Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 967–979 | Cite as

Patterns of success in game bird introductions in the United States

  • Michael P. Moulton
  • Wendell P. CropperJr.
  • Andrew J. Broz
  • Salvador A. Gezan
Original Paper


Better predictions of the success of species’ introductions require careful evaluation of the relative importance of at least three kinds of factors: species characteristics, characteristics of the site of introduction, and event-level factors such as the numbers of individuals released. (Henceforth, we call this propagule pressure.) The 1644 introductions of 17 Phasianid species released in various US states during the Foreign Game Investigation Program provides a particularly rich source of data to test these ideas. An examination of these records indicates that 13 of these 17 species always failed, despite generally numerous individual releases and large numbers of individuals in each release. Moreover, ten of these species have been successfully introduced elsewhere. Only four of the 17 species were successful in at least one state. Some 20 sets of releases of three of these four species always failed in some states, again given generally numerous individual releases of large numbers of individuals in each release. Simply, the combination of site and species factors explain the lack of successes. This leaves a combination of 18 states where one or more of the four species succeeded. For these, there are significant differences in the numbers of birds introduced from state to state. But only for two species Alectoris chukar and; Tetraogallus himalayensis are there significant differences that show a greater chance of success when more individuals are introduced. These results support the conclusion that the number of individuals released, meaning propagule pressure, is not as important as characteristics of the species and the location to where its introduction occurred.


Game birds Propagule pressure Exotic species Introductions Foreign Game Investigation Program 

Supplementary material

10531_2017_1475_MOESM1_ESM.docx (517 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 517 kb)


