AN ANALYSIS OF VARIATIGN AMONG PARTICIPANTS IN CROWING- COCK PHEASANTS CENSUSES Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Samuel Morgan Carney I954 THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled An A112 37518 of Variation Ageng: Participants in 0-169 Growing-Cock Pheasant Censuses presented by Samuel bargan Carney has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for fl. 5 degree inlishenies 8: Wildlife (742w 17M Major professor Date Lay 21. ICSL} AN ANALYSIS OF VARIATION AMONG PARTICIPANTS IN CROWING—COCK PHEASANT CENSUSES BY SAMUEL MORGAN CARNEY A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements ' for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1954 THESIC ACKNOW LE DG MEN TS ' The writer is indebted to Dr. C. W. Petrides, who originally conceived the project, and whose summer camp classes of 1952 and 1953 collected much of the data. Special thanks are due to Dr. D. W. Hayne, who always found time to discuss statistical ramifications pertinent to the problem. Five graduate students generously gave their time during the spring term of 1953. They are L. H. Blankenship, R. C. Housedorf, D. B. Reid, C. R. Terman, and A. D. Geis, who was also helpful in‘a number of other ways. I Mr. R. I. Blouch of the Michigan Department of Conservation supplied maps and furnished information on Game Division census methods. Drs. R. C. Ball and P. I. Tack read and criticized the manu- script. Dr‘. Tack also acted as advisor in the absence of Dr. Petrides. Dr. Max Nelson of the Speech and Hearing Clinic gave hear- ing tests to many of the participants in this study.. 331263 ii Mrs. Henderson. secretary of the Department of Zoology, expedited certain administrative matters pertaining to enrollment that enabled the writer to re-enter school under the (3.]. Bill. iii TA BLE OF CON TEN TS ACKNOWLE DG MEN TS ........................... LIS T OF TABLES .............................. Differences Among Counts of Observers .............. ANALYSIS OF DATA, SPRING 1953 .................. Effect of Previous Experience .................... Effect of Screening Counters ..................... Effect of Interference .......................... ANALYSIS OF 1953 SUMMER CAMP DATA ............. Effect of Multiple Species Counts .................. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ......................... SUMMARY . ................................... LITERATURE CITED ........................... APPENDIX........................ ..... . ..... iv ii l3 18 23 . Z3 28 3O 31 33 Table LIST OF TABLES Results of the Summer Camp 1952 Pheasant Counts ................................. Results of Spring Term 1953 Pheasant Counts ...... Results of Spring Term 1953 Pheasant Counts (excluding one student) .................. . . . . Effect of Interference Spring of 1953 ............ Results of Summer Camp 1953 Pheasant Counts IO 14 19 25 INTRODUCTION State—wide censusing of the ring-necked pheasant, Phasianus _—__ colchicus torquatus, by means of the fall road-side count, was first demonstrated in Iowa by Bennett and Hendrickson (1938). The fol- lowing year Randall and Bennett (1939) stated they believed the method was also applicable to Pennsylvania conditions. Stiles and Hendrickson (1946) found the method to be satisfactory as an index of population levels over a ten-year period in Iowa. Working in Montana, Fisher M. (1947) found the road-side count to be sta— tistically weak on a monthly basis and questioned the validity of the method in Pennsylvania. However, Kozicky _e__t___ai. (1952) presented statistical evidence that the method was valid on a state—wide basis in Iowa. Meanwhile, other workers were working with audio-census methods on spring