Movements, Space Use, and Vital Rates of Mourning Doves
Investigators:
Natalie Pegg, PhD Student
Project Supervisors:
Dr. David Haukos
Cooperators
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
Rich Schultheis
Tom Bidrowski
Funding
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
Start date: 1 July 2022
End date: 30 June 2026
Background
The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) is one of the most abundant bird species in North America, and familiar to millions of people. Mourning doves have been in North America for at least 1.8 million years, given fossil records in early Pleistocene deposits. Mourning doves are found throughout North America in a wide range of habitat types from urban backyards, farmsteads, and croplands to grasslands, forest edges, riparian areas, and many others. Commonly found associated with humans, mourning doves are adaptable and prolific. Doves, including mourning doves, have been and continue to be important symbols in religion and human culture. The mourning dove is the most abundant and widespread North American gamebird, with harvest opportunity in 39 of the 48 conterminous states (Baskett et al. 1993, Seamans 2020). Harvest is greater than all other migratory birds combined.
As a migratory gamebird, the mourning dove is cooperatively managed among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (responsible for migratory birds) and state agencies, with harvest regulations developed based on 3 Mourning Dove Management Units – Western (WEU), Central (CMU), and Eastern (EMU; Figure 1). Annual abundance estimates and population trends historically were conducted with the Mourning Dove Call Count Survey (CCS, 1966–2013; Dolton 1993). The CCS was developed as an annual index of abundance. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a harvest strategy in 2013 that relies on estimates of absolute abundance, which is estimated using a simple Lincoln-type estimator based on annual harvest and harvest rates based on band recovery data (Otis 2006). A national mourning dove banding program was in initiated in 2003, with banding goals by states (based on boundaries of Bird Conservation Regions; https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-anddata/webless-migratory-game-birds/doves-and-pigeons.php). Sanders and Otis (2012) reported band reporting rates for mourning doves to estimate harvest rate using direct recoveries. Banding data are also used to estimate annual survival using the Seber dead recovery model. Annual estimates of harvest are provided by the Harvest Information Program (HIP). HIP survey estimates for mourning dove harvest have been available since 1999. The Parts Collection Survey whereby age of a sample of individual doves is determined by wing plumage is used to estimate age ratio (HY/AHY) in the harvest to estimate recruitment after accounting for age-specific vulnerability (Miller and Otis 2010). In the absence of the CCS, trends in abundance indices are estimated using data from the June North American Breeding Bird Survey (includes doves heard and seen; BBS) in a log-linear hierarchical model and Bayesian analytical framework (Sauer et al. 2017).
Figure 1. Mourning dove management units with 2019-2020 hunt and nonhunt states (Seamans 2020).
Estimates of absolute abundance indicate that there were 183 million mourning doves in the United States prior to the 2019 hunting season (Seamans 2020). However, the 2019 abundance estimates were the lowest in all Management Units since 2003. Based on the BBS results, long-term (54 years, since 1966) trends indicate that dove abundance is increasing in the EMU, but decreasing in CMU and WMU. During the most recent 10 years, mourning doves have declined in all of the Management Units; percent change per year EMU = -1.1, CMU = -1.0, and WMU = -3.4 (Seamans 2020). Estimated harvest has declined in all Management Units since 2003. Recent (2019-2020) HIP harvest estimates that approximately 10 million mourning doves are harvested in the United States by about 663,000 hunters. Since 2003, 723,694 mourning doves have been banded in the United States. Of these, 40,965 were recovered and reported (5.6%). Harvest rate is greater for HY than AHY birds. Understanding factors influencing population and harvest trends at local, regional, Management Unit, and national levels are important for informing harvest regulations.
Kansas, USA, is part of the CMU and actively participates in the management of mourning doves through annual BBS routes, annual banding, and habitat management on state wildlife areas. Similar to the overall CMU estimate, the short-term trend of mourning dove abundance using BBS data indicates a -0.8% annual decline in Kansas during the past 10 years (Seamans 2020). Estimated abundance in the CMU has declined in a similar pattern (no state-specific abundance estimates; Figure 2). There is not a state-specific estimate of abundance in the CMU, including Kansas. The CMU accounts for 53% of the total mourning dove harvest in the United States (5,266,400 in CMU during 2019-2020). Harvest rate in the CMU has remained relatively constant since 2003, but overall estimated harvest has declined nearly 50% from nearly 10 million birds in 2004 and 2005 to approximately 5 million in 2018 and 2019, which corresponds to large decline in hunter effort (Figure 3). Estimated harvest in Kansas in 2019-2020 was 389,800 or 7.4% of CMU harvest.
