Calidris Mauri)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Calidris Mauri) 601 Disproportionate bill length dimorphism and niche differentiation in wintering western sandpipers (Calidris mauri) R.W. Stein, G. Ferna´ ndez, H. de la Cueva, and R.W. Elner Abstract: Western sandpipers (Calidris mauri (Cabanis, 1857)) exhibit slight female-biased sexual size dimorphism (5%) but disproportionate bill length dimorphism (15.9%). We test two predictions of the niche differentiation hypothesis at two wintering sites in Mexico with uniform western sandpiper densities, and use sex ratio as an index of intersexual competi- tion. First, to test whether bill length dimorphism is larger at sites where sex ratios are strongly male-biased, we develop a migrant-based null model to represent dimorphism (12%, based on the average of males and females) in the absence of competition. Relative to the null model, bill length dimorphism was significantly larger at the large site (Santa Marı´a: 13.4%) but not at the small site (Punta Banda: 12.7%). Second, we tested whether bill length dimorphism increases as sex ratio approaches 1:1. Although the sex-ratio difference between sites was only 5%, bill length dimorphism increased mar- ginally in the predicted direction. Additional comparisons suggest a cline in bill length dimorphism that mirrors a latitudi- nal gradient in prey burial depth. While sexual size dimorphism in the western sandpiper likely derived from selection for different body size optima, intersexual competition for food on the wintering grounds appears to have promoted further di- vergence in bill length. Re´sume´ : Les be´casseaux d’Alaska (Calidris mauri (Cabanis, 1857) posse`dent un faible dimorphisme sexuel de la taille (5 %) qui favorise les femelles; en revanche, le dimorphisme des longueurs de bec (15,9 %) est disproportionne´. Nous tes- tons deux pre´dictions de l’hypothe`se de la diffe´renciation des niches a` deux sites d’hivernage du Mexique a` densite´s uni- formes de be´casseaux et nous utilisons le rapport maˆles:femelles comme indice de compe´tition entre les sexes. D’abord, pour ve´rifier si le dimorphisme sexuel des becs est plus important la` ou` le rapport des sexes favorise fortement les maˆles, nous mettons au point un mode`le nul base´ sur les migrateurs qui repre´sente le dimorphisme en l’absence de compe´tition (12 % d’apre`s les moyennes des maˆles et des femelles). Par rapport au mode`le nul, le dimorphisme des longueurs de becs est significativement plus important au site plus e´tendu (Santa Marı´a : 13,4 %), mais non au site plus restreint (Punta Banda: 12,7 %). Nous ve´rifions ensuite si le dimorphisme des longueurs de becs augmente lorsque le rapport des sexes s’approche de 1:1. Bien que la diffe´rence de rapport des sexes entre les sites soit seulement de 5 %, le dimorphisme des longueurs de becs augmente (marginalement) dans le sens pre´dit. D’autres comparaisons laissent croire qu’il existe un gra- dient dans le dimorphisme des longueurs des becs qui refle`te un gradient latitudinal des profondeurs d’enfouissement des proies. Alors que le dimorphisme sexuel de la taille chez les be´casseaux d’Alaska s’explique par une se´lection d’optimums diffe´rents de taille du corps, la compe´tition entre les sexes pour la nourriture sur les sites d’hivernage semble avoir favor- ise´ une divergence supple´mentaire dans la longueur du bec. [Traduit par la Re´daction] Introduction 1984). Comparative phylogenetic analyses of SSD in the Charadriiformes (alcids, gulls, and shorebirds), an order that Sexual size dimorphism (SSD) is widespread in animals, encompasses almost the entire range of SSD in birds, dem- despite strong positive genetic correlations between the onstrate that sexual selection has been an important driver of sexes for traits that determine body size (Lande 1980). SSD SSD (Sze´kely et al. 2000, 2004). Once SSD has arisen, fur- reflects different body size optima and arises as a conse- ther divergence in bill morphology can occur in response to quence of sexual selection and (or) natural selection (Price disruptive selection acting through intersexual competition Received 23 August 2007. Accepted 6 March 2008. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjz.nrc.ca on 20 May 2008. R.W. Stein.1 Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. G. Ferna´ndez. Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada; Departamento de Biologı´a de la Conservacio´n, Centro de Investigacio´n Cientı´fica y de Educacio´n Superior de Ensenada, Km 107, Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada, C.P. 22830, Baja California, Me´xico; Unidad Acade´mica Mazatla´n, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologı´a, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Apartado Postal 811, Mazatla´n, Sinaloa, C.P. 82040, Me´xico. H. de la Cueva. Departamento de Biologı´a de la Conservacio´n, Centro de Investigacio´n Cientı´fica y de Educacio´n Superior de Ensenada, Km 107, Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada, C.P. 22830, Baja California, Me´xico. R.W. Elner. Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada; Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Delta, BC V4K 3N2, Canada. 1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]). Can. J. Zool. 86: 601–609 (2008) doi:10.1139/Z08-033 # 2008 NRC Canada 602 Can. J. Zool. Vol. 86, 2008 for food (Price 1984). The result is niche differentiation, subpopulation-structuring on the wintering grounds owing which is characterized by disproportionate bill length dimor- to intersexual competition for food. Second, using sex ratio phism and sex-dependent differences in foraging behaviour as an index of intersexual competition at wintering sites, we and resource use. In the Charadriiformes, bill length dimor- further predict that bill length dimorphism should increase phism is only weakly associated with indices of sexual se- as the sex ratio approaches 1:1. To test these predictions we lection that explain SSD, suggesting that additional use linear models (LM) to contrast samples of sex-assigned selection pressures have acted on bill length (Sze´kely et al. wintering birds from Mexico against the null model of bill 2004). length dimorphism and, subsequently, evaluate between-site Bill length is a functionally selected trait in shorebirds differences in bill length dimorphism in relation to the (Scolopacidae) and bill length dimorphism is common in change in sex ratio. species that feed on invertebrates that occur in soft sedi- ments (Jehl and Murray 1986). Consistent with the niche Materials and methods differentiation hypothesis, bill length tends to be more di- morphic than tarsometatarsus and wing-chord lengths in Data collection, compilation, and assessment shorebirds (Jehl and Murray 1986), and pronounced bill The present study is based entirely on pre-existing sam- length dimorphism is often associated with sex-dependent ples from research conducted from 1995 to 2003 (Ferna´ndez differences in foraging behaviour and resource use (Durell et al. 2003; Guglielmo and Williams 2003; Elner et al. 2005; 2000). Thus, intersexual competition for food may have Stein et al. 2005; Ferna´ndez and Lank 2006; Stein and Wil- influenced shorebird bill length dimorphism routinely; how- liams 2006). Bird-handling protocols for the research proj- ever, it is unclear when and where in the life cycle disrup- ects were approved by the Simon Fraser University Animal tive selection has acted on bill length. There is no support Care Committee (permit nos. 529B, 552B, and 671B), for intersexual competition on the breeding grounds as a conformed to the guidelines of the Canadian Committee for general process explaining bill length dimorphism in shore- Animal Care, and were in accordance with permits from birds (Sze´kely et al. 2000, 2004); here, we consider this Environment Canada and the Direccio´n General de Vida same mechanism from a wintering grounds perspective Silvestre – Mexico. None of the anatomically sexed mi- (Elner and Seaman 2003). grants (n = 380) were sacrificed for the purpose of this The western sandpiper (Calidris mauri (Cabanis, 1857)) is study; these birds were originally collected for investigations a differential migrant that breeds in western Alaska and into phenotypic flexibility of body composition (Guglielmo eastern Siberia and tends to use large coastal stopover sites and Williams 2003), age-dependent differences in digestive during migration (Warnock and Bishop 1998). The winter- physiology (Stein et al. 2005; Stein and Williams 2006), ing grounds extend along the Pacific coast of the Americas, and functional morphology of a novel foraging mode (Elner primarily between California and Peru (Wilson 1994). Males et al. 2005). Migrants were studied at two adjacent coastal predominate at northern, and females at southern, wintering stopover sites in southwest British Columbia, Canada: Boun- sites, respectively; this sex-bias is reflected in a latitudinal dary Bay (49803’N, 123801’W) and Roberts Bank (49805’N, sex-ratio cline across the wintering grounds (Nebel et al. 123812’W). Adults and juveniles were collected at Boundary 2002). Intrasexual latitudinal clines in size are also evident Bay during northward (20 April – 10 May) and southward across the wintering grounds: the smallest individuals of (1 July – 30 August) migrations from 1995 to 2000, and at each sex occur at the northernmost and the largest at the Roberts Bank during northward (20 April – 10 May) migra- southernmost wintering sites (O’Hara et al. 2006). The west- tion in 2003. Migrants were sampled across the entire stop- ern sandpiper (22–35 g) exhibits slight female-biased SSD over period, ensuring an inclusive sample from the range of (6% for tarsus and 5% for wing chord) but disproportionate wintering sites. Wintering western sandpipers were studied dimorphism for bill length (15%; Jehl and Murray 1986), at two sites separated by 1600 km on the Pacific coast of which is implicated in foraging mode.
