DOCSLIB.ORG

First Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere Meeting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere Meeting Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere Meeting 15 Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere Meeting, 27 February–2 March 2006, Boulder, Colorado, USA Introduction by Richard Lanctot Through their prodigious long-distance scheduled first in the meeting because we wanted participants migration, shorebirds provide biological to consider the possibility of forming a hemisphere-wide group linkages between countries where they throughout the meeting. stop to breed, stage, and winter. While On Tuesday morning we shifted hemispheres and heard from the benefits associated with sharing Phil Battley whose plenary To beg, borrow and steal: the art of information across countries and continents seem obvious, doing research on the East Asian–Australasian Flyway pro- efforts to connect researchers studying shorebirds in different vided an overview of how shorebird conservation and research parts of the Western Hemisphere have seldom taken place. Two is conducted in another, shorebird-rich corner of the world. He notable exceptions come to mind. The first was a meeting held described a system that consists of primarily volunteers and few in Quito, Ecuador, in conjunction with the IV Neotropical government or university research projects. Though short on Ornithology Congress in 1991. There, biologists shared their funds, biologists along the flyway have initiated extensive band- latest research in shorebird migration, ecology and conservation. ing programs and used species such as the Great Knot, Bar- This meeting also provided a rare opportunity for researchers to tailed Godwit, Spoon-billed Sandpiper and others to galvanize forge scientific partnerships, many of which continue through support and enthusiasm for shorebird conservation. today. On day three of the meeting we returned to the Western The exception was the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Hemisphere and South America in particular and heard from Reserve Network (WHSRN) Workshop held in Ottawa in 1995. Luis Germán Naranjo. His plenary entitled Shorebird biology This workshop, while focused primarily on promoting and and the development of Colombian ornithology described the conserving WHSRN sites, called for greater coordination at all contributions of shorebird biology t o the development of mod- geographic scales and the need for a hemispheric shorebird con- ern ornithology in Colombia and Northern South America. Luis servation strategy. Of course these meetings were not being held discussed several milestones, including the formation of orni- in a vacuum. Many smaller, region-wide, and generally more thology schools and the initiation of annual ornithological meet- informal meetings were taking place, such as the Western Sand- ings in Columbia that led to substantial increases in waterbird piper Research Network, the American Oystercatcher Working studies in that country. Group and others. Nevertheless, a full 11 years transpired before On Thursday, Lew Oring gave a stimulating and well- a hemisphere-wide meeting, entitled Shorebird Science in the received talk (‘Our’ shorebirds: Gondwana northward and Western Hemisphere, was held in Boulder, Colorado, between back again) during which he discussed how shorebirds as a 27 February and 2 March 2006. It is interesting to ponder why group emerged temporally and spatially on the world scene and such a long break between meetings occurred? I believe the how such actions as glaciation and historic and contemporary timing was right given the recent realization that shorebirds are human influences have shaped the shorebird fauna as we know declining worldwide. This knowledge provided the impetus to it. He clearly showed how anthropogenic and natural alteration form a variety of species-specific working groups that began the of the environment has affected shorebird abundance, distribu- difficult process of determining what factors are limiting tion, and behavior. shorebird numbers. I also think 11 years elapsed because there This meeting also served as the inaugural meeting of the was no mechanism to ensure another meeting occurred. Below, Shorebird Research Group of the Americas (SRGA) – a group I discuss one way to remedy this situation, but first describe the designed to bring shorebird researchers together to increase our Boulder meeting in more detail. knowledge of shorebirds in the Americas and ensure that infor- The Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere meeting mation is available for conservation purposes. As their first took place over four days, and consisted of 4 plenary lectures, project, SRGA is promoting a cooperative approach to deter- 9 symposia (6 species-based and 3 on broader issues consisting mining the causes of shorebird population declines. I would of 61 papers), 43 general papers among 10 subject themes, and advise all to read Robert Butler et al.’s summary describing the 34 posters. Representatives from at least 10 Western Hemi- formation and function of this important group. sphere countries and three other continents