DOCSLIB.ORG

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella Magna

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella Magna Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Breeding Eastern Meadowlarks are normally associated with Unglaciated Plateau (94 blocks), and Glaciated Plateau (69 grasslands such as lightly grazed pastures, hayfields, and re- blocks) regions. Other confirmation included observations of claimed strip mines. These fields may be devoid of woody adults carrying food for young in 96 blocks, 49 reports of recently vegetation or support scattered bushes and small trees. They also fledged young, 41 active nests, and distraction displays by adults regularly occupy fallow fields composed of mixed grasses and in 9 blocks. Most other records pertained to probable breeders, weeds, grassy rights–of–way along highways and railroads, primarily territorial males and pairs occupying suitable habitats. clover–alfalfa hayfields, and grassy fields bordering airports. When their populations were larger, breeding pairs were found in cultivated grain fields, woodland clearings, and fairly open brushy thickets (Trautman 1940), but these habitats are rarely occupied today. These meadowlarks have been common and widely distrib- uted summer residents in Ohio since the 19th century (Wheaton 1882, Jones 1903). They retained this status into the 1930s when Hicks (1935) claimed they were common to abundant in every county. He assigned a similar status to this species along the entire unglaciated Allegheny Plateau (Hicks 1937). Beginning in the 1940s, Eastern Meadowlark populations experienced local declines. This trend continued during subsequent decades as intensive agricultural land use practices eliminated many suitable grasslands (Peterjohn 1989a). Unusually heavy mortality during the severe winters of the late 1970s accentuated this decline, although their numbers recovered somewhat with the return of normal winter weather conditions. Declining numbers are not limited to Ohio but have been evident throughout eastern North America since 1965 (Robbins, C. S., et al. 1986). Despite their declining numbers, Eastern Meadowlarks remain widespread summer residents in Ohio. The Atlas Project pro- duced records from 738 priority blocks (96.6% of the statewide total) within every county. They were nearly equally distributed Alvin E. Staffan in each physiographic region with records from 89.5–99.6% of the regional priority blocks. Breeding pairs proved to be locally scarce only within large urban areas and on heavily forested Meadowlark nests are invariably placed on the ground, portions of the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. The relative usually in shallow depressions under clumps of dense grasses. abundance of Eastern Meadowlarks on Breeding Bird Surveys While courtship behavior has been observed during March exhibits a different pattern. They are most numerous in the (Williams 1950), nest construction does not normally begin until Illinoian Till Plain region, although the small number of routes in the second half of April in southern and central Ohio and early this region may overestimate their relative abundance in south- May along Lake Erie. The earliest published egg date is April 25 western Ohio. Their numbers decline somewhat in the Till Plain (Price 1935), although earlier dates are likely in the southern region, while even smaller numbers are recorded on surveys counties. Most first clutches are produced during the first half of along the Allegheny Plateau. The fewest breeding meadowlarks May. Fledglings have appeared as early as May 16 (Trautman are found on the Lake Plain where urbanization and intensive 1940), but most first broods do not fledge until June 10–25. agricultural activities have eliminated many suitable grasslands. Eastern Meadowlarks normally raise two broods annually and Breeding Eastern Meadowlarks were confirmed in 69.9% of frequently renest if their first attempt fails. These late attempts all the priority blocks they were found in. The “30” code was are responsible for nests with eggs through July 10 and fledg- used to confirm nesting in 317 of these blocks. This code was lings into the first half of August. An exceptionally late nest most frequently utilized in the Till Plain (121 blocks), produced recently fledged young on August 26 (Peterjohn 1989a). 362 Blocks Special Areas Other Observations Confirmed Probable Possible Analysis of Block Data by Physiographic Region Summary of Total Blocks % Regional Ave. # Individ Breeding Status Physiographic Blocks with with % per BBS Route No. of Blocks in Which Region Surveyed Data Data for Ohio (1982–1987) Species Recorded Lake Plain 95 85 89.5 11.5 7.2 738 96.6% Till Plain 271 270 99.6 36.6 17.8 Total Ill. Till Plain 46 43 93.5 5.8 26.5 Confirmed 516 69.9% Glaciated Plateau 140 137 97.9 18.6 13.6 Probable 210 28.5% Unglaciated Plateau 212 203 95.8 27.5 12.2 Possible 12 1.6% 363 Eastern Meadowlark.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Loggerhead Shrike
    EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS: LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Grasslands Ecosystem Initiative Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center U.S. Geological Survey Jamestown, North Dakota 58401 This report is one in a series of literature syntheses on North American grassland birds. The need for these reports was identified by the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV), a part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The PPJV recently adopted a new goal, to stabilize or increase populations of declining grassland- and wetland-associated wildlife species in the Prairie Pothole Region. To further that objective, it is essential to understand the habitat needs of birds other than waterfowl, and how management practices affect their habitats. The focus of these reports is on management of breeding habitat, particularly in the northern Great Plains. Suggested citation: Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Loggerhead Shrike. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 19 pages. Species for which syntheses are available or are in preparation: American Bittern Grasshopper Sparrow Mountain Plover Baird’s Sparrow Marbled Godwit Henslow’s Sparrow Long-billed Curlew Le Conte’s Sparrow Willet Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Wilson’s Phalarope Vesper Sparrow Upland Sandpiper Savannah Sparrow Greater Prairie-Chicken Lark Sparrow Lesser Prairie-Chicken Field Sparrow Northern Harrier Clay-colored Sparrow Swainson’s Hawk Chestnut-collared Longspur Ferruginous Hawk McCown’s Longspur Short-eared Owl Dickcissel Burrowing Owl Lark Bunting Horned Lark Bobolink Sedge Wren Eastern Meadowlark Loggerhead Shrike Western Meadowlark Sprague’s Pipit Brown-headed Cowbird EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON GRASSLAND BIRDS: LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Jill A.
    [Show full text]
  • Lagoon Flyer
    BUENA VISTA AUDUBON SOCIETY LAGOON FLYER VOLUME 47 / NUMBER 8 / OCTOBER 2018 Tricolored Blackbirds: A Desperate Tale With a Hopeful Ending Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie. It was downhill from there. Glossy black with epaulets of red and white, the Tricolored Blackbird once abounded. In the 19th century, one author stated they were “the most abundant species in San Diego and Los Angeles counEes.” EsEmates set some colonies at more than a million birds. Since then, though, the populaEon has declined conEnuously and precipitously. In the last decade alone, the Tricolored Blackbird populaEon has decreased by more than two thirds, to an all-Eme low of 145,000. What the heck is going on with these birds? The short answer is habitat loss, climate change, an abundance of predators, and a lack of protecEon. But aNer a decade of effort by conservaEon groups, in April 2018, the California Fish and Game Commission officially listed the Tricolored Blackbird as “threatened” under the California Endangered Species Act. Meanwhile, California Audubon has collaborated with an alliance of farmers, researchers, governmental agencies, and conservaEon organizaEons to implement an acEon plan to reach a goal of 750,000 birds. October’s speaker, Dr. Rosamonde Cook, has been at the center of this story since 2004. From Central to Southern California, she has conducted populaEon research and worked closely with efforts to stage the comeback of this once-common species. It’s a complex tale and no one is be\er able to shed light on the Tricolored Blackbird’s perilous journey. Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Social: 6:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • NEWS and NOTES by Paul Hess
    NEWS AND NOTES by Paul Hess “Lilian’s” Meadowlark für Ornithologie 135:28), but no details about the findings have been published. Ornithologist Harry C. Oberholser was intrigued by mead - At last, a large-scale genetic report by F. Keith Barker, Ar - owlarks collected in 1929 near Arizona’s Huachuca Moun - ion J. Vandergon, and Scott M. Lanyon arrived in 2008 tains, because their size, structure, and plumage differed (Auk 125:869–879). They examined two mitochondrial from those of the Western Meadowlark and from known DNA (mtDNA) genes and one nuclear locus in 14 Eastern variations of Eastern Meadowlark. In 1930 he described the Meadowlark subspecies throughout the North American, specimens as a new Eastern Meadowlark subspecies and Central American, and South American range. named it lilianae to honor Lilian Baldwin, who had donat - The results indicate a long history of evolutionary diver - ed the collection ( Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Mu - gence between lilianae and all except one other Eastern seum of Natural History 1:83–124). Meadowlark subspecies, auropectoralis of central and We now know it as “Lilian’s” Meadowlark, of desert grasslands in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico, where it is distinguishable from Western Meadowlark with careful study by eye and ear. In identification guides, lilianae re - ceived little attention and no illustration until the National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America in 1983. Kevin J. Zimmer of - fered tips in Birding (August 1984, pp. 155–156) and in his books The Western Bird Watcher (Prentice-Hall 1985) and Birding in the American West (Cornell University Press 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Neotropical Birding 24 2 Neotropical Species ‘Uplisted’ to a Higher Category of Threat in the 2018 IUCN Red List Update
    >> FEATURE RED LIST 2018 The 2018 IUCN Red List in the Neotropics James Lowen, Hannah Wheatley, Claudia Hermes, Ian Burfield and David Wege Neotropical Birding 21 featured a summary of the key implications for the Neotropics of the 2016 IUCN Red List for birds. This article briefs readers on the main changes from the 2018 update. s part of its role as the IUCN Red List BirdLife’s Red List team updated the Authority for birds, BirdLife International information available for roughly 2,300 species A is responsible for assessing the global worldwide. Globally, this resulted in changes to conservation status of each of the world’s 11,000 the categorisation of 89 species; 58 species were or so bird species, allocating each to a category ‘uplisted’ to a higher category of threat, whilst ranging from Least Concern to Extinct. The latest roughly half that number – 31 species – were update was published in November 2018 (BirdLife ‘downlisted’. In the Neotropics, 13 species were International 2018). Although much more modest uplisted (Fig. 2) and slightly more – 18 – were in reach than the comprehensive update carried downlisted (Fig. 5). Now let’s take a closer look at out in 2016, whose Neotropical dimension was the individual changes, largely using information discussed in Symes et al. (2017), the 2018 revamp made available on BirdLife’s ‘Globally Threatened contains a suite of interesting changes for species Bird Forums’ (8 globally-threatened-bird- occurring in the Neotropical Bird Club region that forums.birdlife.org). Is the picture quite as rosy as are worth drawing to readers’ collective attention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wintering Meadowlarks of Dane County, Wisconsin
    1954J 87 GENERAL NOTES The Winterin• Meadowlarks of Dane County, Wisconsin.--The 1931 edition of the A.O.U. Check-List states that the Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) winters casually east to southern Wisconsin. Actually this species is a regular winter resident in considerablenumbers, especiallyin Green County most of which was originally prairie. On the basisof sight identification,the westernbird appeared to be the prevailing winter resident. My main interest was the winter status of the Western Meadowlark in comparisonwith the Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnellamagna). In order to obtain positive data, I collected 8 Meadowlarks between December 29 and February 26 during the four winters, 1949-50 through 1952-53. Seven of the specimenswere of the western bird and one the eastern. All were males. The sample is too small to generalizeon the sex ratio and the relative abundanceof the two species. It appears,however, from the specimensand sight identificationsthat the Eastern Meadowlark constitutesless than 10 per cent of the wintering population. Sight identification of the two speciescan only be positive within narrow limits. When the ground is completely covered with snow, Meadowlarks are forced to feed where manure has been piled or scattered in the fidds and especiallyalong the roads where the snow-plowslay bare the shoulders. The birds become so accustomedto traffic that it is usually easy, by slow driving, to passwithin 10 to 20 feet of the feeding birds. The spedescan then be determinedby the color of the back. At a distance the backs of both speciesappear dark, and the observeris inclined to assignthe birds to the more darkly colored eastern species.
    [Show full text]
  • City Nature Challenge 2019 DFW Results
    Dallas-Fort Worth The City Nature Challenge is a global, city-scale BioBlitz event that frames an urban biodiversity survey as a friendly competition between cities. Data collection April 26-29 Identifications Apr 30-May 6 Harris’s Sparrow, Tommy Farquhar, Strecker’s chorus frog, corynorris, iNaturalist, CCBY-NC iNaturalist, CCBY-NC DFW by the numbers: • 10 counties • More than 36,000 observations • More than 2,600 species recorded Participating Johnson • More than 1,000 observers Counties: Kaufman • More than 830 identifiers Collin Parker Dallas Rockwall • Over 97% of observations were Denton Tarrant verifiable Ellis Wise DFW in the Global Rankings out of 159 Cities: Overall: Metros of Pop. >5mil: Metros of >20k sq. km: US & Canada: 7th: Num. Observations 3rd: Num. Observations 2nd: Num. Observations 3rd: Num. Observations 9th: Num. Species 5th: Num. Observers 3rd: Num. Species 5th: Num. Species 10th: Num. Observers 2nd: Num. Observers 3rd: Num. Research Grade Observations Warm Temperate Zone: 5th: Num. Observations The City Nature Challenge is organized by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the California Academy of Sciences. More information at citynaturechallenge.org Dallas-Fort Worth Cumulative Impact 63% of the observations recorded during the City Nature Challenge in the DFW metro area were Research Grade - observations of wild organisms with photo 63% of all Observations or sound vouchers of a quality to merit a to Research species-level identification by the majority of Grade identifiers. During the 4 days of the event, the DFW project saw: • 50 Species of Greatest Conservation Need at Research Grade (see list) • 200 new species records in iNaturalist • 8% increase in iNaturalist observations for the DFW metro counties • Project page: https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/city-nature-challenge-2019- dallas-fort-worth Spotlight: Engelmann’s Bladderpod The City Nature Challenge uncovered a previously unknown population of a rare Texas plant, the Engelmann’s bladderpod (Physaria engelmannii), in Dallas County.
    [Show full text]
  • Backyards Birds of the Brazos Valley
    BACKYARDS BIRDS OF THE BRAZOS VALLEY Western Diamondback Rattlesnake • Species in the world- about 10,000 • Species in the US- about 820 • Species in Texas- about 630 • Species in BV- about 300 • How many in your backyard? What birds need • Food – seeds, suet, sugar water (bush/tree nearby), fruit, ”protein” such as mealworms • Water – birdbath (shallow!), creek/running water, drip, mister, pond • (use mosquito control!) • Shelter – Box (2 kinds-nest and roost), roosting bush/tree, protection after bath Northern Mockingbird Loggerhead Shrike Loggerhead Shrike Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Eastern Kingbird Western Kingbird Eastern Phoebe Northern Cardinal Northern Cardinal Red-capped Cardinal Eastern Bluebird male Eastern Bluebird female Carolina Wren American Goldfinch American Goldfinch Ruby-throated Hummingbird Rufous Hummingbird Anna’s Hummingbird Buff-bellied Hummingbird Mourning Dovee Inca Dove White-winged Dove Eurasian collared Dove Rock Pigeon / Rock Dove American Crow Chimney Swift Chimney swift tower Chimney swift nest-eggs Purple Martin Purple Bartin box + gourds Ooooooops Barn Swallow Barn Swallow nest Barn Swallow nest Barn Swallow nest base Red-bellied Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker Red-headed Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Black-and-white Warbler Yellow Warbler Wilson’s Warbler Cerulean Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Prothonotary Warbler Painted Bunting Indigo Bunting Great Egret Great-blue Heron Green Heron Killdeer
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Meadowlark Minnesota Conservation Plan
    http://www.mikelentzphotography.com/ Mike Lentz | Lentz Mike Credit Eastern Meadowlark Minnesota Conservation Plan Audubon Minnesota Spring 2014 The Blueprint for Minnesota Bird Conservation is a project of Audubon Minnesota written by Lee A. Pfannmuller ([email protected]) and funded by the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. For further information please contact Mark Martell at [email protected] (651-739-9332). Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Status ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Legal Status ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Other Status Classifications .................................................................................................................. 6 Range ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Historical
    [Show full text]
  • New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats at Risk
    CHAPTER TWO New Hampshire Wildlife and Habitats at Risk Abstract All wildlife species native to New Hampshire were eligible for identification as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), including game species, non-game species, fish and marine animals. A number of species prioritization lists and expert review processes were used to determine which species should be included as SGCN. A total of 169 species are identified as SGCN in the 2015 Wildlife Action Plan, of which 27 species are listed as state endangered and 14 listed as state threatened. In the 2005 Wildlife Action Plan 118 species were listed as SGCN, and all but 13 of the 2005 SGCN are included in the 2015 revision. The Wildlife Action Plan also identifies 27 distinct habitats that support both common species and species of greatest conservation need. By identifying and protecting high quality examples of all of New Hampshire’s natural communities, all of the state’s native wildlife species will have access to intact habitats. Overview New Hampshire is home to over 500 vertebrate species and thousands of invertebrates. Many of these are common species that thrive in the state’s diverse landscapes and provide enjoyment through wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and trapping. This chapter describes the process of determining which species are in trouble – declining in numbers, squeezed into smaller patches of habitat, and threatened by a host of issues. These species are designated as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). They include not only species on the NH Endangered Species list, but also those that are not yet seriously threatened.