The Project Gutenberg eBook of Food of the Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm, in South-central Kansas

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Food of the Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm, in South-central Kansas

Author: Dwight R. Platt

Release date: August 27, 2010 [eBook #33545]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Josephine Paolucci
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FOOD OF THE CROW, CORVUS BRACHYRHYNCHOS BREHM, IN SOUTH-CENTRAL KANSAS ***

University of Kansas Publications
Museum of Natural History
Volume 8, No. 8, pp. 477-498, 4 tables
June 8, 1956

Food of the Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm, in South-central Kansas

BY

DWIGHT PLATT

University of Kansas
Lawrence
1956

University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History

Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, A. Byron Leonard,
Robert W. Wilson

Volume 8, No. 8, pp. 477-498, 4 tables
Published June 8, 1956

University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas

PRINTED BY
FERD VOILAND, JR., STATE PRINTER
TOPEKA, KANSAS
1956

FOOD OF THE CROW, CORVUS BRACHYRHYNCHOS BREHM, IN SOUTH-CENTRAL KANSAS

By Dwight Platt

Introduction

The yearly diet of the crow was studied from December, 1952, to February, 1954, in Harvey County and the northeastern townships of Reno County, in south-central Kansas. In the United States much attention has been devoted previously to the food taken by the crow because it is of economic importance. The work of Barrows and Schwarz (1895) was the first of a series of studies made by the United States Department of Agriculture. Kalmbach (1918, 1920, 1939) continued these studies by analyzing stomach contents from various parts of the United States. Also he diet of the crow has been studied by local areas (Imler—Oklahoma, 1939; Hering—New York, 1934; Black—Illinois, 1941; Lemaire—Louisiana, 1950).

I am grateful to Dr. Henry S. Fitch, for many valuable suggestions and helpful encouragement given in the course of my study. Professor E. Raymond Hall, who read the manuscript, likewise offered valuable suggestions. Dr. R. L. McGregor and Mr. Wilford Hanson provided invaluable assistance in identification of plants and insects found in the crow pellets.

Methods

Previous studies were based mostly on analyses of stomach contents. My study is based on the analysis of 617 regurgitated pellets collected from roosts and lookout posts. Fifty-three collections of pellets were made throughout the year at regular intervals, except that none was made in January, March, or May. The pellets were wrapped individually in paper or leaves as collected, and each was analyzed separately. The percentages by bulk of different food residues (excluding sand and other extraneous material) were estimated in each pellet and recorded.

Description of the Study Area

The study area is on the eastern edge of the Great Bend Prairie physiographic province of Moore (1930). The climate is characterized by moderate precipitation (ann. 30"), a wide range of temperature variations, moderately high wind velocities, and comparatively rapid evaporation. The summers are generally hot, and the winters are moderately cold but are free from excessive snowfall. The weather during the study period was unusually dry, and the summer temperatures were above normal. A drought had begun in 1952, following the cool and wet summer of 1951.

The study area includes the zone of transition from bluestem or tall-grass prairie to the buffalo grass or short-grass prairie. The principal farm crop in the study area is wheat. Sorghum grain, oats, hay crops (especially alfalfa), and corn are also grown. The study area supported a small population of breeding crows; an estimate based on field observations mainly in eastern Harvey County, was not more than one pair per square mile. In winter a large population of crows migrates into the area from the northern Great Plains. Censuses showed that on parts of the area the feeding population might be as great as 180 birds per square mile. These wintering crows concentrate in the western part of the study area where the flat, fertile wheat fields of central Harvey County are replaced by sand dunes and the sandy Arkansas River Valley. Here much land is devoted to raising livestock, and sorghum grain is an important field crop. There is also more waste land there than elsewhere in the area.

Data From Analysis of Pellets

Data obtained from the analysis of pellets were grouped in biweekly collections, and percentages of various food residues in the pellets collected within each biweekly period were averaged. Also frequency of occurrence was computed, and maximum and minimum percentages were included to permit a broader interpretation. In determining the minimum percentage, only those pellets were considered in which the food residue was present.

Pellets from roosts of resident crows were collected on a year round basis in eastern Harvey County near Newton (see tables 1 and 2). The data from these pellets were interpreted separately from data on collections made in the western part of the study area from under roosts of wintering crows (see tables 3 and 4).

In studies of the food of owls analysis of materials in regurgitated pellets has been widely used, but with crows this method has been little used because the nature of their food makes identification of material more difficult. Analysis of pellets has certain merits, however, and, if closely correlated with field studies, can give valuable information concerning food habits. The availability of pellets and the ease of collecting them are obvious advantages. Under large roosts in winter the number that can be collected is almost unlimited. At other seasons, pellets are scarcer, but even so they usually are more available than stomachs.

The technique of pellet analysis is more easily applied to a study of the yearly diet than is the technique of stomach analysis. The crow is euryphagous and, as shown by this study, the diets of crows a few miles apart may differ. Therefore a study made on a limited area within one biotic community, on a year round basis, and correlated with changes in the habitat should be of greatest value. For such a study, collection of stomachs is not practical unless individuals are abundant so that many can be sacrificed, but collection of pellets is practical and profitable.

