DOCSLIB.ORG

Sizes of Snails Eaten by Snail Kites and Limpkins in a Costa Rican Marsh

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sizes of Snails Eaten by Snail Kites and Limpkins in a Costa Rican Marsh April 1977] General Notes 365 Slightlymore than one-third(35%) of the eggsin three-eggclutches had a crown (Table 2), which was progressivelymore commonfrom the first throughthe third egg,and showeda significantrelationship to the egg'sposition in the hatching sequence(P < 0.005). When a definite crown occurredthis crown occurred6.6 timesmore frequently on the third eggthan on the first and 3.8 timesmore frequently on the third eggthan on the second.A definitecrown occurred1.7 timesmore frequently on the secondegg than on the first. This agreedwith Preston's(ibid.) findingswith the LaughingGull and CommonTern. In two-eggclutches a crown(faint or definite)occurred 2.7 timesmore frequently on the second egg than on the first (Table 2), but a Chi-squaretest showedno significantrelationship between the presenceof a crown and the hatchingsequence in two-eggclutches. Preston (ibid.) alsofound no differencebetween the first and secondeggs of the Common Tern. Over one-quarter(28%) of the three-eggclutches contained one differentlycolored egg with two eggsof the samecolor. The one eggthat differedin colorwas the third to hatch 79% of the time and the first to hatch 21% of the time. The secondegg was never found to be the differently coloredegg of a clutch. Assumingthere was an equalprobability that eachposition in the hatchingsequence might be held by the differently coloredegg, a Chi-squareanalysis was made (P < 0.005), showingthat when a three-egg clutchhad two eggsof one colorand one eggof another color, the differently coloredegg was mostlikely to be the third egg.--MICH^EL L. CHAMBERLIN,Interlochen Arts Academy, Interlochen, Michigan 49643. Accepted 14 Nov. 75. Sizes of snails eaten by Snail Kites and Limpkins in a Costa Rican marsh.--B0th the Limpkin (Aramusguarauna) and the Snail Kite (Rostrhamussociabilis) feed on freshwatermolluscs. The Limpkin may prey upon a variety of molluscs(Snyder and Snyder1969, Living Bird 8: 177),but the Snail Kite is known to feed almost exclusivelyon prosobranchsnails of the genusPomacea (Sykes and Kale 1974,Auk 91: 818). This paperreports a differencein the distributionsof shellsizes of Pomaceaconsumed by kites and Limpkins at a marsh where both bird speciesappear to feed exclusively on Pomacea. The Limpkin and the kite employdifferent strategiesin capturingsnails and in extractingthem from their shells.The Limpkin wades about in the shallows,probing the bottom until its bill contactsa snail, which it then carries to a suitable elevated, flat spot on the marsh, hammers out the operculum with a sharp blow of the bill, and extractsthe meat. The bill makes a characteristicnotch in the columellaredge of the operculumand frequentlymakes a hole in the dorsalside of the shell oppositethe point of entry. Other foraging techniqueshave been reportedfor the Limpkin (Snyderand Snyderop. cit.), but were not observedat the study site. The kite, on the other hand, searchesvisually while flying over open water. It can forage over water that is too deep for the Limpkin to wade in. The kite takes snailsthat are at or near the surface, carries its prey to a perch and then extracts the meat with a quick stroke of the beak. Generally the kite leaves no mark on the discardedshell or operculum(Snyder and Snyder op. cit.). Empty snail shellsaccumulate at the habitual feeding sitesof individual kites and Limpkins. One can determine which predator specieswas responsiblefor the formation of a particular pile of shellsby the presenceor absenceof perforations in some of the shells. Fieldwork was donein January1975 at the Organizationfor Tropical Studiesfield stationat Palo Verde in Guanacaste,Costa Rica. The study was conductedon the large freshwatermarsh south of the field station. The marsh consistedof extensivepatches of rushes, grasses,water hyacinth, or open water. Parkinsoniatrees were scatteredthroughout the shallowerwetlands. Pomacea of unknown specieswere abundant, as evidenced by their empty shells, which formed an integral part of the sediments.The ubiquity of pilesof snail shellssuggested that Limpkins and kites were the major predatorsof Pomacea. Most of these piles seemedto have been made by Limpkins. I collectedsamples of shellsfrom discretepiles. As the kites I saw invariably perchedin Parkinsonia when feeding, only piles found under thesetrees and having few or no perforatedshells were assumedto be of kite origin. Piles located under Parkinsonia trees and having a noticeablefrequency of perforated shellswere rejectedto avoid samplesof mixed origin. Piles made by Limpkins were sampledfrom various parts of the marsh. A 2- to 4-liter sampleof shellswas taken from the centerof eachpile used.I sampled7 piles accumulatedby kites and 17 attributed to Limpkins. The greatestlength of each shell was measured in millimetersusing a rectangularframe and rule (seeFig. 