The number of pre-season mourning doves banded in Kansas from 2003-2019 range from 1,099 – 3,403 (average = 2,524). Estimated average annual survival based on band recovery data is 0.340 and 0.498 for Kansas HY and AHY birds, respectively (Seamans 2020). However, these estimates combine all of the bandings and recoveries since 2013 and there are no annual estimates. The estimated harvest rate is similar at 0.063 and 0.059 for HY and AHY birds, respectively. Without considering annual or spatial variation, the estimated survival rates are not drastically different from previous estimates in other areas based on banding data dating back to the late 1960s (Hayne 1975, Haas 1978, Dunks 1977, Dunks et al. 1982, Tomlinson et al. 1988, Martin and Sauer 1993, McGowan and Otis 1998).
Figure 2. Estimates and 95% confidence intervals of mourning dove absolute abundance by management
unit and year, 2003–2019. Estimates based on band recovery and harvest data (Seamans 2020).
Figure 3. Estimated mourning dove harvest (▲) and harvest rates (hatch-year=□ and after-hatch-year=○)
in the Central Management Unit, 2003–2019 (Seamans 2020).
Although mourning dove populations are not considered to be in any danger of extirpation at any spatial scale, the recent 10-year trends of declining population abundance, harvest, and hunter participation are of concern to managers. It is unlikely that the current harvest rate is contributing significantly to the population decline. However, harvest opportunity in terms of increasing length (EMU, CMU) and bag limits (WMU) have been enacted for each Management Unit during the past decade. The Kansas hunting season for mourning doves is from 1 September – 29 November (90 days) with a daily bag limit of 15. The most likely influential factor affecting population trends are declining recruitment rates (based on age ratios in the harvest), which are lowest in the Great Plains states (Seamans 2020); indicating potential issues with reproduction (e.g., declining nest success or chick survival; Muoz and Miller 2020). For example, Meyers et al. (2006) reported that although nest success did not change significantly over a 40-year period in Utah, USA, they did find decreased reproductive output in terms of chicks fledged.
The reproductive strategy of mourning doves represents a low level metabolic effort (e.g., 2 eggs/clutch) over a long breeding season (in Kansas February-September) with multiple nesting efforts (up to 4-5 nests/breeding season; 14-15 days incubation, 15 days fledging). Estimating total productivity, either per female or in a defined area, is difficult due to such a reproductive strategy. Mourning doves are thought to select nest sites in trees along woodland/grassland edge (Eng 1986, Tomlinson et al. 1994, Drobney et al. 1998). However, in areas where these habitats are absent or limited in availability they commonly nest on the ground in more continuous habitat types such as grasslands and cropfields (Soutiere and Bolen 1976, Howe and Flake 1989). Geissler et al. (1987), in a nationwide research effort during 1979 and 1980, reported that 80% of nests occurred between 22 April and 4 September, with 4.5% of annual nesting activity in September and October (i.e., potentially during the hunting season). They reported no differences in daily survival rates of eggs and nestlings in nonhunted (95.8%) and hunted zones (95.0%). However, Kansas did not participate in that study. Snyder et al. (2016) confirmed the findings of Geissler et al. (1987) that mourning doves are habitat generalists using contemporary approaches to analyses and the original data. Nest success improved with nest height and northern states have greater nest success than southern states. Schultz et al. (2019), using the same data set analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models, reported slightly greater daily nest survival than Geissler et al. (1987) did using the Mayfield method for nonhunted zones (0.972 vs 0.963) and hunted zones (0.969 vs 0.955), resulting in overall nest survival for areas and years combined for hunted zones of 44.3% (95% CI: 35.3-53.9%) and 48.1% (95% CI: 36.9-59.8%) for nonhunted zones. Schultz et al. (2019) concluded that there is limited or no effect of harvest on mourning dove populations, but suggested that continued monitoring is warranted. Drobney et al. (1998) found that mourning doves selected woody vegetation edge in or adjacent to grasslands for nest sites in Missouri with an apparent nest success of 31% (varied considerably based on habitat type). Smith et al. (2012) reported an apparent nest success of 33%, but it ranged from 2.3% to 24.2% among years using a logistic-exposure nest success model in riparian habitat of central New Mexico.