One limitation of data based on material from pellets is the impossibility of closely correlating the volume of indigestible residues with the proportion of food items actually eaten. Such correlation is prevented not only by the different percentages of indigestible residues in different food items but also by irregularities in regurgitation and in the efficiency of the crow's digestive system. Barrows and Schwarz (1895:24-25) cite several instances of such irregularities in captive crows. In certain pellets that I studied, part of the wheat or other grain was undigested or partly digested, whereas in other pellets the only residue was finely divided chaff. Certain foods that lack hard parts may leave no recognizable residues in pellets. A captive crow that I raised did not form pellets when fed soft food. Nevertheless, data from analysis of pellets when supplemented by field observations, should serve as a sound basis for valid conclusions concerning the relative proportions of various foods eaten. The following field observations of habitat factors aid in interpreting the information obtained from pellet analysis.

Field Observations and Correlations

Resident Crows in Eastern Harvey County.—Although no field observations were made on feeding behavior in April, the large percentage of oat hulls found in the pellets suggests that newly sown fields of oats must have been one of the major feeding grounds in that month. Oats were planted between February 15 and March 20.

The pellets collected in June were all from the roost of one family group of crows. This group spent much time in a cherry orchard and in the shelterbelt near it. Residues of cherry and wheat constituted the only plant foods found in the pellets. In both frequency and percentage, scarabaeid beetles constituted the other important food source. The wheat harvest started on June 17.

The cherry harvest was over by June 29. Grain harvest was over and the fields were being plowed by July 2. Alfalfa was being cut for hay in early July and crows were then feeding on plowed fields and the newly mown alfalfa fields. Much time in the middle of the day was spent along the creeks where crayfish could be obtained. During most of the summer, pellets were difficult to find because the roosts were small, shifting, and scattered and because few pellets were produced. For weeks at a time there were no usable pellets under roosts occupied by hundreds of birds, although droppings and feathers were present. At other times large collections of pellets could be gathered from small roosts. Plowing was a major farm operation at the season when pellets were most scarce. Larvae of insects (especially beetles), and earthworms might have provided a major source of food which lacked sufficient indigestible material to form pellets. A few feces were collected and analyzed in an attempt to find the residue of such soft-bodied foods. Indigestible materials were found in the feces, but these were of the same types as those found in the pellets. Only a few fragments were found which might have been the mouthparts of grubs.

After mid-July pellets were common under one small roost. In late July they were scarce, even at a roost with several hundred crows. The principal feeding grounds of crows were stubble fields and plowed fields. All grain picked up at this time was waste. Plowing was interrupted by rain from July 11-18 but was the major farm operation again after July 19.

From late July into early September crows fed in plowed fields, stubble fields, pastures, and newly mown hay fields. Pellets were scarce, considering that hundreds of crows used the roost where pellets were collected. Plowing was almost over by July 31. Brome grass was in full head during the early part of this period. Corn was in the milk stage during the early part of August but did not show up in any pellets. Although Sudan grass was in head during the early part of this period, other sorghum did not head out until September.

From early September to early October sorghum was in full head. The crows spent most of their feeding time in plowed fields, stubble fields, or pastures. Much time was spent along creeks where pools, which contained many small fish, were drying. Pellets were common under a small roost. Grasshoppers and beetles were the two staple foods in the diet at this time, as shown by their high frequencies and high percentages in pellets. The high percentage and frequency of wheat corroborates the observation that most of the feeding was being done in wheat fields. The relatively large percentages of fish bones, crayfish, and snail shells can be correlated with the observation that much time was spent by the crows at the pools in creek beds. Many ants were in the pellets. The total percentage of animal materials in the pellets was much higher in this period than in other periods. Plant material had been the highest, percentagewise, during most of the summer, except in the latter part of July. Most studies of food of the crow have shown a higher content of animal material during the summer than does my study. It would seem that much of the food material which did not show up in pellets during the summer was animal material.

Grasshoppers predominated in the diet in early October; some pellets consisted of little other than grasshopper mandibles and leg joints. Wheat is sown in this area from September 10 to October 15, most of it being sown after October 5, the recommended Hessian fly-free date. Most of the grain sorghum is harvested by mid-October. However, the utilization of both of these items was low in October. By October 10 only one pool was left in the creek bed under observation. The amount of fish bones, crayfish, and snail shells in the pellets decreased during this period.

Killing frosts occurred in mid-October. The percentage of grasshoppers in the diet then declined rapidly and later in the autumn declined more slowly. Nevertheless, grasshoppers and beetles remained the predominant animal-food residues into December and frequencies of occurrence remained relatively high.

As autumn progressed and insects became scarcer, plant material made up an ever-larger percentage of the diet. Wheat and sorghum constituted more than one-half of the food residues in this period. However, in December utilization of sorghum by resident crows in eastern Harvey County decreased. Sorghum is not an important crop in this area.

Roosts of Wintering Crows.—The collections of pellets from roosts of wintering crows in western Harvey County and northeastern Reno County differed in having a higher percentage of plant material. Sorghum, corn, and wheat predominated in early autumn, while sorghum, sunflower seed, and corn predominated in the winter. Ants were utilized to a much greater extent in early autumn. For grasshoppers and beetles, frequency of occurrence was high but percentages were low. Most of the standing water in the sand dune country had dried approximately one year before, and the aquatic component of the diet was almost entirely lacking.