were present. Much In addition to a SRGA symposium, eight other symposia of the Latin American presence was possible because of finan- were held. Two of these were on broader issues and six were cial support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the species based. The Shorebird Movements symposium focused Canadian Wildlife Service, and I thank the different regional on factors that affect how shorebirds navigate through their non-game coordinators for their assistance. environment. The Neotropical Priorities symposium sought to Each day of the meeting began with a plenary lecture. Bob put a world and South American perspective on the conserva- Gill’s talk on Monday morning, Are we a flock and do we know tion status of North American shorebird species, and to initiate where we are going? set the stage for the meeting by exploring an assessment of the conservation status of Neotropical- past attempts to unite shorebird efforts in the Western Hemi- breeding shorebird taxa. Species-based symposia covered the sphere and looking at how other shorebird groups throughout Black Oystercatcher, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Long-billed the world have addressed this issue. He offered ideas for a West- Curlew, Marbled Godwit, Snowy Plover, and Western Sand- ern Hemisphere model that could function without adding piper. Although the Western Sandpiper Research Network was undue structure and administrative burden. Bob’s talk was meeting for an unprecedented 9th time, many of the other 15 Bulletin 109 April 2006 16 Wader Study Group Bulletin groups had never met before and consequently this was the first At this point, we do not advocate creating a formal govern- opportunity for researchers to finally meet people they had ing body but rather relying on a small group of people, com- corresponded with for years. I think most people would agree posed of regional representatives from different parts of the that such personal exchanges lay the groundwork for the estab- Western Hemisphere, to accomplish the tasks mentioned above. lishment of other collaborative efforts. This certainly has been I think it is important for all to recognize that the establishment the case for the Western Sandpiper group, whose members have of such a group would not replace existing or prevent the for- published a record number of articles on many aspects of this mation of new entities dealing with shorebirds in the Western species breeding, staging and winter ecology. Only the future Hemisphere. A letter and questionnaire will be sent through will reveal the success of these initial meetings. Representatives various channels in the near future inviting people to participate from three other species-based working groups also gave short in determining the shape of the new Western Hemisphere presentations, although these groups did not formally meet. Shorebird Group. These included Red-necked Phalarope, Semipalmated Sand- As the overall coordinator of the Shorebird Science in the piper and American Oystercatcher. Western Hemisphere meeting, I would like to end by acknow- Stimulated by the enthusiasm generated by the meeting, ledging some of the key people who made major contributions especially Bob Gill’s plenary talk, a number of those present to the meeting’s success. First, I thank Brad Andres, who served suggested that there was sufficient momentum to form a West- as local organizer. He not only made all of the logistical arrange- ern Hemisphere Shorebird Group. This group would be the ments but together with his wife, Heather Johnson, provided “glue” that binds the many other shorebird initiatives together, lovely background music for us to enjoy during the poster including the Shorebird Research Group of the Americas session. Second, I thank Stephen Brown who chaired the (research branch), the Program for Regional and International Science Committee and ensured the programs ran seamlessly Shorebird Monitoring (and ISS, the monitoring branch), the together. Many other people contributed to the success of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (site-based meeting, including the many presenters, and I am grateful to conservation branch), Shorebird Sister Schools Program them all. (outreach/education branch), the U.S. and Canadian Shorebird Finally, I would like to encourage everyone to keep alive the Conservation plans and councils (national implementation enthusiasm experienced by all of us at the meeting (remember framework branches), and the many other state and regional Brian McCaffery and Dov Lank singing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Birds of Reserva Ecológica Guapiaçu (REGUA)