  1. Aldrich JW, Duvall AJ (1955) Distribution of American gallinaceous game birds. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular, Washington, p 34Google Scholar
  2. Andrews R, Righter R (1992) Colorado birds: A references to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, DenverGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey AM, Niedrach RJ (1965) Birds of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, DenverGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks RC (1981) Summary of foreign game bird liberations, 1969–1978. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 239Google Scholar
  5. Barnett DC (1952) Chukar Partridge introductions in Washington. Proc Annu Conf West Assoc State Game Fish Comm 32:134–161Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2009a) Avian invasions: the ecology and evolution of exotic birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lockwood JL (2009b) The role of species traits in the establishment success of exotic birds. Glob Change Biol 15:2852–2860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackburn TM, Prowse TAA, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2011) Passerine introductions to New Zealand support a positive effect of propagule pressure on establishment success. Biodiv Conserv 20:2189–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn TM, Prowse TAA, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2013) Propagule pressure as a driver of establishment success in deliberately introduced exotic species: fact or artefact? Biol Invasions 15:1459–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Cassey P (2015a) The influence of numbers of invasion success. Mol Ecol 24:1942–1953. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackburn TM, Dyer E, Su S, Cassey P (2015b) Long after the event, or four things we (should) know about bird invasions. J Ornithol 156(suppl 1):s15–s25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blair FD (1942) The Chukar Partridge in Minnesota. Conserv Volunt 4(21):16–20Google Scholar
  13. Bland JD, Temple SA (1990) Effects of predation-risk on habitat use by Himalayan Snowcocks. Oecologia 82:187–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bland JD, Temple SA (1993) The Himalayan Snowcock: North America’s newest exotic bird. In: McKnight BN (ed) Biological pollution: the control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, pp 149–155Google Scholar
  15. Bohl WH, Bump G (1970) Summary of foreign game bird liberations 1960–1968. USDI, FWS, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 130Google Scholar
  16. Brown DE (1989) Arizona game birds. The University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  17. Bump G (1951) Game introductions–when, where, and how. Tran N Am Wild Conf 16:316–325Google Scholar
  18. Bump G (1968) Foreign game investigation: a federal-state cooperative program. US Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Resource Publication 49Google Scholar
  19. Bump G, Bohl WH (1964) Summary of foreign game bird propagation and liberations 1960–1963. USDI, FWS, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 80Google Scholar
  20. Campbell H (1976) Foreign game birds in New Mexico. New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish. Bulletin 15:458–462Google Scholar
  21. Carroll JP (1993) Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The Birds of North America, No 58 Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences. The American Ornithologists Union, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Case TJ (1996) Global patterns in the establishment and distribution of exotic birds. Biol Conserv 78:69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Sol D, Duncan RP, Lockwood JL (2004) Global patterns of introduction effort and the establishment success of birds. Proc R Soc Lond 271:s405–s408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cassey P, Prowse TAA, Blackburn TM (2014) A population model for predicting the successful establishment of introduced bird species. Oecologia 175:417–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Chambers GD (1965) Summary of foreign game bird propagation 1964, and liberations 1960–1964. USDI, FWS, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 80Google Scholar
  26. Chambers GD (1966) Summary of foreign game bird propagation 1965, and liberations 1960–1965. USDI, FWS, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 80Google Scholar
  27. Christensen GC (1970) The Chukar Partridge: its introduction, life history, and management. Nevada Dept of Fish and Game. Biol Bull 4:82Google Scholar
  28. Christensen GC (1998) Himalayan Snowcock (Tetraogallus himalayensis). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The Birds of North America, N. 328, Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences. The American Ornithologists Union, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Clarke T (2006) Birds of the Atlantic Islands. Christopher Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Diamond JM, Veitch CR (1981) Extinctions and introductions in the New Zealand Avifauna: cause and effect? Science 30(211):499–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dinsmore JJ (2001) Invasive birds in Iowa: status, problems, and threats. J Iowa Acad Sci 108:212–220Google Scholar
  32. Drake JM (2006) Heterosis, the catapult effect and establishment success of a colonizing bird. Biol Lett 2:304–307. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Duncan RP (1997) The role of competition and introductions effort in the success of passeriform birds introduced to New Zealand. Am Nat 149:903–915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Sol D (2003) The ecology of bird introductions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eguchi K, Amano HE (2004) Spread of exotic birds in Japan. Ornith Sci 3:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen and Co., Ltd., LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Green RE (1997) The influence of numbers released on the outcome of attempts to introduce exotic bird species to New Zealand. J Anim Ecol 66:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245(4917):477–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Gullion GW (1962) A critique concerning foreign game bird introductions. Wilson Bull 77:409–414Google Scholar
  40. Gullion GW, Christensen GC (1957) A review of the distribution of gallinaceous game birds in Nevada. Condor 59:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harper HT, Harry BH, Bailey WD (1958) The Chukar Partridge in California. Calif Fish Game 44(1):5–50Google Scholar