The two principal food items taken by crows in the winter of 1953 were grain sorghum and sunflower seed. Censuses in late November and late December, 1953, showed that feeding was mostly in harvested sorghum fields and corn fields, but alfalfa fields, wheat fields, plowed fields, and native pasture were also utilized.

Sorghum and sunflower seeds were also the staple foods during December, 1952. Oats and wheat showed higher percentages than in 1953, perhaps because different foods were available in these two winters or because of differences in locality. The pellets collected in 1952 were from western Harvey County, whereas most of those collected in 1953 were from northeastern Reno County.

The collection taken in February, 1954, showed a large percentage of oats in the diet. Newly sown oat fields were probably a major source of food at that time.

Economic and Ecologic Significance

The chief factors that determine the economic bearing of crows locally are: the yearly diet, the time of year in which each food item is taken, and fluctuation in the population density at different times of year. In the study here reported upon, the yearly diet was computed by averaging the percentages of each item determined for each biweekly period. Of the twenty-one collecting periods shown in the tables, six are overlapping pairs; that is to say, each includes one collection from eastern Harvey County and one from the western part of the study area. The average of these pairs was used in computing the yearly average. The yearly average is therefore based upon eighteen separate samples.

The percentages are weighted toward the food items taken in summer and autumn, since many biweekly periods in late winter and early spring are not represented. Of the collecting periods represented, two were in spring, six were in summer, seven were in autumn, and three were in winter. Pellets collected at a number of different localities are averaged together as a percentage; consequently the figures obtainable do not necessarily represent the diet of any one group of crows. Nevertheless the percentages obtained by this method are perhaps valid as a general indication of the diet of the crows in this area.

In my samples, plant material amounted to 69 per cent of the indigestible residues. Similar percentages have been found in other studies, ranging from 57 per cent (Barrows and Schwarz, 1895:72) to 71.86 per cent (Kalmbach, 1918:43). The percentage of plant material was highest in the winter. In one collection from a wintering crow roost it amounted to 99.5 per cent. In December in eastern Harvey County it averaged only 85.3 per cent. The lowest percentage (20) was found in the first half of October in eastern Harvey County when grasshoppers amounted to more than half the diet. At this same time pellets collected from the wintering roosts contained 72.4 per cent plant material.

Percentages of the chief items in the total food residues, and (in parentheses) number of sampling periods in which each item was represented, are shown in the following list: wheat 23.2 per cent (20), sorghum 15.2 (16), oat 7.8 (8), sunflower 7.2 (8), corn 5.4 (12), brome 4.2 (5), other grass 2.4 (7), cherry 1.2 (2), beetle 13.3 (21), grasshopper 9.3 (19), ant .7 (3), miscellaneous insect .2 (2), mammal 2.6 (19), bird .8 (1), eggshell .5 (3), snake .1 (2), fish .9 (9), crayfish 2.4 (12), snail .2 (9).

Wheat is the "staff-of-life" of the crows in south-central Kansas and the percentage recorded in the diet in my study is much higher than the percentages found by other investigators. Wheat, being the principal crop in this area, was a readily available food. The fluctuations in the use of wheat were due to fluctuations in the availability of other foods that were preferred. In eastern Harvey County wheat consumption was 35.7 per cent of the diet in the latter part of July, and 49.1 per cent in December.

Consumption of wheat was high (34.4 per cent) during the harvest in June. However, this does not indicate serious damage since the crow population at this time was low, and much of the wheat eaten probably was shattered waste grain. When plowing began, wheat consumption was much reduced. At the time wheat was sown, September 10 to October 15, consumption was average to low.

In western Harvey County wheat was less important in the diet of wintering crows. After reaching a peak (22.7 per cent) in October, just after sowing, it steadily decreased, varying from 6.9 per cent to none in December.

The wheat consumption of crows has little significance economically. No instances of damage were reported to me either at the time of harvest or at the time of sowing. Although crows undoubtedly do eat wheat from newly sown fields, this utilization seldom damages the stand. No evidence of pulling young wheat was found. Most wheat eaten was waste grain.

Grain sorghum was the staple food of the wintering crows. In eastern Harvey County, where sorghum is not an important crop, its consumption began in August, reached a peak in the last part of November, and fell off sharply in December. The grain sorghum crop is vulnerable to damage by crows and it is ripening in the autumn as the crow population is building up. In certain areas and certain years the loss may be important. An exceptional instance was reported to me of crows taking 40 per cent of the crop from a small field of early ripening sorghum near a roost. Most farmers and county agents interviewed thought that the over-all damage was not great. The crop is usually combined and little remains in the fields after October, when the majority of wintering crows arrive. Nevertheless, even waste grain picked up after harvest should be counted as a loss on some farms where stock are turned in to clean up such grain.

Oats were taken sparingly as waste grain in summer, autumn, and winter, and most were eaten in late winter and early spring from newly sown fields (37.2 per cent of the February diet and 72.6 per cent of the April diet). These percentages were probably high, since there is a high proportion of indigestible residues in oats. This is more than compensated for in the yearly average by the paucity of collections made in the period when consumption of oats was highest.