1, inset).In all I measured1373 shells (320 kite, 1053 Limpkin). The mean length for all Limpkin shellscombined is 34.77 mm, with a standarddeviation of 5.45 mm. Shellsfrom kite piles averaged43.18 mm, with a standarddeviation of 6.03 mm. The differencebetween means, using all piles combined for the same bird species,is significant (P < 0.01) by the approximate 366 General Notes [Auk, Vol. 94 LIMPKIN • 20 uJ '" 15 •' 10 uJ cl u,i u. 5 GREATEST LENGTH OF SHELL (mm) Fig. 1. Frequencydistributions of greatestlength of shellsfrom pilesaccumulated by Limpkinsand Snail Kites. t-test with Welch's estimated degreesof freedom (Kirk 1968, Experimental design:Procedures for the biologicalsciences, Belmont, California, Wadworth, pp. 106-107). Shell lengthsranged from 22 to 55 mm for Limpkin pilesand 26 to 61 mm for kite piles. Fig. 1 showsshell size distributions, using 3-ram intervals for clarity. The observeddifference in the sizesof prey taken by thesetwo birds may reflect evolutionaryadjust- ments in their feeding mechanisms,either as carry-oversfrom their phyletic historiesor as character displacementcaused by competitionwith eachother. The largersize of preytaken by kitesmay be a result of largersnails being easier for them to see.It is alsopossible that the kite'stalons are bettersuited to larger snails,or that largesnails are difficultfor Limpkinsto open,but the extremesof preysizes taken by either speciesare quite similar. Both shellsize distributions are distinctlyskewed, as indicatedby Fisher'sg• statistic(Bliss 1967, Statistics in biology,vol. 1, New York, McGraw-Hill, pp. 144-145).The distribution for Limpkin pilesis positivelyskewed, with g, = 0.478, whereas,the distributionfor kite pilesis nega- tively skewed, with g, = -0.131. The observeddeviations are significantlydifferent from normality at levelsof P < 0.001for Limpkinpiles and P < 0.1 for kite piles.The overlappingskewed tails of these distributionssuggest that eitherspecies may take practicallyany sizeof snailavailable, but on the average they take prey that are distinctlysmaller or larger than thosetaken by the other snail predator. Whetheror not kites and Limpkinsare in closecompetition for Pomaceaat Palo Verde is a difficult questionto test.Data areneeded on size distributions of availablesnails and how these distributions vary spatiallyand temporally. The differencein sizesof preymay also reflect age-specific variation in theuse by Pomaceaof different habitats. If older, larger snailswere more prevalent in deep water, they would be moreavailable to kitesthan to Limpkins.A studyof the distributionby sizeof live Pomaceain the marsh couldilluminate this questionbut wasnot undertakenin the presentstudy for lack of time and becauseof the difficultyof locatingsubmerged live snailsin the turbid marsh.Moreover, the amountof openwater availableto kitesforaging on the marshvaries greatly between the dry season(December through April), whenpiles were sampled,and the wet season(May throughNovember). How thesechanges affect the area of the marsh available to the Limpkins could not be evaluated during this brief study. The two speciesdid not establishexclusive foraging territories: kites and Limpkinswere often seen foraging at the sametime in the shallowerchannels of the marsh. It shouldbe recalledthat althoughthe kite seemsto be dependenton Pomacea, the Limpkin may switchto otherprey when the snailsare scarce(see Snyder and Snyderop. cit.). Giventhat the marshcontains only one species of Pomacea, and giventhe highdegree of April1977] GeneralNotes 367 specializationbythe kite for feeding onPomacea, during times ofresource scarcity theLimpkin, bytaking thesmaller snails, may greatly reduce the future availability ofthe larger snails that the kite selects. Myparticipation onOTS course 1975-2 was supported byawards from the College ofNatural Science at MichiganState University and the Latin American Studies Center, MSU. I thankthe instructors and studentsofthat course for their helpful discussions, especially D. Paulson, S.Smith-Stiles, D. Pool, J. Ewel,and S. Pickett.R. W. Hill andG. A. Dawsoncritically reviewed an earlierversion of themanu- script.Calculations were performed on theWang 600-14 calculator in theMSU Museum.