Morphometric Features of Pacific and American Golden&Hyphen;Plovers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Morphometric features of Pacific and American Golden-Plovers with comments on field identification OSCAR W. JOHNSON & PATRICIA M. JOHNSON Departmentof Ecology,Montana State University,Bozeman, MT59717 USA. OWJohnson2105@aoLcom Johnson,O.W. & Johnson,P.M. 2004. Morphometricfeatures of Pacific and American Golden-Ploverswith commentson field identification.Wader Study Group Bull. 103: 42-49. We measured linear dimensions and evaluated identification criteria in Pacific and American Golden-Plovers (Pluvialisfidvaand P. dominica)captured for banding.Most of thefidva sampledwere winteringbirds in Hawaii,representative of themid-Pacific flyway; additionalfidva and all dominicawere from breeding grounds on the SewardPeninsula, Alaska. The sexeswere monomorphicin dominica,and for all practicalpurposes infidva as well. On average,fulvafemales had shorterhead, bill, andtarsus lengths than males, but at a scale of <1.0 mm for eachdimension. Interspecific comparisons showed longest wings in dominica,longest bills andtarsi infidva, andno differencein headlengths. Unpublished data provided by colleaguesstudying plovers in Siberiaand Canadaenabled us to compareour Alaska findingswith breedinggrounds elsewhere. There appearsto be little, if any, variationinfidva wing lengthsfrom the easternend (SewardPeninsula) to near the westernend of the breedingrange (Taimyr Peninsula);however, other linear dimensions decreased from eastto west.American Golden-Plovers breeding on the SewardPeninsula (western end of their range)had shorterwings and tarsi, but longerbills than birds nestingat the oppositeend of the rangenear Churchill, Manitoba.We foundmost field identificationcriteria described in the literatureto be lessthan satisfactory becauseof variabilityand overlap between the two species.The onlyreliable characteristics were breeding plumage,number of primariesexposed beyond the longest tertials (2-3 infidva,4-5 in dominica),and primary projectionpast the end of the tail (estimatedat 0-9 mm infidva, 12-22 mm in dominica).In field situations involvingmoulting birds and birds in non-breedingplumage, unequivocal species identification may be impossiblein somecases. INTRODUCTION Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific (for descriptionsand locationsof theseareas, see Johnson et al. 2001a,c). Add/- The purposesof this paper are to report measurements tionalfidva (n = 14, caughtin 2000) werefroin a wintering obtainedduring bandingof Pacific and American Golden- populationabout 1,300 km southwestof Oahu at Johnston Plovers(Pluvialis./hlva and P. dominica),and to shedlight Atoll (16ø44'N, 169ø32'W), and others(n -- 44, trapped on criteria useful in identifying these somewhat similar 1988-2002) from breedinggrounds on the SewardPenin- species.Our long-termstudies of plover ecologyin Hawaii sula,Alaska (64ø5 I'N, 166ø05'W;see Johnson et al. 200lb). andAlaska together with morerecent radiotelemetry inves- All of the dominica(n -- 46, trapped1988-2003) were nest- tigations(Johnson et al. 1993; 1997a,b;2001a,b,c) have in- ing birdscaptured on the SewardPeninsula at the samesites volvednumerous marked birds, with an especiallylarge set asfulva(the two speciesbreed sympatrically in thatregion). of dimensionsforJ'tdva. The two taxa are relativelyeasy to The ploverscaptured in Hawaii were caughtl-2 hours distinguishwhen birds are in breedingplumage during spring beforesunrise in mistnets (Johnson et al. 1997b,2001c). At andsummer, but at othertimes identification can be problem- JohnstonAtoll, somebirds were caughtin mist nets,others atic. Becausespecies identity was certain for all ploverswe in a self-triggering60 cm diameterclap-net (patterned after sampled(every individual in breedingplumage), this wasan the "luchock"design, Priklonsky 1960) baited with boiled idealopportunity to evaluatevarious interspecific character- egg. In Alaska,bothfidva and dominicawere capturedon isticsaside from breedingcoloration. Examination of these theirnests with eitherthe clap-netor a droptrap. featureswas prompted partly by inquiriesfrom birders seek- All of the birds were bandedin the springor summer ing advice about ways to separatethe two species.These when they were either nearing departurefrom wintering observershad seenwhat appearedto be./tdva(migrants in grounds(late March-April, Oahu and JohnstonAtoll) or non-breedingplumage) in regionswhere one would expect nesting(late May-June, Alaska). Each individual was in only dominica.We hopethe comparisonsand tests of field sexuallydimorphic breeding plumage when examined,and criteriapresented here will provehelpful in suchsituations. primaryfeathers of adultsthat had been replaced during the winter were completelygrown (Johnson& Johnson1983, STUDY