels are nesting. It has been proposed that many different types of squirrels, not only the Carolina Northern flying squirrel, use multiple nests either as an adaptation to food availability and location, or as a predator avoidance method (Carey.) Female and male squirrels nest separately, and in sites located in Virginia, researchers found that males tend to have further distances between nests than do females. It is believed that this leads to a greater amount of prospective reproductive experiences, and may even be an adaption for such reason (Hackett.) In areas of Virginia where the range of the Virginia Northern flying squirrel overlaps the range of the Carolina Northern flying squirrel, researchers have found evidence that both species eat and compete for the same types of sporocarps and fungi (Mitchell.) Food and Cover The main constituents of the Carolina Northern flying squirrel’s diet are lichens and mosses, but it will eat insects, seeds or other types of vegetation (Fact Sheet). Hypogeous sporocarps of mycorrhizal fungi, or truffles, are thought to make up a portion of the Northern Flying squirrels a close relative that lives in Oregon and other western states. It has been researched and deduced that these truffles are not as vital to the Carolina northern flying squirrels that reside mostly in Appalachian areas (Loeb et al.) Evidence supports a theory that G.s coloratus may forage for fungal food material underground during the winter (Parrish). The typical nest of a squirrel would be found in a tree cavity of the Northern Hardwoods. Summer nests may be built of leaves and found in foliage of conifer trees, or the nest from the winter can be maintained. Squirrels are not limited to only cavities in trees; nest were found in the crooks of large limbs and the trunk, in stick nests, and in moss nests (Cowan.) In Oregon, the most notable predator of the Northern flying squirrel is the Spotted owl. It is thought that the predation from this species affects the population in an additive mortality manner, not a compensatory one. Although the owl population and species varies greatly in the Appalachian mountains versus Oregon, it can be inferred that some Carolina Northern Squirrel populations suffer losses due to owls. The G.s. coloratus is considered predominantly a herbivore, meaning that most everything consumed by the animal is of plant origin, and not animals or insects. Diseases Although it has not been specifically reported in the Carolina Flying squirrel, Sylvatic Typhus is an infectious disease that is associated with flying squirrels and/or contact with their nests. It is not known whether or not the Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus is a host for the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, but close relatives to the squirrel are frequent hosts. These bacteria can be transferred to humans, and can cause symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle aches, and confusion. The epidemic and louse-borne strain of typhus is usually seen in times of social unrest, natural disasters, or wars. Currently it has not been determined why the two strains differ in severity from the Sylvatic Typhus. However, the risk of infection is correlated with the exposure time with the squirrel. As with any disease persons with compromised immune systems are at the greatest risk. Sylvatic Typhus is diagnosed with a blood test, and is treated with antibiotics. No deaths have been reported since the recognition of the diseases in 1976 (Sylvatic Typhus Fact Sheet.) In addition to Sylvatic Typhus, Carolina Northern flying squirrels suffer from rabies. No occurrence of rabies has been found with the Carolina Northern flying squirrel, but that is not to say it has not happened. In a normal day the squirrel typically would not be viewable by standard eyes, as it is nocturnal. Ecologists must work to know the location of nest sites and are then able to observe the animals, but no records of rabies could be located. Economics/Management Habitat and diet are often considered together when considering management practices, because they are two of the most important, if not the most important aspects when it comes to any animal. These squirrels are limited to a very specific rangeland, and this may be caused by a stenophagic diet. Stenophagy refers to eating only a few types of food. If Carolina Northern flying squirrels only eat a few types of lichens, then of course it would live where those lichens grow. On the other hand, a restricted range may cause stenophagy, meaning that the squirrel adapts to eating things that occur in its habitat. Ecologists prefer to think of these together, as it is often impossible to know which caused the other, or if they occurred simultaneously. It’s often easier to manage a species by considering these factors as if they are one. In almost every circumstance, the health of the habitat is positively correlated with the amount of food growing or living in the ecosystem. The species from which the Carolina Northern flying squirrel is a subset, the Northern flying squirrel and its close relative the Southern flying squirrel; are often managed to reduce the risk of typhus and overall parasite spread. Both of these populations occur in higher numbers and have larger ranges than the Carolina Northern flying squirrel, so problems are more likely to occur. Human-animal