DOCSLIB.ORG

Nest Site Selection in Hudsonian Godwits: Effects of Habitat and Predation Risk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nest Site Selection in Hudsonian Godwits: Effects of Habitat and Predation Risk NEST SITE SELECTION IN HUDSONIAN GODWITS: EFFECTS OF HABITAT AND PREDATION RISK A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science by Rose J. Swift February 2016 © 2016 Rose J. Swift ABSTRACT The choice of where to nest has enormous fitness consequences for individuals and, when scaled up, can even affect population demography. Nest site selection in birds is, therefore, guided by a wide variety of proximate and ultimate factors, including protection from predators, access to favorable microclimates, proximity to food resources, and costs/benefits stemming from interactions with neighboring con- and hetero-specifics. Nevertheless, the features associated with, cues used to identify, and availability of favorable nest sites may be changing rapidly with accelerating human development and climate change, especially in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. I investigated how habitat characteristics, predation risk, and proximity to human disturbance (i.e., roads) influenced nest site selection for the Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica). First, I identified habitat characteristics most associated with nests of Hudsonian Godwits in two breeding populations – Beluga River, Alaska and Churchill, Manitoba. I was particularly interested in habitat attributes that are (or will be) strongly impacted by climate change and human development. Second, I assessed the spatial pattern of nests in Beluga River, Alaska to evaluate if there was evidence of aggregation and then determined the extent to which nest location and fate were associated with predation risk and habitat features. Hudsonian Godwits displayed strong preferences for certain habitat features when selecting nest sites, with individuals preferring nest sites with less bare ground and more graminoid and tall shrubby cover than random locations. Nest site preferences were relatively similar in the two study populations, though birds in Churchill also preferred to nest near shallow water. Given the demonstrated preferences of nesting godwits, our study suggests that habitat degradation due to grubbing by overabundant Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens) and changing climate will reduce the suitability and availability of habitats for breeding godwits. My study also provides evidence that, despite the importance of nesting habitat attributes, additional factors must be guiding nest site selection because nests of godwits were clustered within bogs. Because the spatial aggregation of nests was not explained by either underlying patchiness in habitat or by predation risk, I suggest that clustering may be related to social cues. Therefore, understanding behavioral processes can be as important as ecological requirements for habitat selection. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rose Swift was born in the Bay Area of California. Her parents, Brian and Karen, instilled a love of the outdoors in her from an early age. Camping when she was three months old and skiing when she was three years old, age was not a limitation to explore wilderness. She took that love for the outdoors with her as she began to explore universities. She went on to attend the University of California, Davis where she graduated with a B.S. in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology with an emphasis on Wildlife Biology. Her first field position was camping at a remote lake in Alaska for three months. There she not only fell in love with the spectacular landscape, but also became engaged with the bird communities she was seeing. Thanks to her field partner, Scarlett, an old pair of binoculars, and the trusty Sibley guide, she developed a passion for birds. At UC Davis, she engaged in many research projects and developed an honors thesis with Dr. John Wingfield investigating the phenological responses of arctic breeding birds to climate change. From these experiences launched a dream – to follow arctic breeding birds from the breeding grounds south and back north again. After graduating from UC Davis, Rose went on to work many field positions where she gained a variety of ornithological skills. She worked for several seasons at Hastings Natural History Reserve on Dr. Janis Dickinson’s long-term Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) behavioral ecology study. While there, she began to develop a project looking at the repeatability and heritability of egg size. From there, she flew to New Zealand to assist on a project looking at the breeding biology of North Island Brown Kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) where she had the opportunity to explore the biology of the endemic Kiwi Tick (Ixodes anatis) with Dr. Sarah Jamieson. From nest-searching in Montana to shorebird banding in California, iv she began to explore the topics she would choose to study for her graduate work. Soon she would begin to engage in conversations with professors, ultimately finding her love of birds would send her heading to the Lab of Ornithology at Cornell University. At Cornell, Rose has been involved in the Natural Resources and Lab of Ornithology communities. Under the guidance of Dr. Amanda Rodewald, she has been able to fulfill her dream to work with a long-distance migratory bird and travel to Alaska again. Rose will continue at Cornell for her Ph.D. continuing to work with Hudsonian Godwits on the breeding grounds, but she will spread her wings and begin to follow them from the non-breeding grounds in Chile north to Alaska. v For Garrett For your blood, sweat, and encouragement on this project you deserve so much. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I wish to thank Dr. Amanda Rodewald for her supervision, support and expeditious editing. This project has not been a small one, and her attention to details, strategic thinking, and support have been essential in continuing this project. Special thanks also go to Dr. Nathan Senner for supervision, encouragement, and assistance from the beginning. I am indebted for his expertise, establishing this project, his years of data, and continued support. I also appreciate the contributions of my committee: Dr. John Fitzpatrick and Dr. Walter Koenig. I am also grateful for the statistical advice of Dr. Patrick Sullivan and the Cornell Statistical Consulting Unit. I am indebted to Brad Walker for his time and effort spent entering vegetation records and consulting with me on the floristics of the Churchill area. Additionally, I must thank Joe Barron and Katherine Hambury for their dedication to entering data. I send thanks to my lab mates, who contributed in many ways: Gemara Gifford, Ruth Bennett, Zephyr Mohr-Felson Züst, and Steven Sevillano Ríos for your input and assistance. And to all the scientists associated with the Bird Populations Studies and Conservation Sciences programs at the Lab of Ornithology for their expertise and advice. This work would never have been possible without the many field assistants on the project. To William Abbott, Amy Alstad, Hope Batcheller, Shawn Billerman, Jon DeCoste, Doug Gochfeld, Mike Harvey, Mike Hilchey, Tom Johnson, Andy Johnson, Julia Karagicheva, Jess Marion, Madi McConnell, Jay McGowan, Brittany Schultz, Glenn Seeholzer, Hannah Specht, Brad Walker, Ben Lagasse, Bret Davis, Kyle Parkinson, Justin Heseltine, James Klarevas-Irby, and Garrett MacDonald. Thank you. Your hours of work, companionship, and good humor were not overlooked. vii To the administrative staff at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, I owe you gratitude for your assistance. In Beluga, Judy and Larry Heilman continue to provide us a happy home; the staff at ConocoPhillips has made our work run smoothly. Thanks to funding sources: the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Faucett Family Foundation, National Science Foundation, the Athena Fund at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the Atkinson Sustainable Biodiversity Fund at Cornell University, Cornell Graduate School Mellon Fund, Cornell Chapter of Sigma Xi, American Museum of Natural History, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Churchill Northern Studies Centre, American Ornithologists’ Union, and Arctic Audubon Society. Finally, I wish to thank my partner Garrett, for his patience and understanding. Without his constant and unwavering support this would not have been possible and he has poured many hours into data collection, data entry, editing, and brainstorming with me. And my family: Brian, Karen, Lily, and Holly, for their support. My father deserves special thanks for reading through several edits. Thank you for instilling in me the confidence and curiosity that has gotten me here. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ix CHAPTER 1 1 LITERATURE CITED 6 CHAPTER 2 10 LITERATURE CITED 21 APPENDIX 31 CHAPTER 3 37 LITERATURE CITED 58 APPENDIX 93 ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Breeding is a critical part of the avian annual cycle and can profoundly affect population dynamics. Choice of a nesting site, in particular, has consequences for both survival and reproductive success (Burger 1985, Martin 1992, Wiebe and Martin 1998), and nest preferences are generally assumed to have evolved to maximize fitness (Wiens 1989). For example, minimizing risk of nest predation, which is the primary cause of reproductive failure in birds, is an important driver of habitat selection, including nest sites (Martin 1993). Thus, patterns of nest placement are assumed to reflect the fitness benefits of nesting in preferred habitats (Cody 1981, Wiens 1989, Martin 1998). Species typically display strong nest site preferences because the success
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa Haemastica) at Orielton Lagoon, Tasmania, 09/03/2018
    Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica) at Orielton Lagoon, Tasmania, 09/03/2018 Peter Vaughan and Andrea Magnusson E: T: Introduction: This submission pertains to the observation and identification of a single Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica) at Orielton Lagoon, Tasmania, on the afternoon of the 9th of March 2018. The bird was observed in the company of 50 Bar-tailed Godwits (Limosa lapponica) and a single Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), and both comparative and diagnostic features were used to differentiate it from these species. Owing to the recognised difficulties in differentiating similar species of wading birds, this submission makes a detailed analysis of the features used to identify the godwit in question. If accepted, this sighting would represent the eighth confirmed record of this species in Australia, and the second record of this species in Tasmania. Sighting and Circumstances: The godwit in question was observed on the western side of Orielton Lagoon in Tasmania, at approximately 543440 E 5262330 N, GDA 94, 55G. This location is comprised of open tidal mudflats abutted by Sarcicornia sp. saltmarsh, and is a well- documented roosting and feeding site for Bar-tailed Godwits and several other species of wading bird. This has included, for the past three migration seasons, a single Black-tailed Godwit (extralimital at this location) associating with the Bar-tailed Godwit flock. The Hudsonian Godwit was observed for approximately 37 minutes, between approximately 16:12 and 16:49, although the mixed flock of Bar-tailed Godwits and Black-tailed Godwits was observed for 55 minutes prior to this time. The weather during observation was clear skies (1/8 cloud cover), with a light north- easterly breeze and relatively warm temperatures (wind speed nor exact temperature recorded).
