DOCSLIB.ORG

Notes on Protocalliphora During the Summer of 1931

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Notes on Protocalliphora During the Summer of 1931 Vol.1932III AUSTIN,Cobb Island DUTCI-IER• •VILLIA:I 1901--"Results of Special Protection to Gulls and Terns Obtained through the Thayer Fund." Auk, Vol. 18, pp. 76-104. 1902--"Results of Special Protection to Gulls and Terns Obtained through the Thayer Fund." .4vk, Vol. 19, pp. 34-64. 1903--"Report of the A.O.U. Committee on the Protection oi Xorth American Birds." •uk, Vol. 20, pp. 101-159. Fis•, W•L•t H. 1897•"Cobb's Island, Virginia." Osprey, Vol. 1, pp. 107-109. HADLEY,A. H. 193•"A V•s•t to Cobb'sIsland." Bird-Lore, Vol. 32, pp. 318-320. H•xsa•w, H. W. 1879•"Occurrence of the Caspian Tern upon the Coast of Virginia." B•dl. •Vutt. Orn. Club, Vol. 4, pp. 243-244. HOWELL,A. B. 1911•"A ComparativeStudy at Cobb'sIsland. Va." •ttk, ¾O1.28, pp. •9-453. Jo•, H. K. 1905•"I. gild [ghtgs." Pzx•sox, T. G. 1892•"Collectlngon Cobb'sIsland, Va." Oolog[st,Vol. 9, pp. 191-193. RI•wxy, R. 188•"Description of the Eggs of the CaspianTern." Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. 5, pp. 221-223. Rives, W. C. 18•"A Catalogueof the Birds of the V•rg[nias."Proc..Vowport Nat. Hist. Soc., D•. 7, pp. 1•. ]o•xsox, Notes on Protovalliphora Bird-Bandln• Jaauar¾ NOTESON PROTOCALLIPHORADURING THE SUMMER OF 1931 By Cmx/tLEsW. Jo•xsox BostoJ[Society 6f A'aturalHistory T•E work of Mr. \Villiam P. \Vharton of Groton, Massachu- setts,on the methodof combatingthe injury done to nestling birdsby theblood-sucking maggots of Protocalliphoraby remov- ing the original.nestafter the birds are severaldays okt and substitutinga hand-madeone provesmost interesting..The fol- lcxvingis a list of the nestsMr. Wharton sent to me, with his notes,to which I have addedwhat the nestsactually contained. Jtme 12. Bluebird. "The original nest was removed after the youugwere four daysold." The very youngmaggots failed to pnpate. June20. Tree Swallow. "Nest removedin a similarman- ner to that of the Bluebird." This nest when examined contained 37 pupariafrom which37 fliesof Protocatl•phorasialia emerged. lune 25. Bluebird. "Original nest removed."Only one sn;allpuparium and fly of P. sialia. June 25. Barn Swallow. "Nest removedafter the young had fallen from it and died." The dead birds were sent with the nest. After removing the birds all that I obtained from the nest was a number of the two scavengerflies, popularly known as "bluebottles." Cal[iphora z'iride•cen• and Lucilia se•'icata. June26. Robin. "Inside portionof the nest removedxvhen maggotswere noticed iu it, after the youngbirds had left." From sevenpuparia emerged seven P. siaIia. ß June .9. Bluebird. Nest substitutedby me for that re- movedon June 12th. The youngleft apparentlym goodcon- dition."In thenest were 34 puparia,18 of whichwere parasitised by the little chalcidMormonleila vitripennis, Walk. (brevicornis Ashre.) June29. SongSparrow. "The nestwas collected after the youngbirds had apparentlyleft prematurely,one having been founddead beneath the nest."From the pupariaemerged 4 males and one female,referable to-ProtocalIiphora splendida Macq. The malesmore closely resemble those of P. sialiathan any I haveseeu, but theterminal s%mnent of theabdomen is a bright green, not blue. July'1. Tree Swallow."The young 'birds were in good co'dillonwhen ßremoved from the nest." The nest was placed in va.1932III Jo•z.x'so•,NotesonProtocallOhor a [.97 ag/ass jar,and the puparia werenoticed alittle later tobe heavilyparasitized. Anexamination ofthe nest September 1lth showedthatonly 3flies hademerged; 46of the puparia hadthe lilleexit holes ofthe chalcid Mormom¾Ila vitripennis,and three brokenwereapparentlyopen, and dead.•[ was Onesurprised of the latterto find pupariain it the was,larv•however, of a pearedparasitebetweenmuch largerthe 15th than andthose 20th ofofthe July. chalcid, Evidently whichwehad haveap- anotherparasite ofProtocalliphora thatpossibly •)asses the butwinterdoubt intheif I puparium can raise ofthemthe nowfly. Ithat am guardingthe puparium themiscarefullybroken. Irestfits. amnow saving allsupposed deadpuparia, hopingfor some July10. Tree Swallow. "Thereplaced nestofthe above brood,theyoung apparently allhaving flownbnt one, which wasdead." Thenest contained 34maggots, 9 larva. and 3 puparia,which were preserved inalcohol. Fromthe other werepuparia dead.emerged 14flies ofwhich -? were parasitized and4 July2. TreeSwallow. "Thisis also areplaced nest.Two ofthe young birds died, three having probably flown."The nestcontained 38puparia, 34of which were parasitized bythe littlechalcid Mormoniella. Thisisanother remarkaNy h•gl(per- 91centageper cent,of parasitism.while inthis Inonethe itnestis over of96.July per /stcent.there was over July16. Honse Wren. "The young birdshad probably /eft17flies the emergednest ingoodand 5condition.'