DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Assessment for Sedge Wren

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Species Assessment for Sedge Wren Species Status Assessment Class: Birds Family: Troglodytidae Scientific Name: Cistothorus platensis Common Name: Sedge wren Species synopsis: Previously known as the short-billed marsh wren, the sedge wren is an inhabitant of wet meadows, hay fields, and marshes. This wren’s use of ephemeral habitats drives its tendency to abandon areas as they become too wet or too dry and move to new areas. Within a season, sedge wrens may raise one brood in May and June and then move to a southern or northeastern part of the range to raise a second brood in July and August. This pattern can make detection and monitoring by traditional methods unreliable. Little is known of the life history or demographics of this species. In the Prairie Pothole region, where sedge wren is most abundant, Breeding Bird Survey data show increasing long-term and short-term trends: 5.6% increase per year from 1966 to 2010 and 1.0% increase per year from 2000 to 2010. Significant declining trends were noted in the Northeast beginning in the 1950s due to destruction of wetlands. In response to this decline, sedge wren is now listed as Endangered in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. It is listed as Threatened in New York. In New York, where it is at the far eastern edge of its range, sedge wren was historically a sparse nester and it remains so today. Since the mid-1980s, sedge wren occupancy in New York has increased by 26% as documented by the second Breeding Bird Atlas, though McGowan (2008) cautions that this species may have been overlooked during the first Atlas. Breeding occurs primarily on the Great Lakes Plain and a consistently-breeding population appears to be establishing itself in St. Lawrence and Jefferson Counties. As a species far outside of its main range, however, sedge wren can be expected to remain uncommon in New York (McGowan 2008). I. Status a. Current and Legal Protected Status i. Federal _____Not Listed________________________ Candidate? __No____ ii. New York _____Threatened; SGCN__________________________________________ 1 b. Natural Heritage Program Rank i. Global _____G5_____________________________________________________________ ii. New York _____S3B_____________________ Tracked by NYNHP? __Yes___ Other Rank: USFWS – Birds of Concern Partners in Flight – Regional Concern Species of Northeast Regional Conservation Concern (Therres 1999) IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern Status Discussion: Sedge wren is a rare to uncommon local breeder and migrant in New York. Sedge wren is ranked as Critically Imperiled in every northeastern state except New York, where it is ranked as Vulnerable. It is ranked as Apparently Secure in Ontario and as Imperiled in Quebec. II. Abundance and Distribution Trends a. North America i. Abundance _____ declining __X__ increasing _____stable _____unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining _____increasing _____stable __X__ unknown Time frame considered: ____2000-2010________________________________________ 2 b. Regional i. Abundance _____ declining _____increasing __X__ stable _____ unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining _____increasing __X__ stable _____ unknown Regional Unit Considered: _____Eastern BBS_________________________________ Time Frame Considered: _______2000-2010___________________________________ c. Adjacent States and Provinces CONNECTICUT Not Present __________ No data ________ i. Abundance _____ declining _____increasing _____stable __X__ unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining _____increasing _____stable __X__ unknown Time frame considered: ____Rare and sporadic since 1960s_____________________ Listing Status: ______________Endangered______________________ SGCN? __Yes_____ MASSACHUSETTS Not Present __________ No data ________ i. Abundance _____ declining _____increasing _____stable __X__ unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining __X__ increasing _____stable _____unknown Time frame considered: __10 breeding season occurrences since 1980_______ Listing Status: _______________Endangered______________________ SGCN? __Yes___ 3 NEW JERSEY Not Present __________ No data ________ i. Abundance _____ declining _____increasing _____stable __X__ unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining _____increasing _____stable __X__ unknown Time frame considered: ___”very rare breeder”__________________________________ Listing Status: _____________Endangered______________________ SGCN? __Yes_____ ONTARIO Not Present __________ No data ________ i. Abundance _____ declining __X__ increasing _____stable _____unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining __X__ increasing _____stable _____unknown Time frame considered: ____1981-85 to 2001-05_______________________________ Listing Status: ______________Not Listed____________________________________________ PENNSYLVANIA Not Present __________ No data ________ i. Abundance _____ declining _____increasing _____stable __X__ unknown ii. Distribution: __X__ declining _____increasing _____ stable _____unknown Time frame considered: ____Since 1980s_________________________________________ Listing Status: ______________Endangered______________________ SGCN? __Yes____ 4 QUEBEC Not Present __________ No data ________ i. Abundance __X__ declining _____increasing _____stable _____unknown ii. Distribution: __X__ declining _____increasing _____stable _____unknown Time frame considered: ____1984-89 to 2012____________________________________ Listing Status: _______________Not Listed____________________________________________ VERMONT Not Present __________ No data ________ i. Abundance _____ declining _____increasing __X__ stable _____unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining _____increasing __X__ stable _____unknown Time frame considered: ____1976-81 to 2003-07_______________________________ Listing Status: ______________Endangered______________________ SGCN? __Yes____ d. NEW YORK No data ________ i. Abundance _____ declining __ __ increasing _____stable __X__unknown ii. Distribution: _____ declining __ __ increasing __X__stable _____unknown Time frame considered: _____1980-85 to 2000-05________________________________ Monitoring in New York. New York’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) monitors grassland birds at eight Grassland Focus Areas in the state. Sedge wren is one of the focal species in point counts that are conducted annually. 5 Trends Discussion: Breeding Bird Survey data for North America show a non-significant increasing trend of 1.8% per year for 1966-2010 and 0.9% per year for 2000-2010. Trends in the Prairie Pothole region, where sedge wrens are most abundant, are increasing by 5.6% per year for 1966-2010 and by 1.0% per year for 2000-2010. BBS data in New York and the Northeast are too sparse for meaningful analysis. Since the 1950s, Christmas bird counts and Breeding Bird Survey data have revealed alarming declines of sedge wren in the Northeast, the result of filling and dredging of wetland habitats, and the spread of invasive Phragmites. Figure 1. Range of the sedge wren in North America (Birds of North America Online 2013). 6 Figure 2. Sedge wren occurrence in New York State during the second Breeding Bird Atlas (McGowan and Corwin 2008). Figure 3. Change in sedge wren occurrence in New York State between the first Breeding Bird Atlas and the second Breeding Bird Atlas (McGowan and Corwin 2008). 7 Figure 4. Conservation status of the sedge wren in North America (NatureServe 2012). 8 III. New York Rarity, if known: Historic # of Animals # of Locations % of State prior to 1970 __________ __________ __________ prior to 1980 __________ __________ __________ prior to 1990 __________ _57 blocks_ ____1%___ Details of historic occurrence: The first Breeding Bird Atlas (1980-85) documented occupancy in 57 survey blocks statewide (1%). Current # of Animals # of Locations % of State __________ _72 blocks__ ____1%____ Details of current occurrence: The second Breeding Bird Atlas (2000-05) documented occupancy in 72 survey blocks statewide (1%), an increase of 26%. New York’s Contribution to Species North American Range: % of NA Range in New York Classification of New York Range __X___ 0-5% _____ Core _____ 6-10% __X___ Peripheral _____ 11-25% _____ Disjunct _____ 26-50% Distance to core population: _____ >50% ___________ 9 IV. Primary Habitat or Community Type: 1. Old Field Managed Grasslands 2. Wet meadow/Shrub Swamp 3. Pasture/Hay 4. Open Alkaline Peatlands 5. Open Acidic Peatlands Habitat or Community Type Trend in New York: __X__ Declining _____Stable _____ Increasing _____Unknown Time frame of decline/increase: _____Since late 1800s________________________________ Habitat Specialist? __X___ Yes ______ No Indicator Species? ______ Yes __X___ No Habitat Discussion: Sedge wrens breed in a variety of wetlands with dense tall sedges and grasses, avoiding areas with standing water and cattails. Such areas include wet meadows, hayfields, marshes, upland edges of ponds, and sphagnum bogs. In the Northeast where breeding occurs later in the summer than in the Prairie Pothole region, sedge wrens use permanently wet marshes with tussocks (Bagg and Eliot 1937). 10 V. New York Species Demographics and Life History __X__ Breeder in New York __X__ Summer Resident _____ Winter Resident _____ Anadromous _____ Non-breeder in New York _____ Summer Resident _____ Winter Resident _____ Catadromous _____ Migratory only _____Unknown Species Demographics and Life History Discussion: Sedge wrens are nomadic, breeding in the Prairie Pothole region in May and June, and then moving to southern and northeastern areas of its range before breeding again in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nature Notes from Kankakee Sands