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeographical Profiles of Shorebird Migration in Midcontinental North America
    U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Technical Report Series Information and Biological Science Reports ISSN 1081-292X Technology Reports ISSN 1081-2911 Papers published in this series record the significant find­ These reports are intended for the publication of book­ ings resulting from USGS/BRD-sponsored and cospon­ length-monographs; synthesis documents; compilations sored research programs. They may include extensive data of conference and workshop papers; important planning or theoretical analyses. These papers are the in-house coun­ and reference materials such as strategic plans, standard terpart to peer-reviewed journal articles, but with less strin­ operating procedures, protocols, handbooks, and manu­ gent restrictions on length, tables, or raw data, for example. als; and data compilations such as tables and bibliogra­ We encourage authors to publish their fmdings in the most phies. Papers in this series are held to the same peer-review appropriate journal possible. However, the Biological Sci­ and high quality standards as their journal counterparts. ence Reports represent an outlet in which BRD authors may publish papers that are difficult to publish elsewhere due to the formatting and length restrictions of journals. At the same time, papers in this series are held to the same peer-review and high quality standards as their journal counterparts. To purchase this report, contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (call toll free 1-800-553-684 7), or the Defense Technical Infonnation Center, 8725 Kingman Rd., Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218. Biogeographical files o Shorebird Migration · Midcontinental Biological Science USGS/BRD/BSR--2000-0003 December 1 By Susan K.
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of Long-Billed Curlew Numenius Americanus in Peru and Other Observations of Nearctic Waders at the Virilla Estuary Nathan R
    Cotinga 26 First record of Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus in Peru and other observations of Nearctic waders at the Virilla estuary Nathan R. Senner Received 6 February 2006; final revision accepted 21 March 2006 Cotinga 26(2006): 39–42 Hay poca información sobre las rutas de migración y el uso de los sitios de la costa peruana por chorlos nearcticos. En el fin de agosto 2004 yo reconocí el estuario de Virilla en el dpto. Piura en el noroeste de Peru para identificar los sitios de descanso para los Limosa haemastica en su ruta de migración al sur y aprender más sobre la migración de chorlos nearcticos en Peru. En Virilla yo observí más de 2.000 individuales de 23 especios de chorlos nearcticos y el primer registro de Numenius americanus de Peru, la concentración más grande de Limosa fedoa en Peru, y una concentración excepcional de Limosa haemastica. La combinación de esas observaciones y los resultados de un estudio anterior en el invierno boreal sugiere la posibilidad que Virilla sea muy importante para chorlos nearcticos en Peru. Las observaciones, también, demuestren la necesidad hacer más estudios en la costa peruana durante el año entero, no solemente durante el punto máximo de la migración de chorlos entre septiembre y noviembre. Shorebirds are poorly known in Peru away from bordered for a few hundred metres by sand and established study sites such as Paracas reserve, gravel before low bluffs rise c.30 m. Very little dpto. Ica, and those close to metropolitan areas vegetation grows here, although cows, goats and frequented by visiting birdwatchers and tour pigs owned by Parachique residents graze the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudsonian Godwit in Colorado
    March 1957 112 THE WILSON BULLETIN Vol. 69. No. 1 during the first week of May, the males usually preceding the females by a week or so. Presently the trees are well leafed out, and the birds, concealed above the thick foliage, are feeding vigorously on early caterpillars as they go about their nesting. In 1956 the tanagers returned on their normal schedule, but were greeted by conditions far from customary. The foliage was not advanced, nor were large insects abundant. Tent cater- pillars appeared, but these are frequently disdained by tanagers. The hatch of other caterpillars was delayed, but the hordes of warblers present at this time appeared to find an ample supply of small insects for food. By May 15 the tanagers, particularly the males which had been in the vanguard of the flight, were noted with unusual frequency. And, surprisingly, they were seen mostly on or within a few feet of the ground, foragin g for whatever might befall. By May 23 the National Audubon Society, the A.S.P.C.A., and the Bronx Zoo were swamped with inquiries from a curious public. Specimens were brought in, information was sought on proper first aid treatment and on the cause of the phenomenon. On May 25, at four locations in the New York Zoological Park, I observed nine male and four female Scarlet Tanagers; all were near the ground, many congregated about trash receptacles where scraps of food were to be found. They obviously were undernourished; their wings often drooped, they flew reluctantly and with difficulty, and sometimes even clung on vertical tree trunks to rest.