Fields newly sown to oats provided a major supply of food in the early spring when other food supplies had been depleted. However, no instance of damage to a stand of oats was reported to me. Aldous (1944:294) mentioned that crows fed on spring-sown oat fields in Oklahoma but suggested that they picked up only grain which was not covered.

Sunflower seeds, although not important as a food of the crows in eastern Harvey County, were a staple food of these wintering in the western part of the study area. Consumption of sunflower seeds began in September. In the latter part of December the percentage increased and many pellets were composed entirely of sunflower seed hulls. Sunflower seeds have a high percentage of indigestible residue.

In both popular accounts and scientific studies, the economic significance of the consumption of weed seeds such as those of sunflowers by birds often has been interpreted in an oversimplified manner. It has been assumed that if crows eat several million sunflower seeds in the winter, the sunflowers growing in the farmers' fields the next year will have been reduced by the same number. However, like most annual plants, sunflowers produce a great surplus of seeds each year. Most of the seeds consumed by crows would never have a chance to grow to maturity, even if they were not eaten. Therefore this component of the crow's diet is only slightly beneficial or neutral for the farmer. The effect of crows (or of the entire bird population for that matter) upon the sunflower crop in the farmers' fields is probably slight.

Corn is one of the preferred foods of crows, but little corn was grown in the study area. Other investigators have found higher percentages elsewhere. In eastern Harvey County corn reached its highest point in December but was insignificant in the diet. In the western part of the study area it made up a larger percentage of the diet of wintering crows. The corn eaten early in the season was undoubtedly from the standing crop. However, most of that picked up in late autumn and in winter was waste grain. Since little corn was shocked and left in the fields, there was less opportunity for damage. The amount of corn pulling at planting time was not determined, since no pellets were collected then. However, the population of crows at that time was low. I received no complaints of such damage to corn nor of significant damage to the corn crop at other seasons.

There were pastures of brome grass in the area under study in eastern Harvey County, and the seeds seemed to be a preferred food, constituting a major food supply for the crows in the latter part of July and the first part of August. Having a high content of indigestible residues they probably showed up in the pellets in percentages out of proportion to their importance in the diet. They were unimportant in the diet of wintering crows in the western part of the study area. This component of brome grass in the diet was economically of little significance in the study area, although it could be of significance where brome grass seed was being harvested.

Cherries were recorded only in June and only from one family of crows in eastern Harvey County; cherry orchards are few in this area. The damage done by the crows in the cherry orchard was slight, since only a few crows fed there.

Weed seeds such as those of spurges (Euphorbia), ragweed, and pigweed were found in trace amounts in the diet of the crows. However, they were not preferred foods, since they were available in large quantities.

Wild fruits such as grape and pokeberry also showed up in trace amounts. Elsewhere, investigators have found wild fruit forming a major source of food in winter. However, it was not readily available in this area.

Plant fibers and seeds unidentifiable with the resources at hand formed 2.2 per cent of the residues.

It was reported to me that crows caused damage to watermelons which are extensively grown in the sandhills region but no residues of this crop were found in any pellets collected.

Insects were most important in the animal portion of the food. The economic and ecologic significance of insects in the diet of birds is often oversimplified. The effects of predation upon animal populations are complex, and predation is often a by-product of population rather than a controlling factor.

A female insect eaten before oviposition has a greater ecologic significance than one eaten after she has laid her eggs and is ready to die.

Beetles made up more than half of the insect component of the diet. Scarabaeids were readily recognizable. Other beetles were classified as predaceous or non-predaceous according to the type of mandibles found. When mandibles were lacking the occurrences were listed merely as unclassified beetles, and those made up 5.6 per cent of the yearly food residues. Predaceous beetles made up 3.3 per cent, whereas non-predaceous beetles made up only 1.3 per cent. Both were found in one-half of the collecting periods. Predaceous and non-predaceous beetles formed 1.2 per cent of the yearly food residues. This preponderance of predaceous beetle material is what might be expected from the manner in which crows feed. Many predaceous ground beetles of the family Carabidae would be found under rocks and clods and on the ground.

Beetles were a constant component of the diet in summer. They reached a peak of 48.7 per cent in the last part of July. In November the percentage declined and by December they formed only 2.5 per cent of the diet.

Scarabaeid beetles were utilized in large quantities when they were most abundant; they made up 28.7 per cent of the diet in the latter part of June. The larvae of scarabaeid beetles are destructive to wheat and alfalfa and live in the ground from one to three years before metamorphosing into adult beetles. Adults emerge from the ground from April to mid-August, the maximum flight occurring in May and June. Most of the eggs are laid from the last of May to the middle of July (Hayes, 1920:306). Afterward the adults soon die. Many of the beetles are nocturnal, but some of the more important destructive forms are diurnal (Hayes, 1918:142). Crows pick up the diurnal forms when they are active and perhaps find the nocturnal forms under clods or in burrows and eat them in ecologically significant numbers.

Crows are beneficial to the farmer insofar as they control the populations of scarabaeids and other non-predaceous beetles. However, destruction of predaceous beetles is harmful to the farmers' best interests.

