Summer Roadside Raptor Surveys in the Western Pampas of Argentina
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
152 Sno}•r COMMUNICATIONS VOL. 38, NO. 2 nus). During one hunt, eight falconschased a king- A wild hatch-year(HY) male falcon wasfbund eating bird for about 1 rain until it sought refuge in a mes- prey while perched on the rafters underneath one of quite. The falconsfollowed it, with five waiting in the the hack boxes.Attendants reported that this falcon treetop while three others ran and hopped through "generouslyshared" his kill, possiblya swallow,with a the lower branchesuntil the kingbird flushed and was female hacked falcon. captured, a sequenceoften exhibited by mated pairs A wild-hatched adult female arrived at a hack site and (Keddy-Hector 2000). led the first successfulgroup hunt of the yr. She cap- 3. In 1993, a group of sevenfalcons chasedand caught tured a meadowlarkafter chasingit together with two a Ladder-backedWoodpecker (Picoidesscalaris). Sev- HY hacked falcons, all three stooping in turn. At a eral falcons fed on it simultaneously,while the others different hack site, a previouslyhacked adult female settled on perches nearby. When a Northern Harrier regularly visited from 1999-2002. This falcon occa- (Circuscyaneus) approached the kill site, two of the sionallyfed from the tower,joined in hunts and tower non-feedingfalcons left the group and drove the har- defense, and tolerated food-beggingfrom the HY fal- rier awaywhile the others continued their meal un- cons. Attendants described her behavior as "mentor- disturbed (C. Perez pers. comm.). ing." j RaptorRes. 38(2):152-157 ¸ 2004 The Raptor ResearchFoundation, Inc. SUMMER ROADSIDE RAPTOR SURVEYS IN THE WESTERN PAMPAS OF ARGENTINA MICHAELI. GOLDSTEIN1 AND TOBYJ. HIBBITTS 9 TexasA&M University,Department of Wildlifeand Fishe•esSciences, 2258 TAMU, CollegeStation, TX 77843 U.S.A. KEyWOP, DS: ChimangoCaracara; Milvago chimango;Crest- to Zapala, Neuqu•n (Travaini et al. 1995); we add to this ed Caracara;Caracara plancus; agriculture,,mesquiW,, Argen- body of knowledge and report results obtained from tzna; survey. roadside raptor surveyscarried out during December 1998 and January 1999 in the provincesof La Pampa, Roadsidesurveys are useful for assessinghabitat pref- C6rdoba, and San Lugs. erences of diurnal raptors. Although the limitations and STUDY AREA AND METHODS biases inherent in roadside counts are well known (Fuller and Mosher 1987), roadsidesurveys serve as a practical Survey routes extended from Huanchilla, C6rdoba in means for rapidly assessingraptor distribution and abun- the north and Intendente Alvear, La Pampa in the east dance over large areas (Ellis et al. 1990). Roadside sur- to the western border of La Pampa Province,approach- veys have been used to compare speciesrichness and ing the Rio Negro near the city of Neuqu•n in the prov- abundancebetween broad regions and to assessimpacts ince of Neuqu6n, Argentina (ca. 35øS,64øW; Fig. 1). The climate becomes more arid from the eastern coast (Buen- of anthropogenic-habitat transformations on raptors. os Aires) to the mountains of western Argentina, with These typesof surveyshave been carried out in Europe vegetationchanging l?om agriculturalgrasslands to mes- (Meyburg 1973), Al'rica (Cade 1969), North America quite (Prosopisspp.) to desert-scrubgrasslands. We chose (Woffinden and Murphy 1977), Latin America (Ellis et four primary landscapedivisions based on characteristics al 1990), Patagonia (Don•zar et al. 1993), and a grass- of the predominant vegetation type: agriculture, mixed land-agricultural ecosystemin Argentina (Leveau and agriculture/mesquite, mesquite, and desert-scrubgrass- Leveau 2002). The distribution of raptors acrosscentral lands. Argentina was surveyed east to west from Buenos Aires The agriculture category consistedof a mix of cattle ranching and row-crop agriculture,with dominant sum- ruer crops of alfalfa, sunflower, sorghum, and corn. In the agricultural region, forestsand shrubs exist intermit- • Presentaddress: USDA ForestService, Chugach Nation- tently, generally planted as shade areas for cattle, for al Forest, 3301 C Street, Suite 300, Anchorage,AK 99503 wind breaks between fields, and as entrance corridors to U.S.A.; e-mail address:[email protected] estatehouses. These forestsmost frequently consistedof 9 Present address: School of Animal, Plant and Environ- groves of introduced eucalyptus (Eucalyptusspp.) trees. mental Sciences,University of the Witwatersrand,Private The mixed agriculture/mesquitecategory contained 25- Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Al'rica. 75% mesquite,while the mesquitecategory contained JUNE2004 SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS 153 N Cordoba Figure 1. Map of roadsidesurvey locations in the westernpampas and central Argentina. 