Intensive agricultural activities near prairie wetlands may result in excessive sediment loads, which may bury seed and invertebrate egg banks that are important for maintenance and cycling of biotic communities during wet/dry cycles. We evaluated effects of sediment burial on emergence of plants and invertebrates from seed and invertebrate egg banks. Sediment-load experiments indicated that burial depths of 0.5 cm caused a 91.7% reduction in total seedling emergence and a 99.7% reduction in total invertebrate emergence. Results of our burial experiments corroborated prior research on seedling emergence. However, our study demonstrated that invertebrate emergence is also highly susceptible to the effects of burial. Our research suggests that sediment entering wetlands from agricultural erosion may also hamper successional changes throughout interannual climate cycles. Land-management strategies need to be implemented that will prevent erosion of cropland top soil from entering wetlands.

No abstract

Analogous to 'seed banks,' 'egg banks' are important for seasonal succession and maintenance of invertebrate species diversity throughout wet and dry cycles in the prairie pothole region. Further, recruitment of invertebrates from relic egg banks in the sediments and dispersal of eggs into wetlands is believed to be important for reestablishment of invertebrates in recently restored wetlands. Alhough tens-ofthousands of wetlands have been restored in the prairie pothole region of the United States, studies have not been conducted to evaluate the recovery of invertebrate egg banks in restored wetlands. We used taxon richness and abundance as indicators of potential egg bank recovery and compared these parameters in restored wetlands to those of non-drained and drained wetlands with a history of cultivation and also to reference wetlands with no history of cultivation. We found few significant differences among wetland categories within three physiographic regions (Glaciated Plains, Missouri Coteau, and Prairie Coteau). Most statistical comparisons indicated that restored wetlands had invertebrate egg banks similar to reference, nondrained, and drained wetlands. The one exception was drained seasonal wetlands in the Glaciated Plains, which had significantly lower taxon richness and invertebrate abundance than the other wetland categories. Trends did suggest that invertebrate egg bank taxon richness and abundance are increasing in restored seasonal wetlands relative to their drained analogues, whereas a similar trend was not observed for restored semi-permanent wetlands. Although recovery was not related to years since restoration, comparisons of restored wetlands with reference wetlands suggest that recovery potential may be inversely related to the extent of wetland drainage and intensive agriculture that varies spatially in the prairie pothole region. Our research suggests that periodic drawdowns of semi-permanent restored wetlands may be needed to promote production and development of invertebrate egg banks. Inoculation of restored wetlands may also be needed in areas where extensive wetland drainage has resulted in fewer wetland habitats to provide sources of passively dispersed eggs to newly restored wetlands.

In 1999 we surveyed 1,000 randomly selected South Dakota, USA, muzzleloader deer (Odocoileus spp.) hunters using a self‐administered mail survey to gain better understanding of equipment used, skills, success, motivations, and attitudes about technology and restrictions. This sample represented 67% of the state's muzzleloader deer‐hunter population in 1999. Nine hundred and four usable surveys were returned. We conducted a K‐means cluster analysis to determine if muzzleloader hunters could be separated (based on equipment used) into modern and traditional hunters. Modern muzzleloader hunters (31%) used in‐line muzzleloaders, bullet with sabot, Pyrodex pellets, or fiber‐optic open sights, while traditional muzzleloader hunters (69%) used caplock muzzleloaders, black powder, or flintlock muzzleloaders. We compared hunter type, age, experience, skills, success, and equipment used by category to determine if differences existed. Most muzzleloader deer hunters (68%) were satisfied with current equipment regulations. Probability of hunter success increased when modern muzzleloader equipment was used and the distance hunters were willing to shoot at a standing deer increased. Equipment type only slightly impacted harvest success. Because more muzzleloader hunters were satisfied with equipment restrictions, we concluded that establishing additional limits was not necessary. Moreover, South Dakota wildlife managers already had a lottery quota system for permit allocation that could be used to adjust for increased muzzleloader harvest. Thus, we contend muzzleloader‐equipment‐regulation decisions for South Dakota hunters may be more a social than a biological issue.