--S.F. COL- LETT,The Museum and Department ofZoology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Accepted25 Nov. 1975. Abnormalnest building in theEastern Phoebe.-- Several instances ofbirds abnormally build- ingmultiple nests have been reported. Welty (1975) cited instances of the American Robin (Turdus migratorius)andthe European Blackbird (Turdus merula) beginning numerous nests on horizontally hung ladders,girder spaces between roof rafters, stacks of pipes,and pigeon-holes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge BIRD LIST
    Merrritt Island National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 2683 Titusville, FL 32781 http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Merritt_Island 321/861 0669 Visitor Center Merritt Island U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD National Wildlife Refuge March 2019 Bird List photo: James Lyon Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, located just Seasonal Occurrences east of Titusville, shares a common boundary with the SP - Spring - March, April, May John F. Kennedy Space Center. Its coastal location, SU - Summer - June, July, August tropic-like climate, and wide variety of habitat types FA - Fall - September, October, November contribute to Merritt Island’s diverse bird population. WN - Winter - December, January, February The Florida Ornithological Society Records Committee lists 521 species of birds statewide. To date, 359 You may see some species outside the seasons indicated species have been identified on the refuge. on this checklist. This phenomenon is quite common for many birds. However, the checklist is designed to Of special interest are breeding populations of Bald indicate the general trend of migration and seasonal Eagles, Brown Pelicans, Roseate Spoonbills, Reddish abundance for each species and, therefore, does not Egrets, and Mottled Ducks. Spectacular migrations account for unusual occurrences. of passerine birds, especially warblers, occur during spring and fall. In winter tens of thousands of Abundance Designation waterfowl may be seen. Eight species of herons and C – Common - These birds are present in large egrets are commonly observed year-round. numbers, are widespread, and should be seen if you look in the correct habitat. Tips on Birding A good field guide and binoculars provide the basic U – Uncommon - These birds are present, but because tools useful in the observation and identification of of their low numbers, behavior, habitat, or distribution, birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Houde2009chap64.Pdf
    Cranes, rails, and allies (Gruiformes) Peter Houde of these features are subject to allometric scaling. Cranes Department of Biology, New Mexico State University, Box 30001 are exceptional migrators. While most rails are generally MSC 3AF, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001, USA ([email protected]) more sedentary, they are nevertheless good dispersers. Many have secondarily evolved P ightlessness aJ er col- onizing remote oceanic islands. Other members of the Abstract Grues are nonmigratory. 7 ey include the A nfoots and The cranes, rails, and allies (Order Gruiformes) form a mor- sungrebe (Heliornithidae), with three species in as many phologically eclectic group of bird families typifi ed by poor genera that are distributed pantropically and disjunctly. species diversity and disjunct distributions. Molecular data Finfoots are foot-propelled swimmers of rivers and lakes. indicate that Gruiformes is not a natural group, but that it 7 eir toes, like those of coots, are lobate rather than pal- includes a evolutionary clade of six “core gruiform” fam- mate. Adzebills (Aptornithidae) include two recently ilies (Suborder Grues) and a separate pair of closely related extinct species of P ightless, turkey-sized, rail-like birds families (Suborder Eurypygae). The basal split of Grues into from New Zealand. Other extant Grues resemble small rail-like and crane-like lineages (Ralloidea and Gruoidea, cranes or are morphologically intermediate between respectively) occurred sometime near the Mesozoic– cranes and rails, and are exclusively neotropical. 7 ey Cenozoic boundary (66 million years ago, Ma), possibly on include three species in one genus of forest-dwelling the southern continents. Interfamilial diversifi cation within trumpeters (Psophiidae) and the monotypic Limpkin each of the ralloids, gruoids, and Eurypygae occurred within (Aramidae) of both forested and open wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
    Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region August 2008 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN MERRITT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia August 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 3 U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 4 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4 Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 5 National Conservation Plans and Initiatives .................................................................................6 Relationship to State Partners .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Field Naturalist
    FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST QUARTERLYPUBLICATION OF THE FLORIDA~RNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOL.10, NO. 3 AUGUST1982 PAGES45-64 OBSERVATIONS ON LIMPKIN NESTING Little has been published on the nesting of the Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) (Bent 1926), although additional unpublished studies have recently been completed by Ingalls (1972) and Bryan (pers. comm.). I have long been interested in Limpkins, from the time I first heard one in 1938. In this paper I present observations on nesting that I have made since 1966, especially on Lake Pierce, Polk County, Florida. Limpkins are common in shallow water along the lake shore and along the edges of man-made lagoons and waterways nearby. The number of Limpkins has varied with water levels and food conditions. At times nearly all birds leave the lake. On 12-15 December 1969, for example, practically all Limpkins disappeared from Lake Pierce, and 23 showed up at the same time at Nalcrest, 14.4 km east of Lake Wales and 19.2 km south of Lake Pierce, an area where previously none had been present. In spring the birds reappeared along the shores of Lake Pierce. The Limpkin in the United States is primarily a Florida bird. It has been found north to South Carolina, in the Okefenokee Swamp, southern Georgia, and over much of peninsular Florida, west in the Florida panhandle rarely to Holmes, Jackson and Bay counties (Fig. 1).The region of greatest abundance is the central portion of the state (Sprunt 1954), north of the southern border of Lake Okeechobee. At Lake Pierce, where I made my observations, the Limpkin is fairly abundant.
    [Show full text]
  • Limpkins Preyed on by Tegu Lizards at an Urban Park
    Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 26(4): 231–233. SHORT-COMMUNICATIONARTICLE December 2018 Stilts do not protect against crawlers: Limpkins preyed on by Tegu Lizards at an urban park Juliana Vaz Hipolito1 & Ivan Sazima2,3 1 Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 2 Museu de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 3 Corresponding author: [email protected] Received on 25 September 2018. Accepted on 26 November 2018. ABSTRACT: Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) is a long-legged wading bird that forages mostly in wetlands in the open and occasionally under tree cover. Th is large bird is cautious and frequently scans its immediate environs when active or resting. Records of adult Limpkin predators are scarce and restricted to two very large aquatic reptiles, the American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) in North America and the Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) in South America. Herein we report on two Limpkins killed and eaten by Black and White Tegus (Salvator merianae) at an urban park in southeastern Brazil. One of the Limpkins was still alive when we came across the predation event, whereas the other Limpkin seemed freshly killed. Th e fi rst Limpkin was already sprawled on the ground and occasionally opened the bill, vocalised hoarsely and fl apped the wings, while the Tegu repeatedly bit the bird on several body parts, which gradually weakened the bird. Th e Limpkin died when the Tegu bit hard the bird on the head and crushed the skull. In the second event the bird was bitten on several body parts and, thus, we assume that it was also killed by the Tegu that was eating the fresh corpse.