    [Show full text]
  • Limosa Haemastica (Linnaeus, 1758): First Record from South Istributio
    ISSN 1809-127X (online edition) © 2010 Check List and Authors Chec List Open Access | Freely available at www.checklist.org.br Journal of species lists and distribution N Aves, Charadriiformes, Scolopacidae, Limosa haemastica (Linnaeus, 1758): First record from South ISTRIBUTIO D Shetland Islands and Antarctic Peninsula, Antarctica 1,2* 1 1 1, 2 3 RAPHIC Mariana A. Juáres , Marcela M. Libertelli , M. Mercedes Santos , Javier Negrete , Martín Gray , G 1 1,2 4 1 1 EO Matías Baviera , M. Eugenia Moreira , Giovanna Donini , Alejandro Carlini and Néstor R. Coria G N O 1 Instituto Antártico Argentino, Departmento Biología, Aves, Cerrito 1248, C1010AAZ. Buenos Aires, Argentina. OTES 3 Administración de Parques Nacionales (APN). Avenida Santa Fe 690, C1059ABN. Buenos Aires, Argentina. N 4 2 JarConsejodín Zoológico Nacional de de Buenos Investigaciones Aires. República Científicas de lay TécnicasIndia 2900, (CONICET). C1425FCF. Rivadavia Buenos Aires,1917, Argentina.C1033AAJ. Buenos Aires, Argentina. * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: We report herein the southernmost record of the Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica), at two localities in the Antarctic: Esperanza/Hope Bay (January 2005) and 25 de Mayo/King George Island (October 2008). On both occasions a pair of specimens with winter plumage was observed. The Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica (Linnaeus tide and each time birds were feeding in the intertidal 1758) is a neartic migratory species that breeds in Alaska zone. These individuals showed the winter plumage and Canada during summer and spends its non-breeding pattern: dark reddish chest and white ventral region, black period in the southernmost regions of South America primaries and tail feathers, a long upturned bill pink at during the boreal winter.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008
    BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management Arlington, Virginia December 2008 BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN 2008 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management Arlington, Virginia Suggested citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3 Why Did We Create Lists at Different Geographic Scales?................................................3 Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs).........................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York
    CHECKLIST OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS AND MAMMALS OF NEW YORK STATE Including Their Legal Status Eastern Milk Snake Moose Blue-spotted Salamander Common Loon New York State Artwork by Jean Gawalt Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Page 1 of 30 February 2019 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Diversity Group 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-4754 This web version is based upon an original hard copy version of Checklist of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York, Including Their Protective Status which was first published in 1985 and revised and reprinted in 1987. This version has had substantial revision in content and form. First printing - 1985 Second printing (rev.) - 1987 Third revision - 2001 Fourth revision - 2003 Fifth revision - 2005 Sixth revision - December 2005 Seventh revision - November 2006 Eighth revision - September 2007 Ninth revision - April 2010 Tenth revision – February 2019 Page 2 of 30 Introduction The following list of amphibians (34 species), reptiles (38), birds (474) and mammals (93) indicates those vertebrate species believed to be part of the fauna of New York and the present legal status of these species in New York State. Common and scientific nomenclature is as according to: Crother (2008) for amphibians and reptiles; the American Ornithologists' Union (1983 and 2009) for birds; and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Expected occurrence in New York State is based on: Conant and Collins (1991) for amphibians and reptiles; Levine (1998) and the New York State Ornithological Association (2009) for birds; and New York State Museum records for terrestrial mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudsonian Godwit in Baja California Mark J
    NOTES HUDSONIAN GODWIT IN BAJA CALIFORNIA MARK J. BILLINGS, 3802 Rosecrans Street, PMB #334, San Diego, California 92110; [email protected] GUY McCASKIE, 954 Grove Avenue, Imperial Beach, California 91932; [email protected] On 28 August 2004, Claude G. Edwards, Michael U. Evans, Martha Heath, and Billings headed toward Ensenada in Baja California for a day of birding. At about 10:00, at the Río Guadalupe estuary near La Misión, Billings spotted an unfamiliar bird and quickly determined that its overall size, shape, and grayish-brown coloration indicated a Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica). Among those present, only Ed- wards had ever seen this species before. The location was a shallow freshwater estuary separated from the ocean by a wide sandbar. The estuary has exposed mud flats and is surrounded by pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) and Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima). At first the observers were looking east towards the sun, under a marine layer, resulting in a hazy image of the bird. As they began discussing the identity of the bird, Billings realized that it was no longer present. They then walked upstream along the estuary’s northern shore and relocated it. At distances as close as 12 m, and under better light- ing conditions, they were able to study the bird with the aid of Billings’ Swarovski STS 80-mm HD spotting scope. At one point, the bird raised its wings and showed dark wing linings, eliminating the similar Black-tailed Godwit (L. limosa). The Hudsonian Godwit was similar in shape to, but noticeably smaller than, an adjacent Marbled Godwit (L. fedoa).