    Nature Notes from Kankakee Sands April 2019 © Jeff Timmons Where There’s a Willow, There’s a Way written by Alyssa Nyberg, Restoration Ecologist for The Nature Conservancy’s Kankakee Sands Project I was standing out in a 400-acre wet prairie just north of our Kankakee Sands office, placidly harvesting seeds when I hear the crackling, sizzling Zzzzap! like the sound of an electrical circuit shorting out. With exactly zero electric lines running through that particular prairie, what could have made that sound? Then I noticed a large willow patch… and where there is a willow patch at Kankakee Sands, there may be a sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis) singing its electrical sounding song. Sedge wrens are a rare treat to see and hear, because they are a shy and skittish bird. Unlike the chatty, boisterous, easily-viewed house wren, the sedge wren avoids being seen. Even when frightened, the sedge wren will rarely take flight. Instead, it will run on the ground beneath vegetation. It may take flight, but only briefly, before fluttering to the ground to escape notice. The sedge wren is an even more exciting find because it is state endangered in Indiana. Habitat loss and conversion are the main causes of its decline. However, at Kankakee Sands we have many acres of suitable, wet habitat with plenty of willows. And where there are willows, there is a way for the sedge wren to feed, mate, nest and raise young. Thanks to the restored habitat at Kankakee Sands, we get to enjoy its song during the months of April through October each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Information for the Marian's Marsh Wren Biological
    Supplemental Information for the Marian’s Marsh Wren Biological Status Review Report The following pages contain peer reviews received from selected peer reviewers, comments received during the public comment period, and the draft report that was reviewed before the final report was completed March 31, 2011 Table of Contents Peer review #1 from Tylan Dean ................................................................................... 3 Peer review #2 from Paul Sykes.................................................................................... 4 Peer review #3 from Sally Jue ....................................................................................... 5 Peer review #4 from Don Kroodsman ........................................................................... 9 Peer review #5 from Craig Parenteau ........................................................................ 10 Copy of the Marian’s Marsh Wren BSR draft report that was sent out for peer review ........................................................................................................................... 11 Supplemental Information for the Marian’s Marsh Wren 2 Peer review #1 from Tylan Dean From: [email protected] To: Imperiled Cc: Delany, Michael Subject: Re: FW: Marian"s marsh wren BSR report Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:38:25 PM Attachments: 20110126 Dean Peer Review of Draft Worthington"s Marsh Wren Biological Status Review.docx 20110126 Dean Peer Review of Draft Marian"s Marsh Wren Biological Status Review.docx Here are both of my
    [Show full text]
  • House Wren Vs. House Sparrow
    NEST BOX DRAMA: HOUSE WREN VS. HOUSE SPARROW GARTH NELSON, 529 Dalhousie Crescent, Saskatoon, SK S7H 3S5 Figure 1. The disputed birdhouse and its contents, fall 1999 Garth Nelson In 1997, we were seeking a tenant for since. We did see a House Wren go in our birdhouse. We were hoping to and inspect it early last week. attract a House Wren, but ended up with a House Sparrow. And so, the following June 5,1998 : Earlier this week we saw year, I altered the “doorway” of the House Sparrows starting a nest on top birdhouse, so that only a wren would be of the birdhouse, wedged between the able to get inside. Needless to say, slanted roof of the birdhouse and the although the wrens were happy with this eaves of the garage. I took it down from renovation, the sparrows were furious. the garage and relocated it in the crab What followed was nothing less than a apple tree. Today, House Wrens were in pitched battle. and out of it with nesting material. They were singing in our yard this evening. May 24,1998 : House Sparrows are still trying to get into our birdhouse. About June 6, 1998 : Some interesting bird a week ago I put up the birdhouse under dynamics today! After breakfast, we the eaves of the garage. I had altered it noticed the male House Sparrow so that the hole is 1 inch in diameter frantically trying to get into the birdhouse instead of VA inches, hoping to keep while the House Wren fretted nearby, out the House Sparrows and attract a watching him intently.
    [Show full text]
  • First Documented Observation of Sedge Wren in Arizona Accepted
    Arizona Birds - Journal of Arizona Field Ornithologists Volume 2011 FIRST DOCUMENTED OBSERVATION OF SEDGE WREN (Cistothorus platensis) IN ARIZONA Alan Schmierer, PO Box 626, Patagonia, AZ 85624 ([email protected]) Photos by the author. On 27 November 2010 the author discovered and photographed a Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) on the shores of Peña Blanca Lake, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This sighting was the first documented record of this species for Arizona. INITIAL DISCOVERY AND CONTINUED SIGHTINGS The initial discovery of this bird was a very brief encounter. At about mid-morning I was birding the south shore of the cove (informally called Thumb Rock Cove; see Figure 2) that is just north of the Upper Thumb Rock Picnic Area parking lot. Several double-chip notes, some- what reminiscent of those of the Pacific and Winter Wrens (Troglodytes pacificus and heimalis) alerted me to a potentially interesting bird be- ing present, followed by a 15 second look at the bird with binoculars (at about a two meter dis- tance), two quick photos (a lesson for photogra- phers to keep their cameras handy for such “bird emergencies”) and then the bird was gone. The wren was seen while it was about 1.5 m up in bare branches close to the trunk of a small deciduous tree at the water’s edge, and it then flew across the cove to a grassy edge of the op- posite shore. That brief view was enough for me to identify it as a Sedge Wren. Even as a new- comer to Arizona I knew that it was likely a very Figure 1: SEDGE WREN (27 November 2010) at initial sighting.
    [Show full text]
  • House Wren Monitoring
    House Wren Intern Summary By: Jon Van Arragon Summer 2020 The Beaverhill Bird Observatory keeps record of the nesting success of House Wrens in man-made nest boxes throughout the Beaverhill Natural Area. There are 4 House Wren nest box grids labeled A-D, the boxes are arranged in a 5x5 square in grids A, C, and D; grid B is arranged in a 3x8 manner. These grids are located in mature stands of aspen and poplar forest. There are 99 House Wren boxes in total throughout the natural area. The nest boxes in all 4 grids were checked weekly from May 23 to July 21, 2020. On each visit I recorded the extent of construction for each nest, the number of eggs, the number and ages of any nestlings, and the presence of any adult birds nearby. The House Wren boxes are also frequently used by Tree Swallows, swallow nests were also monitored according to the same protocol. 51 of the 99 nest boxes in the House Wren grids were occupied during the survey period. 35 of those boxes were occupied by House Wrens; the remaining 16 nest boxes were occupied by Tree Swallows. House Wrens nesting in the grids had an average clutch size of 6.44 eggs; Tree Swallows in the same grids had an average clutch size of 4.62 eggs. The average number of nestlings in House Wren nests was 5.08; the average number of Tree Swallow nestlings in the grids was 3.83. Of the 35 House Wren nests constructed, 11 had young that successfully fledged, giving what appears to be a success rate of 31%.