    [Show full text]
  • Food of the Limpkin 11
    Food of the Limpkin 11 Changes in drainage would not have brought about the complete extirpation of this large heronry so soon but in addition to depletion of the food supply the birds suffered persecution from unscrupulous hunters. Men and boys used to go to the nesting site on Sundays and shoot herons for sport, never eating any of them, although from a few they cut the wings to be used in dusting shelves. Some of the hunters would shoot as many as twenty-five herons in one day. Even such persecution might not have wiped out the heronry entirely, for the inhabitants were not bent on getting rid of the birds, but the felling of the big cottonwoods in which they had made their nests year after year put an end to what had been, so far as we know, the largest heronry in the interior of the state, STATE UNIVERSITY, BOWLING GREEN, OHIO. FOOD OF THE LIMPKIN BY CLARENCE COTTAM Because of its peculiar distribution and unique feeding habits, the Limpkin (Aramus p&us p&us) is one of the most interesting of North American birds. In habits it seems to partake somewhat of the characteristics of both the rail and the heron. Like the rail, it runs rapidly and stealthily on the damp ground and frequents the borders of wooded streams and swamps; like the heron, it perches in trees. In distribution the bird is restricted to the Okefenokee Swamp in southern Georgia and to Florida. Over much of its range it is absent or rare and is common only locally where the food and environment are to its liking.
    [Show full text]
  • Aramus Guarauna
    15 3 NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Check List 15 (3): 497–507 https://doi.org/10.15560/15.3.497 Limpkin, Aramus guarauna (L., 1766) (Gruiformes, Aramidae), extralimital breeding in Louisiana is associated with availability of the invasive Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 (Caenogastropoda, Ampullariidae) Robert C. Dobbs1, 2, Jacoby Carter1, Jessica L. Schulz1 1 US Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, 700 Cajundome Blvd., Lafayette, LA, 70506, USA. 2 Current address: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 200 Dulles Dr., Lafayette, LA, 70506, USA. Corresponding author: Robert C. Dobbs, [email protected] Abstract We document the first breeding record of Limpkin, Aramus guarauna (Linnaeus, 1766) (Gruiformes, Aramidae), for Louisiana, describe an additional unpublished breeding record from Georgia, as well as a possible record from Alabama, and associate these patterns with the concurrent establishment of the invasive Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 (Caenogastropoda, Ampullariidae). We predict that an invasive prey species may facilitate range expansion by native predator species, which has ramifications for conservation and management. Keywords Biological control, invasive species, predator-prey relationship, range expansion, species distribution. Academic editor: Michael J. Andersen | Received 2 November 2018 | Accepted 5 May 2019 | Published 21 June 2019 Citation: Dobbs RC, Carter J, Schulz JL (2019) Limpkin, Aramus guarauna (L., 1766) (Gruiformes, Aramidae), extralimital breeding in Louisiana is associated with availability of the invasive Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 (Caenogastropoda, Ampullariidae). Check List 15 (3): 497–507. https://doi.org/10.15560/15.3.497 Introduction is historically closely associated with, and perhaps lim- ited by, that of the native Florida Apple Snail, Pomacea The Giant Apple Snail, Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810 paludosa (Say, 1829) (Stevenson and Anderson 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Report
    FINAL REPORT Monitoring secretive marsh birds in Everglades National Park: a pilot study COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT: P13AC00021 PROJECT DIRECTOR: Principal Investigator: Gary L. Slater PROJECT PERSONNEL: Wildlife Biologist: Jeannette Parker DATE REPORT SUBMITTED: 18 May 2015 Ecostudies Institute committed to ecological research and conservation INTRODUCTION Emergent wetland ecosystems have been severely impacted across North America, perhaps no place more severely than in the Everglades of Florida. Drainage for agriculture and complex engineering for flood control and water storage have compartmentalized the wetland system markedly altering natural water flows and flood cycles. Although much of the physical alterations to this system (ditches, levees, impoundments) have occurred outside of Everglades National Park (ENP), wetland ecosystem function within ENP has been greatly diminished due to its downstream position. Large scale restoration efforts (e.g., CERP) have been undertaken to restore more natural hydrological patterns in the Everglades region and improve wetland function. The loss and degradation of wetlands has had a significant impact on wildlife. For example, some wading bird populations have declined by 90% and several populations of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow have nearly disappeared (DOI 2005, Pimm et al. 2002). In contrast, many novel exotic species, such as the Burmese Python (Python molurus) and exotic apple snails (e.g., Pomacea insularum) have apparently flourished (Snow et al. 2007, Rawlings et al. 2007). Secretive marsh birds are among the most inconspicuous group of birds in North America, in part, because they inhabit emergent wetlands characterized by dense vegetation and they vocalize infrequently. This group of birds has never been adequately surveyed by any previous sampling effort in ENP.