• were dead. The nest contained --99 puparia- , .July 16. Starling. Thelarge nest was alive with mites whenreceived. Thenest was examined September 11thand contained69pupafla. Fiftyflies had emerged; 8were dead and 11had been destroyed bysome predaceous insect,alarge irregu- Housefly"larwereholealso havingpresent(Iv,to.,;,, beennumerousmade . onß •.nuthe paria side . and ofthe fl•es puparium.,Thereof the 'Little ß -, - ...... -.,• camcutarls} "Meal ....... ,, - • . ooscurus} the C'".ad•11• /.• ./, -. ,• wurlTl {.lC'11COI'lO ........ r t•eneoro•aesmauritanicus), a little filthymoth,nest. Monopis irrorella, etc.,all acting asscavengers inthe theJulynest 28.onto Barn the floor Swallow. and were "The saved."young Thehadnestjumped contained out42of puparia;26flies emerged; 16were parasitized and6were dead. Protocalliphora.August1. House Wren. The nest contained nopuparia of Mr.A. W. Higgins ofRock, Massachusetts, sentaBluebird's nestandunder date.of July 8th says: "The nest belongs tothe '•8] Jonxsox,Notes on Protocalliphora JanuaryBird-Bandin• secondclutch of e(,•,s'the first nestwas destroyedbv a male House Sparrow.The nestwas takenJuly 2d, and the four young birdswere alive. I counted119 maggots and pupaein the nests." The nest was put in a jar when received,but evidentlya few of the maggotsescaped in transit, for 1 find only 109 puparia. from which emerged51 flies; 13 were parasitizedand 45 were dead. Mr. Higgi•s also sent a Tree Swallow'snest, which he said had contained one dead bird and one alive, which left nest June 29th. The nest contained21 puparia and 21 flies emerged. On Max, 16th Mr. Paul A. Stewart of Leetonia, Ohio. sent me the nest of a Starling. from which 92 Protocalliphorasialia emerged early in June. Mr. Stewart writes: "The young birds in the nest were not dead but apparentlyhealthy. Probablythe infestat/on was not sufficientlyheavy to destroy the six young thenest contained." If 92 large bloo[l-sucking maggots failed to have anv effect on the young Starlings, I think that it throws s•m]e1ig'•t on the situation in NewEngland where the Starlings havebeen so preYalent for severalyears. I hare suggestedbefore that the Starlingsprobably have somethingto do with the ap- pai'ent increaseof Protocalliphorain this section.and as I continne this work I feel more convinced that this is the case. Our native birds cannot competewith. this more vigorousin- truder. On August 1st Mr. Stewartsent the nestof a Bluebirdwith the followingnote: "The •onng Bluebirdsin the nest were.in an entirely healthycondition. Ten maggotshave been removed from the nest and preserved.I would appreciatevery much if you will sendme the numberof adult flies producedby the maggots."There were 64 puparia,from whichemerged 51 flies; therewere also13 smallundeveloped larvze. None of the puparia were parasitized.quite unusualfor this time of the year. Mr. Wendell P. Smith of Wells River, Vermont, in sending a Bluebird's nest taken May 27th says: "Four young birds died in the nest during the 25th and 26th. I noticed larvae,about one eighth of an inch in length, of a drab color." A few of the larvm pupated,but most of them were too young to transform. On July 2d Mr. O. L. Austin, Austin OrnithologicalResearch Station, South Wellfleet, Massachusetts, sent ten nests of the Tree Swallow.It wassomething of a surprisewhen an examina- tion failed to showa singleProtocalliphora. Fleas and mites were abundantin someof the nests.Is Protocalliphoraabsent on Cape Cod ? The contentsfrom a Downy Broodpeckersnest from Holder- heSS,New Hampshire,were receivedfrom Mrs. R. B. Harding. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tree Swallows (Tachycineta Bicolor) Nesting on Wetlands Impacted by Oil Sands Mining Are Highly Parasitized by the Bird Blow Fly Protocalliphora Spp
    Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 43(2), 2007, pp. 167–178 # Wildlife Disease Association 2007 TREE SWALLOWS (TACHYCINETA BICOLOR) NESTING ON WETLANDS IMPACTED BY OIL SANDS MINING ARE HIGHLY PARASITIZED BY THE BIRD BLOW FLY PROTOCALLIPHORA SPP. Marie-Line Gentes,1 Terry L. Whitworth,2 Cheryl Waldner,3 Heather Fenton,1 and Judit E. Smits1,4 1 Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4, Canada 2 Whitworth Pest Solutions, Inc., 2533 Inter Avenue, Puyallup, Washington, USA 3 Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4, Canada 4 Corresponding author (email: [email protected]) ABSTRACT: Oil sands mining is steadily expanding in Alberta, Canada. Major companies are planning reclamation strategies for mine tailings, in which wetlands will be used for the bioremediation of water and sediments contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and naphthenic acids during the extraction process. A series of experimental wetlands were built on companies’ leases to assess the feasibility of this approach, and tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) were designated as upper trophic biological sentinels. From May to July 2004, prevalence and intensity of infestation with bird blow flies Protocalliphora spp. (Diptera: Calliphoridae) were measured in nests on oil sands reclaimed wetlands and compared with those on a reference site. Nestling growth and survival also were monitored. Prevalence of infestation was surprisingly high for a small cavity nester; 100% of the 38 nests examined were infested. Nests on wetlands containing oil sands waste materials harbored on average from 60% to 72% more blow fly larvae than those on the reference site.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Barcoding Cannot Reliably Identify Species of the Blowfly Genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae)
    DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae). T. L. Whitworth, R. D. Dawson, Hélène Magalon, E. Baudry To cite this version: T. L. Whitworth, R. D. Dawson, Hélène Magalon, E. Baudry. DNA barcoding cannot reli- ably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae).. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Royal Society, The, 2007, 274 (1619), pp.1731-1739. 10.1098/rspb.2007.0062. hal-00941689 HAL Id: hal-00941689 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00941689 Submitted on 6 May 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae) T. L. Whitworth1, R. D. Dawson2, H. Magalon3 and E. Baudry4,* 1Washington State University, 2533 Inter Avenue, Puyallup, WA 98372, USA 2University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia V2N 4Z9, Canada 3Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Universite´ Paris VI, Paris 75252, France 4Laboratoire Ecologie, Systematique et Evolution, Universite´ Paris-Sud, Baˆtiment 362, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France In DNA barcoding, a short standardized DNA sequence is used to assign unknown individuals to species and aid in the discovery of new species.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera: Calliphoridae) T
    Proc. R. Soc. B (2007) 274, 1731–1739 doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0062 Published online 1 May 2007 DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae) T. L. Whitworth1, R. D. Dawson2, H. Magalon3 and E. Baudry4,* 1Washington State University, 2533 Inter Avenue, Puyallup, WA 98372, USA 2University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia V2N 4Z9, Canada 3Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Universite´ Paris VI, Paris 75252, France 4Laboratoire Ecologie, Systematique et Evolution, Universite´ Paris-Sud, Baˆtiment 362, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France In DNA barcoding, a short standardized DNA sequence is used to assign unknown individuals to species and aid in the discovery of new species. A fragment of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 is emerging as the standard barcode region for animals. However, patterns of mitochondrial variability can be confounded by the spread of maternally transmitted bacteria that cosegregate with mitochondria. Here, we investigated the performance of barcoding in a sample comprising 12 species of the blow fly genus Protocalliphora, known to be infected with the endosymbiotic bacteria Wolbachia.We found that the barcoding approach showed very limited success: assignment of unknown individuals to species is impossible for 60% of the species, while using the technique to identify new species would underestimate the species number in the genus by 75%. This very low success of the barcoding approach is due to the non-monophyly of many of the species at the mitochondrial level. We even observed individuals from four different species with identical barcodes, which is, to our knowledge, the most extensive case of mtDNA haplotype sharing yet described.