Grasshoppers, second only to beetles in the insect component of the diet, are among the most destructive insects in Kansas. Eggs laid in autumn overwinter and hatch the next summer, from April to August, depending upon the species. The maximum numbers of grasshoppers are present in late summer and early autumn and they continue feeding on crops until the first killing frost. The greatest damage is caused by the destruction of the foliage of corn, wheat, and alfalfa (Smith, et al., 1943:126). The consumption of grasshoppers closely followed the curve of their availability, since they are a preferred food of the crow. They were picked up in small quantities even in winter. In summer they made up 6 to 10 per cent of the diet of the crows in eastern Harvey County. Through the late summer and autumn this percentage rose, until during the first half of October they made up 59.6 per cent of the diet. However, in the western part of the study area, they constituted a smaller part of the diet.

Predation upon grasshoppers, especially in summer and early autumn, benefits the farmer by helping to stabilize populations of grasshoppers. However, when grasshopper consumption was highest, in early October, many of those eaten probably already had completed their breeding cycle, and their consumption was hence of little significance economically or ecologically.

Ants were consumed only in September and October when they constituted as much as 14.9 per cent of the diet. Crows may make an entire meal from a large colony; at any rate, whenever ants were found in a pellet, they constituted a large percentage of it.

Miscellaneous insect remains constituted two-tenths of one per cent of the yearly diet. Hemipteran remains were present only in trace quantities (.5 per cent of the July 13-26 sample from eastern Harvey County).

Only a few questionable fragments from insect larvae were found in the pellets collected in the course of this study. However, as mentioned earlier, there is evidence that larvae constituted a major food supply during much of the summer.

Many investigators have found that crows feed on grubs and caterpillars (Aldous, 1944; Alexander, 1930; Lemaire, 1950; Kalmbach, 1918; Barrows and Schwarz, 1895). A number of county agents with whom I had correspondence mentioned that crows aided the farmer in this way. More investigation is required to determine the significance of crow predation upon insect larvae in this area. Most of the bone material recorded was fragmentary. Phalangeal or podial elements of rodents and various bones of rabbits were identified. The only teeth identified were those of the genus Rattus. Barrows and Schwarz (1895:24-25) found that small bones of mammals may be completely ground up and digested by the crow. Hence the amount of food furnished by mammals, either alive or as carrion, may be higher than my figures indicate.

Bones of birds were found in only one pellet, obtained in early July. However, few pellets were collected in the nesting season.

The eggshell occurring in the pellets probably was indicative of extensive feeding on dumping grounds, and I received no reports of eggs lost to crows on poultry farms. Such damage has been reduced to a minimum since most poultry flocks are well-housed.

The percentage of aquatic animals (fish, crayfish and snail) in the diet increased during the early autumn, as the creeks dried up in eastern Harvey County, but after mid-October declined rapidly, as all the pools were then gone.

Conclusions

The large wintering flocks of crows are important consumers of grain sorghums in south-central Kansas. In the early autumn when the crow population is building up, it damages the sorghum crop before harvest. The damage varies from year to year, being much more keenly felt in dry years when the crop is poor or in years when the crop is late. However, most of the sorghums, which are the principal item of diet of these wintering crows, are waste grain taken from the fields after harvest. Some of this waste grain taken should be counted as a loss because the farmer would normally let his livestock utilize it.

Crows use newly sown oat fields as a major source of food during the late winter and early spring. However, damage to the crop is slight. Corn is not an important crop in this area. The crow population is low at the season when corn is planted, so probably little damage is done at this time. Much of the corn eaten in winter is waste grain. Feeding on wheat is of little economic importance, since most of that taken is waste grain. Feeding on sunflower seeds may be counted as neutral to slightly beneficial. Damage to watermelons, which are extensively grown in the sandhills region, may be important at times. Crow feeding upon other crops is only locally significant.

Although it has food preferences, the crow is euryphagous, and its diet is governed to a large extent by the availability of various types of food in its habitat. Therefore, in its ecologic relationships with many other species, it is a density dependent predator. It reduces the numbers of a certain species when the latter becomes unusually abundant but lessens the mortality pressure against it when the prey population is low. Predators of this type tend to maintain stability in a community in contrast to the violent oscillations often caused by a more stenophagous predator. This study indicates that in south-central Kansas crows help to stabilize the populations of grasshoppers, ground-dwelling beetles both predaceous and non-predaceous, and probably those of other types of insects whose soil dwelling larvae are subject to predation during summer plowing.

Crows also serve as scavengers, feeding on carrion and at dumping grounds, as indicated by the high frequency of eggshell and mammalian bone in the diet. Bird bones were found in an insignificant amount in this study, but extensive collections were not made during the main nesting season.

Summary

An intensive study of the yearly diet of crows was carried on from December, 1952, to February, 1954, in Harvey County and the northeastern townships of Reno County, Kansas, in order to discover some of the ecologic and economic relationships of the population of crows in south-central Kansas. The study is based upon the analysis of 617 regurgitated pellets collected throughout the year. Data obtained from this analysis have been correlated with field observations on crows and habitat changes.

The area is in the zone of transition between tall-grass and short-grass prairie, and the predominant agricultural crop is wheat. The study area supports a breeding population of approximately one pair of crows per square mile, but large flocks of wintering crows move into the western part of the area near the Arkansas River Valley.

