Skip to main content
Log in

Problems of scale in assessing the role of propagule pressure in influencing introduction outcomes illustrated by Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) introductions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Species that are introduced into novel habitats have potentially devasting effects on ecosystem services and functions. Predicting which species and introduction events represent the largest threats are important scientific and management goals. It has been suggested that propagule pressure, the sum of individuals introduced, can be used to predict the probability of establishment success. Previous analyses of this hypothesis have often improperly used historical data by combining introductions over large spatial extents and over long time periods. We use the historical record for Common Pheasant releases in the USA to evaluate the process at scales more relevant to the problem of understanding population establishment. Introduction success varied widely among regions with histories of Common Pheasant introductions in the USA. In a series of logistic regression models involving data from the Foreign Game Investigation Program, we found no evidence to support propagule pressure when the ‘state’ in which the releases occurred was included as a random effect. There are many examples of states with large numbers of Common Pheasants that were introduced but failed to establish self-sustaining populations.

Graphic abstract

David Watmough. Dreamstime.com.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abellán P, Tella JL, Carrete M, Cardador L, Anadon JD (2017) Climate matching drives spread rate but not establishment success in recent unintentional bird introductions. PNAS 114:9385–9390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen DL (1956) The management outlook. In: Allen DL (ed) Pheasants in North America. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA, pp 431–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon SJ, Aebi A, Pierluigi C, Bacher S (2014) Quarantine arthropod invasions in Europe: the role of climate, host and propagule pressure. Divers Distrib 20:84–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks RC (1981) Summary of foreign game bird liberations, 1969–1978. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, special scientific report-wildlife no. 239

  • Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2009) Avian invasions: the ecology and evolution of exotic birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell H (1976) Foreign game birds in New Mexico, vol 15. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardador L, Blackburn TM (2019) Human-habitat associations in the native distributions of alien bird species. J Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of bird introductions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:71–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Rossinelli S, Bacher S (2014) Quantifying invasion risk: the relationship between establishment probability and founding population size. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1255–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarson AS (1945) Some factors affecting ring-necked pheasant density. Murrelet 26(1):2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RE (1997) The influence of numbers released on the outcome of attempts to introduced exotic bird species to New Zealand. J Anim Ecol 66:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grevstad FS (1999) Experimental invasions using biological control introductions: the influence of release size on the chance of population establishment. Biol Invasions 1:313–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell J, Bryant HC, Storer TI (1918) The game birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hjersman HA (1947) A history of the establishment of the ring-necked pheasant in California. Calif Fish Game 33(1):3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes MA, Riggins JJ, Koch FH, Cognato AI, Anderson C, Formby JP, Dreaden TJ, Ploetz RC, Smith JA (2017) No rest for the laurels: symbiotic invaders cause unprecedented damage to southern USA forests. Biol Invasions 19:2143–2157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold A (1931) Report on a game survey of the north central states. Sporting arms and ammunition manufacturers institute, Madison, WI

  • Lever C (1987) Naturalized birds of the world. Longman Sci and Tech, Burnt Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long JL (1981) Introduced birds of the world. David and Charles, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Albarracin VL, Amico GC, Simberloff D, Nunez MA (2017) Impact of non-native birds on native ecosystems: a global analysis. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0143070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr, Gezan SA (2018) Patterns of success in game bird introductions in the United States. Biodivers Conserv 27:967–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MPSG (2013) Midwest pheasant group: national wild pheasant conservation plan. In: Veverka NB (ed) Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, pp 1–111. https://nationalpheasantplan.org/national-plan/

  • Musil DD, Connelly JW (2009) Survival and reproduction of pen-reared vs translocated wild pheasants Phasianus colchicus. Wildl Biol 15(1):80–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson LK (1964) A ten-year study of ring-necked pheasant introductions in Kentucky. In: Pittman-Robertson project game management technical series, no 14. Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Kentucky, pp 1–153

  • Newsome AE, Noble IR (1986) Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. In: Groves RH, Burdon JJ (eds) Ecology of biological invasions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldys H (1910) Pheasant raising in the United States. USDA farmer’s bulletin 390

  • Phillips JC (1928) Wild birds introduced or transplanted in North America. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 61. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Redding DW, Pigot AL, Dyer EE, Sekercioglu CH, Kark S, Blackburn TM (2019) Location-level processes drive the establishment of alien bird populations worldwide. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1292-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson WB Jr (1958) Investigations of ring-necked pheasants in Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Game Management, technical bulletin 1

  • Siegler HR (1949) The ring-necked pheasant in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Wolfeboro, NH, p 82

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith SA, Stewart NJ, Gates JE (1999) Home ranges, habitat selection and mortality of ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in North-central Maryland. Am Midl Nat 141:185–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sol D, Vila M, Kuhn I (2008) The comparative analysis of historical alien introductions. Biol Invasions 10:1119–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sol D, Maspons J, Vall-llosera M, Bartomeus I, García-Peña GE, Piñol J, Freckleton RP (2012) Unraveling the life history of successful invaders. Science 37:580–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studholme AT, Benson D (1956) The pheasant in the northeastern states. In: Allen DL (ed) Pheasants in North America. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA, pp 388–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltman CJ, Nee S, Crawley MJ (1996) Correlates of introduction success in exotic New Zealand birds. Am Nat 147:542–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandell WN (1949) Status of ring-necked Pheasants in the United States. In: Transactions of the 14th North American wildlife conference, vol 14, pp 370–387

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael P. Moulton.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Pheasant release data for eight northeastern states

Appendix 1: Pheasant release data for eight northeastern states

New Jersey—<https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2018/pheas_sched18.pdf> https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pheasmaps.htm downloaded 2/11/19—45080 released in 2018. MPSG (2013) reports that 55,000 birds are stocked each year, and that wild birds only persist in selected river valleys.

Maine—<https://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting-trapping/pheasant-hunting.html> 2300 stocked in 2018, downloaded 2/11/19.

Massachusetts—https://www.mass.gov/service-details/pheasant-hunting-regulations 40,000 released in 2018, downloaded on 2/11/19.

New Hampshire—https://wildlife.state.nh.us/hunting/pheasant.html 11,535 released in 2018, downloaded on 2/11/19.

Vermont—http://www.eregulations.com/vermont/hunting/game-bird-hunting/ “small numbers exist…”. No reported stocking, also see Oldys (1910).

Delaware—MPSG (2013) notes that pheasants occur in Delaware but it is unknown if any are actually wild or simply privately released. The Common Pheasant population peaked in 1960 and has been declining to the point where it is not clear if any birds seen are wild or recent escapes from private preserves.

Connecticut—<https://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2723&q=326060&depNav_GID=1655> Says need 15,000–20,000 releases per year to maintain the population.

Rhode Island—MPSG (2013) claims 4000 individuals are released yearly, wild birds occur on only Block Island.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moulton, M.P., Cropper, W.P. Problems of scale in assessing the role of propagule pressure in influencing introduction outcomes illustrated by Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) introductions. Biol Invasions 22, 1161–1168 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02170-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02170-y

Keywords

Navigation