    [Show full text]
  • LCR MSCP Species Accounts, 2008
    Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District No. 3, Pinal County, Arizona Basic Water Company Golden Shores Water Conservation District Mohave County Water Authority Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Native American Participant Group Mohave Water Conservation District North Gila Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Hualapai Tribe Town of Fredonia Colorado River Indian Tribes Town of Thatcher The Cocopah Indian Tribe Town of Wickenburg Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Unit “B” Irrigation and Drainage District Conservation Participant Group Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Yuma County Water Users’ Association Ducks Unlimited Yuma Irrigation District Lower Colorado River RC&D Area, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts of Those Ar- Dana L Moseley Ticles Using Packages Tm and Topicmodels in R to Ex- Graham E Derryberry Tract Common Words and Trends
    ABSTRACT BOOK Listed alphabetically by last name of presenting author Oral Presentations . 2 Lightning Talks . 161 Posters . 166 AOS 2018 Meeting 9-14 April 2018 ORAL PRESENTATIONS Combining citizen science with targeted monitoring we argue how the framework allows for effective large- for Gulf of Mexico tidal marsh birds scale inference and integration of multiple monitoring efforts. Scientists and decision-makers are interested Evan M Adams in a range of outcomes at the regional scale, includ- Mark S Woodrey ing estimates of population size and population trend Scott A Rush to answering questions about how management actions Robert J Cooper or ecological questions influence bird populations. The SDM framework supports these inferences in several In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill affected many ways by: (1) monitoring projects with synergistic ac- marsh birds in the Gulf of Mexico; yet, a lack of prior tivities ranging from using approved standardized pro- monitoring data made assessing impacts to these the tocols, flexible data sharing policies, and leveraging population impacts difficult. As a result, the Gulf of multiple project partners; (2) rigorous data collection Mexico Avian Monitoring Network (GoMAMN) was that make it possible to integrate multiple monitoring established, with one of its objectives being to max- projects; and (3) monitoring efforts that cover multiple imize the value of avian monitoring projects across priorities such that projects designed for status assess- the region. However, large scale assessments of these ment can also be useful for learning or describing re- species are often limited, tidal marsh habitat in this re- sponses to management activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Key to British Blowflies (Calliphoridae) And
    Draft key to British Calliphoridae and Rhinophoridae Steven Falk 2016 BRITISH BLOWFLIES (CALLIPHORIDAE) AND WOODLOUSE FLIES (RHINOPHORIDAE) DRAFT KEY March 2016 Steven Falk Feedback to [email protected] 1 Draft key to British Calliphoridae and Rhinophoridae Steven Falk 2016 PREFACE This informal publication attempts to update the resources currently available for identifying the families Calliphoridae and Rhinophoridae. Prior to this, British dipterists have struggled because unless you have a copy of the Fauna Ent. Scand. volume for blowflies (Rognes, 1991), you will have been largely reliant on Van Emden's 1954 RES Handbook, which does not include all the British species (notably the common Pollenia pediculata), has very outdated nomenclature, and very outdated classification - with several calliphorids and tachinids placed within the Rhinophoridae and Eurychaeta palpalis placed in the Sarcophagidae. As well as updating keys, I have also taken the opportunity to produce new species accounts which summarise what I know of each species and act as an invitation and challenge to others to update, correct or clarify what I have written. As a result of my recent experience of producing an attractive and fairly user-friendly new guide to British bees, I have tried to replicate that approach here, incorporating lots of photos and clear, conveniently positioned diagrams. Presentation of identification literature can have a big impact on the popularity of an insect group and the accuracy of the records that result. Calliphorids and rhinophorids are fascinating flies, sometimes of considerable economic and medicinal value and deserve to be well recorded. What is more, many gaps still remain in our knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • By Terry L. Whitworth a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of in Zoology Logan, Utah
    A STUDY OF THE BIOLOGY OF THE SPECIES OF PROTOCALLIPHORA IN THE NORTHERN WASATCH RANGE by Terry L. Whitworth A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Zoology UTAH STA TE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 1971 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend thanks to the following people who assisted me in this study: to Dr. Wilford J. Hanson, my major professor, for his continual guidance and advice; to Mr. Kenneth J. Capelle, Bear River Research Station, for initially interesting me in this project and aiding me throughout its completion ; and to Mr . Curtis W. Sabrosky of the U. S . National Museum of Natural History for his assistance in identification of specimens. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of several ornithologists who aided me in the collection of bird nests. Thanks go to Dr . Keith L. Dixon, Utah State Universit y , who provided me with considerable information on bird habits and life histories. I am especially indebted to Mr. Scott W. Sawby who accompanied me on num erous field trips and provided me with man y raptor nests. Others who assisted in the collection of bird nests include Mr . Richard M. Burr, Mr . Joe B. Platt, Miss Janet L. Young , and Mrs. Vivian T. Anderson, and I gratefully acknowledge their aid . Finally, special thanks go to my wife, Faye, who assisted me both in the field and in the preparation of this manuscript. Terry L. Whitworth iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES V ABSTRACT vi INTRODUCTION 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3 METHODS 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13 Infestation of Protocalliphora in Relation to Bird Species .
    [Show full text]
  • Wolbachia Distribution and Reproductive Effects in Populations of a Neotropical Beetle, Chelymorpha Alternans Boh
    WOLBACHIA DISTRIBUTION AND REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS IN POPULATIONS OF A NEOTROPICAL BEETLE, CHELYMORPHA ALTERNANS BOH. (CHRYSOMELIDAE) by GWEN P. KELLER (Under the Direction of KENNETH G. ROSS) ABSTRACT Wolbachia is a group of maternally-inherited endocellular bacteria that manipulate arthropod reproduction to favor infected females. While strains of these bacteria have been found in all insect orders where at least 17% of all insect species infected, few studies have investigated the distribution and effects of Wolbachia in natural populations. Here I present a review of Wolbachia research in the context of host biology (chapter 2) and I describe original research (chapter 3) that details the distribution and effects of Wolbachia in a Neotropical beetle, Chelymorpha alternans, that is infected with two Wolbachia strains, wCalt1 and wCalt2. In chapter 3 I describe the two strains based on three Wolbachia genes, I track their distribution across space and time in host populations throughout the Panamanian isthmus, I determine strain effects on host reproduction, and I show a correlation between environmental effects and the ongoing loss of one strain. This is the first study to show the loss of a Wolbachia strain from natural populations and I discuss the possible factors responsible for the loss. INDEX WORDS: Wolbachia, Chelymorpha, cytoplasmic incompatibility, strain loss WOLBACHIA DISTRIBUTION AND REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS IN POPULATIONS OF A NEOTROPICAL BEETLE, CHELYMORPHA ALTERNANS by GWEN P. KELLER University of Georgia, 2005 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2005 © 2005 GWEN P.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Assessment Tools
    Appendix A: Assessment Tools SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON SUBBASIN PLANNING ECOREGION WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT 208 Interactive Biodiversity Information System IBIS is an informational resource developed by the Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) to promote the conservation of Northwest fish, wildlife, and their habitats through education and the distribution of timely, peer-reviewed scientific data. IBIS contains extensive information about Pacific Northwest fish, wildlife, and their habitats, but more noteworthy, IBIS attempts to reveal and analyze the relationships among these species and their habitats. NHI hopes to make the IBIS web site a place where students, scientists, resource managers or any other interested user can discover and analyze these relationships without having to purchase special software (such as geographic information systems) or hassle with the integration of disparate data sets. IBIS will, however, provide downloadable data for users who desire to perform more advanced analyses or to integrate their own data sets with IBIS data. Finally, NHI sees IBIS as not only a fish, wildlife, and habitat information distribution system but also as a peer-review system for species data. We acknowledge that in a system as extensive as IBIS, there are going to be errors as well as disagreement among scientists regarding the attributes of species and their relationships. NHI encourages IBIS users to provide feedback so we may correct errors and discuss discrepancies. The IBIS web site is in the early stages of development, however, NHI staff, with the support of many project partners, has been developing the data for over five years. The IBIS database was initially developed by NHI for Oregon and Washington during the Wildlife-Habitat Types in Oregon and Washington project.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices for Species of Significance in Stanley Park
    Best Management Practices for Species of Significance in Stanley Park Submitted to: Alan Duncan, Vancouver Park Board Submitted by: Robyn Worcester and Brian Titaro, Stanley Park Ecology Society Date: 12 June, 2012 Acknowledgments Authors: Robyn Worcester, Dipl. Tech., B.Sc, RPBio - Conservation Programs Manager, Stanley Park Ecology Society Brian Titaro, B.E.S, EPt - Conservation Technician, Stanley Park Ecology Society Editors: Leora Fenner, Louise Pedersen and Patricia Thomson Funding Support: Peer Review: Abby Schwarz Laurence Brown Bruce Cousens Maria Morlin Carlene Lee Mark White Caroline Astley Melissa Todd Carmen Cardin Michael Price Dalyce Epp Michael Chutter Dick Cannings Pontus Lindgren Elizabeth Elle Peter Woods Elke Wind Ralph Wells Erin Rutherford Rob Cannings Isabelle Aube Roy Teo Jennifer Heron Sandie Hollick Kenyon Karen Barry Sheila Byers Karen Needham Susan Leech Kiyoshi Takashashi Terry Taylor Krista Englund ZoAnn Morten Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Goal ................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Its Natural History
    the Chipping Sparrow EAUME R Its Natural History OM T 2020 Chipping Sparrow ▬ The Chipping Sparrow Its Natural History © Tom Reaume 2020 London, Ontario, Canada [email protected] Cover photographs by Tom Reaume – TR A FREE ebook of 160 pages Created using InDesign & Photoshop Elements on an iMac Typeface – Arial was designed in 1982 by a 10-person team led by Patricia Saunders and Robin Nicholas. Settings 10 / 13 / 50 Most Photographs and ink drawings are by the author – TR Juvenile – TR 2 ▬ Tom Reaume Chipping Sparrow ▬ Figures Page Boxes 45 CHSP data from one nest in Winnipeg, Manitoba 57 CHSP brooding periods of nestlings – TR 85 CHSP grain size eaten vs bill size in Texas Diagrams 46 CHSP nest positions from tree trunk 103 Auditory pathway in the brain of a songbird 104 Small songbird ear labyrinth 136 CHSP new species of nasal mite (female) in Canada Graphs 29 CHSP abundance in 4 habitats in Massachusetts 64 Peak hatching data for 3 sparrows in MN 97 CHSP dawn and daytime singing patterns in breeding stages 102 CHSP number of notes from 461 trills 105 CHSP juvenile calls, day 20, F vs M 113 CHSP banding numbers in ON and at Long Point, 1987–2013 120 Banding encounter rates of small birds, 1955–1995 135 CHSP response to the arrival of West Nile virus in 1999 Lists 8 Eight Spizella species of sparrows 10 Sister taxa of 7 species of sparrows Maps 9 CHSP boundaries of 3 subspecies 15 CHSP behavioral ranges 17 Brown-headed Cowbird behavioral ranges 35 CHSP breeding bird survey 1966–2011 52 CHSP distribution squares for the MB Breeding
    [Show full text]
  • The Parasitic Blow Fly, Protocalliphora Spatulata, in Two New Host Species
    SHORT COMMUNICATIONS 179 3 min, a Marbled Murrelet flew to the nest when Ford was 3-l m away. On 28 July, an adult Marbled Murrelet flushed from the nest as we approached. The pipping egg was rocking in the nest. We set an 8 mm video camera near the nest to record the adults’ return and departed at 05: 12. At 0.5:17, an adult Marbled Murrelet landed at the platform and approached to within 10 cm of the egg. It sat almost motionless, near the egg, until flushing at 05:29 upon our approach. Approximately 2 min later, before we could leave the nest site, the adult flew to within 1 m of the nest before flying away again. On 2 August, Ford found the nest unattended. Eggshell fragments were located at the foot of the cliff below the nest. Absence of a nestling, the condition of the eggshell frag- ments, and the lack of fecal material in the nest suggested that the egg (or nestling if it hatched) had been destroyed by a predator. The persistent behavior of the adult Marbled Murrelet(s) around the nest while we were present in the area indicated that it probably did not abandon the nest until the egg (or nestling) was destroyed. The nest was on a platform of moss (Hylocomium splendens and Rhytidiadelphus loreus) on top of three intertwining roots of a western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), 26.7 cm in diameter at breast height (dbh) and approximately 15 m tall, at the top edge of a cliff. The nest platform was suspended 11 m above the foot of the cliff.
    [Show full text]