    Cotinga 33 The birds of Reserva Ecológica Guapiaçu (REGUA), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Leonardo Pimentel and Fábio Olmos Received 30 September 2009; final revision accepted 15 December 2010 Cotinga 33 (2011): OL 8–24 published online 16 March 2011 É apresentada uma lista da avifauna da Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçu (REGUA), uma reserva privada de 6.500 ha localizada no município de Cachoeiras de Macacu, vizinha ao Parque Estadual dos Três Picos, Estação Ecológica do Paraíso e Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos, parte de um dos maiores conjuntos protegidos do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Foram registradas um total de 450 espécies de aves, das quais 63 consideradas de interesse para conservação, como Leucopternis lacernulatus, Harpyhaliaetus coronatus, Triclaria malachitacea, Myrmotherula minor, Dacnis nigripes, Sporophila frontalis e S. falcirostris. A reserva também está desenvolvendo um projeto de reintrodução dos localmente extintos Crax blumembachii e Aburria jacutinga, e de reforço das populações locais de Tinamus solitarius. The Atlantic Forest of eastern Brazil and Some information has been published on neighbouring Argentina and Paraguay is among the birds of lower (90–500 m) elevations in the the most imperilled biomes in the world. At region10,13, but few areas have been subject to least 188 bird species are endemic to it, and 70 long-term surveys. Here we present the cumulative globally threatened birds occur there, most of them list of a privately protected area, Reserva Ecológica endemics4,8. The Atlantic Forest is not homogeneous Guapiaçu (REGUA), which includes both low-lying and both latitudinal and longitudinal gradients parts of the Serra dos Órgãos massif and nearby account for diverse associations of discrete habitats higher ground, now mostly incorporated within and associated bird communities.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Record of Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius Madagascariensis) in British Columbia
    The First Record of Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) in British Columbia. By Rick Toochin and Don Cecile. Submitted: April 15, 2018. Introduction and Distribution The Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) is the largest migratory shorebird in the world. This species is found only along the East Asian–Australasian Flyway. The Far Eastern Curlew breeds on open mossy or transitional bogs, moss-lichen bogs and wet meadows, and on the swampy shores of small lakes in Siberia and Kamchatka in Russia, as well as in north-eastern Mongolia and China (Hayman et al. 1986, del Hoyo et al. 1996). The Yellow Sea of the Republic of Korea and China is a vitally important stopover site on migration. This species is also a common passage migrant in Japan and Indonesia, and is occasionally recorded moving through Thailand, Brunei, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore (O’Brien et al. 2006). During the winter a few birds occur in southern Republic of Korea, Japan, China, and Taiwan (Brazil 2009, EAAFP 2017). About 25% of the population is thought to winter in the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Most birds, approximately 73% or 28,000 individuals, spend the winter in Australia, where birds are found primarily on the coast of all states, particularly the north, east and south-east regions including Tasmania (Bamford et al. 2008, BirdLife 2016). In the early 2000’s, the global population of the Far Eastern Curlew was estimated at 38,000 individuals (BirdLife 2016). Unfortunately due to the fact that the global population is declining, the true population size is likely to be much smaller, and may not exceed 20,000 individuals (BirdLife 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment
    UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.10 Annex 2b CMS Scientific Council: Flyway Working Group Reviews Review 2: Review of Current Knowledge of Bird Flyways, Principal Knowledge Gaps and Conservation Priorities Compiled by: JEFF KIRBY Just Ecology Brookend House, Old Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SQ, U.K. June 2010 Acknowledgements I am grateful to colleagues at BirdLife International for the input of analyses, technical information, advice, ideas, research papers, peer review and comment. Thus, I extend my gratitude to my lead contact at the BirdLife Secretariat, Ali Stattersfield, and to Tris Allinson, Jonathan Barnard, Stuart Butchart, John Croxall, Mike Evans, Lincoln Fishpool, Richard Grimmett, Vicky Jones and Ian May. In addition, John Sherwell worked enthusiastically and efficiently to provide many key publications, at short notice, and I’m grateful to him for that. I also thank the authors of, and contributors to, Kirby et al. (2008) which was a major review of the status of migratory bird species and which laid the foundations for this work. Borja Heredia, from CMS, and Taej Mundkur, from Wetlands International, also provided much helpful advice and assistance, and were instrumental in steering the work. I wish to thank Tim Jones as well (the compiler of a parallel review of CMS instruments) for his advice, comment and technical inputs; and also Simon Delany of Wetlands International. Various members of the CMS Flyway Working Group, and other representatives from CMS, BirdLife and Wetlands International networks, responded to requests for advice and comment and for this I wish to thank: Olivier Biber, Joost Brouwer, Nicola Crockford, Carlo C. Custodio, Tim Dodman, Roger Jaensch, Jelena Kralj, Angus Middleton, Narelle Montgomery, Cristina Morales, Paul Kariuki Ndang'ang'a, Paul O’Neill, Herb Raffaele and David Stroud.