154 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS VOL. 38, NO. 2 Table 1. Number of raptorsobserved in landscapessurveyed in the westernpampas and centralArgentina, Decem- ber 1998-January1999. HABITAT TYPES SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE/ DESERT SPECIES NAMES AGRICULTURE MESQUITE MESQUITE SCRUB TOTAL AmericanKestrel Falcosparverius 2 10 7 1 20 AplomadoFalcon Falcofemoralis 2 0 2 1 5 White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus 0 1 0 0 1 ChimangoCaracara Milvagochimango 292 138 38 22 490 CrestedCaracara Caracaraplancus 42 48 63 19 172 Swainson's Hawk Buteoswainsoni 36 1 0 0 37 Red-backedHawk Buteopolyosoma I 1 1 3 6 White-tailed Hawk Buteo albicaudatus 0 3 0 3 6 BurrowingOwl Athenecunicularia 12 1 7 0 20 Short-earedOwl Asioflammeus 1 1 0 0 2 TurkeyVulture Cathartesaura 0 0 0 12 12 BlackVulture Coragypsatratus 0 4 0 1 5 Richness 8 10 6 8 Abundance 388 208 118 62 776 Richness/100 km 1.5 2.6 2.8 6.0 Abundance/100 km 74.9 54.6 54.6 46.6 >75% mesquite with small grassy patches scattered the greatestabundance (•--20 individuals)using a repli- throughout. The desert-scrubgrassland category con- cated goodness-of-fittest (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). We tained <10% tree cover and generally consistedof nat- used replicatedgoodness-of-fit tests to determinewheth- ural grasslands. er raptors were distributedin proportion to available We traveledsurvey routes between 0600-1100 H and habitat, or whether individual raptor speciesdeviated 1630-2030 H (local time; on 1 January 1999 sunrisewas from the expectedproportions in the samefashion (i.e., at 0545 H and sunsetat 2010 H). Surveyswere completed whether G for the pooled data, G• and G for the hetero- on 32 routes over 16 d, with a minimum of 50 km and a geneity,GH, were significant.We did not analyzespecies maximum of 248 km per route. Each route wassurveyed with low abundance (<20 observations). once to ensurebird sightingswould be independent.The weather on surveydays was partly cloudyto sunnywith RESULTS either no wind or a slightbreeze. We recorded each oc- currenceof birdsof preyand New World vulturesin each We traveled 518 km through agriculturalhabitat, 381 habitat.We traveledon pavedhighways at approximately km through the mixed agriculture/mesquitehabitat, 216 80-90 km/hr, slightlyfaster than recommended (Fuller km through pure mesquitehabitat, and 133 km through and Mosher 1987), but still at speedsat which we were desert-scrubgrasslands. We counted 12 speciesof raptors able to detect speciesin different habitats,particularly and vulturestotaling 776 individuals(Table 1). Agricul- the five common speciesanalyzed for habitat selection. tural lands had the lowest relative richness and highest To minimize differences in detectability among sur- relative abundance(1.5 species/100km, 74.9 individu- veys,we standardizedtime of d, weather,driving speed, als/100 kin), while desert scrub had the highest relative and number of observers (Fuller and Mosher 1987). In a few cases,we needed to stop the vehicle for positive richnessand lowestrelative abundance (6.0 species/100 identification;during thesetimes we did not includenew km, 46.6 individuals/100 km; Table 1). The raptor ob- observations. Because of time and distance constraints, servationsfor the four habitat typeswere determined to time in each habitat was not uniform. have the followingspecies accumulation curves (Fig. 2): We determined speciesrichness and abundanceby the MMF model (Morgan et al. 1975) for agriculture(y habitat type. We used curve-fitting software (Curve- = [ab + cxd/] [b q- xd]; a = -8.78; b = 0.90; c = 11.03; Expert¸, 1995-2001;Daniel Hyams,Version 1.37) to d = 0.29; SE = 0.45; r = 0.99); the logisticmodel for demonstrate how richness increased with increasing mixed argriculture/mesquite(y= a/(1 + b X e-CX);a = number of km surveyed.CurveExpert¸ usesdouble-pre- 9.51; b = 4.07; c = 0.038; SE -- 0.79; r= 0.97); the Power cisionfloating-point numbers to calculateand rank best- fit curves.In this manner,we describethe rate of species Fit for mesquite(y = axb;a = 0.14; b = 0.68; SE = 0.92; accumulationsin each habitat type and include the cor- r = 0.94); and the rational function model for desert- relation coefficient, r. scrubgrasslands (y = (a + bx)/(1 + cx + dx9);a -- 0.23; We analyzedhabitat preference for the five specieswith b --- 0.83; c -- 0.11; d = -0.0001; SE = 0.26; r = 0.99). JUNE 2004 SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS 155 Agriculture Mixed Agriculture-Mesquite ,oo ,;o" 2/0 0 25 60 76 100 •125 t60 Distance Traveled (kin) Distance Traveled (kin) 0 60 •oo i60 20o 26o •00 o 26 6o 76 100 i2• 16• Dista.ce Traveled(kin) DistanceTraveled (kin) Figure 2. Speciesaccumulation curves for raptors encountered during roadside surveysof four habitat types in Argentina. Of the 12 speciesobserved, we recorded 7 infrequent- A replicated goodness-of-fittest on the five most com- ly: Aplomado Falcon (Falcofemoralis), White-tailed Kite mon speciesindicated that raptors were not distributed (Elanus