DOCSLIB.ORG

Growth and Development of Great Spotted Cuckoos and Their Magpie Host]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Condor9349-54 0 TheCooper Ornithological Society 1991 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF GREAT SPOTTED CUCKOOS AND THEIR MAGPIE HOST] M. SOLER AND J. J. SOLER Departamento de Biologia Animal, Ecologia y Gen&ica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidadde Granada, Granada, Spain Abstract. The increasein body weight,and of tarsal,culmen, wing and tail lengthsin nestlingsof the Great SpottedCuckoo (Clamator glandarius) and of its host,the Magpie (Pica pica), was studiedin the “Hoya de Guadix” (southernSpain). The effectof parasitism on the growthof host nestlingswas also analyzed.Great SpottedCuckoo nestlings grew fasterthan Magpie nestlingsin unparasitizedand in parasitizednests. There is some evidence that the size of the host speciesdid not influence the growth rate of parasitenestlings. When more than one parasite chick was raised in the same nest, competition for food was strong and the younger nestling starved. Magpie chicks had a larger weight asymptote and reached 90% of the asymptotic value earlier in unparasitized nests than in parasitized ones. Key words: Great SpottedCuckoo; Clamator glandarius; Magpie; Pica pica;parasitism; nestlinggrowth. INTRODUCTION Cuckoo does not reject the host’s eggsor young Parasites are generally said to affect the fitness as does the European Cuckoo and therefore, par- oftheir hostsadversely. Two major kinds ofbrood asite young must compete with host chicks for parasites are know; those ejecting all other off- parental care. It is a general assumption that par- spring from the host nest (e.g., European Cuckoo, asites negatively affect the fitness of their hosts Cuculuscanorus) and those growing up together by affecting either the quantity or the quality of with the offspring of the host (e.g., Great Spotted their offspring. The main objective of this study Cuckoo, Clamator glandarius). While it is ob- was to test whether Great Spotted Cuckoo nest- viously detrimental for hosts to be parasitized lings depressedthe growth rate of Magpie host by a cuckoo ejecting their nestmates,the negative nestlings reared in parasitized nests. effects of being parasitized by a non-ejecting Very little information exists on the devel- cuckoo have less often been documented. Ad- opment of Great Spotted Cuckoo parasites, and aptation among cuckoosto sucha situation could the growth rate of host nestlings has only rarely be a rapid development, fast growth and superior been compared with growth rate of nestlings competitive ability (Payne 1977, Marvil and Cruz reared in unparasitized nests (Valverde 1971, 1989). Mundy and Cook 1977). The Great Spotted Cuckoo is an obligate brood STUDY AREA AND METHODS parasite whose palearctic populations are migra- tory, wintering in Africa south of the Sahara and The study was carried out in the “Hoya de Gua- breeding mainly in the Iberian Peninsula, being dix” (southern Spain), a cereal-producing plain numerous in the southern half (Cramp 1985). It at 900-1,100 m altitude (for details, see Soler is considered a specialist brood parasite mainly 1989, 1990) an area in which the Great Spotted parasitizing the Magpie (Pica pica) in Europe Cuckoo parasitism is very recent (Soler and Mol- (Cramp 1985, Soler 1990). ler 1990, Soler 1990). Great Spotted Cuckoo parasitism has a nega- The growth of Great Spotted Cuckoo and Mag- tive effect on Magpie reproduction; the breeding pie nestlings was studied in 17 nests (n = 26 successof the host in parasitized nests is very nestlings). Although 25 Magpie eggs hatched, low, only 19.2% of the nests fledged any host many chicks starved early during the nestling chicks (Soler 1990). The nestling Great Spotted period. The growth rate of Magpie nestlings was also determined in 10 unparasitized nests (n = 4 1 nestlings). During the last days of the nestling ’ Received 12 April 1990. Final acceptance25 Sep- period it is very difficult to measure Great Spot- tember 1990. ted Cuckoo chicks since they frequently escape 1491 GROWTH OF CUCKOOS AND THEIR MAGPIE HOST 5 1 Cuckoo, which parasitizeshosts larger than itself, the size of the host does not influence the growth rate of cuckoo nestlings. When more than one parasite chick exists in the same nest, the younger may starve because of competition with the older conspecific (Soler 1990). The growth rate of three parasite chicks that hatched on alternate days is shown in Figure 2 (data not included in Fig. 1). It is interesting to point out some aspects: 1) The only Magpie ,,,,,,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, chick that hatched, died on the next day. 2) The 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 last hatched parasite chick starved to death on DATE the fourth day without having grown. 