Abstract
Studies have repeatedly emphasized the limited survival of pheasants reared using traditional methods compared to the wild one. For this reason we performed a field trial to compare survival rates, home ranges and habitat uses of pheasants artificial hatched and reared (traditional method) with pheasants artificial hatched and reared by fostering mothers (hens). A total of 117 artificially hatched pheasants, 57 artificially brooded after hatch and 60 brooded by fostering hens, were equipped with a radio necklace tag or a poncho tag. Both groups were localized two-three times a week after their release in the wild. The survival rates of the brooded-by-hen pheasants showed an improvement of survival rates, either poncho or radio tagged (P<0.05), 90.0% vs 57.1% and 35.0% vs 21.1%, respectively. The average maximum dispersion was 390 and 426 m and the home range were 12.0 and 11.6 ha in artificially brooded and brooded-by-hen pheasants, respectively. The land use showed that the woods were less represented than the available in the home range of every pheasant. For this reason the woods can be reduced in the agricultural areas interspersed with natural Mediterranean vegetation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
