<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Joseph L. Moore</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Daniel J. Twedt</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>John G. Mensik</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>E. Logerwell</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>William L. Hohman</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1995</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;Accurate determination of age is of fundamental importance to population and life history studies of waterfowl and their management. Therefore, we developed quantitative methods that separate adult and immature blue-winged teal (&lt;i&gt;Anas discors&lt;/i&gt;), cinnamon teal (&lt;i&gt;A. cyanoptera&lt;/i&gt;), and northern shovelers (&lt;i&gt;A. clypeata&lt;/i&gt;) during spring and summer. To assess suitability of discriminant models using 9 remigial measurements, we compared model performance (% agreement between predicted age and age assigned to birds on the basis of definitive cloacal or rectral feather characteristics) in different flyways (Mississippi and Pacific) and between years (1990-91 and 1991-92). We also applied age-classification models to wings obtained from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service harvest surveys in the Mississippi and Central-Pacific flyways (wing-bees) for which age had been determined using qualitative characteristics (i.e., remigial markings, shape, or wear). Except for male northern shovelers, models correctly aged lt 90% (range 70-86%) of blue-winged ducks. Model performance varied among species and differed between sexes and years. Proportions of individuals that were correctly aged were greater for males (range 63-86%) than females (range 39-69%). Models for northern shovelers performed better in flyway comparisons within year (1991-92, La. model applied to Calif. birds, and Calif. model applied to La. birds: 90 and 94% for M, and 89 and 76% for F, respectively) than in annual comparisons within the Mississippi Flyway (1991-92 model applied to 1990-91 data: 79% for M, 50% for F). Exclusion of measurements that varied by flyway or year did not improve model performance. Quantitative methods appear to be of limited value for age separation of female blue-winged ducks. Close agreement between predicted age and age assigned to wings from the wing-bees suggests that qualitative and quantitative methods may be equally accurate for age separation of male blue-winged ducks. We interpret annual and flyway differences in remigial measurements and reduced performance of age classification models as evidence of high variability in size of blue-winged ducks' remiges. Variability in remigial size of these and other small-bodied waterfowl may be related to nutrition during molt.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.2307/3801949</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Wiley</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Age-class separation of blue-winged ducks</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>