3) The FIGURE 2. Weightincrease in threeparasitic chicks second parasite chick lived for 13 days, but it (dot. star and asterisk)and one host chick (triangle). was a runt and died on its 14th day. 4) The first bnly one cuckoofledged (f) and the otherthree nest- lingsdied (d). Datesare from May 9th & onwards.All parasite chick to hatch had a nestling period lon- weightswere obtainedin the evening,between 19:30 ger than usual and it left the nest with a weight and 20:30 hours. less than normal (see Fig. 1). In spite of this, it is not rare to find more than one parasite chick is kept at least until day 16; we have found that surviving per nest (Soler 1990); so it is possible in the majority of chicks it remained throughout that in this nest there are some problems with the nestling period, and even after fledging (83%, food availability or with the ability of the indi- n = 12). In most birds this tooth is usually lost vidual or pair to rear their offspring. a few days after hatching (O’Connor 1985). How- ever, in some corvids as in the Jackdaw (Soler GENERAL GROWTH PATTERN and Soler 1990) and Magpie (pers. obs.), it is The values for the various body measurements conserved during the entire nestling period. per day are illustrated in Fig. 3. The development At hatching, the lower mandible is longer than of Great Spotted Cuckoo chicks has been de- the upper mandible. Between days 11 and 12, scribed in two different papers (Valverde 197 1, they reach the same length and after 13 days the Mundy and Cook 1977) but data do not exist latter is longer than the former. After hatching, about the growth rate of the different parameters, the buccal cavity darkens, becoming red with only about the primary feather and tail lengths more conspicuouspapillae, but from day 7 or 8, in one nestling (Valverde 197 1). both lose color intensity and become less con- Dorsal skin darkens between days 3 and 6. spicuous. The eyes begin to open on the fourth Quills develop on day 4 or 5. The feathers of the day and on the ninth they are completely open tail break the vanes between days 8 and 9, and in practically all the nestlings. they appear in the majority of the quills between At hatching, tarsi are pink, but begin to darken days 12 and 13, being well feathered by day 15 about day 4. This is the measured parameter that or 16. See also Valverde (197 1) and Mundy and changedmost quickly, mainly until day 16. From Cook (1977). Wings and tail grow quickly, main- then on, it grows slowly (Fig. 3). Fledglings leave ly after the feathers emerge (Fig. 3). At fledging, the nest with tarsal length very similar to that of wing length was 54% and 56% of that of the adult adults (92% of the male and 97% of the female) male and female length, respectively (data from (Cramp 1985). Cramp 1985). The tail remains lessdeveloped at fledging, representing only 37% of the adult male EFFECT OF PARASITISM ON THE GROWTH length and 40% of the adult female length (data RATE OF HOST CHICKS from Cramp 1985). Magpie chicks had a larger asymptote in unpar- At hatching, the bill is pale pink and begins to asitized than in parasitized nests (Fig. 4) and darken about day 5. The culmen length grows reached90% ofthe asymptotic value (&, = 18.59) slowly (Fig. 3) and at fledging (between day 19 earlier than nestlings from parasitized nests (tgo and the end of the nestling period), it represents = 20.02). Considering only data after nestlings 80% of the adult male length and 81% of the reaching 90% of the asymptote, Magpie fledg- adult female length (data from Cramp 1985). Ac- lings weighed more in unparasitized (X = 167.4 cording to Valverde (197 l), the hatching tooth + 1.8, n = 50) than in parasitized nests (X = 52 M. SOLER AND J. J. SOLER WING LENGTH @ml PRIMARY 6 LENGTH (mml . 90- 120 - . ..( . p.S 60- 8. 60- . *.‘ 8 : .6. e*. 4 ’ 40- 30- */ *f5 .ev ’ .,~I~’ I / I I,, I I I, I I I I,, I I I, I I I I I I f I, I I, I, I I I,, I I I I, I I I I 5 l0 15 20 5 10 15 20 (m4 TAIL LENGTH . C-mm1 RECTRIX LENGTH . 90 . 90 . I 1 ..*; 60 -I DAY IN NESTLING PERIOD DAY IN NESTLING PERIOD FIGURE 3. Mean size for body measurementsof Great Spotted Cuckoo nestlingsas a function of age. Point = one individual, closed circle = two individuals, star = three individuals, open circle = four individuals. 149.7 f 3.8, IZ = 26, t = 4.3, P -C 0.001). This However, in Yellow Warbler (Dendroica pete- supposesan important handicap in future sur- chia) and Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius vival because it has been demonstrated that phoeniceus),growth rates do not differ signifi- heavier Magpie chicks have a higher probability cantly with or without cowbirds (Weatherhead of survival (Eden 1985). 1989). In our study the growth rate constant is The growth rate of Magpie nestlings in un- significantly smaller for nestlings raised in un- parasitized nests is slower than that cited by parasitized (K = 0.24) than in parasitized nests Ricklefs (1968, K = 0.332) probably becauserunts (K = 0.27, ANCOVA, F = 10.03, P < 0.01).
Recommended publications
  • Nest Building and Nesting Behavior of the Brown Cacholote