populations (McClure, 1945). Kimball (1949) per— fected the crowing—count census as a reliable technique for deter- mining population trends, distribution, movement, and even spring storm mortality of/pheasants. Some of the factors he listed as affecting the accuracy of this type of census are: (1) variation in the ability of individuals to hear cock-calls, (2) daily trend and duration of maximum cock-crowing, (3) seasonal trend and duration of maximum cock—crowing, (4) uniformity of results, (5) effect of variable factors such as weather and cover upon the count. Kozicky (1952) investigated some effects of weather and also discussed uni- formity of results. Thompson and Lemke (I953) dealt with non— randomness of pheasant calls. This paper is limited entirely to a consideration of the first of Kimball's (giggly) factors, variation in the ability of individuals to hear cock—calls. The paper is a brief attempt to explore this variation and some of its causative agents, and to suggest possible methods for decreasing this variation. The term ”cock-crowing count” will be used throughout this paper instead of either "crowing count” or "crowing—cock count" because the writer believes it is the most completely accurate of the three terms. METHODOLOGY Field Procedures All cock-crowing counts used in this study were made on pheasant census routes that had been laid out by the Game Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation, and which were in use annually by members'of that agencyr As‘ much as was possible, all of the counts were made fol- lowing the method of procedure used by the Michigan Game Division. With the, exception of the fifth feature listed below, this method closely approximates that recommended by Kimball (gpL_c_it.). It has the following important features: 1. On each route, the counting is started exactly one-half hour before sunrise, and the route is covered as quickly as is possible allowing exactly two minutes for each count. 2. All pheasant cock-crows (two-syllable calls) are counted, but no effort is made to identify individual birds. 3. The count is made from a point 15 to 20 feet distant from the car to avoid any noises from the cooling motor that might alter listening conditions. 4. When the count has been completed at one station, the person counting returns to thecar and drives as rapidly as is possible to the next station and makes his next two-minute count. 5. All individual quail heard whistling and all individual grouse heard drumming are recorded. 6. Any noises which interfere with the count are recorded for those stations where they occur. 7. Counts are not made when the wind velocity is greater than eight miles per hour as determined by the Beaufort wind scale. All participants in the counting rode together in the same vehicle and made their two—minute counts simultaneously. Each par- ticipant very carefully kept his count a secret from his fellow counters. Bovard (1953) demonstrated the importance of secrecy by showing that various social groups making estimates (of a dif« ferent kind) greatly reduced the dispersion of their estimates after having been informed of their previous estimates and of the group norm on those previous estimates. Four or five two—minute trial counts were made at the first station on the first day of both the spring«counts and the summer—counts of 1953. These counts were not kept secret because they were " intended to demonstrate the method to participants who had no previous counting experience. None of these counts were recorded. A large number of counts were rejected as not being suitable for analysis chiefly because of poor weather conditions or because the counts obtained were so low that an analysis