The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 124(2):345–353, 2012

BIRDS CAUGHT IN WEBS: A SYNTHESIS OF PATTERNS

DANIEL M. BROOKS1

ABSTRACT.—Results of queries through public avian list-servers and a thorough literature search formed a data base to synthesize patterns of trapped in spider webs. Sixty-nine cases of birds, representing 54 in 23 families, were reported trapped in webs. were the most diverse family (nine species) and had the most cases of entrapment (n 5 20). Archilochus colubris represented the species with the most cases of entrapment (n 5 6). Mean mass and wing chord length of all species trapped were 11 g and 61 mm, respectively. Eighty-seven percent of all individuals had mass #15 g and 88% had a wing chord ,90 mm. Phaethornis longuemareus and minima represented the smallest species (mass 5 2 g, wing chord 5 37 mm), and Streptopelia senegalensis was the largest (mass 5 80 g, wing chord 5 138 mm). Thirty cases of birds were entrapped without human intervention: 22 died and eight not wrapped in silk freed themselves. Those wrapped in silk invariably died unless freed by a human observer. One-half of all reported spider webs were of the Nephila, and all were orb weavers except for a single Latrodectus. Nephila clavipes entrapped nine species representing 14 cases, ranging from Mellisuga minima (mass 5 2 g, wing chord 5 37 mm) to Catharus ustulatus (mass 5 23 g, wing chord 5 93 mm). Patterns, causes, and consequences of birds entrapped in spider webs are discussed, including orb weavers as opportunistic predators of birds trapped in webs, and spider webs as a natural environmental hazard to birds. Received 31 August 2011. Accepted 7 December 2011.

Birds have a wide variety of predators. Top escape by North American birds but did not include predators to birds include humans, who have a fates of birds trapped in spider webs. Miller and long history of harvesting birds for sport, protein, Gass (1985) examined patterns of of and ritual (Brooks 1999). Other predators of birds hummingbirds and concluded the majority of the include fish (Lockwood 1922), reptiles (Dove et incidents were unusual and inconsistent. All cases al. 2011), amphibians (Norris-Elye 1944), mam- they examined were of vertebrate predators except mals (Bisbal 1986), and a variety of avian species one, and that single case was not a spider. ranging from raptors (Mayr 1966) to certain Two colleagues and I found a web-entrapped (Graves 1978). Hymenopterans (Grant Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) in Sep- 1959), odonates (Hofslund 1977), and mantids tember 2007 while inspecting damage to wildlife (Carignan 1988) have also been reported to attack sanctuaries on High Island (Galveston County, birds, especially smaller species such as hum- Texas) following Hurricane Humberto (Brooks mingbirds (Trochilidae). et al. 2008). Subsequent literature review revealed Other cases involving invertebrates include a plethora of short published and unpublished birds trapped in webs of orb weaver , of reports of birds entrapped in spider webs with which there are numerous accounts in regional extensive variation in species and their respective journals (e.g., Coale 1912, Lockwood 1922, fates. The objective of this synthesis is to examine Kirkham 1925, Abbot 1931, Bent 1953, Grant patterns and fates of birds trapped in spider webs. 1959, Morris 1963, Doberski 1973, Pratt 1974, This topic warrants investigation because birds Vernon 1976, Hofslund 1977, Donnelly 1980, trapped in spider webs have been reported in the Dean 1984, Gosling 1984, Levy 1987, Carignan literature on multiple occasions and may represent 1988, McKenzie 1991, Shaw 1994, Cheke and more than a series of trivial incidents. Even the Mann 2001, Heck and Heck 2001, Riddell 2001, most detailed reports to date (e.g., Graham 1997, Engel 2006, Cox and Nesmith 2007, Peloso and de Cox and Nesmith 2007, Peloso and de Sousa Sousa 2007, Brooks et al. 2008). The pattern of 2007, Sakai 2007) only examined a single or birds trapped in spider webs has not been properly limited number of cases and lacked a thorough synthesized to date despite extensive documenta- synthesis of multiple cases. tion because these observations are largely consid- ered incidental and often dismissed by scientists as METHODS unremarkable (Graham 1997). For example, Lima (1993) broadly synthesized patterns of predator Data were obtained from an exhaustive litera- ture search and replies to queries to several avian 1 Houston Museum of Natural Science, Department of list-servers (NEOORN-L, ORNITH-L, African- Vertebrate Zoology, 5555 Hermann Park Drive, Houston, Birding-L) on 17 September 2007. Some recipi- TX 77030, USA; e-mail: [email protected] ents of the initial posting forwarded the message 345