Recommended publications
  • Common Caribbean Shorebirds: ID Guide
    Common Caribbean Shorebirds: ID Guide Large Medium Small 14”-18” 35 - 46 cm 8.5”-12” 22 - 31 cm 6”- 8” 15 - 20 cm Large Shorebirds Medium Shorebirds Small Shorebirds Whimbrel 17.5” 44.5 cm Lesser Yellowlegs 9.5” 24 cm Wilson’s Plover 7.75” 19.5 cm Spotted Sandpiper 7.5” 19 cm American Oystercatcher 17.5” 44.5 cm Black-bellied Plover 11.5” 29 cm Sanderling 7.75” 19.5 cm Western Sandpiper 6.5” 16.5 cm Willet 15” 38 cm Short-billed Dowitcher 11” 28 cm White-rumped Sandpiper 6” 15 cm Greater Yellowlegs 14” 35.5 cm Ruddy Turnstone 9.5” 24 cm Semipalmated Sandpiper 6.25” 16 cm 6.25” 16 cm American Avocet* 18” 46 cm Red Knot 10.5” 26.5 cm Snowy Plover Least Sandpiper 6” 15 cm 14” 35.5 cm 8.5” 21.5 cm Semipalmated Plover Black-necked Stilt* Pectoral Sandpiper 7.25” 18.5 cm Killdeer* 10.5” 26.5 cm Piping Plover 7.25” 18.5 cm Stilt Sandpiper* 8.5” 21.5 cm Lesser Yellowlegs & Ruddy Turnstone: Brad Winn; Red Knot: Anthony Levesque; Pectoral Sandpiper & *not pictured Solitary Sandpiper* 8.5” 21.5 cm White-rumped Sandpiper: Nick Dorian; All other photos: Walker Golder Clues to help identify shorebirds Size & Shape Bill Length & Shape Foraging Behavior Size Length Sandpipers How big is it compared to other birds? Peeps (Semipalmated, Western, Least) Walk or run with the head down, picking and probing Spotted Sandpiper Short Medium As long Longer as head than head Bobs tail up and down when walking Plovers, Turnstone or standing Small Medium Large Sandpipers White-rumped Sandpiper Tail tips up while probing Yellowlegs Overall Body Shape Stilt Sandpiper Whimbrel, Oystercatcher, Probes mud like “oil derrick,” Willet, rear end tips up Dowitcher, Curvature Plovers Stilt, Avocet Run & stop, pick, hiccup, run & stop Elongate Compact Yellowlegs Specific Body Parts Stroll and pick Bill & leg color Straight Upturned Dowitchers Eye size Plovers = larger, sandpipers = smaller Tip slightly Probe mud with “sewing machine” Leg & neck length downcurved Downcurved bill, body stays horizontal .