    [Show full text]
  • B a N I S T E R I A
    B A N I S T E R I A A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA ISSN 1066-0712 Published by the Virginia Natural History Society The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dissemination of scientific information on all aspects of natural history in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including botany, zoology, ecology, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, geography, and climatology. The society’s periodical Banisteria is a peer-reviewed, open access, online-only journal. Submitted manuscripts are published individually immediately after acceptance. A single volume is compiled at the end of each year and published online. The Editor will consider manuscripts on any aspect of natural history in Virginia or neighboring states if the information concerns a species native to Virginia or if the topic is directly related to regional natural history (as defined above). Biographies and historical accounts of relevance to natural history in Virginia also are suitable for publication in Banisteria. Membership dues and inquiries about back issues should be directed to the Co-Treasurers, and correspondence regarding Banisteria to the Editor. For additional information regarding the VNHS, including other membership categories, annual meetings, field events, pdf copies of papers from past issues of Banisteria, and instructions for prospective authors visit http://virginianaturalhistorysociety.com/ Editorial Staff: Banisteria Editor Todd Fredericksen, Ferrum College 215 Ferrum Mountain Road Ferrum, Virginia 24088 Associate Editors Philip Coulling, Nature Camp Incorporated Clyde Kessler, Virginia Tech Nancy Moncrief, Virginia Museum of Natural History Karen Powers, Radford University Stephen Powers, Roanoke College C. L. Staines, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Copy Editor Kal Ivanov, Virginia Museum of Natural History Copyright held by the author(s).
    [Show full text]
  • House Wren Troglodytes Aedon
    House Wren Troglodytes aedon House Wrens are small, plain, brown birds, more distinguished for their exuberant, me­ lodious voices and frenetic behavior than for their outward appearance. Although far from abundant, House Wrens are among the more familiar inhabitants of yards, gar­ dens, and farm hedgerows in the warmer ! parts of Vermont. They are cavity nesters, taking readily to birdhouses and utilizing a wide variety of natural and artificial cavities. ~! House Wrens forage near the ground and thus prefer the cover provided by thick, brushy vegetation. These birds are not al­ dates for Vermont, determined from 10 ways associated with human habitation; iso­ clutches, range from May 18 to July 16. lated pairs may be found nesting in a variety Records of 17 nests containing young in­ of locales, including beaver ponds, swamps, clude dates from June 10 to August 2; six hedgerows, and streamside thickets. dates for recently fledged young range from Male House Wrens return to Vermont in June 24 to August 8. Late fledgling dates late April and early May; most are back by suggest that eggs are sometimes laid as late the first week of May. They immediately set as the first week of July. Although House about establishing territories by sounding Wrens are usually double-brooded, in north­ their distinctive loud, bubbling warble, and ern Vermont most pairs probably only man­ begin claiming all available nest sites within age a single brood. The species' autumn their territories by building stick "nests" in migration is inconspicuous, probably peak­ all nearby cavities. Nest sites are generally ing in September.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Houses for Cavity Nesting Songbirds – SW Oregon – Guidelines
    Lee Webb, Wildlife Biologist 22 March 2002 Bird Houses for Cavity Nesting Songbirds – SW Oregon – Guidelines Nest Box Placement 1. Face box away from afternoon sun, nor should the prevailing wind blow into the opening. 2. Correct height, but not so high the box can’t be checked or cleaned (see Table below). 3. Generally, nest boxes placed on the bare portion of a tree trunk or on a pole in the open have a better chance of being occupied than do boxes surrounded by vegetation. 4. The top of the box should not tip to the rear (backwards). Young birds might not be able to get out! 5. Boxes do not need perches, which serve predators better than residents of the boxes. 6. Well-spaced-out boxes will receive more use than those clustered together. (Avoid inter- and intra-species territorial conflicts.) If possible, place boxes so that one cannot be seen from another. 7. Black-capped chickadee (conifer), White-breasted Nuthatch (conifer), Oak Titmouse (hardwood), and Ash-throated Flycatcher (hardwood) seem to favor nest boxes placed up into the lowest live limbs of the preferred tree type, a short distance (perhaps 1 to 3 feet) out from the bole, preferably not in densely vegetative limbs, but somewhat open. (Dennis Vroman) Song birds which use standard “square” nest boxes with an entrance hole of 1½" SW Oregon (Siskiyou National Forest and surrounding areas) Likely Possible (these species tend to prefer natural “tree-like” cavities) Western Bluebird Black-capped Chickadee* Mountain Bluebird (at high elevation) Chestnut-backed Chickadee* (higher elevation) Tree Swallow Mountain Chickadee* (at high elevation) Violet-green Swallow White-breasted Nuthatch* (valleys, foothills) House Finch (sometimes nest in bird houses) Red-breasted Nuthatch* (higher elevation) House Wren* Oak Titmouse* (valleys, foothills) Bewick’s Wren* Bold = most common nest box users in interior (Rogue/Illinois) valleys.