    [Show full text]
  • Parasites of Limpkins, Aramus Guarauna, in Florida
    140 PROCEEDINGS OF THE HELMINTHOLOGICAL SOCIETY in Mexico. Voucher specimens are deposited in ucation Director, CEDO, for providing the os- USNM Helm. Coll. No. 77184. prey carcass. Thanks are expressed to Dr. Peggy Turk, Ed- Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 52(1), 1985, pp. 140-142 Research Note Parasites of Limpkins, Aramus guarauna, in Florida JOSEPH A. CONTI,' DONALD J. FORRESTER,' AND STEPHEN A. NESBirr2 1 College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610 and 2 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Wildlife Research Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida 32601 The limpkin, Aramus guarauna (L.), is a me- habits of limpkins have been well studied, very dium-sized long-legged wading bird of the order little is known about their parasites. The present Gruiformes (cranes, rails, gallinules, coots, etc.) report concerns the parasites of limpkins from and is the sole member of the family Aramidae. central Florida. It is limited to freshwater habitats primarily in Fifteen limpkins were examined. Most (13 Florida and southeastern Georgia in the U.S.A. adults and one hatchling) were collected from (American Ornithologists' Union, 1957, Check- October 1975 to February 1976 at Rodman Pool list of North American Birds. 5th ed., Baltimore). in the Oklawaha River, Marion County, Florida. Limpkins feed primarily on apple snails (Po- One additional adult was collected in February macea paludosa (Say)), a behavior shared by the 1980 approximately 32 km south of this locality snail kite, Rostrhamus sociabilis Vieillot, al- at Alexander Springs (Lake County). though unlike snail kites they will take also other Nine adult birds and one hatchling were nec- foods such as lizards, frogs, insects, crustaceans, ropsied after having been frozen for up to 3 mo.
    [Show full text]
  • Habits of the Limpkin in Florida
    Vol.1928 XLV] I NICHOLSON,Habitsof the Limpkin in Florida. 305 HABITS OF THE LIMPKIN IN FLORIDA. BY DONALD J. NICHOLSON. Plate XI. I HAD been searchingfor the nests of the wary Limpkin for many yearsbut it was not until April 12, 1922 that I found my first occupiednest of this quaint bird. My companion,Fred Walker had shot a Louisiana Heron for mounting and the dead bird fell in the saw-grassclose to me, startling a Limpkin which flew silentlyaway. Thinkingthat this probablyhad a meaning I went to the spot from whenceit aroseand in a clusterof saw- grassfound the nestimbedded in the clumpwith four eggsslightly incubated. The nest was composedentirely of dead saw-grass blades,deeply cuppedand well concealedfrom view when a foot away. The site was a huge marsh miles in extent with patches of saw-grass,willows, lily pads, and grass,leading from Lake Apopka, in Lake County, Florida. The nest-clumpwas on the edgeof openwater, giving the bird a view and a chanceto escape in easeof danger. This is the usual positionchosen. There are a few pairs of Limpkins in the big marshesaround this lake but they are by no means common. Several years before I had exploredthe Wekiwa River which runs between Apopka and Sanford in Orange and Seminolecounties and found several old nests built up in the overhangingbranches of trees along the river containingegg shellswhich I identified as belongingto the Limpkin. Years ago the OklawahaRiver was a favorite breeding groundbut few are now to be found there. It was not until April 27, 1925, that I found a secluded,wild spot whereLimpkins were to be found in considerablenumbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Peru Marañon Endemics & Marvelous Spatuletail 4Th to 25Th September 2016