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List
    Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List The target species list (species to be surveyed) should not change over the course of the study, therefore determining the target species list is an important project design task. Because waterbirds, including shorebirds, can occur in very high numbers in a census area, it is often not possible to count all species without compromising the quality of the survey data. For the basic shorebird census program (protocol 1), we recommend counting all shorebirds (sub-Order Charadrii), all raptors (hawks, falcons, owls, etc.), Common Ravens, and American Crows. This list of species is available on our field data forms, which can be downloaded from this site, and as a drop-down list on our online data entry form. If a very rare species occurs on a shorebird area survey, the species will need to be submitted with good documentation as a narrative note with the survey data. Project goals that could preclude counting all species include surveys designed to search for color-marked birds or post- breeding season counts of age-classed bird to obtain age ratios for a species. When conducting a census, you should identify as many of the shorebirds as possible to species; sometimes, however, this is not possible. For example, dowitchers often cannot be separated under censuses conditions, and at a distance or under poor lighting, it may not be possible to distinguish some species such as small Calidris sandpipers. We have provided codes for species combinations that commonly are reported on censuses. Combined codes are still species-specific and you should use the code that provides as much information as possible about the potential species combination you designate.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeographical Profiles of Shorebird Migration in Midcontinental North America
    U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Technical Report Series Information and Biological Science Reports ISSN 1081-292X Technology Reports ISSN 1081-2911 Papers published in this series record the significant find­ These reports are intended for the publication of book­ ings resulting from USGS/BRD-sponsored and cospon­ length-monographs; synthesis documents; compilations sored research programs. They may include extensive data of conference and workshop papers; important planning or theoretical analyses. These papers are the in-house coun­ and reference materials such as strategic plans, standard terpart to peer-reviewed journal articles, but with less strin­ operating procedures, protocols, handbooks, and manu­ gent restrictions on length, tables, or raw data, for example. als; and data compilations such as tables and bibliogra­ We encourage authors to publish their fmdings in the most phies. Papers in this series are held to the same peer-review appropriate journal possible. However, the Biological Sci­ and high quality standards as their journal counterparts. ence Reports represent an outlet in which BRD authors may publish papers that are difficult to publish elsewhere due to the formatting and length restrictions of journals. At the same time, papers in this series are held to the same peer-review and high quality standards as their journal counterparts. To purchase this report, contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (call toll free 1-800-553-684 7), or the Defense Technical Infonnation Center, 8725 Kingman Rd., Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218. Biogeographical files o Shorebird Migration · Midcontinental Biological Science USGS/BRD/BSR--2000-0003 December 1 By Susan K.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Shorebird Profiles
    List of Shorebird Profiles Pacific Central Atlantic Species Page Flyway Flyway Flyway American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) •513 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) •••499 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) •488 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) •••501 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)•490 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) •511 Dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.)•••485 Dunlin (Calidris alpina)•••483 Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemestica)••475 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)•••492 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ••503 Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa)••505 Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva) •497 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)••473 Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)•••479 Sanderling (Calidris alba)•••477 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)••494 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia)•••507 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)•509 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) •••481 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) ••515 All illustrations in these profiles are copyrighted © George C. West, and used with permission. To view his work go to http://www.birchwoodstudio.com. S H O R E B I R D S M 472 I Explore the World with Shorebirds! S A T R ER G S RO CHOOLS P Red Knot (Calidris canutus) Description The Red Knot is a chunky, medium sized shorebird that measures about 10 inches from bill to tail. When in its breeding plumage, the edges of its head and the underside of its neck and belly are orangish. The bird’s upper body is streaked a dark brown. It has a brownish gray tail and yellow green legs and feet. In the winter, the Red Knot carries a plain, grayish plumage that has very few distinctive features. Call Its call is a low, two-note whistle that sometimes includes a churring “knot” sound that is what inspired its name.
    [Show full text]
  • Rangewide Patterns of Migratory Connectivity in the Western
    Journal of Avian Biology 43: 155–167, 2012 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-048X.2012.05573.x © 2012 Th e Authors. Journal of Avian Biology © 2012 Nordic Society Oikos Subject Editor: Th eunis Piersma. Accepted 16 January 2012 Range-wide patterns of migratory connectivity in the western sandpiper Calidris mauri Samantha E. Franks , D. Ryan Norris , T. Kurt Kyser , Guillermo Fern á ndez , Birgit Schwarz , Roberto Carmona , Mark A. Colwell , Jorge Correa Sandoval , Alexey Dondua , H. River Gates , Ben Haase , David J. Hodkinson , Ariam Jim é nez , Richard B. Lanctot , Brent Ortego , Brett K. Sandercock , Felicia Sanders , John Y. Takekawa , Nils Warnock, Ron C. Ydenberg and David B. Lank S. E. Franks ([email protected]), B. Schwarz, A. Jiménez, R. C. Ydenberg and D. B. Lank, Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Dept of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. AJ also at: Facultad de Biología, Univ. de La Habana, Havana 10400, Cuba . – D. R. Norris, Dept of Integrative Biology, Univ. of Guelph , Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. – T. K. Kyser, Queen ’ s Facility for Isotope Research, Dept of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen ’ s Univ., Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada. – G. Fernández, Unidad Acad é mica Mazatl á n, Inst. de Ciencias del Mar y Limnolog í a, Univ. Nacional Aut ó noma de M é xico, Mazatl á n, Sinaloa 82040, M é xico. – R. Carmona, Depto de Biolog í a Marina, Univ. Aut ó noma de Baja California Sur, La Paz, Baja California Sur 23081, M é xico. – M. A. Colwell, Dept of Wildlife, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA 95521, USA .
    [Show full text]
  • British Birds |
    VOL. LU JULY No. 7 1959 BRITISH BIRDS WADER MIGRATION IN NORTH AMERICA AND ITS RELATION TO TRANSATLANTIC CROSSINGS By I. C. T. NISBET IT IS NOW generally accepted that the American waders which occur each autumn in western Europe have crossed the Atlantic unaided, in many (if not most) cases without stopping on the way. Yet we are far from being able to answer all the questions which are posed by these remarkable long-distance flights. Why, for example, do some species cross the Atlantic much more frequently than others? Why are a few birds recorded each year, and not many more, or many less? What factors determine the dates on which they cross? Why are most of the occurrences in the autumn? Why, despite the great advantage given to them by the prevail­ ing winds, are American waders only a little more numerous in Europe than European waders in North America? To dismiss the birds as "accidental vagrants", or to relate their occurrence to weather patterns, as have been attempted in the past, may answer some of these questions, but render the others still more acute. One fruitful approach to these problems is to compare the frequency of the various species in Europe with their abundance, migratory behaviour and ecology in North America. If the likelihood of occurrence in Europe should prove to be correlated with some particular type of migration pattern in North America this would offer an important clue as to the causes of trans­ atlantic vagrancy. In this paper some aspects of wader migration in North America will be discussed from this viewpoint.
    [Show full text]
  • The World's First Known Juvenile Cox's Sandpiper
    British Birds VOLUME 81 NUMBER 6 JUNE 1988 The World's first known juvenile Cox's Sandpiper P. A. Buckley or once, the North Americans have beaten the British by being first Fto find a spectacular vagrant Asiatic shorebird away from the Alaskan out-islands.1 This time we outdid everyone, producing a juvenile Cox's Sandpiper Calidris paramelanotos in Massachusetts. This individual, depicted in colour in plate 145, is not only the first of this recently described species from the Western Hemisphere, but also only the second away from its Australian wintering grounds (an adult was reported from Hong Kong in spring 1987: Brit. Birds 80: 391). The firsts continue, however, for, until this individual, Cox's juvenile plumage was unde- scribed, and, until this photograph, there have been, to my knowledge, no published colour photographs of Cox's Sandpiper in any plumage, let alone that of a juvenile. I am exceedingly grateful to the bird's discoverer, Mark Kasprzyk, for much background information, and to Simon Perkins, for permission to reproduce here his splendid colour photograph. This bird was first mist-netted at night, on 15th September 1987, at Duxbury Beach, a long barrier spit separating Plymouth Bay (where the Mayflower Pilgrims landed in 1620) from Cape Cod Bay/Atlantic Ocean waters. It was ringed as a Pectoral Sandpiper C. melanotos (understandable, at 03.00 hours), but photographed in the hand nonetheless, carefully measured, and then released. Nagging identification doubts soon set in, and efforts to relocate the bird were successful by daylight on 15th. Several observers examined it at close range over the next few days, and it went on the Massachusetts rare bird telephone-tape, finally, as an adult 1 This is actually not the first, truth to tell.
