33 
In Stratum C, the average number of ducklings per brood was the smallest 
(5.25), in Stratum B the highest (5.78). The provincial average of 5.64 young per 
brood did not vary in the least even when a second aerial brood survey was made in 
late July and early August. 
The drought conditions in Stratum C were reflected throughout the season, 
causing a 34 percent reduction in breeding populations and an 11 percent loss in 
production. As 1953 was also a relatively poor year in this stratum, a more 
accurate picture of conditions in this southern prairie is apparent when we consider 
that the 1954 production was 67 percent below the average. In May there were 15 
percent less water areas in this stratum than in 1953. By late July, 62 percent of 
these areas had dried up. 
In Stratum A, a population increase of 14 percent over 1953 was recorded, 
while the production index rose 64 percent over that of the previous season. In 
perspective, the population was 56 percent above average and the production about 
7 percent above average. The hatch here might have been even greater had it not 
been for the drought effects in the southern districts of this stratum where it was 
influenced by conditions to the saith. Nevertheless, both population and production 
indices were the highest recorded since our surveys began in 1947. 
In general, water conditions were excellent in Stratum B, where populations 
were 21 percent above those the previous year and 54 percent above the average. 
The production index rose 22 percent above 1953 and 44 percent above the average. 
At the start of the season there were about 13 percent more water areas in this 
stratum than in 1953 and by August 1 only 45 percent of these had dried up. 
Aside from the drought in the south, the only other serious weather factor to 
influence production in Alberta after May 1 were a series of wide-spread hailstorms 
in July. Unlike those in 1953, these caused relatively minor damage to ducks because 
of the soft, mushy nature of most of the hail stones. Agriculturallosses were high, 
however, because of the weight of hail on young grain. One aerial transect flown for 
the entire length of the path of the most destructive hail storm of the summer showed 
no evidence that it had affected even the youngest Class I broods. Wind velocities, 
as well as the size and harness of the hail stones are of paramount importance in 
considering hail damage to waterfowl. In 1954, despite large agricultural losses, 
relatively light hail damage was suffered by waterfowl. 
In the parklands, heavy nest losses by avian predators were noted by our 
ground study crews. This was apparently caused by the sparse nature of the new 
vegetative growth during the nesting season. Delayed by the snows and severe 
temperatures of late April and early May, even the aspen were not fully leaved until 
June 15. Crows and magpies nested at their regular time but waterfowl were delayed 
by the inclement weather. This placed the ducks at a decided disadvantage durfng 
May and early June as nesting cover was decidedly poor until the period when parkland 
duck broods were hatching. In spite of this condition, aerial observations recorded a 
potential later hatch of slightly less than one brood per square mile. As this is 
considered about average, nest losses, though primarily attributed to avian predators 
were not overly high because of a minimum loss through agricultural practices. 