would have been meaningless. A number of counting runs over the routes were abortive because weather conditions changed abruptly and adversely during the actual counting run. Statistical Procedures All data utilized in this study were subjected to analysis of variance. Independence of the mean was tested by use of Bartlett's Test for Homogeniety of Variance (Snedecor, 1946). A. significant Chi-square value was obtained using the original data. Bartlett's Test was repeated using the transformation Vx + % for each indi- vidual observation. This time the Chi-square value was not signifi— cant, indicating the mean and the variance were new independent of each other. All analyses of variance were then conducted using this transformation . ANALYSIS OF 1952 SUMMER CAMP DATA Differences Among Counts of Observers As a part of the regular summer camp course given for students majoring in wildlife management at Michigan State College, cock—crowing counts were made during the summer of 1952.. Usable data were obtained on four days. The counts were made on three routes by six students and their instructor, Dr. George W. Petrides. The writer was not present.‘ In addition to the cock—crowing counts, all individual bobwhite quail heard whistling and all individual mourning doves heard "cooing" were recorded for those stations where they occurred. There is no record of the amount of previous counting experience that these students had, though it is thought to have varied to a considerable degree. The fact that these counts were not made during the peak of the seasonal pheasant—crowing period is not believed to‘ be of any importance with respect to the variation among individual counts, though it undoubtedly reduced the size of these counts. Whether or not starting the counts approxi- mately one-half hour later in the day than is recommended had any effect is problematical. Later in the day, interference increases 6 Kl markedly, but interference and its effects on the counts will be taken up later in this paper. The results of the summer camp counts are summarized in Table I. There was very little agreement among the counts obtained by the participants. The one day on which no statistical differences appeared was a day on which the average total count was very low with an average of only 34.4 cock-calls being recorded for the entire route. $0.0 at: a: 2033... x mafia #8223. 3.: Sn: 2 333$ 60 «H083. R: 02.0 390 e oaomm m 33m 08.3 a: Eon. $1323 IIIMIIII 1mm 582 .mw we Edm er coflmrm> mo mousom 38.0 man...» a: 2033.... x «Room tamoam mama; ENE S 233$ .00 8554 timeg :30 so; a oaoom N 33m III: 80.3. mi Eon. N335): .m .dm came/H flm mo 55m .mQ C3535» we ooudom mmood Nov.» v: mcofloum x oaoonm slag: $2.; Exams 2 muonflm .oo Enema 3.35 samuo swam 0 Bacon a 33m u 393. mi Eon. $3523 mm mm smog am. we Edm er Cofiumwhmk mo oohdom 33.0 3.92 a: muons: x gnome damseé meow; www.mm S I muonflm .oo Sagas: smamnm mmma 3m; e ozmoom a 33m $0.2. a2 58. 33523 b .mm 532 .wm mo Edm MO :ofiumcmxx mo oohsom mHZDOO Hz .QXMV Renae 23.0 Emofi E 385V 828 flood Ema; 3 2x3 not» $3.0 $3.2 om “chum .00 52:0 {.mwmmwsw 234. Tamas m: maonflm H venom ties e83. 822 H .985 .9, .98 $3833 3.3.8 SS...“ 33.2 m 388289"qu $2.5 32: men: a “occasional. $3.3 ~33. $3.2 m 838m I I Sandals; - m: I 309 h .Mm EmmE .dm we 55m .mQ doflmahmxx mo oohoom 3.3.0 Emma m: A985 .m> .993 8.98 23.0 $3..» em 38:: “8.8 $25 32; 3 e93; 858 236 Son: 2 83m .00 “Sofie Hiaow 39:. 3st m: Imcoofim a 8.3m $842 8%.2 38.2 a 98$ .2, .98 $3333 .38.... £1: Smog” N 3838985 2.... .242; Names H 333.898 saxoamm :34. 