Plant material amounted to 69.0 per cent of the pellet residues. Wheat is the food taken in greatest amount in the yearly average, but the staple foods of the wintering crows are grain sorghum, sunflower seeds, and corn. Crows use newly sown oat fields as a major source of food in late winter and early spring, but damage to the crop seems to be slight. Growers of grain sorghum and, locally, growers of corn and watermelons, sustain serious damage from crows.

Being euryphagous, crows exert a stabilizing influence on many kinds of prey and on the biotic community as a whole. This study indicates that their effects are especially important in helping to stabilize the populations of grasshoppers and of ground-dwelling beetles, and possibly those of some other insects that have soil-dwelling larvae.

Carrion and material from dumping grounds furnish another fairly constant component of the crow's diet.

Table 1. Average, Maximum, and Minimum Percentages of Food Residues in Pellets Collected in Eastern Harvey County, in 1953.

| April 6-19 | June 15-28 | June 29-July 12 | July 13-26 | July 27-Aug. 9 | Aug. 10-23 | Sept. 7-20 | Sept.21-Oct. 4 | Oct. 5-18 | Oct. 19-Nov. 1 | Nov. 2-15 | Nov. 16-29 | Nov. 30-Dec. 13
Number of pellets | 9 | 7 | 6 | 19 | 18 | 5 | 57 | 29 | 27 | 24 | 25 | 7 | 8
No. of collections | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2
wheat | 18.2 | 34.4 | 1.7 | 35.7 | 28.5 | 29.0 | 23.4 | 21.5 | 10.8 | 35.4 | 33.0 | 43.7 | 49.1
(90-5) | (99-50) | (10) | (80-10) | (80-5) | (55-20) | (100-5) | (100-5) | (60-15) | (85-10) | (80-35) | (98-30) | (98-20)
sorghum |  |  |  |  | 2.0 |  | 10.7 | 14.0 | 7.6 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 28.6 | 6.9
|  |  |  | (35) |  | (90-10) | (75-5) | (60-3) | (85-5) | (100-10) | (80-5) | (40-15)
oats | 72.6 |  |  | 1.6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
(99-50) |  |  | (30) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
sunflower seed |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 6.4 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | (40-5) |
corn |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4.5 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 15.0
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | (50-10) | (80-10) | (10) | (70-50)
grass seed |  |  |  | .5 | 44.6 | 28.6 | 4.8 |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | (5) | (90-60) | (85-5) | (70-5) |  |  |  |  |  |
grape |  |  |  |  |  |  | .1 |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  | (2) |  |  |  |  |  |
cherry |  | 20.1 | 1.7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (70-20) | (10) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
spurge |  |  | .8 | .1 |  |  |  |  |  | .2 |  |  |
|  | (5) | (2) |  |  |  |  |  | (5) |  |  |
misc. plant |  |  |  | 1.6 | 5.2 |  |  | 4.4 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 2.9 | 14.3
|  |  | (30-10) | (95) |  |  | (90-40) | (45) | (50) | (75-10) | (20) | (70-45)
TOTAL PLANT | 90.8 | 54.5 | 4.2 | 39.5 | 80.3 | 57.6 | 39.0 | 39.9 | 20.0 | 66.6 | 67.2 | 83.0 | 85.3
scarabaeid beetle |  | 28.7 | 5.0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| (75-25) | (30) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
other beetle | 2.7 | .1 | 34.2 | 48.7 | 10.0 | 21.0 | 19.0 | 10.6 | 15.5 | 13.9 | 14.4 | 5.3 | 2.5
(10-5) | (3) | (100-20) | (90-10) | (90-10) | (45-10) | (80-5) | (95-5) | (98-1) | (70-5) | (65-5) | (15-2) | (20)
grasshopper |  | .1 | 6.6 | 10.9 | 4.2 | 15.0 | 23.4 | 36.3 | 59.6 | 11.8 | 14.3 | 10.3 | 4.4
| (2) | ( 40) | (40-5) | (40-5) | (30-5) | (100-5) | (95-5) | (90-34) | (65-5) | (99-5) | (65-2) | (10-5)
ant |  |  |  |  |  |  | 5.9 |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  | (90-75) |  |  |  |  |  |
misc. insect |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1.9 | 2.8 |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | .5 |  |  | (50-5) | (60) |  |  |  |  |
crayfish | .5 | 1.5 | 35.0 |  | .6 | 1.0 | 1.2 | .2 | .4 | 1.4 |  |  |
(5) | (10) | (100-10) |  | (10) | (5) | (25-10) | (5-2) | (5-2) | (20-10) |  |  |
snail |  |  |  |  | .6 |  | .6 | 1.3 | trace | 1.1 | .2 |  |
|  |  |  | (10) |  | (10-2) | (20-5) | (1) | (10-5) | (5) |  |
fish |  |  |  | .1 |  | .1 | 4.8 | 7.3 | 2.5 | 3.4 | .6 |  |
|  |  | (7) |  | (5) | (20-5) | (20.5) | (20.1) | (20-5) | (10-5) |  |
bird |  |  | 15 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | (90) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
eggshell |  |  |  | .3 | .6 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 1.1 | .4 | .2 | .8 | .7 |
|  |  | (5) | (10) | (10-5) | (30-5) | (10-5) | (1) | (5) | (20) | (5) |
mammal | 6 | 15.1 |  |  | 3.7 | 1.4 | 2.2 | .5 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.5 | .7 | 7.8
(45-10) | (100-5) |  |  | (50-5) | (5-2) | (60-2) | (5) | (20-2) | (10-5) | (20-1) | (5) | (25-2)
TOTAL ANIMAL | 9.2 | 45.5 | 95.8 | 60.5 | 19.7 | 42.4 | 61.0 | 60.1 | 80.0 | 33.4 | 32.8 | 17.0 | 14.7