Other potential factors influencing the population decline of mourning doves include changes in land use, including intensification of agriculture (e.g., loss of early successional [“weedy”] habitat patches; e.g., Ostrand et al. 1998); competition with exotic Eurasian collared-doves (Streptopelia decaocto) and expanding native white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica; albeit still rare in Kansas with a potential effect limited to the southwestern portion of the state); disease (Schulz et al. 2005); and lead poisoning from spent lead shot (Schultz et al. 2006). Muoz and Miller (2020) reported that low reproductive output occurs in regions where mourning dove declines have been the steepest, which are represented by human-dominated landscapes. For example, areas of intensive corn and soybean cropping correlated with 41-57% reduction in mourning dove reproductive output. They recommended further investigation of evaluating fine-scale land cover factors critical for the persistence of mourning dove populations (e.g., edge habitats). Green et al. (2020) did not find evidence of direct competition with collared doves in the western Great Plains. Schultz et al. (2002) reported that mourning doves are exposed to spent lead shot in areas managed for hunting.
Estimation of annual survival rate is based on band recovery data, and thus dependent on the banding, recovery, and reporting of bands. Period or seasonal survival is typically accomplished with radiotagged birds. Schultz et al. (2017) reported that annual and seasonal survival for mourning doves captured and marked on public land intensively managed for dove hunting was low compared to other areas in Missouri. For all ages, sexes, and years combined, spring‐summer survival prior to the hunting season was 0.447 and overall period survival during May–October, including hunting season, was 0.252. Mean annual survival for AHY doves was 0.214 and 0.041 for HY doves; recovery rates were 0.165 for AHY and 0.179 for HY doves. They concluded that locally intensive harvest management practices may be negatively affecting local populations because these survival estimates are much lower than a previous estimate of 0.716 spring and summer survival in Missouri (Schultz et al. 1996). These authors concluded that lands subject to intensive harvest management practices warrant continued monitoring to ensure long‐term population sustainability.
Kansas does not have any baseline data on breeding mourning doves and has not participated in any research focused on mourning doves. Kansas Parks and Wildlife does intensively manage fields for dove hunting on public lands (2020: Brzon, Cedar Bluff, Glen Elder, Jamestown, Norton, Webster, Wilson, Kansas River, Perry, Clinton, Richard B. Hanger Bog, Milford, Hillsdale, Rutlader, Elwood, Benedictine Bottoms, Oak Mills, Bolton, Jeffrey Energy Center, Tuttle Creek, Concannon, Cheyenne Bottoms, Finney, Garton, Hodgeman, Kepley, Lane, Texas Lake, Byron Walker, Cheney, Kaw, Marion, El Dorado, Council Grove, Berentz-Dick, Fall River, Hollister, Mined Land, Toronto, Dove Flats, Elk City, Melvern, and Woodson). Banding in Kansas is distributed among wildlife areas intensively managed for doves, other rural locations, and urban sites (Figure 4). In addition to banding birds, any recaptures of previously banded birds are recorded. However, knowledge of reproductive output, seasonal vital rates, habitat and space use, and movements of mourning doves using wildlife areas intensively managed doves relative to other rural and urban areas are lacking.
Management of mourning doves in Kansas will require knowledge of breeding effort and success broadly categorized among intensively managed public lands, other rural lands (public and private), and urban landscapes across the state. Vital rate variables such as nest density, nest success, fledging survival, adult survival, and overall reproductive success are necessary to evaluate the potential effects of land management strategies, intensive harvest, landscape characteristics, and other forms of disturbance on local populations. The influence of co-occurrence with Eurasian collared doves on mourning dove habitat use and reproductive success in Kansas is unknown, but necessary to inform management strategies. Movements of local mourning doves prior to the hunting season will provide insights into availability of locally produced mourning doves for harvest and if intensive management for doves attracts birds from other localities to assess the potential for these areas to serve as local or regional sinks. Knowledge of migration and wintering movements and areas of mourning doves breeding in Kansas will provide important connections as part of the entire life cycle of the Kansas population.