    [Show full text]
  • And Wildlife, 1928-72
    Bibliography of Research Publications of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1928-72 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE PUBLICATION 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, 1928-72 Edited by Paul H. Eschmeyer, Division of Fishery Research Van T. Harris, Division of Wildlife Research Resource Publication 120 Published by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Washington, B.C. 1974 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Eschmeyer, Paul Henry, 1916 Bibliography of research publications of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1928-72. (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Kesource publication 120) Supt. of Docs. no.: 1.49.66:120 1. Fishes Bibliography. 2. Game and game-birds Bibliography. 3. Fish-culture Bibliography. 4. Fishery management Bibliogra­ phy. 5. Wildlife management Bibliography. I. Harris, Van Thomas, 1915- joint author. II. United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. III. Title. IV. Series: United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Resource publication 120. S914.A3 no. 120 [Z7996.F5] 639'.9'08s [016.639*9] 74-8411 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfTie Washington, D.C. Price $2.30 Stock Number 2410-00366 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, 1928-72 INTRODUCTION This bibliography comprises publications in fishery and wildlife research au­ thored or coauthored by research scientists of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and certain predecessor agencies. Separate lists, arranged alphabetically by author, are given for each of 17 fishery research and 6 wildlife research labora­ tories, stations, investigations, or centers.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Analysis and Community Workshop for Far Eastern Curlew Conservation Action in Pantai Cemara, Desa Sungai Cemara – Jambi
    POPULATION ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FOR FAR EASTERN CURLEW CONSERVATION ACTION IN PANTAI CEMARA, DESA SUNGAI CEMARA – JAMBI Final Report Small Grant Fund of the EAAFP Far Eastern Curlew Task Force Iwan Febrianto, Cipto Dwi Handono & Ragil S. Rihadini Jambi, Indonesia 2019 The aim of this project are to Identify the condition of Far Eastern Curlew Population and the remaining potential sites for Far Eastern Curlew stopover in Sumatera, Indonesia and protect the remaining stopover sites for Far Eastern Curlew by educating the government, local people and community around the sites as the effort of reducing the threat of habitat degradation, habitat loss and human disturbance at stopover area. INTRODUCTION The Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariencis) is the largest shorebird in the world and is endemic to East Asian – Australian Flyway. It is one of the Endangered migratory shorebird with estimated global population at 38.000 individual, although a more recent update now estimates the population at 32.000 (Wetland International, 2015 in BirdLife International, 2017). An analysis of monitoring data collected from around Australia and New Zealand (Studds et al. in prep. In BirdLife International, 2017) suggests that the species has declined much more rapidly than was previously thought; with an annual rate of decline of 0.058 equating to a loss of 81.7% over three generations. Habitat loss occuring as a result of development is the most significant threat currently affecting migratory shorebird along the EAAF (Melville et al. 2016 in EAAFP 2017). Loss of habitat at critical stopover sites in the Yellow Sea is suspected to be the key threat to this species and given that it is restricted to East Asian - Australasian Flyway, the declines in the non-breeding are to be representative of the global population.