    Northern Peru Marañon Endemics & Marvelous Spatuletail 4th to 25th September 2016 Marañón Crescentchest by Dubi Shapiro This tour just gets better and better. This year the 7 participants, Rob and Baldomero enjoyed a bird filled trip that found 723 species of birds. We had particular success with some tricky groups, finding 12 Rails and Crakes (all but 1 being seen!), 11 Antpittas (8 seen), 90 Tanagers and allies, 71 Hummingbirds, 95 Flycatchers. We also found many of the iconic endemic species of Northern Peru, such as White-winged Guan, Peruvian Plantcutter, Marañón Crescentchest, Marvellous Spatuletail, Pale-billed Antpitta, Long-whiskered Owlet, Royal Sunangel, Koepcke’s Hermit, Ash-throated RBL Northern Peru Trip Report 2016 2 Antwren, Koepcke’s Screech Owl, Yellow-faced Parrotlet, Grey-bellied Comet and 3 species of Inca Finch. We also found more widely distributed, but always special, species like Andean Condor, King Vulture, Agami Heron and Long-tailed Potoo on what was a very successful tour. Top 10 Birds 1. Marañón Crescentchest 2. Spotted Rail 3. Stygian Owl 4. Ash-throated Antwren 5. Stripe-headed Antpitta 6. Ochre-fronted Antpitta 7. Grey-bellied Comet 8. Long-tailed Potoo 9. Jelski’s Chat-Tyrant 10. = Chestnut-backed Thornbird, Yellow-breasted Brush Finch You know it has been a good tour when neither Marvellous Spatuletail nor Long-whiskered Owlet make the top 10 of birds seen! Day 1: 4 September: Pacific coast and Chaparri Upon meeting, we headed straight towards the coast and birded the fields near Monsefue, quickly finding Coastal Miner. Our main quarry proved trickier and we had to scan a lot of fields before eventually finding a distant flock of Tawny-throated Dotterel; we walked closer, getting nice looks at a flock of 24 of the near-endemic pallidus subspecies of this cracking shorebird.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Lake Rousseau for Wading Birds and Difficulties Encountered During Nesting Season
    LAKE ROUSSEAU, FLORIDA THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LAKE ROUSSEAU FOR WADING BIRDS AND DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED DURING NESTING SEASON SANDRA MARRAFFINO MARION COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY March 7, 2011 HISTORY OF LAKE ROUSSEAU: Lake Rousseau is one of the oldest impounded lakes in Florida, formed when the dam in Inglis was completed by the US Department of the Army in 1909 to provide electric power for equipment in the then thriving phosphate business. The lake is fed by the Withlacoochee and Rainbow Rivers and encompasses approximately 3,700 acres. It is 12 miles long and 1 mile wide at its widest boundaries. Prior to the flooding of the lake, thousands of trees were lumbered, many of them cypress. The boating channels were cleared of 1,800 trees and trunks while the rest remained in the lake’s backwaters, making it hazardous for boats except canoes or kayaks. Because of these long lasting cypress stumps in the backwaters, there is little boat traffic into nesting bird rookeries on the lake. The lake also has been noted by Jim Porter’s in his Guide to Bass Fishing, www.jimporter.org/lakes/rousseau, as an excellent fishing lake, providing food for the wading and diving birds found on the lake. Lake Rousseau lies in and forms the boundaries of three counties, Marion, Citrus and Levy. The lake lies in the West-central portion of Florida, approximately 35 miles west of Ocala and within 10 miles of the Gulf coast Our local kayaking group, with participants from Dunnellon and the surrounding area, began exploring Lake Rousseau in 2007.
    [Show full text]