Figure 4. Distribution of doves banded in Kansas during 2018, distributed among Bird Conservation Regions 18, 19, and 22.
The primary goal of the project will be to assess population density, survival, reproductive output, and movements prior to and during the hunting season on public lands intensively managed for mourning doves, other rural or management areas, and urban landscapes.
Objectives:
- Estimate breeding vital rates among intensively managed public lands, other rural public and private lands, and urban landscapes. These parameters will include seasonal survival of male and female adult mourning doves, nest density among habitat types, nest and fledgling success among habitat types and across the breeding season, and cumulative reproductive success for an entire breeding season (estimated number of young/ha/year by habitat type).
- Assess the relationship among breeding season production, movements, habitat use, and timing of harvest. Movements and space use following fledging or nesting and prior to hunting season will be quantified. Temporary, study-specific hunter-check stations will be used to monitor harvest and take of banded birds.
- Test for the influence of Eurasian collared doves on habitat selection and space use by mourning doves among intensively managed public lands, other rural public and private lands, and urban landscapes.
Study Area
The study will be conducted throughout Kansas. Within each of the 3 primary Bird Conservation Regions (18, 19, 22; Figure 4), we will select 1 intensively managed state wildlife area, and then group 1 rural public or private land site and 1 urban site nearby to serve as study sites blocked by region (treatment). Potentially, the study will be stratified comparing areas of relatively high (intensively managed state wildlife area) and low hunting areas (combined rural and urban). The study will be conducted from March through September, 2023 and 2024. One Ph.D student will be recruited for the duration of the study and 3 people per study site will be hired as technicians (9 technicians) for each study site each year.
Field Sampling
We will use very-high-frequency (VHF) transmitters for local tracking of mourning doves. Body mass of mourning doves (western race) average 116 g for males and 108 g for females. Therefore, transmitter mass should not exceed 3.5 g (4 g maximum with harness). Schultz et al. (2001) recommended use of subcutaneous implants for VHF transmitters compared to transmitters attached with glue or wing harnesses. Given that subcutaneous implant transmitters require anesthesia and thus, an on-site vet, that approach will not be practical for multiple field sites. Further, the mass of transmitters tested by Schultz et al. (2001) is ~3 times greater than the mass of our proposed transmitters, so issues expressed previously with harness attachments are likely not relevant with contemporary transmitters. We propose to use Model A1065 (1.3 g; Advance Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN), transmitters with a harness attachment for local and intra-breeding season monitoring. We propose to radio tag 30 mourning doves per treatment per study site (focusing on adult females, but will supplement with adult males as needed; 90 doves/site annually at 3 sites for 2 years). We also propose to radio tag young just prior to fledging to determine survival for 90 days post-fledging. We will use Model A1035 (0.75 g; Advance Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN) with a suture attachment. We will focus fledging monitoring prior to the start of the hunting season on the state wildlife areas by fitting 30 transmitters on fledgings starting in mid-July through the end of August and monitoring each up to 90 days. Birds with VHF transmitters will be monitored daily, with timing of location randomly determined to ensure that locations are recorded throughout the daily cycle. If direct sighting of transmittered birds is not possible, we will use Location of a Signal software to estimate the location of birds. Daily locations will be used to estimate space use, habitat selection, and residence time in treatments.
We will use Modified Kniffin traps to trap mourning doves starting in March for birds to be outfitted with VHF transmitters (Reeves et al. 1968). Each captured bird will be aged and sexed following Mirarchi (1993). Morphometric measurements will include body mass (g), flattened wing chord (mm), and head, culman, and tarsus lengths (mm). Each captured bird will be banded with a numbered aluminum band provided by the USGS Bird Banding Lab.
We will identify patch (i.e., cover) types at each treatment location in each study site based on extant vegetation composition and structure (e.g., grassland, riparian, savanna, forest) and corresponding land use (e.g., urban, grazing, row crops, CRP). Starting in early March and continuing through mid-September, a minimum of 5 ha/cover type of interest per treatment will be searched for nests every 2 weeks at each study site. A variety of approaches will be used depending on vegetation structure. Grasslands will be searched using rope dragging for the presence of ground nests. Savanna or low shrub land cover types will be searched with combination of intensive searching approaches. Nest searching in wooded areas will consist of searching crowns of randomly identified trees, stratified by type (e.g., genus). Location of each nest will be recorded using a GPS unit. Eggs will be floated to determine incubation stage and estimate hatching date. Each egg will be measured to determine volume as an index to habitat quality.
Vegetation characteristics will be measured at each nest. Measurements at grassland (i.e., ground) nests will be with the use of a Daubenmire frame to estimate percent cover of functional plant groups and specific plant species. A Robel pole will be used to estimate visual obstruction at the 4 cardinal directions. Plant height of the tallest individual in each functional group will be measured using a ruler. Similar measurements will be taken for nests found in savanna or shrubland cover types with the addition of measurement of density of woody vegetation using the point-center quarter method. In forested and riparian cover types, measurements of nest trees will include density of trees in 50- and 100-m radius or use of point-center quarter method, height, species, dbh, height of nest, and distance to nearest nest.
Analyses
We will estimate breeding vital rates among intensively managed public lands, other rural public and private lands, and urban landscapes (3 treatments). These parameters will include seasonal survival of adult mourning doves using known-fate models in Program MARK, nest density among habitat types (compared among treatments using log-linear models), and nest and fledgling success among habitat types and across the breeding season using the nest success model in Program MARK. Using these estimates and extrapolations, we will derive cumulative reproductive success for an entire breeding season (estimated number of young/ha/year by habitat type) for each treatment.
We will use VHF tracking data to assess relationships among breeding season production, movements, habitat use, and timing of harvest on state wildlife areas. We will quantify movements and space use by radio-tagged adult females during fledging or nesting, following completion of nesting and prior to start of hunting season, and during the hunting season. We will use temporary, study-specific, voluntary hunter check stations to monitor harvest of banded birds on state wildlife areas, including recording data on location of harvest by having hunters indicate locations on a map.
We will test for the influence of Eurasian collared doves on habitat selection and space use by mourning doves among intensively managed public lands, other rural public and private lands, and urban landscapes. Each treatment at each study site will be surveyed for the presence and, perhaps, abundance of collared or white-winged doves, which will be used as a covariate in models estimating vital rate and density models. Changes in habitat use in the presence of the exotic doves will be documented (i.e., potential competition effects).
Permits Required: (1) active BBL Master Bird Banding Permit (potentially under either general KDWPT or Haukos permit that needs to be amended for doves), (2) USFWS MBMO Scientific Collection Permit, (3) KDWPT Annual Collection Permit, and (4) KSU IACUC (prior to grant establishment).
Deliverables: Annual progress reports on 1 September 2023, 2024, and 2025. The final report will be submitted on 30 June 2026.
Literature Cited
Atkinson, R.D., T.S. Baskett, and K.C. Sadler. 1982. Populations dynamics of mourning doves banded in Missouri. Special Scientific Report – Wildlife No. 250, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.
Baskett, T. S., M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. 1993. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dolton, D. D. 1993. The call-count survey: historic development and current procedures. Pages 233–252 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dunks, J. H. 1977. Texas mourning dove band recovery analysis, 1967-1974. Federal Aid Report Ser. 14, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, USA.
Dunks, J. H., R. E. Tomlinson, H. M. Reeves, D. D. Dolton, C. E. Braun, and T. P. Zapatka. 1982. Mourning dove banding analysis, Central Management Unit, 1967-77. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Special Science Report - Wildlife 249, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.
Eng, R. L. 1986. Upland game birds. Pages 407-428 in A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart, editors. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Geissler, P. H., D. D. Dolton, R. Field, R. A. Coon, H. F. Percival, D. W. Hayne, L. D. Soileau, R. R. George, J. H. Dunks, and S. D. Bunnell. 1987. Mourning dove nesting: seasonal patterns and effects of September hunting. Resource Publication 168, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.
Green, A. W., H. R. Sofaer, D. L. Otis, and N. J. Van Lanen. 2020. Co-occurrence and occupancy of mourning doves and Eurasian collared-doves. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:775– 785.
Haas, G. H. 1978. Mourning dove harvest characteristics, survival, and population trend in North and South Carolina. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 32:280–290.