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine and Grassland Birds of the Southeast Coastal Plain
    Pocket Guide to Pine and Grassland Birds of the Southeast Coastal Plain East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture SOUTHEAST COASTAL PLAIN AND PIEDMONT Map provided by Ducks Unlimited, Inc. - SRO GIS Lab Pocket Guide to Pine and Grassland Birds of the Southeast Coastal Plain The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture is a self- directed partnership of 14 organizations with a shared mission to protect and restore bird populations by coordinating the effective conservation of key habitats of the Southeast Coastal Plain. Contact Us Catherine Rideout Coordinator, East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture [email protected] Production of this guide was funded by The East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This pocket guide was created by a subset of partners of the East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture on behalf of the partnership: Amity Bass - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Dr. Pete Blank - American Bird Conservancy Seth Blitch - The Nature Conservancy David Bryan - Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Chris Doffitt - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Rob Holbrook - East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture Chris Reid - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Catherine Rideout - East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture Al Schotz - Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Auburn University Museum of Natural History Michael Seymour - Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Scott Somershoe - Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (currently affiliated with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Also, thanks to the guide reviewers, including Rachel Levin (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), David Bryan (Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries), Erin Bryan, Steve Chapman, Don McKenzie, Sergio Pierlu- issi, and Ben Robinson, and Becky Chapman (Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries) for layout.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of 2 Vegetation-Height Management Practices for Wildlife Control at Airports THOMAS W
    Human–Wildlife Confl icts 1(1):97–105, Spring 2007 Comparison of 2 vegetation-height management practices for wildlife control at airports THOMAS W. S EAMANS, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA [email protected] SCOTT C. BARRAS, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, P.O. Drawer 6099, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA GLEN E. BERNHARDT, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA BRADLEY F. B LACKWELL, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA JONATHON D. CEPEK, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA Abstract: Vegetation-height management is a potential method to reduce bird numbers at airports. Based on studies in Europe, researchers recommended vegetation heights around 25 cm; however, preliminary studies in the United States produced confl icting results regarding the effect of tall (18 to >25 cm) vegetation on bird numbers at airports. From 1999 to 2002, we compared birds and other wildlife use of 4 short-vegetation plots (mean maximum height of 15.6 cm ± 5.1 SE and visual obstruction reading of 4.6 ± 3.0 cm) and 4 tall-vegetation plots (mean maximum height of 26.9 ± 8.4 cm and visual obstruction reading of 10.0 ± 5.0 cm) in Ohio. We surveyed bird use of the plots 2 to 3 times/week and observed 6,191 birds in short-vegetation plots and 5,962 birds in tall-vegetation plots.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella Magna)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna in Canada THREATENED 2011 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 40 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Carl Savignac for writing the status report on the Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Jon McCracken, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Birds Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Sturnelle des prés (Sturnella magna) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Eastern Meadowlark — photo courtesy Raymond Belhumeur. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/624-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18676-4 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – May 2011 Common name Eastern Meadowlark Scientific name Sturnella magna Status Threatened Reason for designation This ground-nesting grassland specialist has seen major changes in its population size and breeding range since European settlement. Most of its native prairie habitat had fallen to the plough by the end of the 19th century.
    [Show full text]