Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Waterbird Communities in Rice Fields Subjected to Different Post-Harvest Treatments

Authors: John H. Day; Mark A. Colwell;

Waterbird Communities in Rice Fields Subjected to Different Post-Harvest Treatments

Abstract

-In California's Sacramento Valley, the potential value of rice fields as habitat for waterbirds may vary with harvest method, post-harvest treatment of rice straw (chopped, burned, plowed), and extent of flooding. Recent changes in rice harvesting methods (i.e., use of stripper-headers) and a legislative mandate to decrease burning of rice straw after harvest may alter habitat availability and use. Thus, we investigated species richness and community composition of nonbreeding waterbirds during October-March 1993-94 and 1994-95 in rice fields of the northern Sacramento Valley. Most (85-91% of land area) rice was conventionally harvested (i.e., cutter bar), and the remainder was stripped. Rice straw was left untreated in more than half of fields (52% in 1994 and 54% in 1995), especially in stripped fields (56-70%). In fields where farmers treated straw, the most common management methods were plowing (15-21%), burning (19-24%), and chopping (3-5%). Fields became increasingly wet from October through March as seasonal precipitation accumulated and farmers flooded fields to facilitate straw decomposition and provide habitat for ducks. Species richness of waterbirds was greater (P 0.23). Species richness in stripped fields probably was low because foraging opportunities were limited by tall dense straw, decreased grain density, and infrequent flooding. We recommend that land managers wishing to provide habitat for a diverse waterbird community harvest rice using conventional methods and flood fields shallowly. Received 3 April 1998, accepted 21 July 1998.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    41
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
41
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!