  42. Jackson LS, Thompson CA, Dinsmore JJ (1996) The Iowa breeding bird atlas. University of Iowa Press, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  43. Leopold A (1931) Report on a game survey of the north central states. Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  44. Lever C (1987) Naturalized birds of the world. Longman science and technology. Burnt Hill, Harlow, EssexGoogle Scholar
  45. Lever C (2005) Naturalised birds of the world. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Lockwood JL, Moulton MP, Anderson SK (1993) Morphological assortment and the assembly of communities of introduced passeriforms on oceanic islands: Tahiti versus Oahu. Am Natur 141:398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Long JL (1981) Introduced birds of the world. David and Charles, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. McDowall RM (1994) Gamekeepers for the nation: the story of New Zealand’s acclimatisation societies 1861–1990. Canterbury University Press, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  50. Mollhoff WJ (2001) The Nebraska breeding bird atlas 1984–1989. Nebraska technical Series, Nebraska Game and Parks CommissionGoogle Scholar
  51. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr (2014a) Establishment success in introduced passeriforms of New Zealand: evidence for a Franklin Delano Roosevelt effect. Biol Invasions 16:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr (2014b) A comparison of success rates of introduced passeriform birds in New Zealand, Australia and the United States. PeerJ 2:e509. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr (2015) A comment on the role of propagule pressure in the establishment success of introduced birds. Oecologia 177:317–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Moulton MP, Pimm SL (1983) The introduced Hawaiian avifauna: biogeographic evidence for competition. Am Nat 121:669–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moulton MP, Pimm SL (1987) Morphological assortment in introduced Hawaiian passerines. Evol Ecol 1:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr, Avery ML, Moulton LE (2010) The earliest House Sparrow introductions of North America. Biol Invasions 12:2955–2958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr, Avery ML (2011) A reassessment of the role of propagule pressure in influencing the fates of passerine introductions to New Zealand. Biodiv Conserv 20:607–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr, Moulton LE, Avery ML, Peacock D (2012a) A reassessment of historical records of avian introductions to Australia: no case for propagule pressure. Biodiver Conserv 21:155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr, Avery ML (2012b) Historical records of passerine introductions to New Zealand fail to support the propagule pressure hypothesis. Biodivers Conserv 21:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr, Avery ML (2013) Is propagule size the critical factor in predicting introduction outcomes in Passeriform birds? Biol Invasions 15:1449–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moulton MP, Santos ESA, Cropper WP Jr, Jiahui NL (2014) New records for passeriform introductions to the Otago Acclimatisation Region in New Zealand: evidence of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt Effect. Notornis 61:219–222Google Scholar
  62. Moulton MP, Cropper WP Jr, Broz AJ (2015) Inconsistencies among secondary sources of Chukar Partridge (Alectoris chukar) introductions to the United States. PeerJ 3:e1447. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. MPSG (2013) Midwest pheasant study group; national wild pheasant conservation plan. In: Veverka NB (ed) Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, pp 1–111Google Scholar
  64. Nagel WO (1945) Adaptability of the Chukar Partridge to Missouri conditions. J Wildl Manag 9:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nelson LK (1964) A ten-year study of ring-necked pheasant introductions in Kentucky. KY Dept of Fish and Wild Res; Pittman-Robertson project game management technical series (14):1–153Google Scholar
  66. 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 1–20Google Scholar
  67. Phillips JC (1928) Wild birds introduced or transplanted in North America. US Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 61. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  68. Potts GR (2012) Partridges. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Pyle RL, Pyle P (2009) The birds of the Hawaiian Islands: occurrence, history, distribution, and status. Bishop Museum, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  70. Robertson WB Jr (1958) Investigations of ring-necked pheasants in Illinois. Illinois dept. of conservation, division of game management. Technol Bull 1:2Google Scholar
  71. Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (2003) Invasion vectors: a conceptual framework for management. In: Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (eds) Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, pp 459–504Google Scholar
  72. Schmitz E (1905) On the birds of Madeira. Proc 4th Int Ornithol Congr 14:449–453Google Scholar
  73. Schwarz CW, Schwarz ER (1951) An ecological reconnaissance of the pheasants in Hawaii. Auk 68:281–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Small A (1994) California birds: their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Co, VistaGoogle Scholar
  75. Smallwood KS (1994) Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biol Conserv 69:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sol D, Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Cassey P, Lefebvre L (2005) Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:5460–5465CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Sol D, Vila M, Kuhn I (2008) The comparative analysis of historical alien introductions. Biol Invasions 10:1119–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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 37:580–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sorci G, Møller AP, Clobert J (1998) Plumage dichromatism of birds predicts introduction success in New Zealand. J Anim Ecol 67:264–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stiver SJ (1984) Himalayan snowcocks–Nevada’s newest upland game. Cal-Nev Wildl Trans 26:55–58Google Scholar
  81. Veltman CJ, Nee S, Crawley MJ (1996) Correlates of introduction success in exotic New Zealand birds. Am Nat 147:542–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Version 1, 31 December 2009 (downloaded 5 July 2015)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael P. Moulton
    • 1
  • Wendell P. CropperJr.
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Broz
    • 1
  • Salvador A. Gezan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of Forest Resources and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations