Review of \u3ci\u3e Watching Kansas Wildlife: A Guide to 101 Sites\u3c/i\u3e by Bob Gress and George Potts

This publication is designed for the novice wildlife watcher and it is a guide to where to go to watch wildlife, not how to identify them. The authors are enthusiastic, and rightfully so, about wildlife in Kansas. There is considerable wildlife diversity throughout the Great Plains yet many people do not know or appreciate this treasure. The book provides a statewide map showing the physiographic regions and all 101 viewing sites in Kansas. Additionally, there are six maps indicating the locations of sites and highways in that region. Each site description includes directions to the site, its size, ownership, wildlife symbols (quick reference to wildlife occurring on the site), and recreational symbols indicating whether trails, parking, restrooms, etc., are present. Other useful features include the Dynamic Dozen Sites and Dynamic Dozen Wildlife Index which provide useful information on the can\u27t miss areas to visit. A page reference helps readers find areas to visit for viewing selected wildlife such as pronghorns or prairie dogs. These are useful features

Adaptations of Female Bobwhites to Energy Demands of the Reproductive Cycle

The energy required by bobwhites (Colinus virginianus) to attain reproductive condition was measured for 30 individually caged game-farm raised birds. They were acclimated to an eight-hour photoperiod, which then was increased one hour each week until reaching 15 hours; it was then kept constant. One hen began laying eggs five weeks after the 15-hour photoperiod started. However, only 75 percent of the birds that eventually layed were laying after 12 weeks at 15 hours photoperiod. Average body weights increased from 194.2 g seven weeks prior to egg laying to 214.8 g while laying. Metabolized energy increased 24.4 percent (35.6 to 44.3 kcal/bird-day) during the six weeks prior to the onset of yolk deposition, which occurs in the week prior to laying. Metabolized energy increased another 18.3 percent to 52.4 kcal/bird-day while the quail were laying eggs. These results show several adaptations of bobwhites that permit them to meet the energy demanding activity of achieving reproductive status. This asynchronous response to photostimulation enables the birds to optimize their time of lay to unpredictable weather conditions prevalent in spring in temperate climates. In addition, the energy required to achieve reproductive condition is spread over six weeks; thus, the impact of increased energy demands is minimized

Energetic Requirements for Egg-Laying Bobwhites

As part of an extensive bioenergetics study of bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), energy requirements for egg laying were determined. Caloric values for eggs averaged 5.489 kcal/g. Net energetic efficiency of converting productive energy into eggs was conservatively estimated to be 54% for quail laying at a rate of 0.45 egg/bird-day at 25 C. Assuming that those values were the same for quail laying a 10-g egg at a rate of 1 egg/bird-day resulted in an energy requirement of 69.645 kcal/bird-day. This is an energy demand equivalent to that of existence alone at about -3.3

Pocket Gophers

Thirty-four species of pocket gophers, represented by five genera, occupy the western hemisphere. In the United States there are 13 species and three genera. The major features differentiating these genera are the size of their forefeet, claws, and front surfaces of their chisel-like incisors. Thomomys have smooth-faced incisors and small forefeet with small claws. Northern pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) are typically from 6 1/2 to 10 inches (17 to 25 cm) long. Their fur is variable in color but is often yellowish brown with pale underparts. Botta’s (or valley) pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) are extremely variable in size and color. Botta’s pocket gophers are 5 inches to about 13 1/2 inches (13 to 34 cm) long. Their color varies from almost white to black. Geomys have two grooves on each upper incisor and large forefeet and claws. Plains pocket gophers (Geomys bursarius) vary in length from almost 7 1/2 to 14 inches (18 to 36 cm). Their fur is typically brown but may vary to black. Desert pocket gophers (Geomys arenarius) are always brown and vary from nearly 8 3/4 to 11 inches (22 to 28 cm) long. Texas pocket gophers (Geomys personatus) are also brown and are from slightly larger than 8 3/4 to nearly 13 inches (22 to 34 cm) long. Southeastern pocket gophers (Geomys pinetis) are of various shades of brown, depending on soil color, and are from 9 to 13 1/4 inches (23 to 34 cm) long. Pappogeomys have a single groove on each upper incisor and, like Geomys, have large forefeet with large claws. Yellow-faced pocket gophers (Pappogeomys castanops) vary in length from slightly more than 5 1/2 to just less than 7 1/2 inches (14 to 19 cm). Their fur color varies from pale yellow to dark reddish brown. The underparts vary from whitish to bright yellowish buff. Some hairs on the back and top of the head are dark-tipped. Range: Pocket gophers are found only in the Western Hemisphere. They range from Panama in the south to Alberta in the north. With the exception of the southeastern pocket gopher, they occur throughout the western two-thirds of the United States. Exclusion: Generally not practical. Small mesh wire fence may provide protection for ornamental trees and shrubs or flower beds. Plastic netting protects seedlings. Cultural Methods: Damage resistant varieties of alfalfa. Crop rotation. Grain buffer strips. Control of tap-rooted forbs. Flood irrigation. Plant naturally resistant varieties of seedlings. Repellents: Synthetic predator odors are all of questionable benefit. Toxicants: Baits: Strychnine alkaloid. Zinc phosphide. Chlorophacinone. Diphacinone. Fumigants: Carbon monoxide from engine exhaust. Others are not considered very effective, but some are used: Aluminum phosphide. Gas cartridges. Trapping: Various specialized gopher kill traps. Common spring or pan trap (sizes No. 0 and No. 1). Shooting: Not practical. Other: Buried irrigation pipe or electrical cables can be protected with cylindrical pipe having an outside diameter of at least 2.9 inches (7.4 cm). Surrounding a buried cable with 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) of coarse gravel (1 inch [2.5 cm] in diameter) may provide some protection

Food Habits of the Red Fox in Nebraska

Food habits of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Nebraska were deter· mined by analysis of 234 fox stomachs obtained from fur dealers during October 1978 through February 1979. Mammals were found most frequently (84%) and constituted the majority (77.4%) of the volume of food items. Cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) and jack· rabbits (Lepus sp.) were the most important items consumed based on frequency of occurrence (45.8%) and volume (49.2%). Remains of birds were difficult to identify, but ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) occurred in 6.9% of the stomachs and comprised 8.4% of the volume of items consumed. Male foxes had a higher volume of rabbits (55.6%) in their stomachs than did females (39.3%), whereas females had a higher volume (24.6%) of mice and voles than did males (14.6%). Remains of livestock and poultry in fox stomachs rarely were found (2.6%) and constituted only about 1% of the volume of the foxes\u27 diet. Game animals comprised 62.5% of the volume of the foxes\u27 diet

Pocket Gophers

Thirty-four species of pocket gophers, represented by five genera, occupy the western hemisphere. In the United States there are 13 species and three genera. The major features differentiating these genera are the size of their forefeet, claws, and front surfaces of their chisel-like incisors. Thomomys have smooth-faced incisors and small forefeet with small claws. Northern pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) are typically from 6 1/2 to 10 inches (17 to 25 cm) long. Their fur is variable in color but is often yellowish brown with pale underparts. Botta’s (or valley) pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) are extremely variable in size and color. Botta’s pocket gophers are 5 inches to about 13 1/2 inches (13 to 34 cm) long. Their color varies from almost white to black. Geomys have two grooves on each upper incisor and large forefeet and claws. Plains pocket gophers (Geomys bursarius) vary in length from almost 7 1/2 to 14 inches (18 to 36 cm). Their fur is typically brown but may vary to black. Desert pocket gophers (Geomys arenarius) are always brown and vary from nearly 8 3/4 to 11 inches (22 to 28 cm) long. Texas pocket gophers (Geomys personatus) are also brown and are from slightly larger than 8 3/4 to nearly 13 inches (22 to 34 cm) long. Southeastern pocket gophers (Geomys pinetis) are of various shades of brown, depending on soil color, and are from 9 to 13 1/4 inches (23 to 34 cm) long. Pappogeomys have a single groove on each upper incisor and, like Geomys, have large forefeet with large claws. Yellow-faced pocket gophers (Pappogeomys castanops) vary in length from slightly more than 5 1/2 to just less than 7 1/2 inches (14 to 19 cm). Their fur color varies from pale yellow to dark reddish brown. The underparts vary from whitish to bright yellowish buff. Some hairs on the back and top of the head are dark-tipped. Range: Pocket gophers are found only in the Western Hemisphere. They range from Panama in the south to Alberta in the north. With the exception of the southeastern pocket gopher, they occur throughout the western two-thirds of the United States. Exclusion: Generally not practical. Small mesh wire fence may provide protection for ornamental trees and shrubs or flower beds. Plastic netting protects seedlings. Cultural Methods: Damage resistant varieties of alfalfa. Crop rotation. Grain buffer strips. Control of tap-rooted forbs. Flood irrigation. Plant naturally resistant varieties of seedlings. Repellents: Synthetic predator odors are all of questionable benefit. Toxicants: Baits: Strychnine alkaloid. Zinc phosphide. Chlorophacinone. Diphacinone. Fumigants: Carbon monoxide from engine exhaust. Others are not considered very effective, but some are used: Aluminum phosphide. Gas cartridges. Trapping: Various specialized gopher kill traps. Common spring or pan trap (sizes No. 0 and No. 1). Shooting: Not practical. Other: Buried irrigation pipe or electrical cables can be protected with cylindrical pipe having an outside diameter of at least 2.9 inches (7.4 cm). Surrounding a buried cable with 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) of coarse gravel (1 inch [2.5 cm] in diameter) may provide some protection

GOPHER: A Computerized Cost/Benefit Analysis of Pocket Gopher Control

GOPHER is a computer program that can assist landowners, extension agents, and resource personnel in determining the cost-effectiveness of various methods of pocket gopher control. The program is interactive and user-friendly. It allows for the input of variables, including: crop type, acreage, expected yield and value, and acreage infested. Material and labor costs can be assigned or standard default values can be used. Other fixed variables can be changed, including: pocket gopher density and rate of increase, rate of treatment, rate of retreatment, and forage recovery rate. With these variables and values, GOPHER generates the costs, time, and economic feasibility of pocket gopher control. Control methods include: hand baiting, hand probe, gopher probe, burrow builder, and trapping. It also provides estimates of costs for second treatments and pocket gopher expansion without control. Free copies of GOPHER are available from the authors by providing formatted 5 1/4 inch floppy disks or 3 1/2 inch disks

A CULTURAL METHOD OF REDUCING POCKET GOPHER IMPACT ON ALFALFA YIELD

Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) strives to minimize input of agrichemicals for farmers while maintaining profits. Alfalfa fits into this scheme in 2 ways. First, the plains pocket gophers (Geomys bursarius) can reduce yield of alfalfa, thus an effective, economical means of control with minimal environmental impact would be desirable. Second, the increased use of alfalfa in rotation with row crops to increase soil nitrogen may increase pocket gopher problems by increasing their habitat. Our objective was to evaluate a cultural method to control pocket gopher damage, namely, by comparing 2 different varieties of alfalfa. One variety is tap-rooted (Wrangler) while the other has a more fibrous-rooted system (Spredor 2). We hypothesized that damage would be less in the fibrous-rooted alfalfa as it is capable of vegetative reproduction and could recolonize areas. We released live-trapped pocket gophers on 4 treatment areas in each alfalfa variety. Pocket gophers were present on plots of each variety from the fall of 1988 through the fall of 1989. Damage caused by pocket gophers was measured by clipping 80 samples/harvest during the 1989 growing season. Yields were 15 to 19% less in treatment areas than in control areas for both varieties. Sampling continued through the 1990 growing season to determine the recovery rate of each variety after gophers had been removed. The tap-rooted variety showed no improvement in 1990 over 1989. On the other hand, the fibrous-rooted alfalfa exhibited a 4% increase in treatment over control areas after gopher removal

A CULTURAL METHOD OF REDUCING POCKET GOPHER IMPACT ON ALFALFA YIELD

Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) strives to minimize input of agrichemicals for farmers while maintaining profits. Alfalfa fits into this scheme in 2 ways. First, the plains pocket gophers (Geomys bursarius) can reduce yield of alfalfa, thus an effective, economical means of control with minimal environmental impact would be desirable. Second, the increased use of alfalfa in rotation with row crops to increase soil nitrogen may increase pocket gopher problems by increasing their habitat. Our objective was to evaluate a cultural method to control pocket gopher damage, namely, by comparing 2 different varieties of alfalfa. One variety is tap-rooted (Wrangler) while the other has a more fibrous-rooted system (Spredor 2). We hypothesized that damage would be less in the fibrous-rooted alfalfa as it is capable of vegetative reproduction and could recolonize areas. We released live-trapped pocket gophers on 4 treatment areas in each alfalfa variety. Pocket gophers were present on plots of each variety from the fall of 1988 through the fall of 1989. Damage caused by pocket gophers was measured by clipping 80 samples/harvest during the 1989 growing season. Yields were 15 to 19% less in treatment areas than in control areas for both varieties. Sampling continued through the 1990 growing season to determine the recovery rate of each variety after gophers had been removed. The tap-rooted variety showed no improvement in 1990 over 1989. On the other hand, the fibrous-rooted alfalfa exhibited a 4% increase in treatment over control areas after gopher removal

An assessment on the effect of collaborative groups on students’ problem-solving strategies and abilities

This paper reports the use of tools to probe the effectiveness of using small-group interaction to improve problem solving. We find that most students' problem-solving strategies and abilities can be improved by working in short-term, collaborative groups without any other intervention. This is true even for students who have stabilized on a problem-solving strategy and who have stabilized at a problem-solving ability level. Furthermore, we find that even though most students improve by a factor of about 10% in student ability, there are two exceptions: Female students who are classified as pre-formal on a test of logical thinking improve by almost 20% when paired with concrete students; however if two students at the concrete level are paired together no improvement is seen. It has been said that problem solving is the ultimate goal of education (1), and certainly this is true in any chemistry course (2). To be sure, most instructors value this skill and try to instill the ability to solve problems in their students. However, the term "problem solving" means different things to different audiences, from algorithmic problems to complex, open-ended problems that do not have one particular solution. A number of attempts have been made to define problem solving, including "any goal-directed sequence of cognitive operations" (3), and many now agree with the general definition: "what you do when you don't know what to do" (4). Problem solving can be closely allied to critical thinking (5), that other goal of most science courses, in that it involves the application of knowledge to unfamiliar situations. Problem solving also requires the solver to analyze the situation and make decisions about how to proceed, which critical thinking helps. A number of information processing models for problem solving have been developed (6-8) and attempts made to develop uniform theories of problem solving (9). However, many of these studies involve knowledge-lean, closed problems (2) that do not require any specific content knowledge to solve, and that have a specific path to the answer. The truth is that many types of problems exist and there is not one model that will be effective for all categories (10). For example, in teaching science we are ultimately concerned with knowledge-rich problems requiring scientific content knowledge. Studies on problem solving in chemistry have typically revolved around development of strategies derived from research on closed-ended problems, usually pinpointing areas of difficulty that students encounter in specific subject types, such as stoichiometry or equilibrium. A number of studies where students are given strategies or heuristics allowing them resolve word problems in order to produce a numerical answer by application of an algorithm Open-ended problem solving that requires students to use data to make inferences, or to use critical thinking skills, is much more difficult to incorporate into introductory (and even higher level) courses; it is even more difficult to assess, particularly when large numbers of students are involved. Traditional assessment methods, such as examinations and quizzes-including both short answer and multiple choice-give very little insight into the problem-solving process itself. If a student does not have a successful problem-solving strategy, these methods may not allow either the student or the instructor to see where the difficulty lies, or to find ways to improve. While other investigation methods such as think-aloud protocols and videotaped problem-solving sessions (14) give a more nuanced picture of the problem-solving process (15-17), these techniques are time consuming, expensive, and require specific expertise to analyze. These methods are certainly not applicable for the formative assessment of large numbers of students, and while they give a snapshot of a student's problem-solving ability at the time of observation, it is even more difficult to monitor students' development of problem-solving expertise over an extended period. The upshot of all this previous research is that while we know a great deal about the problem-solving process in an abstract environment, we do not in fact have much insight into how students solve many types of scientific problems. Since we lack this information about how students approach problems and how students achieve competence, it is not easy to address the difficulties that students encounter as they develop problemsolving abilities. Indeed, while instructors value problem-solving skills highly, it is often the case that the only explicit instruction that many students are exposed to is the modeling of the skill as the instructor solves problems for students. So we have a situation where a valued skill is often not fully developed in students, even though we implicitly expect that they will become competent problem solvers by the end of the course. The most common assessments give no real insight into student strategies for problem solving, and therefore there is little feedback the instructor can give in terms of how to improve. The traditional assessments also tend to measure and reward algorithmic problem-solving skills rather than critical thinking and application of knowledge to new situations. It seems clear that if we are serious about wanting to incorporate meaningful problem solving into our courses, then we must go beyond the traditional assessments and design systems that allow us t