    Nest Building and Nesting Behavior of the Brown Cacholote

    Wilson Bull., 106(l), 1994, pp. 106-120 NEST BUILDING AND NESTING BEHAVIOR OF THE BROWN CACHOLOTE ANA I. NOBES AND MANUEL NORES ’ ABsTnAcr.-we studied nesting behavior ofthe Brown Cacholote (Pseudoseisuralophotes) in Cordoba, Argentina from April 1989 to March 1993. Brown Cacholotes build many elaborate stick nests throughout the year and use each of them during the breeding period or for a short time in the non-breeding period. Nest building requires 15 to 37 days. Nests were usually built with thorny twigs, but the nature of the materials depends on availability. Usually each pair had several nests or part of them in their territory (range = l-10). Nest building requires much of the birds ’ time and energy, but Brown Cacholotes generally use the material of old nests to minimize energy expenditure in nest construction. Both sexes shared all nesting activities. The birds copulate inside the nest, which is apparently unknown among birds. Egg laying occurred from last September to late February. Mean clutch size was 2.6 eggs (range = 2-4). The incubation period lasted 18-20 days and the nestling period 18-23 days. Nesting success was 59.3%, and an average of 1.5 nestlings were reared per clutch. Parental breeding experience, rather than age, would be more important influence on clutch-size and nesting success. Juveniles remained in the parental territories for 4-l 3 months. They contributed to nest building and defense of their territory, but their help was minimal. Received7 Dec. 1992, acceptedI Sept. 1993. Although nest has been defined as a structure that aids the development of the eggs and the survival of young (Collias 1964) some birds build similar or different structures for use as dormitories throughout the year and have a close relation with them (Skutch 196 1, Collias 1964, Welty 1979).
  • Prairie Ridge Species Checklist 2018

    Prairie Ridge Species Checklist 2018

    Prairie Ridge Species Checklist Genus species Common Name Snails Philomycus carolinianus Carolina Mantleslug Gastrocopta contracta Bottleneck Snaggletooth Glyphalinia wheatleyi Bright Glyph Triodopsis hopetonensis Magnolia Threetooth Triodopsis juxtidens Atlantic Threetooth Triodopsis fallax Mimic Threetooth Ventridens cerinoideus Wax Dome Ventridens gularis Throaty Dome Anguispira fergusoni Tiger Snail Zonitoides arboreus Quick Gloss Deroceras reticulatum Gray Garden Slug Mesodon thyroidus White-lip Globe Slug Stenotrema stenotrema Inland Stiltmouth Melanoides tuberculatus Red-rim Melania Spiders Argiope aurantia Garden Spider Peucetia viridans Green Lynx Spider Phidippus putnami Jumping Spider Phidippus audax Jumping Spider Phidippus otiosus Jumping Spider Centipedes Hemiscolopendra marginata Scolopocryptops sexspinosus Scutigera coleoptrata Geophilomorpha Millipedes Pseudopolydesmus serratus Narceus americanus Oxidus gracilis Greenhouse Millipede Polydesmidae Crayfishes Cambarus “acuminatus complex” (= “species C”) Cambarus (Depressicambarus) latimanus Cambarus (Puncticambarus) (="species C) Damselflies Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing Lestes australis Southern Spreadwing Lestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing Lestes vigilax Swamp Spreadwing Lestes inaequalis Elegant Spreadwing Enallagma doubledayi Atlantic Bluet Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet Enallagma aspersum Azure Bluet Enallagma exsulans Stream Bluet Enallegma signatum Orange Bluet Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail Ischnura posita Fragile Forktail Ischnura hastata Citrine
  • Brood Parasitism in a Host Generalist, the Shiny Cowbird: I