    [Show full text]
  • SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae
    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does not include Alcidae CREATED BY AZA CHARADRIIFORMES TAXON ADVISORY GROUP IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Original Completion Date: October 2013 Authors and Significant Contributors: Aimee Greenebaum: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Vice Chair, Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Alex Waier: Milwaukee County Zoo, USA Carol Hendrickson: Birmingham Zoo, USA Cindy Pinger: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Chair, Birmingham Zoo, USA CJ McCarty: Oregon Coast Aquarium, USA Heidi Cline: Alaska SeaLife Center, USA Jamie Ries: Central Park Zoo, USA Joe Barkowski: Sedgwick County Zoo, USA Kim Wanders: Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Mary Carlson: Charadriiformes Program Advisor, Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Perry: Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Crook-Martin: Buttonwood Park Zoo, USA Shana R. Lavin, Ph.D.,Wildlife Nutrition Fellow University of Florida, Dept. of Animal Sciences , Walt Disney World Animal Programs Dr. Stephanie McCain: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Veterinarian Advisor, DVM, Birmingham Zoo, USA Phil King: Assiniboine Park Zoo, Canada Reviewers: Dr. Mike Murray (Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA) John C. Anderson (Seattle Aquarium volunteer) Kristina Neuman (Point Blue Conservation Science) Sarah Saunders (Conservation Biology Graduate Program,University of Minnesota) AZA Staff Editors: Maya Seaman, MS, Animal Care Manual Editing Consultant Candice Dorsey, PhD, Director of Animal Programs Debborah Luke, PhD, Vice President, Conservation & Science Cover Photo Credits: Jeff Pribble Disclaimer: This manual presents a compilation of knowledge provided by recognized animal experts based on the current science, practice, and technology of animal management.
    [Show full text]
  • The Occurrence and Identification of Red-Necked Stint in British Columbia Rick Toochin (Revised: December 3, 2013)
    The Occurrence and Identification of Red-necked Stint in British Columbia Rick Toochin (Revised: December 3, 2013) Introduction The first confirmed report of a Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis) in British Columbia was an adult in full breeding plumage found on June 24, 1978 at Iona Island (see Table 1, confirmed records item 1). Recently another older sighting has been uncovered that fits the timing of occurrence for this species in BC and may be valid (see Table 2, hypothetical records item 1). Since the first initial sightings in the late 1970s, there has been a slow but steady increase in observations of this beautiful Asian shorebird in British Columbia and, indeed, across the whole of North America. With an increase in both observer coverage and the knowledge of observers, this species is now known to be of regular, and probably annual, occurrence during fall migration in coastal British Columbia. Additionally, this species is now recorded occasionally during spring migration, indicating that at least a few individuals may be successfully wintering farther south in the western hemisphere. Identification of this species is straightforward when presented with a full breeding- plumaged adult, but identification of birds in juvenile and faded breeding plumage can be very complicated due to the close similarities to other small Calidris shorebirds. This paper describes the distribution and occurrence of the species in B.C., and also examines the similarities of all plumages of Red-necked Stint to species with which it might be confused, most notably Little Stint (C. minuta), Semipalmated Sandpiper (C. pusilla), and Western Sandpiper (C.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Deadly Stints and Their Friends an Introduction to Calidris Sandpipers – Part 1 Jon L