interaction incidents have occurred with these more popular species, most commonly when the squirrel chooses to nest in a human dwelling, such as in the attic. Nest boxes are often used to encourage the Carolina Northern flying squirrel to reside in an area that it may not normally, or to increase the population in an existing residential area. Nest boxes can include but are not limited to owl nest boxes, blue-bird nest boxes, and even gourds at times. Animals that are rehabilitated and re-introduced into the wild are often introduced with a nest box. Challenges (including climate change) Due to the degree of selectivity for the Carolina Flying Squirrels’ nest area they have been strongly affected by tree loss, such as deforestation. While some tree loss can be accounted for by obvious means such as clear-cutting and the removal of trees to build residential areas; some loss is caused by less obvious suspects. The balsam wooly adelgid is an insect introduced to North America from Europe in the early 1900’s. This insect bores into the main bark and stem of the fir tree, leaving it injured and highly susceptible to other tree-degrading fungi and eventually death (Ragenovich 2006.) The United States Fish and Wildlife service recognized the Carolina northern flying squirrel as endangered in July of 1985, and it remains on the endangered species list today (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990.) Hybridization is a main concern for these squirrels as their natural habitat continues to change. As the weather fluctuates year to year, and even decade to decade, animals including the Carolina Northern flying squirrel adapt by possibly changing the area in which they live. This causes great concern if the new areas overlap to a native species, as characteristics of an invasive animal may develop. Although humans are not directly placing the species into it’s new location, climate change is directly correlated with global warming, which has been linked to human activities. An invasive species may not only compete with the native, it may attempt to reproduce and form a new species, or a hybrid species. It is not fully known whether or not the Carolina Northern flying squirrel has had this issue previously, but research in the Northwestern part of the United States suggests hybridization of the Northern flying squirrel and the Southern flying squirrel. Evidence has however shown that genetic variability within the Northern flying squirrel is high when compared to that of the Southern flying squirrel. Many accept this to mean that very few, if any, bottleneck incidents have occurred. A bottleneck is when two groups of the same species are separated by some means, and eventually adapt into two different species (Arbogast.) Because funding to research this animal was not granted until 1985 when it was officially placed on the endangered list, little is known about it. Much more has been presented on close relatives such as the Virginia Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) and the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans.) Ecologists and wildlife managers are currently working together to determine the best management practices to re-populate the regions with these squirrels, but many factors are involved. Deforestation and competition from other squirrel species are just two of the challenges faced by Northern Carolina flying squirrels. When managing to increase the population of a species, it is best to use the bottom-up approach, that is manage what the species eats instead of managing what eats the species. The problem many are running into is how to manage specifically just for the Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus, when other species have overlapping ranges and habitats. In order to manage in the most efficient way, the entire community must be considered before any actions are taken. Works Cited 1. Arbogast, B.S Et al. 2005. Conservation genetics of endangered flying squirrels (Glaucomys) from the Appalachian mountains of eastern North American. Animal Conservation 8:123-133 2. Carey, A. B. 1995. Sciurids in Pacific Northwest managed and old-growth forests. Ecol. App., 5:648–661. 3. Cowan, 1. M. 1936. Nesting habits of the flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus. Journal of the Mammal. 17: 58-60. 4. Currie, R., and Cameron, S. 2011. Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel 5 year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast region, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville, North Carolina, USA. 5. Garroway, C.J. 2010. Climate change induced hybridization in flying squirrels. Global Change Biology 16:113-121. 6. Hackett, H.M., and Pagels, J.F. Nest site characteristics of the Endangered Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) in Southwest Virginia. American Midland Naturalist 150:321-331 7. Loeb, S.C., Tainter, F.H., and Cazares E. 2000. Habitat Associations of Hypogeous Fungi in the Southern Appalachians: Implications for the Endanered Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) The American Midland Naturalist 144(2):286-296. 8. Mitchell, D. Et al. 2001. Spring and Fall Diet of the Endangered West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys Sabrinus Fuscus) American Midland Naturalist. 146:49-443. 9. Parrish, N.A. 2012. Habitat Analysis of a disjunct population of the Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys Sabrinus Coloratus.) Thesis. 10. Ragenovich, I.R., and Mitchell, R.G. 2006. Balsam Wooly Agelgid. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 11. Rosenberg, D.K., and Anthony, R.G. 1991. Characteristics of Northern Flying Squirrel populations in young-second and old-growth forests in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 161-166. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Appalachian Northern Flying Squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus and Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA. pp 53. 13. Zimmerman S, Elizabeth A. S Flying Squirrels in nest boxes. sialis.org, Woodstock CT. Retrieved from Sialis online: http://www.sialis.org 14. Northern Flying Squirrel Fact Sheet. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 15. Sylvatic Typhus Fact Sheet. Pennsylvania Department of Health. Type: Other Species: Pelecanus occidentalis Common Name: Brown Pelican Adult Brown Pelicans can be described as large, well built seabirds approximately 39.4-53.9 in in length. The pelicans have thin, long necks, long bills with a stretchy throat pouch used for hunting their prey, and long, broad wings helpful for gliding. The typical wingspan for Brown Pelicans is 78.7 inches, or 6.5 feet. Brown Pelican plumage consists of a yellow head, white throats, reddish brown necks, and gray-brown wings and bodies. Juvenile Brown Pelicans are gray-brown with a white belly and breast. (Cornell). Ecosystem association(s) Brown Pelicans have a broad range which extends through much of the south east and south west United States, down into countries in both Central and South America. More specifically the range extends from the west coast of California down to the coast of Ecuador, all the way to towards Virginia. Brown Pelicans favor habitat in estuaries and other coastal marine habitats throughout their range. The migration patterns of Brown Pelicans are highly variable from resident to long-distant migrant and seasonal movements can vary depending on where in the range they are living (Cornell), usually the warmer and more abundant the nesting ground, the less likely there is to be migration. Many Atlantic populations will migrate northward for breeding season, which is in the summer, and then return southward in the fall. Pacific populations leave California and near by areas after breeding and migrate northward, even going as far north as British Columbia, returning back to breeding areas in the winter (Cornell). When not in nesting grounds Brown Pelicans are found on “offshore islands, beaches, open sea (for feeding), harbors, marinas, estuaries, and break waters,” (U.S. Department of the Interior). Overall, the Brown Pelican’s habitat and interaction with the ecosystem varies, and is dependent upon whether it is breeding season for the birds. Population Ecology In addition to having variable locations of habitats throughout the year, Brown Pelicans vary on the number of individuals within a colony. During the non-breeding seasons Brown Pelicans will travel in small groups or pairs. However, during the breeding season pelicans will travel to warm nesting grounds in large colonies. The number of nesting pairs depends on the size of the island and the number of resources available, but can be anywhere from 900-4,600 pairs of birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The typical Brown Pelican nesting site is very specific and devoid of other live since human and mammalian interference can lead to egg and nestling deaths. The distance from the nesting island to mainland averages around 13km, with older and more persistent colonies being more isolated than newer colonies (Visser et. al). Additionally, the average size for colonized nesting islands of the Brown Pelicans was 36 ha (Visser et. al). Both the male and female pelicans share the role of caretaker during breeding season, switching off between hunting and watching over the nests. Food and Cover The main constituents of the Brown Pelican’s diet are small fish species, such as Gulf menhaden, mullet, Atlantic threadfin, spot, and pinfish (Visser et. al). Brown Pelicans are one of the most unique sea bird hunters. In fact, this species is the only pelican species that plunge dives for food, regularly diving anywhere from 10-30 feet in the air, although heights have been recorded up to 100 feet (U.S. Department of the Interior). The force of the impact from the pelican’s dive stuns the fish so that the pelicans can scoop the fish into their mouth, and then the pouch located inside of the mouth. The Brown Pelican’s pouch can hold up to 3 gallons of water (U.S. Department of the Interior), allowing them to drain out excess water without losing their prey. Typically, the pelicans hunt 5-40 miles from their colonies – only venturing out large distances when absolutely necessary. All of the traits make the Brown Pelican a remarkable and unique hunter. As noted earlier, Brown Pelicans have specific nesting habitats. During breeding months, the Brown Pelican can be found on colonized islands with “70% open water within 20 km surrounding the island,” (Eggert et. al). This provides the pelicans with enough access to waters for hunting, yet far enough away from the mainland to avoid predators and human disturbances. Brown pelicans prefer nest in shrubs, however when shrub habitat is not available they will nest on the ground or in dune habitats. When the Brown pelicans select dune habitat it is extremely important that the habitat is at least 30 cm above mean seal level (Visser et. al) to help buffer the nests from any stochastic events. In addition, it is crucial that the nesting colony sites have beaches for adult pelicans to dry after prolonged time spent in the water. Adequate beach space is also a key factor as fledglings can develop better flying skills in a safe place; not enough space on the island could force the birds into the ocean where they are at a high risk for predation. Research has show that “an average beach width of 33m at colonized islands” (Visser et. al) was required for a successful colony. Due to the unique nature of nesting sites for Brown Pelicans, specific criteria are needed for successful breeding. Additionally, Brown Pelicans choose colony locations that are devoid of predators. The selection of smaller islands lacking large amounts of vegetation usually allows for the absence of predators in breeding grounds, however a few colonies are prone to predation. While there may be the presence of small mammals like rats, they do not pose a significant threat to the reproductive success of the pelicans (Visser et. al). Real threats are posed by coyotes, dogs, bobcats, and in some cases mink (Visser et. al). In the cases where there is the threat of predation, the colony will be abandoned after a few, likely unsuccessful breeding seasons. Diseases One disease faced by brown pelicans is parasitism of the soft tick Carios capensis on nestling pelicans. The soft tick can successfully reproduce to high densities in the nesting materials of brown pelicans during their breeding season. The tick’s ability to breed intensively, coupled with high number of nesting adults and the long-term time periods of nesting locations makes infestation between nests especially high (Norcross et. al). Due to the vulnerable state of the nestling pelicans they are more prone to parasitism in an infected nest than the adults (Eggert et. al). Once a nestling pelican is infested with the ticks, they then deplete the energy reserves of the young birds and can cause serious depletions in body mass and high increases in the stress and ultimately the production of the hormone corticosterone (Eggert et. al). While in small quantities this hormone can cause behaviors which increase survival, prolonged secretion can lead to suppression in the immune system and catabolism in the muscle (Eggert et. al). Prolonged parasitism by the ticks can also release the stress response in adult pelicans. In adults “high levels of C. capensis infestation in pelican colonies have been associated with the abandonment of nests and desertion of young,” (Duffy). Overall, the soft ticks have the potential to seriously affect the nestling survival for the brown pelican. Another common disease found in Brown Pelicans is parasitism by parasitic worms. As many other species of birds the brown pelican is a terminal host for parasitic worms, specifically Petagiger sp., Echinochasmus sp., Phagicola longus, Mesostephanus appendiculatoides, Contracaecum multipapillatum, and C. bioccai (Oswald). Many of these worms are ingested from their prey, especially from mullets. The parasitic worms live in the intestine of the brown pelicans, however they do not pose serious negative impacts on healthy pelicans. Unhealthy brown pelicans are drained nutritionally and are put at a higher risk for infections and additional pathogens (Oswald). Overall, brown pelicans face diseases typical of any avian species. Most of these diseases do not affect the overall health of the adult pelicans, but can have a significant negative effect on the nestling pelicans and can ultimately infestation of certain parasites can cause drastic reductions in nestling survival rates. Economics/Management Due to effective management methods such as bird banding, protected nesting sites, and artificial nest sites, the brown pelicans have recovered from their position as an endangered species (Oswald). Management in North Carolina in particular varies because brown pelicans weren’t reported until 1929 when 14 nests were found near Ocracoke in the Pamlico Sound (Wilkinson et. al). Since the 1950’s the North Carolina Museum of Natural History (now NC Museum of Natural Sciences) began banding pelican chicks. Then in 1972 J. Parnell and R. Soots began banding and studying brown pelicans on a regular basis (Wilkinson et. al). This was the beginning of the studying of the nature of brown pelicans and helped form the management techniques used today. Another helpful management technique is the protection of nesting sites. Despite the distances from the mainland, human disturbance still affects many nestlings and nesting adult brown pelicans. Mainly the people fishing in the surf disturb colony sites, and often times anglers aren’t aware of the negative impacts their presence has on the colony. According to research done, “human disturbance has been show to affect reproductive success of Brown Pelicans,” (Visser et. al). Therefore, to prevent further human disturbances on the nests a 300 ft buffer between the nests and human visitors are required (this is for both on land and in water) (Visser et. al). An additional wildlife management too, and perhaps the most successful