    Brood Parasitism in a Host Generalist, the Shiny Cowbird: I

    BROOD PARASITISM IN A HOST GENERALIST, THE SHINY COWBIRD: I. THE QUALITY OF DIFFERENT SPECIES AS HOSTS PAUL MASON 1 Departmentof Zoology,University of Texas,Austin, Texas 78712 USA ASSTRACT.--TheShiny Cowbird (Molothrusbonariensis) of South America, Panama, and the West Indies is an obligate brood parasiteknown to have used 176 speciesof birds as hosts. This study documentswide variability in the quality of real and potential hostsin terms of responseto eggs, nestling diet, and nest survivorship. The eggs of the parasiteare either spotted or immaculate in eastern Argentina and neighboring parts of Uruguay and Brazil. Most speciesaccept both morphs of cowbird eggs,two reject both morphs, and one (Chalk- browed Mockingbird, Mimus saturninus)rejects immaculate eggs but acceptsspotted ones. No species,via its rejection behavior, protectsthe Shiny Cowbird from competition with a potentialcompetitor, the sympatricScreaming Cowbird (M. rufoaxillaris).Cross-fostering ex- periments and natural-history observationsindicate that nestling cowbirds require a diet composedof animal protein. Becausemost passerinesprovide their nestlingswith suchfood, host selectionis little restricted by diet. Species-specificnest survivorship, adjustedto ap- propriatevalues of Shiny Cowbird life-history variables,varied by over an order of mag- nitude. Shiny Cowbirds peck host eggs.This density-dependentsource of mortality lowers the survivorshipof nestsof preferred hostsand createsnatural selectionfor greater gener- alization. Host quality is sensitive to the natural-history attributes of each host speciesand to the behavior of cowbirds at nests.Received 4 June1984, accepted26 June1985. VARIATIONin resourcequality can have great parasitized176 species(Friedmann et al. 1977). ecologicaland evolutionary consequences.Ob- The Shiny Cowbird is sympatric with a poten- ligate brood parasites never build nests but tial competitor, the ScreamingCowbird (M.
  • Bird Checklists of the World Country Or Region: Ghana

    Bird Checklists of the World Country Or Region: Ghana

    Avibase Page 1of 24 Col Location Date Start time Duration Distance Avibase - Bird Checklists of the World 1 Country or region: Ghana 2 Number of species: 773 3 Number of endemics: 0 4 Number of breeding endemics: 0 5 Number of globally threatened species: 26 6 Number of extinct species: 0 7 Number of introduced species: 1 8 Date last reviewed: 2019-11-10 9 10 Recommended citation: Lepage, D. 2021. Checklist of the birds of Ghana. Avibase, the world bird database. Retrieved from .https://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.jsp?lang=EN&region=gh [26/09/2021]. Make your observations count! Submit your data to ebird.
  • Zambia and Zimbabwe 28 �Ovember – 6 December 2009