2.3.4: a 838m moons: X. :38. ..m .mm Smog .:.Jm.m.. we acmom er Gofloahm> no oohoom mHZDOO Hz we oousom HSTO voood m: manned“ .m> .93; Moshe owmflo waome vm meant uonuo Nwfioé HNOVJ ma Adena; uouum $096 33.: oo nouum .oo Eanmfi Iwwmmwmual $3.: £358 2 meoofim N 350m .ucwomd owomd omomd H .985 .m> .98 mm\H..H.Hm_<\vm .33me 33$ :35 m emoaotmmxofi mm.“ 8.2.0 8.3.0 H Humanotmaxu 83.222 32...“. $3.2 m 8308a ofloémm m: H.309 IIIIMIII .mw H502 .mm .Ho 53m hQ CofldTHdC/ mo eonsom wuvflo mmom.m wa @9233 .m> .onv House omde mowed. vm émxofiv uouuo mnmfio :uomd ma H.923 uouum $2.0 $3.2 co 82m .00 Eaemfl 11111 wwwanml 23.2 2.3.me wH mcoaflm N 850m 3.8 $2.». 355 H @985 .3 .98 MQHHEEMN newhhfi >H0~.N c wamo m poufiowuomxofi 3...: H.390 33.0 H wouamflmaxo *uwmm.vH ammo; 2%:6 m eaoonm III II mooH.mvm m: . H.308 h am 532 .dm mo 55m ha nofiompmxr mo ooudom 683358 N mama. Z .wawu mfimn thw ”H550 m woquHrmhm mucmnmtmufi mzmmmuuno mmdduwo. «do gong“ who? mCOwumum MHOE HO MGO .OH ddflu meH Ohd mefiudum MOM EOUQMHH MO movhwvfl mhvnfig “wuoz $2.0 ooood wH H.mm85 .3 .98v .828 mmmfio Nmocd om émxocd Henna >mm~.0 o©ov.m m: Adxm; Hohho $2.0 HNSHH N» 83m .00 :onm 3.3.? H.085 $89va wH { 3388 m 8.30m .3... 3.85 38.0 H .985 .3 .98 $8522 .. .093 $35 322: N 8858385 -mAH Homoé Smoé H wmucofihmmxm. 33.: £93 $3.2 H. 830$ :15: Emma: X Hfimm rm .wm H.822 &m mo 55m MD Coflmmum> mo mohdom 635988 N mqm .mxmv Houho H0mm.0 3.00.0 0m 0mech Mahhm fi2.00.0 mHmN..H 0H H.980 hounm 000N.0 mw>0.vH Wm hOMHM £32..de 030% 0000.00 0H mcoHufim .m...H ~0~o.o >0No.o H .985 .m> .93 .382. 23.0 3%: N 3838985 u...*0H.n~ 00m0.N w0m0.~ H 00353203 3.2.5 NNNHH £34. H. £98m H0200 ,v0 H.308 rm dm 532 Hum Ho Edm .mQ 203.3932 00 oohdom 00070 0mm0.H 0H H.935 .m> .mev Hounm 000N.0 mmfiwé 0H H.989: hounm $2.0 Nmmvd 2 A980 .898 womH.0 0NvH.0 vm nonum "ust0.0N mhmoé movofimlw 1 0H mcoHumum .n..n,.NH.N0 $00.0 N000.0 H .923: .m> .munm .méH mh0H.0 m>0H.0 H woudeHonmfiH mH.m Hmmvé Hmmvd H woodeHmQXm .H%HH.0H m0~v.m wwmm.» m mHmoonH Nvadw mm. HouoW pH .00 H522 gm 00 55m .mnH GoHumHhm> mo condom .oo 836 H 83m $33 EHN .00 52:0 H 350m $28913 AHZMDDHW mHZO UEQDHDXMHV mHZDOU Hammfimmm mm0H Emma. UZHmnHm rHHO mBADmHm m MiHmuoaH. 15 03:53:08 N mafia mmNNd 2.2.2 00 .8th 60 :onm 33.2 002..., @8on S 3388 N 330 2.0 £26 9.55 H. 8HnHomnH 3182:; 2.8.3 ow t H300. h #00 Game/H .0m .8 550 MO doHumHhm> mo mohsom H.$H.o EmoNH NN. 82m .00 8.2qu “3.3.3 8:2. 89.05 0H ; 3033.0. N 8.30m 5H NNHma NSNH H. 29.3 320833 Iltllllll. 000>wml0H v0 H.308 .mH .00 5“..on .00 .Ho 550 MO CoHumHhm> 00 00.300 00.0170 005.0 0H 093:: .m> .980 note 000H.0 H0000 00 093de .857... ENHd mvoNN wH H.930 H2.8 $3.0 . 33.2 NN. SEQ do 8205 .83.? voNNdH $8.va 0H 3288 N 8.30 five H.NH.H.H E: H .98.: .3 .98 322903.“. .854. N8: EEN N 32888985 .m... 336 835 H 3282898 3.30 $36 835 H. 2.88m 11 m000.00H v0 H308 “H .00 58on .00 .Ho Sum .mQ GoflmHhm> Ho @9300 i 11/../\\\\\\.Iliil 16 00qu 0500 50.3 ”5000 0 00050>0hm 0050H0mh005 03000030 00.00003 «00 530.93 0003 900350 0.85 .8 050 .0H 0.05 mm0H 050 050.330 .30 50000.3 .00 m00n000 0H0HH>> “0002 003.0 0000.N 0H 0mm05 .m> .930 H950 mm0H.0 ~m00.0 00 09350 H950 $26 $3..N mH A980 .858 003.0 HN~0.HH {mm - MOHWW 309.3 H.080 38.va H: 335m .00 0980. 5:: mHNod 285 H .089... .3 .98 m 8.3m 38.3 H.385 02mg: N 0828889.qu $85.22 6.: H0000 H0000 H 000505093 3%.: NNSN 02.0.2 H. oHnHoonH III: VHNm.00H N0 [ l Han—0.0 .0 .00 5002 00 .00 500 er coflmtm> m0 005000 l//\ll\\\lil.llil AH. 35088 m 04.0.6.0. 