Table 2. Frequencies of Occurrence of Food Residues in Pellets Collected in the Eastern Part of Harvey County—1953.

| April 6-19 | June 15-28 | June 29-July 12 | July 13-26 | July 27-Aug. 9 | Aug. 10-23 | Sept. 7-20 | Sept. 21-Oct. 4 | Oct. 5-18 | Oct. 19-Nov. 1 | Nov. 2-15 | Nov. 16-29 | Nov. 30-Dec. 13
No. of pellets | 9 | 7 | 6 | 19 | 18 | 5 | 57 | 29 | 27 | 24 | 25 | 7 | 8
wheat | 6 | 3 | 1 | 18 | 16 | 4 | 27 | 12 | 10 | 15 | 13 | 4 | 6
sorghum |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 20 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 2
sunflower seed |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
oats | 8 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
brome grass |  |  |  | 2 | 10 | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
corn |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2
cherry |  | 3 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
grass seed |  |  |  |  |  |  | 11 |  |  |  |  |  |
spurge |  |  | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |
grape |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
misc. plant |  |  |  | 2 | 1 |  |  | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2
beetle (scarabaeid) |  | 4 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
beetle (other) | 4 | 1 | 4 | 19 | 5 | 5 | 39 | 15 | 17 | 16 | 14 | 4 | 1
grasshopper |  | 1 | 1 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 39 | 22 | 24 | 12 | 18 | 3 | 6
ant |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |
bug (hemipteran) |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
misc. insect |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 | 1 |  |  |  |  |
crayfish | 1 | 1 | 3 |  | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |
snail |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 7 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 |  |
fish |  |  |  | 2 |  | 1 | 28 | 14 | 7 | 7 | 2 |  |
bird |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
eggshell |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
mammal | 2 | 2 |  |  | 4 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 5

Table 3. Average, Maximum, and Minimum Percentages of Food Residues in Pellets Collected at Wintering Crow Roosts in the Western Part of the Study Area—1952-53-54.

| Dec. 28-Jan. 11 | Aug. 24-Sept. 6 | Sept. 7-20 | Oct. 5-18 | Nov. 16-29 | Dec. 14-27 | Dec. 28-Jan. 10 | Feb. 8-21
Number of pellets | 62 | 5 | 38 | 65 | 56 | 22 | 96 | 32
No. of Collections | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
wheat | 6.9 | 62.8 | 14.6 | 22.7 | 2.2 |  | 3.3 | 2.8
(100-10) | (99-35) | (90-10) | (90-10) | (95-10) |  | (90-30) | (50-10)
sorghum | 29 | 1 | 22.4 | 31.2 | 41.2 | 42.5 | 32.4 | 21.6
(100-5) | (5) | (95-5) | (100-10) | (100-5) | (100-5) | (100-10) | (100-10)
sunflower seed | 26.3 |  | 3.3 | 5.0 | 26.9 | 22.0 | 32.4 | 21.6
(90-5) |  | (95-5) | (60-10) | (95-3) | (90-5) | (100-5) | (80-10)
corn | 11.4 | 19.0 | 12.4 | 4.5 | 14.0 | 11.4 | 14.1 | 1.2
(100-10) | (40-15) | (95-5) | (85-30) | (100-5) | (100-10) | (100-5) | (20-10)
oats | 14.1 |  |  | 4.9 | 5.7 | 5.5 | 4.6 | 37.2
(100-10) |  |  | (80-15) | (70-5) | (75-5) | (95-5) | (100-10)
brome grass | 1.4 |  |  |  |  |  | .1 |
(85) |  |  |  |  |  | (10) |
Other Grass | 9.4 |  |  | 3.2 | 4.0 | 15.7 | 8.8 | 6.3
(95-5) |  |  | (80-20) | (90-10) | (95-10) | (100-10) | (50-20)
grape |  |  | trace |  |  |  | .1 |
|  | (2) |  |  |  | (10) |
pokeberry |  |  | .4 | .5 |  |  |  |
|  | (15) | (30-2) |  |  |  |
spurge |  |  |  | .4 |  |  | .2 |
|  |  | (25) |  |  | (10-1) |
ragweed |  |  |  |  | .1 |  | .5 | .2
|  |  |  | (5) |  | (10-5) | (5)
misc. plant | 1 |  | .8 |  |  |  | .8 | .2
| (50-1) |  | (30) |  |  |  | (80-2) | (3-2)
TOTAL PLANT | 99.5 | 82.8 | 53.9 | 72.4 | 94.1 | 97.1 | 97.4 | 97.4
grasshopper | .1 | 6.0 | 8.9 | 10.5 | 1.4 |  | .5 | .3
(5) | (30) | (30-5) | (70-5) | (15-5) |  | (15-5) | (5)
beetle | .1 | 9 | 17.8 | 12.1 | 1.7 | .9 | .4 | .9
(5) | (15-10) | (95-2) | (80-3) | (15-2) | (10-5) | (10-5) | (10-5)
ant |  |  | 14.9 | 3.4 |  |  |  |
|  | (95-73) | (85-5) |  |  |  |
crayfish |  |  | .7 | .8 |  |  | .5 |
|  | (10-5) | (50) |  |  | (50) |
snail | .1 |  |  |  | .1 |  | .1 |
(5) |  |  |  | (5) |  | (5) |
fish |  |  | .1 |  |  |  | .1 |
|  | (5) |  |  |  | (5) |
snake |  |  | 1.8 |  |  | .9 |  |
|  | (60-5) |  |  | (20) |  |
eggshell |  |  |  |  | .3 | .4 | .6 | 1.1
|  |  |  | (10-5) | (10) | (10-5) | (20-5)
mammal | 2 | 2.2 | 1.9 | .8 | 2.4 | .7 | .4 | .3
(10-5) | (5-1) | (20-5) | (10-5) | (60-5) | (10-5) | (10-5) | (10)
TOTAL ANIMAL | .5 | 17.2 | 46.1 | 27.6 | 5.9 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.6