practice is adding dredged-material islands for the pelicans to nest on. In North Carolina the addition of dredged-mateiral islands “was the beginning of a dramatic increase in nesting birds and nesting sites,” (Wilkinson et. al). The coast of NC saw increases from 14 nests in 1942, to 1500 nests in 1978, and up to 3900 nests in 1991 (Wilkinson et. al). This is a clear indicator of the successful habitat created by dredging. Challenges (including climate change) While there are many challenges facing the brown pelican today, few has had as great of an impact as oil spills, erosion near nesting sites, ruined nesting sites, and over wintering. The first of these problems, oil spills, have the greatest immediate impact on the species. Research from an oil spill in 1982 from an unknown vessel shows the effects that oil spill can have on Brown Pelicans. Approximately 80,000 gallons of No. 6 diesel oil were spilled in the Cape Fear River estuary near Wilmington, North Carolina. According to the journal “the spill occurred 21 to 26 km upstream from two Brown Pelican… nesting islands on which 300 to 325 nests were located. Most clutches had been completed with the oil spilled,” (Parnell et. al). While the spill missed the island birds who were not trapped in the oil spill transferred oil from their feathers to the eggs. Oil on avian embryos can have a huge effect on the success rates of the hatchlings, but “sensitivity of avian embryos to oil contamination decreases with age of the embryo,” (Parnell et. al). The scientists were able to date the contamination period of the eggs to around 2 weeks. While there was significant decrease in the hatching success of the eggs, around 2.17 eggs hatched per nest from the entire population (Parnell et. al), on a larger scale this could have a detrimental effect on the entire population. There was a clear reduction in the hatching success of Brown Pelican eggs after being exposed to the oil contamination from the plumage. According to the article “Had eggs been oiled earlier in the incubation period and had a significant portion of the colony been affected, the impact on reproductive success could have been much more severe,” (Parnell et. al). As fossil fuel use in the US increases, there could be the potential for more spills that could have a continued detrimental effect on the Brown Pelican species. In addition to oil spills, Brown Pelicans face challenges climate changes. While these threats are less transparent and harder to predict, there are still serious challenges that the brown pelican species will have to face in the future due to the changing climate. Despite the pelican’s ability to migrate between breeding and wintering habitat and ability to withstand higher temperatures, if current increasing temperature trends continue the pelican’s breeding grounds will become too thermally stressful to have successful reproduction rates. Breeding and migrating uses considerable amounts of energy, nesting sites are fully exposed to elements, and pelican’s are central foragers. All of these factors will increase thermal stress on the birds and lead to undergo significant reduced reproductive success and ultimately affect the future of the species (Oswald). Despite the variability in the predictions for climate change, it is clear that the increasing temperatures at pelican breeding sites will have a significant negative effect on the reproduction and success of nestling pelicans. Works cited 1. Cornell University. 2011. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2. D.C. Duffy. 1983. The ecology of tick parasitism on densely nesting Peruvian seabirds Ecology, 64: 110–119. 3. Lisa M.F. Eggert, Patrick G.R. Jodice, Kathleen M. O’Reilly. 2009. Stress response of brown pelican nestlings to ectoparasite infestation. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 166: 33–38. 4. OSWALD, S. A. and ARNOLD, J. M. 2012. Direct impacts of climatic warming on heat stress in endothermic species: seabirds as bioindicators of changing thermoregulatory constraints. Integrative Zoology, 7: 121–136. 5. James F. Parnell, Mark A. Shields and Dargan Frierson, Jr. 1984. Hatching Success of Brown Pelican Eggs after Contamination with Oil. Colonial Waterbirds 7: 22-24. 6. Jenneke M. Visser, William G. Vermillion, D. Elaine Evers, R. Greg Linscombe, and Charles E. Sasser. 2005. Nesting Habitat Requirements of the Brown Pelican and Their Management Implications. Journal of Coastal Research 21: 27 – 35. 7. N.L. Norcross, E.G. Bolen. 2002. Effectiveness of nest treatments on tick infestations in the eastern brown pelican Wilson Bull., 114: 73–78. 8. Philip M. Wilkinson, Stephen A. Nesbitt, and James F. Parnell. 1994. Recent History and Status of the Eastern Brown Pelican. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22: 420-430 9. U.S. Department of the Interior. 2013. National Park Service. 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuges. Brown Pelican Habitat. Directory: 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> The Global Warming that Wasn’t 2014 -> Assembly, No. 3901 state of new jersey 216th legislature 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Unit: Automotive and Auto Body 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Walnut creek, ca branch executive committee meeting minutes Download 130.25 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
1 2