Hayne, D. W. 1975. Experimental increase of mourning dove bag limit in the Eastern Management Unit, 1965-72. Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commission. Technical Bulletin 2.
Howe, F. P., and L. D. Flake. 1989. Nesting ecology of mourning doves in a cold desert ecosystem. Wilson Bulletin 101:467–472.
Martin, F. W., and J. R. Sauer. 1993. Population characteristics and trends in the Eastern Management Unit. Pages 281–304 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
Mirarchi, R. E. 1993. Sexing, aging, and miscellaneous research techniques. Pages 399–408 in T. S. Baskett, M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi, editors. Ecology and management of the mourning dove. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
McGowan, D. R., and D. L. Otis. 1998. Population demographics of two local South Carolina mourning dove populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1443–1451.
Miller, D. A., and D. L. Otis. 2010. Calibrating recruitment estimates for mourning doves from harvest age ratios. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1070–1079.
Meyers, P. M., W. D. Ostrand, M. R. Conover, and J. A. Bissonette. 2006. Assessing difference in mourning dove Zenaida macroura marginella nesting activity after 40 years. Wildlife Biology 12:171–178.
Muoz, D., and D. Miller. 2020. Human-dominated land cover corresponds to spatial variation in mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) reproductive output across the United States. Condor 122:1–11. DOI: 10.1093/condor/duaa003
Ostrand, W. D., P. M. Meyers, J. A. Bissonette, and M. R. Conover. 1998. Changes in land use as a possible factor in mourning dove population decline in central Utah. Journal of Field Ornithology 69:192–200.
Otis, D. L. 2006. A mourning dove hunting regulation strategy based on annual harvest statistics and banding data. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1302–1307.
Reeves, H. M., A. D. Geis, and F C. Kniffin. 1968. Mourning dove capture and banding. Special Scientific Report-Wildlife 117, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, D.C., USA.
Sanders, T. A., and D. L. Otis. 2012. Mourning dove reporting probabilities for web-address versus tollfree bands. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:480–488.
Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., and W. A. Link. 2017. Expanding the North American Breeding Bird Survey analysis to include additional species and regions. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8:154–172.
Schultz, J. H., R. D. Drobney, S. L. Sheriff, and W. J. Fuemmeler. 1996. Adult mourning dove survival during spring/summer in northcentral Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:148–154.
Schulz, J. H., A. J. Bermudez, J. L. Tomlinson, J. D. Firman, and Z. He. 2001. Comparison of radiotransmitter attachment techniques using captive mourning doves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:771–782.
Schultz, J. H., J. J. Millspaugh, B. E. Washburn, G. R. Wester, J. T. Lanigan, III, and J. C. Franson. 2002. Spent-shot availability and ingestion on areas managed for mourning doves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:112–120.
Schulz, J. H., A. J. Bermudez, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2005. Monitoring presence and annual variation of Trichomoniasis in mourning doves. Avian Diseases 49:387–389.
Schultz, J. H., J. J. Millspaugh, A. J. Bermudez, X. Gao, T.W. Bonnot, L. G. Britt, and M. Paine. 2006. Acute lead toxicosis in mourning doves. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:413– 421.
Schulz, J. H., Y. Bian, X. Gao, T. W. Mong, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2017. Mourning dove period and annual survival in west-central Missouri. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:249–255.
Schulz, J. H., X. Gao, P. Shao, Z. He, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2019. Revisiting effects of hunting on mourning dove nest survival. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 10:102–110.
Seamans, M. E. 2020. Mourning dove population status, 2020. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland.
Smith, D. M., D. M. Finch, and D. L. Hawksworth. 2012. Nesting characteristics of mourning doves in central New Mexico: response to riparian forest change. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:382–390.
Snyder, J., X. Gao, J. H. Schulz, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2016. Reanalysis of historical mourning dove nest data by using a Bayesian approach. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 7:292–303.
Soutiere E. C., and E. G. Bolen. 1976. Mourning dove nesting on tobosa grass-mesquite rangeland sprayed with herbicides and burned. Journal of Range Management 29:226–231.
Tomlinson, R. E., D. D. Dolton, H. M. Reeves, J. D. Nichols, and L. A. McKibben. 1988. Migration, harvest, and population characteristics of mourning doves banded in the Western Management Unit, 1964-77. Technical Report 13, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.