17 that hearing ability apparently was not the reason for the one student's consistently low count. It should be. pointed out that the student whose count was con— sistently low was absent on the last two days so that these days are the same in both analyses. On two days the counts made by inexperienced observers differed statistically among themselves, but did not differ significantly from the counts made by experienced observers. On the first of these days, April 21, 1953, the agreement is due to the failure of the experienced people to obtain counts that agreed among, themselves; thus, their counts had a larger standard deviation. On the second day, June 15, 1953, one of the inexperi— enced students made an exceedingly high count such that the mean count was actually higher than that of the experienced people. This was the only time that the position of these two means was reversed, and the difference was not significant. Kimball (92:533.) recognized this phenomenon and he stated, ”An inexperienced worker will usually have low counts at first, and this is often followed by excessive counts due to mis— interpretation of other sounds or to imagination." While removal of the student who consistently made low counts considerably improved the agreement among the counts of inexperi- enced observers, and also improved their agreement with those of the experienced observers, it is still evident that counts made by the latter tended to be higher and to agree better among themselves. Effect of Interference A series of analyses was made on the data from the five days on which stations having interference were prevalent enough to make it feasible to compare them with stations not having inter- ference. Interference may be defined as any extraneous noises such as songbirds, frogs, heavy traffic, farm noises, or barking dogs which might mask out a portion of the pheasant calls or which might distract the observers from the counting. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 4. As would be expected, there are highly significant differences among all stations whether or not interference was present. This is simply r an indication that crowing pheasants were unequally distributed across I ' i the countryside. Thompson and Lemke (op..cit.) noted that pheasants ;. either were not randomly distributed, or did not call at random, or :__ both. A seemingly more important fact is that on four of five days highly significant differences were found between stations with inter- ference and stations without interference. The remaining day was l9 0000.0 0.8: 0 3080 x .000 0: .m> 0300a x .05 o . 3.0.0.0 003.0 0.0. 2080 x .05 o: :0: .000 M0.23.0 0000:: 00. 2080 x .05 003:0 300.2 00 2080 x 0.8380 0.0.00.2 $00.0. 0000.00 0 3080 $.00: 0.3.0 0*0mw0v M0000K SENS 0 oucmuutflfi o: 0...? ... 30.0 N 3:. 00 0 850830.: 0.00.0 00000 0000.0 0 .05 on .9, .05 .00 500:0 0.0.00.3 33.0. 0000.8 00 980.30 0 Bsom 0000.02 0: 030.0 0022033 rm .dm 0002 .dm m0 80m ha Coflmwumxx mo 00.30m 0000.0 002.0 0 .m> 2080 x .05 00.0 M003.0 $00.0 0m 2080 x .2: on 003.0 0000.0 00 2080 x .05 0000.0 2.00.: 2 30000 x 009330 0.3.00.0... 2.0.0.0 0000.00 0. 2080 000 0.0.0.0.: ”09.0.0 020.00. 0 35308000 on .00 80:20 0:0. 002;. 00.00.00 0 0000000805 Huusom 500.30 002.0 003.0 0 .05 o: .2, .05 00:23:00 0.0.3.00 N00,; 020.00 00 0:30.30 . . 0.00.0.0: 00 038. m1 .05 .5002 .wm m0 85m .mQ aoflmtm> m0 00.30m v HAM 39ch x .05 0: $02.0 23.0 00 3080 x .2: 9. 00.3.0 $35 3 2080 x .3 2.2.0 31...: 00 3080 x 23.30 3.092 $2.0 53.2 m 208m .00 8205 0....N 3.8.00 L350 $8.3 2 8580.85 9. N 8.6m 3.2.03 500.2 83.0.. m moduuotflfi $22033 .3.0N.SN m000.$ £004; 0 in on .2. 55 3.00.? 33.: £303 2 28330 L 020.3 m: :38. h .05 cam?“ .dm mo 55m MO €033.00.» mo oohdom 200.0 $00.0 m 2080 x .2. o: .m> 39009 x .05 . 83.0 000m... 3 3080 x 55 on m0 0 I. . . . wme o camm m ov 03009 x “—5 22.0 $3.2 00 2080 x 33.80 11......NNI.....I 3...... :02. m 2.3.1. .8 629.. M: ....&....$ A0000.0 33.00 p 8530.35 o: N 33m $3.00 0.30.2 003.2: 0 853:8... 32.333 3.353 00.8.5 00.8.5 H .3 o: .3 .3 *évom 33;: NSENN m: 83.80 2.2.2.... m: 026.. .m .wm 552 .wm mo 85m .mQ Goflmfium> mo mondom €35.88 0 mama. ’. .. ".iii‘I" All“ J‘Jl‘l.”"