    Zambia and Zimbabwe 28 Ovember – 6 December 2009

    Zambia and Zimbabwe 28 ovember – 6 December 2009 Guide: Josh Engel A Tropical Birding Custom Tour All photos taken by the guide on this tour. The Smoke that Thunders: looking down one end of the mile-long Victoria Falls. ITRODUCTIO We began this tour by seeing one of Africa’s most beautiful and sought after birds: African Pitta . After that, the rest was just details. But not really, considering we tacked on 260 more birds and loads of great mammals. We saw Zambia’s only endemic bird, Chaplin’s Barbet , as well as a number of miombo and broad-leaf specialties, including Miombo Rock-Thrush, Racket-tailed Roller, Southern Hyliota, Miombo Pied Barbet, Miombo Glossy Starling, Bradfield’s Hornbill, Pennant-winged ightjar, and Three-banded Courser. With the onset of the rainy season just before the tour, the entire area was beautifully green and was inundated with migrants, so we were able to rack up a great list of cuckoos and other migrants, including incredible looks at a male Kurrichane Buttonquail . Yet the Zambezi had not begun to rise, so Rock Pratincole still populated the river’s rocks, African Skimmer its sandbars, and Lesser Jacana and Allen’s Gallinule its grassy margins. Mammals are always a highlight of any Africa tour: this trip’s undoubted star was a leopard , while a very cooperative serval was also superb. Victoria Falls was incredible, as usual. We had no problems in Zimbabwe whatsoever, and our lodge there on the shores of the Zambezi River was absolutely stunning. The weather was perfect throughout the tour, with clouds often keeping the temperature down and occasional rains keeping bird activity high.
  • Brown-Headed Cowbird (Molothrus Ater) Doug Powless

    Brown-Headed Cowbird (Molothrus Ater) Doug Powless

    Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) Doug Powless Grandville, Kent Co., MI. 5/4/2008 © John Van Orman (Click to view a comparison of Atlas I to II) Brown-headed Cowbirds likely flourished Distribution Brown-headed Cowbirds breed in grassland, alongside the Pleistocene megafauna that once prairie, and agricultural habitats across southern roamed North America (Rothstein and Peer Canada to Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and 2005). In modern times, flocks of cowbirds south into central Mexico (Lowther 1993). The followed the great herds of bison across the center of concentration and highest abundance grasslands of the continent, feeding on insects of the cowbird during summer occurs in the kicked up, and depositing their eggs in other Great Plains and Midwestern prairie states birds’ nests along the way. An obligate brood where herds of wild bison and other ungulates parasite, the Brown-headed Cowbird is once roamed (Lowther 1993, Chace et al. 2005). documented leaving eggs in the nests of hundreds of species (Friedmann and Kiff 1985, Wild bison occurred in southern Michigan and Lowther 1993). The evolution of this breeding across forest openings in the East until about strategy is one of the most fascinating aspects of 1800 before being hunted to near-extinction North American ornithology (Lanyon 1992, across the continent (Baker 1983, Kurta 1995). Winfree 1999, Rothstein et al. 2002), but the Flocks of cowbirds likely also inhabited the cowbird has long drawn disdain. Chapman prairies and woodland openings of southern (1927) called it “. a thoroughly contemptible Michigan prior to the 1800s (Walkinshaw creature, lacking in every moral and maternal 1991).
  • Rejection Behavior by Common Cuckoo Hosts Towards Artificial Brood Parasite Eggs

    Rejection Behavior by Common Cuckoo Hosts Towards Artificial Brood Parasite Eggs

    REJECTION BEHAVIOR BY COMMON CUCKOO HOSTS TOWARDS ARTIFICIAL BROOD PARASITE EGGS ARNE MOKSNES, EIVIN ROSKAFT, AND ANDERS T. BRAA Departmentof Zoology,University of Trondheim,N-7055 Dragvoll,Norway ABSTRACT.--Westudied the rejectionbehavior shown by differentNorwegian cuckoo hosts towardsartificial CommonCuckoo (Cuculus canorus) eggs. The hostswith the largestbills were graspejectors, those with medium-sizedbills were mostlypuncture ejectors, while those with the smallestbills generally desertedtheir nestswhen parasitizedexperimentally with an artificial egg. There were a few exceptionsto this general rule. Becausethe Common Cuckooand Brown-headedCowbird (Molothrus ater) lay eggsthat aresimilar in shape,volume, and eggshellthickness, and they parasitizenests of similarly sizedhost species,we support the punctureresistance hypothesis proposed to explain the adaptivevalue (or evolution)of strengthin cowbirdeggs. The primary assumptionand predictionof this hypothesisare that somehosts have bills too small to graspparasitic eggs and thereforemust puncture-eject them,and that smallerhosts do notadopt ejection behavior because of the heavycost involved in puncture-ejectingthe thick-shelledparasitic egg. We comparedour resultswith thosefor North AmericanBrown-headed Cowbird hosts and we found a significantlyhigher propor- tion of rejectersamong CommonCuckoo hosts with graspindices (i.e. bill length x bill breadth)of <200 mm2. Cuckoo hosts ejected parasitic eggs rather than acceptthem as cowbird hostsdid. Amongthe CommonCuckoo hosts, the costof acceptinga parasiticegg probably alwaysexceeds that of rejectionbecause cuckoo nestlings typically eject all hosteggs or nestlingsshortly after they hatch.Received 25 February1990, accepted 23 October1990. THEEGGS of many brood parasiteshave thick- nestseither by grasping the eggs or by punc- er shells than the eggs of other bird speciesof turing the eggs before removal. Rohwer and similar size (Lack 1968,Spaw and Rohwer 1987).
  • Bees and Wasps of the East Sussex South Downs