    Seven Deadly Stints and their Friends An Introduction to Calidris Sandpipers – Part 1 Jon L. Dunn Larry Sansone photos 13 October 2020 Los Angeles Birders Genus Calidris – Composed of 23 species the largest genus within the large family (94 species worldwide, 66 in North America) of Scolopacidae (Sandpipers). – All 23 species in the genus Calidris have been found in North America, 19 of which have occurred in California. – Only Great Knot, Broad-billed Sandpiper, Temminck’s Stint, and Spoon-billed Sandpiper have not been recorded in the state, and as for Great Knot, well half of one turned up! Genus Calidris – The genus was described by Marrem in 1804 (type by tautonymy, Red Knot, 1758 Linnaeus). – Until 1934, the genus was composed only of the Red Knot and Great Knot. – This genus is composed of small to moderate sized sandpipers and use a variety of foraging styles from probing in water to picking at the shore’s edge, or even away from water on mud or the vegetated border of the mud. – As within so many families or large genre behavior offers important clues to species identification. Genus Calidris – Most, but not all, species migrate south in their alternate (breeding) or juvenal plumage, molting largely once they reach their more southerly wintering grounds. – Most species nest in the arctic, some farther north than others. Some species breed primarily in Eurasia, some in North America. Some are Holarctic. – The majority of species are monotypic (no additional recognized subspecies). Genus Calidris – In learning these species one
    [Show full text]
  • Shorebird Identification 5 SHOREBIRD IDENTIFICATION Usually Over 20 Mm Except in Least, Semipalmated and Buff­ Breasted
    4 EBBA News February 1973 Shorebird Identification 5 SHOREBIRD IDENTIFICATION usually over 20 mm except in Least, Semipalmated and Buff­ breasted. Neck medium to long. 4 toes (except 3 in Sanderling) • BY CHANDLER S, ROBBINS* Back speckrea-or streaked in small species (indistinct markings on Spotted Sandpiper, and on Sanderling in winter). The superfamily of shorebirds is a heterogeneous group. Family Recurvirost ridae : Avocets, Stilts (7 species, 2 in Althou?h most members of this group are zeadily recognized as North Amer ica). Bi ll long, very slender; fegs very long and shoreb1rds, there are few distinctive characters that are pos­ slender, tarsus over 80 mm. 3 toes (stilt or 4 (avocet). sessed ~y all ~pecies. For example, nearly all shorebirds have long po1nted.w1ngs, but the woodcocks and lapwing have decided­ Family Phal aropodidae: Phalaropes (3 species, 3 in North ly rounded w1ngs. Most shorebirds have slender, soft bills, America). 4 toes , the front ones lobed, semipalmate. Female but the oystercatchers have heavy bills that are greatly com­ brighter colored than male. pres~ed l~ter~lly. The phalarope family has lobed toes, each spec1es w1th 1ts own particular type of lobe. The turnstones and most plovers have 3 toes, and most sandpipers have 4 toes Identifying Shorebirds to Species but one genus in each family does not conform to the general ' rule. The purpose of this paper is to assist banders in identi­ fying, to species, shorebirds that are in the hand. These pages The oystercatchers, avocets and stilts are so distinctive are not a substitute for a field guide or for manuals such as in all plumages that they will not be discussed in detail; Roberts, Forbush, Ridgway, or Coues.
    [Show full text]
  • 54971 GPNC Shorebirds
    A P ocket Guide to Great Plains Shorebirds Third Edition I I I By Suzanne Fellows & Bob Gress Funded by Westar Energy Green Team, The Nature Conservancy, and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Identification Tips • 4 Plovers I Black-bellied Plover • 6 I American Golden-Plover • 8 I Snowy Plover • 10 I Semipalmated Plover • 12 I Piping Plover • 14 ©Bob Gress I Killdeer • 16 I Mountain Plover • 18 Stilts & Avocets I Black-necked Stilt • 19 I American Avocet • 20 Hudsonian Godwit Sandpipers I Spotted Sandpiper • 22 ©Bob Gress I Solitary Sandpiper • 24 I Greater Yellowlegs • 26 I Willet • 28 I Lesser Yellowlegs • 30 I Upland Sandpiper • 32 Black-necked Stilt I Whimbrel • 33 Cover Photo: I Long-billed Curlew • 34 Wilson‘s Phalarope I Hudsonian Godwit • 36 ©Bob Gress I Marbled Godwit • 38 I Ruddy Turnstone • 40 I Red Knot • 42 I Sanderling • 44 I Semipalmated Sandpiper • 46 I Western Sandpiper • 47 I Least Sandpiper • 48 I White-rumped Sandpiper • 49 I Baird’s Sandpiper • 50 ©Bob Gress I Pectoral Sandpiper • 51 I Dunlin • 52 I Stilt Sandpiper • 54 I Buff-breasted Sandpiper • 56 I Short-billed Dowitcher • 57 Western Sandpiper I Long-billed Dowitcher • 58 I Wilson’s Snipe • 60 I American Woodcock • 61 I Wilson’s Phalarope • 62 I Red-necked Phalarope • 64 I Red Phalarope • 65 • Rare Great Plains Shorebirds • 66 • Acknowledgements • 67 • Pocket Guides • 68 Supercilium Median crown Stripe eye Ring Nape Lores upper Mandible Postocular Stripe ear coverts Hind Neck Lower Mandible ©Dan Kilby 1 Introduction Shorebirds, such as plovers and sandpipers, are a captivating group of birds primarily adapted to live in open areas such as shorelines, wetlands and grasslands.
    [Show full text]