\ ‘- Fii‘in .qumu mfimn. 50.: 3300 m 630096.20 Mononmmnmufi 030.0033 005.0005 “.90 gowfi v.83 008.3000 whoa no 98 .0: 533 003 09.0 0.33.30 new 530093 mo mmmhwmv chug? $qu 0000.0 002.0 0 20080 x .000 on .m> 390mm x .05 00.0 {lililxl “$00.0 0000.0 00 30000 x .05 9. 0000.0 200.0 00 2080 x .05 0000.0 2.2.2 00 3080 0 0.800000 00.0 0000.0 0000.0 0 038.0 .oo 030.... 00.0 3.00.: M00000, 0000.00 0. 85.3.8.5 o: 0 8.60 03.00.00 0000.0 02.0.00 0 8580805 00:03:00 3.3.: 0000.0 0000.0 0 .05 0: .m> .05 0.00.2 002.0 0000.00 2 00208.0 0000.00 00 :38. rm .mm 5022 .mm .8 50m .mQ 0833.230 00 vupsom 6025.800 0 0392. ZZ significant at the 5 per“ cent level. Closer examination by the writer leaves him with the impression that this is not a valid test but is, rather, a reflection of the position of the stations on the route and hence a reflection of the time in relation to sunrise. Kozicky (op. git.) found a significant decrease in the mean crowing counts observed at two stations at 45-minute intervals. Tests comparing the variability of the stations without inter- ference and the variability of the stations with interference showed Significance at the 10 per cent level on only one of five days. The variability of the counts by people at the stations with interference compared to the variability of people's counts at stations without interference also showed significance at the 10 per cent level only one time out of five. 7 -Ota-I‘ ANALYSIS OF 1953 SUMMER CAMP DATA Effect of Multiple Species Counts The Michigan State College summer camp for wildlife man— agement students made cock—crowing counts in the summer of 1953. Nine students, Dr. Petrides, and the writer participated. These people were divided into two groups, one of which counted pheasant cock-calls only, and another which counted not only pheasant cock- calls, but also individual quail whistling and individual mourning doves ”cooing.” Each of these two groups was subdivided into people with experience and people without experience. Thus, there were three experienced observers and two inexperienced observers counting cock-calls only, while there were three experienced and three inexperienced observers counting pheasant cock—calls, individual doves and quail. These counts were, of course, made after the peak of the seasonal pheasant crowing intensity. They were also started about one-half hour later than is recommended. Three or four trial counts were attempted at the start of the first day's count. Unfortunately, the first station on the route had 23 an apparent maximum of two cock—crows so that these counts were virtually useless as a training device. The general procedure used in making the counts was not such that good results could reasonably be expected. The writer can re— call occasions when cars passed within a few feet while a count was being taken. Once the class was considerably distracted by the presence of a fox, and once sandhill cranes greatly interfered with the counting. Interference factors were so numerous that it was im— possible to omit those stations at which they occurred and have any appreciable amount of data remaining. The results of these counts are summarized in Table 5. These data are considered to be of questionable value by the writer and are submitted simply because they are all that he was able to obtain. They do seem to indicate that people counting single- species make higher counts than do people making multiple-species counts. There is also some support for the conclusion that experi- enced observers make higher counts than do inexperienced observers. The second day's data do not uphold either of these conclusions. H owever, on either day, the experienced people made a higher mean count than the inexperienced, and observers making single— species counts made a higher mean count than those making I‘ I. '1‘_. .,.