    Bees and Wasps of the East Sussex South Downs

    A SURVEY OF THE BEES AND WASPS OF FIFTEEN CHALK GRASSLAND AND CHALK HEATH SITES WITHIN THE EAST SUSSEX SOUTH DOWNS Steven Falk, 2011 A SURVEY OF THE BEES AND WASPS OF FIFTEEN CHALK GRASSLAND AND CHALK HEATH SITES WITHIN THE EAST SUSSEX SOUTH DOWNS Steven Falk, 2011 Abstract For six years between 2003 and 2008, over 100 site visits were made to fifteen chalk grassland and chalk heath sites within the South Downs of Vice-county 14 (East Sussex). This produced a list of 227 bee and wasp species and revealed the comparative frequency of different species, the comparative richness of different sites and provided a basic insight into how many of the species interact with the South Downs at a site and landscape level. The study revealed that, in addition to the character of the semi-natural grasslands present, the bee and wasp fauna is also influenced by the more intensively-managed agricultural landscapes of the Downs, with many species taking advantage of blossoming hedge shrubs, flowery fallow fields, flowery arable field margins, flowering crops such as Rape, plus plants such as buttercups, thistles and dandelions within relatively improved pasture. Some very rare species were encountered, notably the bee Halictus eurygnathus Blüthgen which had not been seen in Britain since 1946. This was eventually recorded at seven sites and was associated with an abundance of Greater Knapweed. The very rare bees Anthophora retusa (Linnaeus) and Andrena niveata Friese were also observed foraging on several dates during their flight periods, providing a better insight into their ecology and conservation requirements.
  • Download This PDF File

    Download This PDF File

    Koedoe 19: 49-62(1976) A REVISED CHECK-LIST OF BIRDS IN THE KALAHARI GEMSBOK NATIONAL PARK M. G. L. MILLS Kalahari Gemsbok National Park Private Bag X890 P.O. Gemsbokpark 8815 Abstract - A more complete list of the birds in the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park is given, including the results of three and a half years of observations. A total of 214 species have now been identified for the Park, among which 75 are resident throughout the year, 37 are migrants, 14 are nomads and 88 are vagrants. Introduction Several lists of the birds in the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, Republic of South Africa, have been published in recent years (de Villiers 1958; Prozesky and Haagner 1962; Broekhuysen, Broekhuysen, Martin, Martin, Martin and Morgan 1968; Maclean 1970). With the exception of Maclean (1970) these lists have been drawn up by the authors during short visits to the Park. However, Maclean only worked in the southern area for 19 months. This list represents three and a half years observations over the entire Park, with additional records from Liversidge (pen. comm.). Several groups of birds, notably the rap tors, pipits, larks and warblers, are difficult to identify in the field. Where any doubt exists as to the identity of a species, it has been omitted unless a specimen has been taken. Systematic List An indication of the status of each species in the Park is given accord­ ing to the following key (after Kemp 1974); R - resident (found in the Park throughout the year) M - migrant (a species known to come to South Africa on a regular annual migration) N - nomad (a regular, temporary visitor to the area) V - vagrant (an irregular, temporary visitor to the area).
  • The Shiny Cowbird Reaches the United States