    [Show full text]
  • Foraging Behavior of Plain-Mantled Tit-Spinetail (Leptasthenura Aegithaloides) in Semiarid Matorral, North-Central Chile
    ORNITOLOGIA NEOTROPICAL 22: 247–256, 2011 © The Neotropical Ornithological Society FORAGING BEHAVIOR OF PLAIN-MANTLED TIT-SPINETAIL (LEPTASTHENURA AEGITHALOIDES) IN SEMIARID MATORRAL, NORTH-CENTRAL CHILE Andrew Engilis Jr. & Douglas A. Kelt Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology - University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Resumen. – Comportamiento de forrajeo del tijeral (Leptasthenura aegithaloides) en matorral semiárido, centro-norte de Chile. – Hemos estudiado el comportamiento de forrajeo del tijeral (Leptas- thenura aegithaloides) en el matorral del centro-norte de Chile. Se trata de una especie de la familia Fur- nariidae que es insectívora recolectora desde perchas. Frecuenta los arbustos más dominantes y busca presas y alimentos principalmente en el follaje, grupos de flores, pequeñas ramas y masas de líquenes. Los arbustos preferidos incluyen a Porlieria y Baccharis. Se alimentan desde alturas cercanas al suelo hasta arbustos superiores a dos metros de altura. Se los encuentra más frecuentemente en parejas o en grupos pequeños, posiblemente familias, de tres a cinco aves. Las densidades promedio en el matorral (1,49 - 1,69 aves por hectárea) son mayores que las reportadas para otros lugares. Los tijerales en el matorral forman grupos de especies mixtas con facilidad, especialmente en el invierno Austral. Su estrategia de forrajeo y su comportamiento son similares a las del Mito sastrecillo de América del Norte (Psaltriparus minimus) y del Mito común (Aegithalos caudatus), ambos de la familia Aegithalidae, sugir- iendo estrategias ecológicas convergentes en ambientes estructuralmente similares. Abstract. – We studied foraging behavior of Plain-mantled Tit-spinetail (Leptasthenura aegithaloides) in matorral (scrubland) habitat of north-central Chile.