Table 4. Frequencies of Occurrence of Food Residues in Pellets Collected at Wintering Crow Roosts in the Western Part of the Study Area—1952-53-54.

| Dec. 28-Jan. 11 | Aug. 24-Sept. 6 | Sept. 7-20 | Oct. 5-18 | Nov. 16-29 | Dec. 14-27 | Dec. 28-Jan. 10 | Feb. 8-21
Number of pellets | 62 | 5 | 38 | 65 | 56 | 22 | 96 | 32
wheat | 11 | 5 | 10 | 27 | 3 |  | 5 | 4
sorghum | 45 | 1 | 22 | 36 | 44 | 16 | 74 | 18
sunflower seed | 43 |  | 5 | 12 | 32 | 9 | 68 | 19
corn | 14 | 4 | 11 | 5 | 12 | 8 | 27 | 3
brome grass | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
other grass | 15 |  |  | 5 | 5 | 7 | 15 | 5
grape |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |
pokeberry |  |  | 1 | 2 |  |  |  |
spurge |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 5 |
ragweed |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 8 | 1
misc. plant | 4 |  | 1 |  |  |  | 2 | 2
grasshopper | 1 | 1 | 23 | 38 | 10 |  | 5 | 2
beetle | 1 | 4 | 38 | 48 | 15 | 3 | 6 | 4
ant |  |  | 7 | 6 |  |  |  |
crayfish |  |  | 3 | 1 |  |  | 1 |
snail | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  | 1 |
fish |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |
snake |  |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |
eggshell |  |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 9 | 3
mammal | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 1

Literature Cited

Aldous, S. E.

1944. Winter habits of crows in Oklahoma. Jour. Wildlife Management, 8:290-295, 1 fig.

Alexander, F. M.

1930. Notes on the birds of south-central Kansas. Wilson Bull., 42:241-244.

Barrows, W. B., and Schwarz, E. A.

1895. The common crow of the United States. U. S. Dept. of Agric. Div. Ornith. and Mammal., 6:1-98, 2 figs.

Black, C. T.

1941. Ecological and economic relations of the crow with special reference to Illinois. Unpublished thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

Hayes, W. P.

1918. Studies on the life history of two Kansas Scarabaeidae. Jour. Econ. Entom., 11:136-144.

1920. The life histories of some Kansas Lachnosterna. Jour. Econ. Entom., 12:109-117.

Hering, P. E.

1934. The food of the American crow in central New York State. Auk, 51:470-476.

Imler, R. H.

1939. Comparison of the food of the white-necked ravens and crows in Oklahoma. Wilson Bull., 51:121-122.

Kalmbach, E. R.

1918. The crow and its relation to man. U. S. Dept. of Agric. Farm. Bull., 621:1-92, 3 figs., 2 plates, 4 tables.

1920. The crow in its relation to agriculture. U. S. Dept. of Agric. Farm. Bull., 1102:1-20, 3 figs.

1939. The crow in its relation to agriculture. U. S. Dept. of Agric. Farm. Bull., 1102; rev. ed.: 1-21, 6 figs., 2 tables.

Lemaire, R. J.

1950. The fall, winter and spring food habits of crows in the Baton Rouge region of Louisiana. Unpublished thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Moore, R. C.

1930. Surface features of Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey map, scale 1:1,056,000.

Smith, R. C., Kelly, E. G., Dean, G. A., Bryson, H. R., and Parker, R. L.

1943. Insects in Kansas. Report of the Kansas State Bd. of Agric., 440 pp., 6 pls., 464 figs.

Transmitted November 9, 1955.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FOOD OF THE CROW, CORVUS BRACHYRHYNCHOS BREHM, IN SOUTH-CENTRAL KANSAS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.