    The Shiny Cowbird Reaches the United States

    BREEDING RECORD The ShinyCowbird reaches the UnitedStates Will the scourge of the Caribbean impact Florida's avifauna too? P. William Smith and Alexander Sprunt IV ductinga BreedingBird Surveyon NLowerJUNE Matecumbe14,1985, Key,WHILE MonroeCON- County, Florida, Sprunt and Karen Sunderland discoveredthe first Shiny Cowbird (Molothrus bonariensis) re- ported in the United States,a male, with Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) in mangroves near the shoulderof the OverseasHighway (U.S. 1). Its appearancein Florida was hardly unexpected. From its South American base, the Shiny Cowbird has spread northward, mostly during this century, through the Antilles; its expansionhas been particularly strongover the last 30 years(Post and Wiley 1977; Arendt and Figure 1. Three male Shiny Cowbirdsjoin Mourning Dovesand Eura•ian Collared-Dovesat Vargas 1984). By 1982, the specieshad Islamorada.Florida. July 5, 1986. Photo/P William Smith (VIREO SI4/2/003). reachedthe north coastof Cuba (Bond in the United States. This constituted On the other hand, female and ju- 1984;Cruz el al. 1985), only about 100 the first recordfor the Florida peninsula venile Shiny Cowbirds representa def- miles south of its point of discoveryin and the first definite report of a female inite identification challenge (Figs. 5- the United States. After it was relocated in the United States. Up to five male 6). An examination of specimensat the at a nearby feeder, the Lower Matec- and two female Shinies were seen to- Academy of Natural Sciences,in Phil- umbe Shiny Cowbird was observedby getherwith the Brown-headedCowbirds adelphia, reveals that except for head birders for several weeks. at Flamingo until at least late June and bill shape,there is almost complete In 1986, Smith and his wife were 1987.A juvenileShiny was present from overlap in charactersbetween female trying to capture Eurasian Collared- June 27 until late July, suggestingthe Shinies of the race minimus.
  • Chapter 6 Appendices

    Chapter 6 Appendices

    Chapter 6 Climate Change APPENDICES 2015-2025 Maryland State Wildlife Action Plan Chapter 6 Appendices 6a. Results of Maryland’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for 265 Species of Greatest Conservation Need 6b. Results of Maryland’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Globally Rare Plants 6c. Climate Change Tree Atlas Adaptability Rankings for High Reliability Tree Models, Many of Which Occur in Maryland 6d. Documentation of the Climate Change Effects on Maryland Invasive Species Council List of Selected Invasive Species of Concern in Maryland 6e. Predictions of Species-Specific Habitat Shift Due to Climate Change in the Northeast 2015-2025 Maryland State Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 6a. Results of Maryland’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for 265 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Climate Change Status Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability Index Group1 (CCVI) Flatworms A planarian Paraplanaria dactyligera B Extremely Vulnerable A planarian Phagocata dissimilis sp. nov. A Moderately Vulnerable A planarian Phagocata projecta sp. nov. A Insufficient Evidence A planarian Phagocata virilis A Extremely Vulnerable A planarian Procotyla typhlops A Extremely Vulnerable A planarian Sphalloplana buchanani A Insufficient Evidence A planarian Sphalloplana cava sp. nov. A Insufficient Evidence A planarian Sphalloplana pricei A Insufficient Evidence A planarian Sphalloplana sp 1 A Extremely Vulnerable Hoffmaster's cave planarian Sphalloplana hoffmasteri A Moderately Vulnerable Freshwater Mussels Atlantic spike Elliptio
  • Frontiers in Zoology

    Frontiers in Zoology

    Frontiers in Zoology This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance. Fully formatted PDF and full text (HTML) versions will be made available soon. A cuckoo in wolves' clothing? Chemical mimicry in a specialized cuckoo wasp of the European beewolf (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae and Crabronidae) Frontiers in Zoology 2008, 5:2 doi:10.1186/1742-9994-5-2 Erhard Strohm ([email protected]) Johannes Kroiss ([email protected]) Gudrun Herzner ([email protected]) Claudia Laurien-Kehnen ([email protected]) Wilhelm Boland ([email protected]) Peter Schreier ([email protected]) Thomas Schmitt ([email protected]) ISSN 1742-9994 Article type Research Submission date 30 May 2007 Acceptance date 11 January 2008 Publication date 11 January 2008 Article URL http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/5/1/2 This peer-reviewed article was published immediately upon acceptance. It can be downloaded, printed and distributed freely for any purposes (see copyright notice below). Articles in Frontiers in Zoology are listed in PubMed and archived at PubMed Central. For information about publishing your research in Frontiers in Zoology or any BioMed Central journal, go to http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/info/instructions/ For information about other BioMed Central publications go to http://www.biomedcentral.com/ © 2008 Strohm et al., licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.