
Table 5«~~Breeding pair populations, spring, 1950 to 1953 
Indicated pairs 
Peak date per square mile 













Average 
pairs per 
square mile 
Average 
percent 
Species of pairs 











B-W teal 
Gadwall 
Mallard 
Pintail 
Shoveller 
Redhead | 
Ruddy 4 
Lesser Scaup 
Baldpate 
Canvasback 
G-W Teal 
Wood duck 
Cinnamon Teal 
Ringneck 
Unidentified 
Total 
Ww 
rPwWhhPhM @vwrown 
FEEOQOTPPANEPH 
FRE AN AP OUONO® 
Ww 
* 
WE ONOW PWWw-1ON 
PWhNwWwAOF 
Ww 
ht 
FNMUAPNABwWOO 
FRAN A@WoOO 
run Fein tt oom Ny 
e 
oe 
Pee 
roo Wo WO Ww UT] 

a 
WI AW HAOANM AA Fw 

e 
[ee 
no 


trace 
trace 

ay) @eese *eeees 
nahebeakes bri efao pe [ar 
1 As indicated later, ruddy-duck pairs have been underestimated. Hens of this 
Species are shy and few are visible. Drakes are often in groups of two or 
more, even though the hens are nesting. Thus, the criteria used to distinguish 
breeding birds do not apply well in this case. 

Table 6.--Composition of flying blue-winged teal population, 1951 





Breeding birds Birds not actively nesting 
Lone } Lone Grouped | Grouped | Brood | 
Pairs|males|females ; males females | females Unagea? 
8/9-9/7 
9/4-9/2h 
1 Predominantly juveniles. 
2 Migrants and courting parties. 
3 Great increase in lone males indicates that many hens were nesting. 
4 Peak indicated pair populations. Only ten birds tallied as nonbreeders at this 
time. 
5 Grouped males becoming numerous, hatching under Way e 
23 