AREAS AND METHODS Johnson& Connors1996). First-yearfidva were readily identifiedfroin their worn, retainedjuvenile primaries; no Most ofthefidva (n = 544, captured1979-2002) camefrom similarage-criterion is apparentin dominica(Connors 1983, threewintering ground study sites on Oahu,Hawaii: Bellows Johnson& Johnson1983, Johnson& Connors1996, Byrk- Air Force Station, Hickam Air Force Base, and National jedal & Thompson1998). Bulletin 103 April 2004 42 Johnson & Johnson: Features of Pacific and American Golden-Plovers 43 We recordedthe usualmorphometric dimensions: wing RESULTS length (flattened, straightenedprimaries) to the nearest 1.0 mm; total headlength (posterior occipital to tip of bill), Standard linear dimensions bill length(along culmen to junction with featheringon fore- head), and tarsuslength (tibio-tarsaljoint to distal end of Wing, head, bill, and tarsusmeasurements are shown in tarsus)to 0.1 mm.Each measurement followed the technique Table 1, and summarizedhere for eachspecies. illustratedby Howes& Bakewell (1989). Sometimes,espe- ciallywhen we hadlarger catches, not all measurementswere Pacific Golden-Plover madeon everyindividual. Our wing, head,bill, andtarsus meansincorporate smaller Oahu and Seward Peninsula sam- We pooledthe wing lengthsof adult malesand femalesas plesreported earlier by Johnson& Connors(1996). Several therewas no significantdifference between them (t = 0.77, colleaguesprovided us with unpublishedmeasurements from P = 0.44, df = 409). Variable wear of juvenile primaries fulva captured(in somecases freshly collected) at various made a similar test infeasiblefor first-yearplovers, and we breedingground sites in Siberia;and from dominicanesting pooledwing lengthsfor the entirefirst-year group. The dif- nearChurchill, Manitoba. These data sets, compiled with the ference in wing length between adults and first-year birds samemeasurement techniques as we used,allowed statisti- (172 mm vs. 168 mm) was highly significant(t = 12.04, cal comparisonsbetween our findingsand dimensionsof P < 0.0001, df = 600). Other linear comparisonsbetween ploversfrom otherregions. adult and first-yearmales, and between adult and first-year Supplementingthe standardmeasurements, we madea femalesshowed no differencesin total head length (males, systematiceffort (mostly in 2002 and2003) to evaluatead- ! = 0.80, P -- 0.43, df = 246; females, t = 1.88, P = 0.06, ditional dimensions and characteristics that various sources df = 183); bill length (males,t = 0.04, P = 0.96, df-- 252; (seeJohnson & Connors1996, and Byrkjedal & Thompson females, t = 1.27, P = 0.20, df = 185); or tarsus length 1998) haveconsidered useful as interspecificcriteria. From (males, t = 1.03, P = 0.30, df = 239; females, t = 0.25, capturedbirds, we recordedtwo featuresof thefolded wing: P = 0.80, df-- 176). Thus, for head, bill, and tarsus we the number of primary tips exposedbeyond the longest pooledadult and first-year samples for eachsex. Analysis of tertials,and the distance(to 0.1 mm) betweenthe tips of pri- the pooledsamples revealed slight, but nonethelesssignifi- maries9 and 10. We alsomeasured (to 0.1 mm) the length cant,differences with femalesaveraging smaller than males of the unfeatheredtibia (from the tibio-tarsaljoint to the tips for all dimensions:total headlength (58.0 mm vs. 58.9 mm, of feathersencircling the proximaltibia), bill lengthin rela- t = 7.16, P = <0.0001, df = 431); bill length (24.2 mm vs. tionto the eye,and distance from the base of thebill to the 24.5 mm, t -- 2.93, P = 0.003, df = 439); and tarsuslength rearedge of theeye. The two eye-relatedmeasurements were (45.6 mm vs. 46.1 mm, t = 2.88, P = 0.004, df= 417). madealong a straightline extendingfrom the tip of thebill Dimorphismat this scale(<I.0 mm for eachmeasurement) acrossthe eye and bisectingthe nasalopening. Bill length hasessentially no practicalapplication. Therefore, we con- thus measuredwas then projectedrearward to determine sideredit reasonableto disregardsex altogetherand merge whetherthis dimension fell on or beyondthe eye.From birds head,bill andtarsus measurements. Among adults, we found not in hand,we estimatedwith binocularsor spottingscope: negligiblecorrelation between wing length and tarsus length the distancethe primariesprojected beyond the tail (using (r2 --- 0.05, P = 0.0001,df = 310),and wing length and total averagebill lengthfrom Table 1 as a gauge),and where headlength (r 2 = 0.06,P = <0.0001,df= 318).For pooled tertial tips were positionedin relationto lengthof the tail. adultsand first-year birds, there was slightpositive correla- Both of theseestimates involved birds in what we judgedto tionbetween total head length and tarsus length (r 2 = 0.20, be typicalpostures during foraging and loafing behaviours. P = <0.0001, df = 406), and tarsuslength and bill length (r2 = 0.10,P = <0.0001,df = 416).