    [Show full text]
  • House Wren Nest-Destroying Behavior’
    The Condor 88:190-193 0 The Cooper Ornithological Society 1986 HOUSE WREN NEST-DESTROYING BEHAVIOR’ JEAN-CLAUDE BELLES-ISLES AND JAROSLAV PICMAN Department of Biology, Universityof Ottawa, Ottawa KIN 6N5, Canada Abstract. House Wren (Troglodytesaedon) nest-destroying behavior was studied by experi- mentally offering 38 wrens nestswith eggs(or nestlings)throughout the nesting season.Individuals of both sexespecked all six types of eggspresented, regardless of the nest type and location. House Wrens also attacked conspecificyoung. Older nestlings(nine days old) were less vulnerable than three-day-old young. Our resultssuggest that nest-destroyingbehavior is inherent in all adult House Wrens but is inhibited in mated males and breeding females. It is suggestedthat nest destruction may have evolved as an interference mechanism reducing intra- and interspecific competition. Key words: House Wren; Troglodytes aedon; infanticide;nest destruction; competition. INTRODUCTION specificnestlings? (3) Is this behavior exhibited Destruction of eggs by small passerinesis a throughout the breeding season?(4) Do indi- relatively rare phenomenon which has been vidual House Wrens destroy neststhroughout observed mainly in members of two families, their breeding cycle? (5) How widespread is the Troglodytidae and Mimidae. Species this behavior among individuals from a pop- known to destroy eggsinclude the Marsh Wren ulation? (6) Is this behavior a local phenom- (Cistothoruspalustris; Allen 19 14); House enon or is it characteristic of all House Wren Wren (Troglodytesaedon; Sherman 1925, populations?(7) What is the adaptive value of Kendeigh 194 1); Cactus Wren (Campylorhyn- this behavior? thusbrunneicapillus; Anderson and Anderson METHODS 1973); SedgeWren (Cistothorusplatensis; Pic- man and Picman 1980); Bewick’s Wren This study was conducted at Presqu’ile Pro- (Thryomanesbewickii; J.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Biology of the Long-Billed Marsh Wren
    Vol. 67 BREEDING BIOLOGY OF THE LONG-BILLED MARSH WREN BY JARED VERNER Although much of the life history of the Long-billed Marsh Wren (Telmatodytes pulustris) has been described (see especially Welter, 1935 ; Bent, 1948; and Kale, MS), most aspects have not been quantified adequately to permit analysis of geo- graphical variation between populations, Such variation often leads to insights into the ecology of a species which would otherwise be impossible. This paper presents comparative data on birds from two populations in Washington State, one (T. p. paludicola) at Seattle, the other (T. p. plesius) at Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge, 15 miles south of Spokane and 22.5 miles due east of Seattle (fig. 1). Other aspects of this study are treated elsewhere (Verner, 1964; also MS, 1963). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to acknowledge the numerous helpful suggestions and criticisms of Drs. Frank Richardson and Gordon H. Orians throughout the course of this study. Dr. R. C. Snyder kindly read the manuscript. Many colleagues assisted with field work and were helpful in discussions of the data; in this regard I would especially like to thank T. H. Frazzetta, M. E. Kriebel, K. P. Mauzey, E. R. Pianka, C. C. Smith, L. W. Spring, and M. F. Willson. My wife, Marlene, processed many of the raw field data and was responsible for lettering most of the figures. Working facilities were provided by the Department of Zoology, University of Washington, and financial assistance was provided by National Science Foundation predoctoral fellowships (1960-1963). STUDY AREAS At Seattle, two marshes (Red, 6.3 acres, and Blue, 3.3 acres) in the University of Washington Arboretum were studied in 1961.
    [Show full text]
  • Avian Response to Meadow Restoration in the Central Great Plains
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center US Geological Survey 2006 Avian Response to Meadow Restoration in the Central Great Plains Rosalind B. Renfrew Vermont Center for Ecostudies Douglas H. Johnson USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Gary R. Lingle Assessment Impact Monitoring Environmental Consulting W. Douglas Robinson Oregon State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons Renfrew, Rosalind B.; Johnson, Douglas H.; Lingle, Gary R.; and Robinson, W. Douglas, "Avian Response to Meadow Restoration in the Central Great Plains" (2006). USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 236. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/236 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in PRAIRIE INVADERS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE CONFERENCE, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY, July 23–26, 2006, edited by Joseph T. Springer and Elaine C. Springer. Kearney, Nebraska : University of Nebraska at Kearney, 2006. Pages 313-324. AVIAN RESPONSE TO MEADOW RESTORATION IN THE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS ROSALIND B. RENFREW, Vermont Center for Ecostudies, P.O. Box 420, Norwich, VT 05055, USA DOUGLAS H. JOHNSON, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA GARY R. LINGLE, Assessment Impact Monitoring Environmental Consulting, 1568 L Road, Minden, NE 68959, USA W.
    [Show full text]