    [Show full text]
  • Disaggregation of Bird Families Listed on Cms Appendix Ii
    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 2nd Meeting of the Sessional Committee of the CMS Scientific Council (ScC-SC2) Bonn, Germany, 10 – 14 July 2017 UNEP/CMS/ScC-SC2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II (Prepared by the Appointed Councillors for Birds) Summary: The first meeting of the Sessional Committee of the Scientific Council identified the adoption of a new standard reference for avian taxonomy as an opportunity to disaggregate the higher-level taxa listed on Appendix II and to identify those that are considered to be migratory species and that have an unfavourable conservation status. The current paper presents an initial analysis of the higher-level disaggregation using the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World Volumes 1 and 2 taxonomy, and identifies the challenges in completing the analysis to identify all of the migratory species and the corresponding Range States. The document has been prepared by the COP Appointed Scientific Councilors for Birds. This is a supplementary paper to COP document UNEP/CMS/COP12/Doc.25.3 on Taxonomy and Nomenclature UNEP/CMS/ScC-Sc2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II 1. Through Resolution 11.19, the Conference of Parties adopted as the standard reference for bird taxonomy and nomenclature for Non-Passerine species the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Non-Passerines, by Josep del Hoyo and Nigel J. Collar (2014); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • REGUA Bird List July 2020.Xlsx
    Birds of REGUA/Aves da REGUA Updated July 2020. The taxonomy and nomenclature follows the Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos (CBRO), Annotated checklist of the birds of Brazil by the Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee, updated June 2015 - based on the checklist of the South American Classification Committee (SACC). Atualizado julho de 2020. A taxonomia e nomenclatura seguem o Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos (CBRO), Lista anotada das aves do Brasil pelo Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos, atualizada em junho de 2015 - fundamentada na lista do Comitê de Classificação da América do Sul (SACC).
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Environmental Assessment: Kent Island Restoration at Bolinas Lagoon
    DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON Marin County Open Space District and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District August 2012 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON PREPARED FOR Marin County Open Space District Marin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 499-6387 and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 1455 Market St San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 503-6703 PREPARED BY Carmen Ecological Consulting Grassetti Environmental Consulting Peter R. Baye, Coastal Ecologist, Botanist August 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................1 1.2 Document Structure ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................3 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................3 2.2 Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................................3 2.3 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................6
    [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]
  • Growth and Development of Long-Billed Curlew Chicks
    April 1973] General Notes 435 Pitelka and Donald L. Beaver critically read the manuscript. This work was con- ducted under the I.B.P. Analysis of Ecosystems-TundraProgram and supported by a grant to F. A. Pitelka from the National ScienceFoundation.--THo•rAs W. CUSTrR, Department o! Zoology and Museum o! Vertebrate Zoology, University o! California, Berkeley,California 94720. Accepted9 May 72. Growth and development of Long-billed Curlew chicks.--Compared with the altricial nestlings of passerinesand the semiprecocialyoung of gulls, few studies of the growth and developmentof the precocialchicks of the Charadrii have been made (Pettingill, 1970: 378). In Europe, yon Frisch (1958, 1959) describedthe develop- ment of behavior in 14 plovers and sandpipers. Davis (1943) and Nice (1962) have reported on the growth of Killdeer (Charadriusvociferus), Nice (1962) on the Spotted Sandpiper (Actiris macularia), and Webster (1942) on the growth and development of plumages in the Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). Pettingill (1936) studiedthe atypical AmericanWoodcock (Philohelaminor). Among the curlews, Genus Numenius, only the Eurasian Curlew (N. arquata) has been studied (von Frisch, 1956). Becauseof the scant knowledgeabout the development of the youngin the Charadriiand the scarcityof informationon all aspectsof the breeding biology of the Long-billed Curlew (N. americanus) (Palmer, 1967), I believe that the following data on the growth and development of Long-billed Curlew chicks are relevant. I took four eggs,one being pipped, from a nest 10 miles west of Brigham City, Box Elder County, Utah, on 24 May 1966. One egg was preservedimmediately for additional study, the others I placed in a 4' X 3' X 2' cardboard box with a 60-watt lamp for warmth in a vacant room in my home until they hatched.
    [Show full text]