- F4. .1. n... . . I .I ll ullviylvlll 0 v iizitll». g.-. 0000.0 0000.0 00 000 :00 :00 .0> .000 .8000 0000.0 NotaN 00 09000.00 .0». .9000 00.0.00 0000.0 00NN.N mm 30000000 .900003 00.0.00 002.0 0000.0 00 E080 .0080 .8000 0000.0 0000.0 00 0:0 :00 .0000 00.0.00 0000.0 ~0N0.N 2 00x05 .m> .9000 00.0.00 0.0.00.0 .5004 00 730000 30000003 00.0.00 002.0 0000.0 0m $30000 .0003 00.0.00 $2.0 m00m.0 00. A308 .0000ng 00.0.00 0020 0000.00 000 $000000 0000.0 .00 03500 3.00.0.3 000010 000N000” 00 000000000 H 00.0000 0000.00 0000.0 0000.0 0 .00 :00 :00 .8, 00200 00300200 00.0 :00; :00; H $008000 .m> .900 4.40.0 0N0m.0 0mNH.H N 0Hmo0m .9000: "ENTNN oomN.m 0.00.0.0 N 0100000 .900 0300N.: 0.02.0 00000.0 m 3000 .0006“. :00003 $00.00 0000.0 0000.0 0 0000000 .0> .008 03000.0N wm0N.N >m0N.N H 0100000 .9005 303.0 N000; 000N.N N 030000 .900 0.300th mHON.m 0m00.N~ 0 03000 00000000300 0......0000 0000.0 0:00.00 00 20000 Ill lllll 0000.00. oHN 13.0.0... :0 gum 00002 .06. .00 Sum er 0003000002 .00 00.050m mHZDOO HZ .9000 00.0.00 00000.0 0N00.N 00 0030000 #00000: 00.0.00 00000.0 00070.0 0N 3000000“ .903 00.0.00 000:0 0000.0 0m 30000 00000003 00.0.00 00000.0 00Nm.00 0000 00.3003 0000M .00 0030004 0300.00.00 000000 m0Nm.mm 00 mcoflmmw. N 0udom .00 0000.0 0000.0 0 .00 :00 :00 .2, 00200 00300200 0.: 00000.0 0000.0 0 000000000 .m> .900 “000.0 0N00m.o 0000.0 N 0730a .3005 0.0.00.0 00000.0 0.00020 0 000000 .05 03000.0 N0mom.0 HONm.N m 2000 .m0>ov 30.000000 00.0 000.000 0000.0 0 .9005 .0> .900 .0100 00000.0 0000.0 H 0730A .mx000m 0.00.0 0N000.0 0000... N 030000 .900 .3010 0000.020 0NON.N 0 3000 0000000003 .3090 0N000.0 0N00.0 00 0Hmo0m 0000.2. 000 Hanan. .0 .00 00002 .00 00 E000 .mQ 000.300.0000 .00 00.0000 00000000000 0 00.0020 Z7 multiple-species counts. Perhaps the fact that the second day was recorded over a shorter route (fifteen stations), and consequently was a less sharp test, may partly account for the lack of significance obtained. 10..» 00—— ——__ +00 00 -‘ ' 'Ar‘0. I DISCUSSION OF R ESUL TS It would seem that, if as Stiles and Hendrickson (gp.___c_il.), and Kozicky _e_t__a.l. (op;_c__it.) have demonstrated, the fall roadside census is a valid method of depicting pheasant population trends on a state-wide level, the cock-crowing pheasant census which Kimball (QB-.333) and Kozicky (9R;£_i.i-) have shown to be more accurate, must certainly be as good a method for determining spring breeding—cock population trends. Large scale counts made by a number of workers would presumably tend to balance out the inequalities among those workers' counts. However, unless there were agreement among those counts, the method would surely become progressively less accurate as the size of the area censused and the number of individuals cen- 5"“: susing it decreased. This would make comparison of counties or other regions within a state increasingly risky. If the findings in this thesis generally are valid, then comparison of smaller areas within a; a state should be possible when all of the observers used have been trained until they count in a manner similar to experienced person- nel. Multiple-species counts, in spite of their greater economy, should probably be avoided for most accurate results. 