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:18 345 Cust # 11-148 346 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 124, No. 2, June 2012 to numerous individuals as well as to an Australian 69 cases of entrapped birds have a mass #15 g list-server (BirdingAus-L) on 19 September. All and 61 (88%) have a wing chord ,90 mm replies were tabularized into a data set. A follow-up (Fig. 1). The Little Hermit (Phaethornis long- e-mail posted to the same list-servers on 25 uemareus) and Vervain (Mellisuga September resulted in additional information minima) represent the smallest species with a which expanded the data set. A literature search mass of 2 g and wing chord of 37 mm, whereas occurred during mid September 2007-mid Novem- the largest species was the Laughing Dove ber 2011 with most references from before 2008. (Streptopelia senegalensis) with mass of 80 g Only cases of birds trapped in a single spider and wing chord of 138 mm. web were included for consistency of compari- Patterns of Fates.—Sixty-six cases of sons. Reports of birds found encumbered with silk avian fates were reported. Sixty-two included strands attached to the body were not included information detailing whether birds were wrapped because the circumstances prior to the observation in : 18 cases (29%) involved birds were undocumented. The bird may have simply wrapped in silk and 44 (71%) did not (X2 5 10.08, picked up strands of an abandoned, broken spider P , 0.001, n 5 62). Both wrapped (range 5 2– web during flight. 34 g) and unwrapped (range 5 2–80 g) birds have Wing chord data were collected from study a mean mass of 11 g and differences were not specimens at the Houston Museum of Natural significant, as were differences in wing chord for Science (HMNS), the Field Museum (FMNH), wrapped (58 mm, range 5 41–96 mm) versus and the American Museum of Natural History unwrapped (64 mm, range 5 37–138 mm) birds. (AMNH). Measurements were collected using Twelve (66%) birds wrapped in silk were found standard dial calipers and measured to the nearest dead in the web and six (33%) were assisted by mm. Mass (g) data were gleaned from specimen human intervention (5 released unharmed, 1 died). tags at HMNS and FMNH, and from Dunning Eight (18%) of the birds not wrapped in silk freed (2008) for AMNH specimens where mass data themselves and three (7%) were dead. Thirty-three were lacking from tags. (75%) were assisted by human intervention (31 Birds could be trapped in a web strictly due to released unharmed, 2 died). Only eight birds were entanglement in the sticky threading. Those able to free themselves without intervention, whereas wrapped in silk by the spider did not survive the number surviving due to human intervention was and this was noted when the data were compiled. 31 (X2 5 12.42, P , 0.0003, n 5 39). Additional bird fates examined included whether Twenty-two (73%) birds in the natural and entrapped birds were: (1) able to free themselves unbiased cases died as a result of spider web or released with human intervention (and if they entrapment. This excluded biased situations where subsequently survived), (2) killed or consumed by humans intervened and released trapped birds a spider, or (3) found dead in the web. Chi-square unharmed but added four additional cases with no tests were used to test probabilities (P # 0.05) data on silk wrapping to bring the total number of with the exception of a Pearson product-moment cases of entrapped birds to 30. All eight cases of correlation used to test the relationship between birds that freed themselves from webs were not avian mass and wing chord. wrapped in silk; those wrapped in silk invariably died unless freed by a human observer. Mean RESULTS mass of the eight birds that were able to free Patterns of Diversity and Size of Trapped Birds.— themselves was 11 g (range 5 5–34 g) and wing Sixty-nine cases of birds representing 54 species in chord was 66 mm (range 5 56–129 mm), whereas 23 families were reported trapped in spider webs the 22 that died had a mean mass of 9 g (range 5 (Table 1). The Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archi- 2–34 g) and wing chord of 53 mm (range 5 37– lochus colubris) represented the species with the 96 mm). The mass and wing chord of birds that most cases of entrapment (n 5 6). Hummingbirds freed themselves without intervention was slightly (Trochilidae) represented the most diverse family greater than those that died, but the results are not with nine species, as well as the family with the most statistically significant for both measurements. cases of entrapment (n 5 20). Patterns of Spider and Pervasive- Avian mass (j 5 11 g) was significantly ness.—All of the 46 records that included a correlated with wing chord (j 5 61 mm) (r 5 description of the spider associated with the web 0.7851, P , 0.0001, n 5 67). Sixty (87%) of the were orb weavers except for a single case, an

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:29 346 Cust # 11-148 Brooks N BIRDS CAPTURED IN SPIDER WEBS 347 NW, K 2 37 Levy 1987 NW, K 2 37 Levy 1987 W, RU 2 37 Graham 1997 W, RU 5 56 Graham 1997 NW, F 5 56 Graham 1997 NW, F 5 56 Graham 1997 NW, RU 5 56 Sakai 2007 W, RD 2 41 McCook 1889 NW, RU 2 41 Kirkham 1925 NW, RD 2 41 McKenzie 1991 ?, K 7 41 Pratt 1974 W, K 15 53 J. Smart in litt. NW, K 6 50 Peloso and de Sousa 2007 NW, RU 12 64 Cox and Nesmith 2007 W, K 21 78 Engel 2006 ) NW, RU 4 50 P. Rojas in litt. Eriophora Mastophora ) sp. W, K 2 41 B. Freeman in litt. sp. NW, RU 11 55 B. Freeman in litt. sp. NW, RU 80 138 D. Forsman in litt. sp. NW, RU 5 54 B. Sanjur in litt. sp. NW, RU 13 55 R. Hargreaves in litt. sp. W, K 34 96 Anon. 2006 biapicata Orb Weaver ( Orb Weaver W, RU 5 50 P. Clavijo M. in litt. Orb Weaver??Orb WeaverOrb Weaver NW, RU 4 NW, RU W, K ?, K NW, 3 RU 48 2 4 4 Stott 1951 43 41 Woods 48 1934 48 K. Fraser Abbot in 1931 litt. Abbot 1931 ? ?, K 2 41 J. Finley in litt. ? W, K 15 72 P. Veerman in litt. Garden Orb-weaver ( TABLE 1. Species of birds entrapped in spider webs and their respective fates and sizes. Streptopelia senegalensis Nephila Hylocharis cyanus Amazilia tobaci A.tzacatl Nephila M.minima N.clavipes Mellisuga minima N.clavipes P.longuemareus N.clavipes P.longirostris N.clavipes P.longirostris N.clavipes P.longirostris N.clavipes Phaethornis longirostris Nephila clavipes Calypte anna C.anna C.anna C.costae Archilochus colubris A.colubris Ispidina picta Nephila A.colubris Argiope caphinarium A.colubris Aranens trifolium A.colubris A.colubris Neoscona hentzii Empidonax flaviventris Argiope Lichenostomus keartlandi Meliphaga lewinii Nephila M. melanocephalus Nephilia maculata Maluruscyaneus Nephila clavipes Todirostrum cinereum Nephilengys cruentata E. virescens Nephila clavipes Phylidonyris novaehollandiae Common name Latin name Spider sp. Fate Mass (gm) Wing (mm) Source DovesLaughing Dove Columbidae White-chinned Sapphire Copper-rumped Hummingbird Rufous-tailed Hummingbird Vervain Hummingbird Little Hermit Long-billed Hermit Long-billed Hermit Long-billed Hermit HummingbirdsLong-billed Hermit Trochilidae Anna’s Hummingbird Anna’s Hummingbird Anna’s Hummingbird Costa’s Hummingbird Ruby-throated Hummingbird Ruby-throated Hummingbird KingfishersAfrican Pygmy Kingfisher Alcedinidae Ruby-throated Hummingbird Ruby-throated Hummingbird Ruby-throated Hummingbird Ruby-throated Hummingbird FlycatchersYellow-bellied Flycatcher Tyrannidae HoneyeatersGrey-headed Honeyeater Lewins’ Honeyeater Meliphagidae Red-backed Fairywren Fairy-wrensSuperb Fairywren Maluridae Common Tody-Flycatcher Acadian Flycatcher New Holland Honeyeater

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:29 347 Cust # 11-148 348 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 124, No. 2, June 2012 ¨m in litt. NW, RU 23 93 Brooks et al. 2008 NW, RU 15 115 Pratt 1974 ?, ? 13 60 Forbush and May 1939 sp. NW, RU 11 90 S. Cabanne in litt. Nephila sp. ?, K 8 47 Morris 1963 ???Orb WeaverPalm Spiders? NW, RU NW, F W, K W, K 14 W, K 10 11 10 10 NW, 80 RU 71 20 63 Doberski 1973 53 J. Norman in 53 litt. Cheke and Mann 2001 Cheke and Mann 2001 Cheke and 80 Mann 2001 Shaw 1994 Orb WeaverOrb Weaver?Araneidae? NW, RU NW, RU 5 5 NW, RU NW, F 9 55 NW, 57 RU 10 Dean 1984 10 K. Garrett in litt. 52 52 Gosling 1984 53 T. Riecke in litt. Anon. 2007 ??? W, K NW, RD 11 NW, RU 5 11 64 43 Vernon 1976 57 Abbot 1931 D. Zetterstro ? NW, RU 10 112 K. Garrett in litt. Orb Weaversmaller than a NW, F 34 129 Robinson 1941 ? ?, ? 8 48 D. Hadden in litt. Muscicapa striata Cyanomitra olivacea C.olivacea Chalcomitra amethystina Cinnyris dussumieri Anaplectes rubriceps Lagonosticta senegala Latrodectes Regulusregulus R. satrapa Thryomanes bewickii Troglodytes hiemalis T. aedon Catharus ustulatus Nephila clavipes Sylvietta whytii Psaltriparus minimus Phylloscopus fuscatus Hirundo rustica H.neoxena Nephilia maculata Dicrurus adsimilis Notiochelidon cyanoleuca Acanthiza apicalis Vireo griseus Nephila clavipes Common name Latin name Spider sp. Fate Mass (gm) Wing (mm) Source TABLE 1. Continued. Old World FlycatchersSpotted Flycatcher SunbirdsOlive Amethyst Sunbird Seychelles Muscicapidae Sunbird* WeaversRed-headed Weaver Waxbills and MuniasRed-billed Firefinch Nectariniidae Estrildidae Ploecidae Goldcrests and KingletsGoldcrest Golden-crowned Kinglet WrensBewick’s Wren Winter Wren Regulidae House Wren ThrushesSwainson’s Thrush Troglodytidae Turdidae African WarblersRed-faced BushtitsBushtit Leaf WarblersDusky Warbler Macrosphenidae Aegithalidae Phylloscopidae Barn Welcome Swallow DrongosFork-tailed Drongo SwallowsBlue-and-white Swallow Dicruridae Hirundinidae Australasian WarblersInland Thornbill VireosWhite-eyed Vireo* Acanthizidae Vireonidae

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:29 348 Cust # 11-148 Brooks N BIRDS CAPTURED IN SPIDER WEBS 349 disentangled by human intervention but 5 NW, RU 9 49 Riddell 2001 NW, RU 17 55 Terres 1939 NW, RU 5 65 S. and B. Hills in litt. NW, RU 9 50 Heck and Heck 2001 W, K 10 63 Bent 1953 NW, RU 10 63 Bent 1953 W, RU 12 68 Mackay 1929 disentangled and released unharmed by human intervention, RD 5 (Nephilengys freed self, RU 5 sp. NW, RU 9 51 Webber 1974 F cruentata) Golden Orb Spider ?Banana Orb Weaver NW, RU 24 NW, F 79 8 B. Howe in litt. 52 A. M. Cuervo in litt. ? NW, F 9 50 Ross 1950 ?? NW, F W, RU 10 9 62 60 G. Wallace in litt. Coale 1912 Garden Orb-weaver?? W, K 14 NW, 55 RU NW, RU 15 Malkin 2008 11 76 65 Abbot 1931 F. Beaudry in litt. not wrapped in web threading, 5 Uraeginthus angolensis Nephila Lagonosticta rhodopareia Sporophila nigricollis Loxigilla violacea Ammodramus savannarum Setophaga ruticilla Nephila clavipes Geothlypis trichas G.trichas Argiope aurantia S. dominica N.clavipes Oreothlypis virginiae Septophaga petechia S. dominica Nephila clavipes Lonchura castaneothorax Carpodacus mexicanus Spinus psaltria S.tristis Argiope aurantia wrapped in web threading, NW 5 unknown, W 5 killed/consumed by spider or found dead in web. Taxonomy follows American Ornithologists’ Union (2011) and Gill and Donsker (2011). 5 K fledglings, ? Common name Latin name Spider sp. Fate Mass (gm) Wing (mm) Source 5 TABLE 1. Continued. KEY: * did not survive, Blue Waxbill Jameson’s Firefinch New World SparrowsYellow-bellied Seedeater Greater Antillean Bullfinch Grasshopper Sparrow Emberizidae American Redstart Common Yellowthroat Common Yellowthroat Yellow-throated Warbler New World WarblersVirginia’s Warbler Yellow Warbler Yellow-throated Warbler Parulidae Chestnut-breasted Mannikin New World FinchesHouse Finch Lesser Goldfinch Fringillidae

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:30 349 Cust # 11-148 350 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 124, No. 2, June 2012

FIG. 1. Size of birds entrapped in spider webs. Data points to the left of the vertical line represent species with mass #15 g. Data points below the horizontal line represent species with wing chord ,90 mm.

African black widow (Latrodectus sp.) that killed the remaining seven were released with human a Red-billed Firefinch (Lagonosticta senegala). intervention. One-half of all reported cases (n 5 23) that identified the spiders entrapping birds in webs DISCUSSION were in the genus Nephila, including N. inaurata Patterns of Birds Trapped in Spider Webs.— (1), N. maculata (2), and N. clavipes (14). Other Most entrapped birds had a mass of #15 g and forms of orb weavers included six cases for the wing chord ,90 mm. Larger species of birds are genus Argiope including A. aurantia (1) and A. especially vulnerable to entrapment when the web caphinarium (3), two cases for Eriophora biapi- was approached at an indirect angle with slow cata and Nephilengys cruentata, and single cases flight speed (Cox and Nesmith 2007). Larger birds for Aranens trifolium, Mastophora sp., and with longer, more powerful wings appear to be Neoscona hentzii. able to break through webs easier than smaller The only species of spider with sufficient data birds, which would explain the higher rates of for analysis of patterns of bird entrapment was entanglement for smaller species (Fig. 1). The N. clavipes. This species entrapped nine species longer a bird is entrapped, the more likely it is to representing 14 cases (31% of all spider records). succumb due to stress and fatigue. It is possible Trapped birds ranged in size from Vervain that large species (. 15 g mass, $ 90 mm wing Hummingbird (mass 5 2g,wingchord5 chord) were entangled more frequently, but freed 37 mm) to Swainson’s Thrush (mass 5 23 g, themselves before the event could be documented. wing chord 5 93 mm). Four (31%) of the 13 birds It is not surprising that hummingbirds (range 5 with fate data were wrapped in the web, and nine 2–5 g mass, 37–56 mm wing chord) represent not (69%) were not. Two cases each were found for only the most diverse family (9 species), but also unwrapped birds dying, unwrapped birds freeing the family with the most cases of being trapped themselves, and wrapped birds dying in the web; in a spider web (20 cases). The small size of

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:30 350 Cust # 11-148 Brooks N BIRDS CAPTURED IN SPIDER WEBS 351

members of this family makes them more 1986). Orb weaver size, web radius, and web vulnerable to web entrapment, especially the height are the most important factors affecting smaller species: six (67%) of the nine species abundance and size of prey captured; these same and 14 (70%) of the 20 cases have a mass #4g parameters are important for interspecific niche and wing chord #50 mm. The next smallest birds separation (Brown 1981). These spiders catch trapped in comparison include only three cases in winged prey in higher webs whereas larger, two families: Aegithalidae (Bushtit, Psaltriparus jumping insect prey are caught more frequently minimus; 5 g mass, 40 mm wing chord) and at lower strata (Brown 1981). Orb weavers use a Regulidae (Goldcrest, Regulus regulus; 5 g mass, variety of tactics to immobilize prey. More 55 mm wing chord and Golden-crowned Kinglet, primitive forms such as Nephila often bite to R. satrapa; 5 g mass, 57 mm wing chord). subdue their prey whereas Argiope and Eriophora More than one-half (n 5 36) of the cases of wrap their prey in silk (Weems and Edwards birds entrapped in spider webs were released 1978). Most research on orb weaver foraging has unharmed by the humans reporting the incident. shown specialization on insects (Rypstra 1985, When these cases were excluded, 73% (n 5 22) Higgins 1987). Orb weaver mouthparts are too died due to web entrapment, and the only cases of small to specialize on birds (Sakai 2007) or to birds naturally freeing themselves (n 5 8) were suggest coevolution for bird specialization, but not wrapped in silk. Consequently, the chance for orb weavers will opportunistically predate a small a bird to survive web entrapment is affected by its bird that gets caught in the web. This review ability to free itself prior to being immobilized by documents 18 cases of birds wrapped in silk for the spider. The sheer size of a bird alone could consumption, and each case resulted in death deter a spider from immobilizing it, as spiders unless freed by a human observer. A more limited are often reluctant to wrap prey too large to number of cases showed actual consumption by a successfully consume (Sakai 2007). spider without the bird being wrapped in silk Are Spiders and their Webs a Threat to Birds?— (Levy 1987, Peloso and de Sousa 2007). These Orb weavers will cut their web to rid it of cases are contrary to Graham’s (1997) speculation undesirable debris (Robinson and Mirick 1971). that orb weavers do not prey on birds. However, it is not desirable for a web to be Spider Webs and Natural Environmental Threats destroyed by a bird flying through it, and one of the to Birds.—A variety of avian species feed on many functions of a web is to visually deter birds spiders and use spider web for nesting material from flying into them (Bruce et al. 2005). This was (Waide and Hailman 1977); birds in these illustrated by Robinson and Robinson (1976) who situations are likely to be aware of the web and described how a tame, experimental Hooded do not become entangled (McKenzie 1991). Birds Butcherbird (Cracticus cassicus) accidentally flew traveling along direct flight paths, the same open through a Nephila maculata web with devastating understory areas favored by orb weavers to build results to both the spider with a destroyed web, and webs (Graham 1997), are more likely to become the bird which took several minutes to preen the caught, just as a bird can collide with a mist-net. web threading from its feathers and was cautious Trapped birds may have been moving within a lek for the subsequent 3 weeks. This case details the site (Sakai 2007), chasing prey, fleeing danger, or consequences to both bird and spider of a web traveling to a new site. Orb weavers are perhaps the collision but, more importantly, indicates that webs largest arboreal spiders with a web that can attain do not always serve as visible deterrents to flying .1 m in radius with strong and sticky fresh silk birds. This synthesis presents 69 cases of birds strands (Lubin 1978, Griffiths and Salanitri 1980). entangled in spider webs, suggesting that spider Over 50 different species of birds (Table 1) have webs can fail as visual deterrents for many species been trapped in these large webs spanning open of birds, concordant with Robinson and Robinson flight paths. Being trapped in a web also makes a (1976). bird vulnerable to predation by a larger vertebrate The primary purpose of venom in most species predator (Graham 1997), if the bird is not of spiders is to subdue insect prey rather than immobilized by the spiders themselves. harm larger species of vertebrates (Shear 1986). Natural environmental hazards are rare in Certain tarantulas (e.g., Theraphosa, Avicularia) nature. Another example besides spider webs is are sufficiently large to predate eggs and nestlings bird entanglement in plants, which was reviewed of birds but do not specialize on them (Shear by Hager et al. (2009). They similarly reviewed

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:31 351 Cust # 11-148 352 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 124, No. 2, June 2012 the anecdotal literature and found 32 cases of Riehl (AMNH), Peter Lowther (FMNH), and Donna plant entanglements affecting 25 species of birds, Meadows and Martha Magee (HMNS). Dave Willard compared to a much higher 69 cases of spider web kindly commented on taxonomy, and helpful edits and comments were provided by Clait Braun, Monica Brooks, entanglement of 54 species in my study. The Bob and Maggie Honig, Peter Lowther, Christine Riehl, overall size of birds trapped in plants was much Janelle Mikulas, and Erin Mills. greater with seabirds (e.g., pelicans, gulls, and murrelets) and hawks representing one-third of LITERATURE CITED the cases. Moreover, all but one of those cases involving larger species resulted in mortality. The ABBOT, C. G. 1931. Birds caught in a spiders’ web. Condor 33:169. overall mortality rate between the two studies was AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’UNION. 2011. Check-list of similar with 78% (n 5 25) of avian mortalities North American birds. American Ornithologists’ due to plant entanglement versus 73% (n 5 22) of Union, Washington, D.C., USA. http://www.aou.org/ 30 cases of birds trapped in spider webs that were checklist/north not assisted by human observers. More than one- ANONYMOUS. 2006. Spiders eat bird (Love is a web). www. half of the cases involved the plant burdock youtube.com/watch?v5dm1JNMo8M24 (Arctium minus), whereas all birds but one case in ANONYMOUS. 2007. House Wren caught in a spiders’ web. www.youtube.com/watch?v5FMUE85ddcq4 my study were trapped in orb weaver webs. BENT, A. C. 1953. Life histories of North American wood The number of orb weaver webs increases with warblers. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 203. environmental disturbances, such as following a BISBAL, F. J. 1986. Food habits of some neotropical hurricane (Brooks et al. 2008) or local carnivores in Venezuela. Mammalia 50:329–339. of predators which consume spiders (e.g., Guam; BROOKS, D. M. 1999. Pipile as a protein source to rural Haldre Rogers, pers. comm.). The number of webs hunters and Amerindians. Pages 42–50 in Biology and conservation of the piping guans (Pipile) (D. M. could ostensibly increase following increased Brooks, A. J. Begazo, and F. Olmos, Editors). Special environmental disturbance with increasing envi- Monograph Series of the Cracid Specialist Group ronmental instability. This may increase the Number 1. number of birds trapped in webs (Brooks et al. BROOKS, D. M., W. BURKETT, AND D. L. SARKOZI. 2008. 2008) as spider webs become concentrated at Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) caught in web higher densities. of golden silk orb weaver (Nephila clavipes). Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society 41:27. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BROWN, K. M. 1981. Foraging ecology and niche partition- ing in orb-weaving spiders. Oecologia 50:380–385. This research provides an example of the importance of BRUCE, S. F., T. M. BREWER, AND M. E. HERBERSTEIN. reporting interesting natural history notes and keeping good 2005. Spider signals: are web decorations visible to field records. The data synthesized to examine the reported birds and bees? Biological Letters 1:299–302. patterns would not have been possible without the careful CARIGNAN, J. M. 1988. Predation on Rufous Hummingbird records of others, including amateur naturalists who by praying mantid. Texas Journal of Science 40: published their field notes. I kindly thank the many 111. individuals who replied to queries on NEOORN-L, CHEKE,R.A.AND C. F. MANN. 2001. : a guide to ORNITH -L, AfricanBirding-L, and BirdingAus-L. I am the sunbirds, flowerpeckers, spiderhunters and sugar- grateful to the following individuals for providing unpub- birds of the world. Christopher Helm, A & C Black, lished accounts: Fred Beaudry, Gustavo Cabanne, Pepe London, United Kingdom. Clavijo, Andres Cuervo, Joelle Finley, Dick Forsman, COALE, H. K. 1912. Dendroica aestiva captured by a spider. Kevin Fraser, Brush Freeman, Kimball Garrett, Don Auk 29:105. Hadden, Roy Hargreaves, Bill Howe, Nicole Michel, Jenny COX,J.A.AND C. C. NESMITH. 2007. Acadian Flycatcher Norman, Martim Pinheiro de Melo, Thomas Riecke, Pepe caught in the web of a golden silk orb-weaver. Florida Rojas, Boris Sanjur, Jim Smart, Paul Smith, Peo Usher, Field-Naturalist 35:46–48. Philip Veerman, George Wallace, and Dan Zetterstro¨m. I DEAN, T. 1984. Goldcrest trapped in spider’s web. British also thank those who provided literature sources and other Birds 77:569. information: Raymond Arsenault, Clive Barlow, Frederik DOBERSKI, J. W. 1973. Spotted Flycatcher entangled in Brammer, Gustavo Cabanne, Charles Collins, Jim Cox, Ian spider’s web. British Birds 66:401. Hinze, Jim Ingold, Scott Johnson, Leo Joseph, Jeremy DONNELLY, B. G. 1980. Jameson’s Firefinch caught in a Kirchman, Dan Klem Jr., Catherine Levy, Erin Mills, spider’s web. Honeyguide 102:34. Malcolm Ogilvie, Bill Pranty, Travis Rosenberry, Paul DOVE, C. J., R. W. SNOW,M.R.ROCHFORD, AND F. J. Smith, John Tucker, Peo Usher, Dirk Van Tuerenhout, and MAZZOTTI. 2011. Birds consumed by the invasive Thomas Zuechner. My gratitude is extended to the Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus)in following individuals for permitting access to collections Everglades National Park, Florida, USA. Wilson or assisting with data collection: Mary Hart and Christine Journal of Ornithology 123:126–131.

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:31 352 Cust # 11-148 Brooks N BIRDS CAPTURED IN SPIDER WEBS 353

DUNNING, J. B. 2008. CRC Handbook of avian body the United States, with special regard to their industry masses. Second Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, and habits. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadel- Florida, USA. phia, Pennsylvania, USA. ENGEL, D. 2006. Bird victim of spider. Newsletter of the MCKENZIE, P. M. 1991. A Ruby-throated Hummingbird Ecological Consultants Association of NSW 15/16: (Archilochus colubris) trapped in a spider’s web. 9–10. Journal of the Louisiana Ornithological Society 1:54– FORBUSH,E.H.AND T. B. MAY. 1939. Natural history of 58. birds of eastern and central North America. Houghton MILLER,R.S.AND C. L. GASS. 1985. Survivorship in Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts, USA. hummingbirds: is predation important? Auk 102: GILL,F.AND D. DONSKER (Editors). 2011. IOC World Bird 175–178. Names (Version 2.10). Princeton University Press, MORRIS, B. 1963. Bird-eating spiders. African Wildlife Princeton, New Jersey, USA. http://www.worldbirdnames. 17:343. org/ NORRIS-ELYE, L. S. T. 1944. Leopard frogs devouring small GOSLING, C. L. 1984. A troglodytic nightmare. Jack-Pine birds. Auk 6l:643–644. Warbler 62:78. PELOSO,P.L.AND V. P. DE SOUSA. 2007. Predation on GRAHAM, D. L. 1997. Spider webs and windows as Todirostrum cinereum (Tyrannidae) by the orb-web potentially important sources of hummingbird mortal- spider Nephilengys cruentata (Aranae, Nephilidae). ity. Journal of Field Ornithology 68:98–101. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 15:461–463. GRANT, J. 1959. Hummingbirds attacked by . PRATT, E. 1974. Spiderweb grounds Cuckoo Shrike. Canadian Field-Naturalist 73:174. Sunbird 5:26. GRAVES,G.R.1978.Predationonhummingbirdby RIDDELL, I. C. 2001. To catch a spider–or the other way oropendola. Condor 80:251. around! Honeyguide 47:197–198. GRIFFITHS,J.R.AND V. R. SALANITRI. 1980. The strength ROBINSON, C. 1941. Fork-tailed Drongo caught in a spider’s of spider silk. Journal of Materials Science 15:491– web. Ostrich 11:136. 496. ROBINSON,M.H.AND H. MIRICK. 1971. The predatory HAGER, S. B., B. DZIADYK, AND K. J. MCKAY. 2009. Bird- behavior of the golden-web spider Nephila clavipes plant entanglement: a review and addition of the Least (Araneae: Araneidae). Psyche 78:123–139. Flycatcher. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:648– ROBINSON,M.H.AND B. ROBINSON. 1976. Ecology and 651. behavior of Nephila maculata: a supplement. Smith- HECK,B.A.AND C. H. HECK. 2001. Common Yellowthroat sonian Contributions to Zoology 218. captured in a spider’s web. Bulletin of the Oklahoma ROSS, L. H. 1950. Northern Yellowthroat, Geothlypis Ornithological Society 34:19–20. trichas, caught in a spider web. Auk 67:521–522. HIGGINS, L. E. 1987. Time budget and prey of Nephila RYPSTRA, A. L. 1985. Aggregations of Nephila clavipes (L.) clavipes (Linnaeus) (Araneae, Araneidae) in southern (Araneae, Arandeidae) in relation to prey availability. Texas. Journal of 15:401–417. Journal of Arachnology 13:71–78. HOFSLUND, P. B. 1977. Dragonfly attacks and kills a Ruby- SAKAI, W. W. 2007. Long billed Hermit (Phaetornis throated Hummingbird. Loon 49:238. superciliosus) caught in golden orb-spider (Nephilia KIRKHAM, S. D. 1925. A spider traps a hummingbird. New clavipes) web. Ornitologia Neotropical 18:117–119. York State Museum Bulletin 260:34–36. SHAW, J. R. 1994. Red-headed Weaver caught in a spider’s LEVY, C. 1987. The spider and the hummingbird. Grosse web. Honeyguide 40:250. Bird Club Broadsheet 3/87:4–5. SHEAR, W. A. 1986. Spiders. Stanford University Press, San LIMA, S. L. 1993. Ecological and evolutionary perspectives Francisco, California, USA. on escape from predatory attack: a survey of North STOTT, K. 1951. An Anna Hummingbird caught in a spider American birds. Wilson Bulletin 105:1–47. web. Condor 53:49–50. LOCKWOOD, M. E. 1922. Hummingbird and bass. Bird Lore TERRES, J. K. 1939. Grasshopper Sparrow caught in spider’s 24:94. web. Auk 56:342. LUBIN, Y. D. 1978. Seasonal abundance and diversity of VERNON, C. 1976. Red-faced Crombec caught in a spider’s web-building spiders in relationship to habitat struc- web. Honeyguide 85:41. ture on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Journal of WAIDE,R.B.AND J. P. HAILMAN. 1977. Birds of five Arachnology 6:31–51. families feeding from spider’s webs. Wilson Bulletin MACKAY, G. H. 1929. A spider (Argiope aurantia) and a 89:345. bird (Astragalinus tristis tristis). Auk 36:123–124. WEBBER, J. I. 1974. Blue Waxbill caught in a spider’s web. MALKIN, B. 2008. Giant spider eating a bird caught on camera. Ostrich 45:262. Telegraph, London, United Kingdom. http://www. WEEMS,H.V.AND G. B. EDWARDS. 1978. The golden silk telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view5DETAILS& orb weaver, Nephila clavipes (Araneae: Tetragnathi- grid5&xml5/earth/2008/10/22/easpider122.xml dae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer MAYR, E. 1966. Hummingbird caught by Sparrow Hawk. Services, Division of Plant Industry, Entomology Auk 83:664. Circular Number 193. MCCOOK, H. C. 1889. American spiders and their spinning- WOODS, R. S. 1934. A hummingbird entangled in a spider’s work: a natural history of the orbweaving spiders of web. Condor 36:242.

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology wils-124-02-18.3d 23/3/12 15:48:31 353 Cust # 11-148