28 29 There is a real need for a study on the minimum training requirements necessary to produce “experienced” workers capable of making counts that agree with counts obtained by other experi- enced workers . SUMMARY Pheasant cock-crowing counts made by groups of people selected with no regard as to their previous counting experience or training showed almost no statistical agreement. Pheasant cock-crowing counts made by a group of experi— enced observers were usually higher than counts made by a group of inexperienced observers. Experienced workers obtained counts that agreed among themselves in the majority of cases, while inexperienced workers obtained counts that failed to agree among themselves at least as often as they agreed. The presence of interference apparently had little or no ef— fect on either the variability of the total counts at those stations where it was present or the variability among the counts of ob- servers at those stations. Data collected seemed to indicate a possibility that the counts of people making multiple-species censuses will generally be lower than counts made by people censusing only one species. 30 [. F‘.IL KHA-‘IZ" u. u... .og.-z._—._—.--‘I] LITERATURE CITED Bennett, Logan J., and George 0. Hendrickson. 1938 Censuring [sic] the ringneck pheasant in Iowa. IIEBE;N_- Am. Wildl. Co_r_1£. 3: 719-723. Bovard, Everett W.. Jr. 1953 Conformity to social norms in stable and temporary groups. Science 117(3040): 361-363. Fisher, Harvey 1., Robert W. Hiatt, and William Bergeson. 1947 The validity of the roadside census as applied to pheasants. igur. Wildl._Mgt. 11(3): 205~226. Kimball, James W. 1949 The crowing count pheasant census. Jour. Wildl. Mgt. 10(3): 101—120. Kozicky, Edward L. 1952 Variations in two spring indices of male ring-necked pheas~ ant populations. Jour. Wildl. M_g_t. 16(4): 429-437. Kozicky, Edward L., George 0. Hendrickson, and Paul G. Homeyer. r 1952 The adequacy of the fall roadside pheasant census in Iowa. !. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 17: 293-304. McClure, H. Elliot. 1945 Comparison of census methods for pheasants in Nebraska. Jour. Wildl. Mgt. 9(1): 38-45. A; 7’ ‘ “74 . Randall, Pierce E., and Logan J..Bennett. 1939 Censusing ringneck pheasants in Pennsylvania. 2131135. N. Am. Wildl; Conf. 4: 431-436. Stiles, Bruce E., and George 0. Hendrickson. 1946 Ten years of roadside censuses in Iowa. Jour. Wi1d_1_.__Mgt. 10(3): 227-280. 31 Snedecor, George W. 1946 Statistical Methods. 4th Edition, Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. 249-252. Thompson, Donald R., and Charles W. Lemke. 1953 Audio census of some Wisconsin game birds. LitlLA/lid— west Wildl. Conf. paper no. 40. APPENDIX 33 ORIGINAL DATA SUMMER CAMP, 1952 26/June/52, Ingham Co. 25/June/52, Ingham Co. Students Sta- fions Students Sta- tions 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. (‘J 2 TEE 34 = 94.7 D4 = 44.1 3? 35 ON NN NN HN NN HN NN vNH NNH NNH NNH NNH NNH HNH o- m- m. .0- on. .HH- a... . ON W..: m..- 4.... .N..... N... .N.... W..: . ON N N N H N o H. .NH o N H. N N H. N NH o o o o o o o .2 N N N N N N NH .NH o o H o o o o .2 N N N N H. N N NH o o o H o o o .3 a N HH N N a 0 .NH o H. o o o o o .2 N N N N N N N .NH N N H. N H. H. N .HH H. HH HH o o H. NH .HH N H N N H. H. N .2 N 2 NH HH NH NH NH .NH o H H H H H H .NH NH HH HH NH NH HH NH .NH H o H H N H H .HH N N NH 9 N a HH .HH N H N H N H N .3 N N N N o N HH .2 H N N N N H H .N N HH o H. N N o .o o o o o o o o .N NH NH OH OH 0H NH NH .N H N H H N H H N H. N N N N N N .H. N N N o N H N ..N N N N NH N N N .N o H H H H H o .N N N N N N N N .N N N N N N N H. .H. N N N N N N N .H. N N H. H. N N N .N N N a N N N HH .N H. N N N N N N .N NH NH NH HVH H H H .N N H. N N N N N .H N NH OH 2 N OH OH .H o .N m o 0 NH < 28: u .H m NH 0 m < $83 muCQUSum Idum mufimfiudpm Imam do 382:. .NNEHEQHVH I .oo 3323 .NNZHsNBH 638.3288 NNNH KHZ/No ”$3:sz <.H.oQ1.mHG.mm66NHnH NHCO mHHHme66HHnH LBW 3:66an MMOH .06 :836 .NNNOHBNNNN .NHH\HonH .mucdmmanH NAHHHO mundwdoxfl. mHHoHH mHG6Ode 13m .00 6636C61H .MM\6SHN.\N.N 685208 NNOH ..HH>H