    [Show full text]
  • 54971 GPNC Shorebirds
    A P ocket Guide to Great Plains Shorebirds Third Edition I I I By Suzanne Fellows & Bob Gress Funded by Westar Energy Green Team, The Nature Conservancy, and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Identification Tips • 4 Plovers I Black-bellied Plover • 6 I American Golden-Plover • 8 I Snowy Plover • 10 I Semipalmated Plover • 12 I Piping Plover • 14 ©Bob Gress I Killdeer • 16 I Mountain Plover • 18 Stilts & Avocets I Black-necked Stilt • 19 I American Avocet • 20 Hudsonian Godwit Sandpipers I Spotted Sandpiper • 22 ©Bob Gress I Solitary Sandpiper • 24 I Greater Yellowlegs • 26 I Willet • 28 I Lesser Yellowlegs • 30 I Upland Sandpiper • 32 Black-necked Stilt I Whimbrel • 33 Cover Photo: I Long-billed Curlew • 34 Wilson‘s Phalarope I Hudsonian Godwit • 36 ©Bob Gress I Marbled Godwit • 38 I Ruddy Turnstone • 40 I Red Knot • 42 I Sanderling • 44 I Semipalmated Sandpiper • 46 I Western Sandpiper • 47 I Least Sandpiper • 48 I White-rumped Sandpiper • 49 I Baird’s Sandpiper • 50 ©Bob Gress I Pectoral Sandpiper • 51 I Dunlin • 52 I Stilt Sandpiper • 54 I Buff-breasted Sandpiper • 56 I Short-billed Dowitcher • 57 Western Sandpiper I Long-billed Dowitcher • 58 I Wilson’s Snipe • 60 I American Woodcock • 61 I Wilson’s Phalarope • 62 I Red-necked Phalarope • 64 I Red Phalarope • 65 • Rare Great Plains Shorebirds • 66 • Acknowledgements • 67 • Pocket Guides • 68 Supercilium Median crown Stripe eye Ring Nape Lores upper Mandible Postocular Stripe ear coverts Hind Neck Lower Mandible ©Dan Kilby 1 Introduction Shorebirds, such as plovers and sandpipers, are a captivating group of birds primarily adapted to live in open areas such as shorelines, wetlands and grasslands.
    [Show full text]
  • Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy
    Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy May 2007 1 Shorebird Strategy Committee and Members of the Joint Venture Science Team Bob Gates, Ohio State University, Chair Dave Ewert, The Nature Conservancy Diane Granfors, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bob Russell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bradly Potter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mark Shieldcastle, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Greg Soulliere, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cover: Long-billed Dowitcher. Photo by Gary Kramer. i Table of Contents Plan Summary................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... 2 Background and Context ................................................................................................. 3 Population Status and Trends ......................................................................................... 6 Habitat Characteristics .................................................................................................. 11 Biological Foundation..................................................................................................... 14 Planning Framework.................................................................................................. 14 Migration and Distribution........................................................................................ 15 Limiting
    [Show full text]
  • Version 8.0.5 - 12/19/2018 • 1112 Species • the ABA Checklist Is a Copyrighted Work Owned by American Birding Association, Inc
    Version 8.0.5 - 12/19/2018 • 1112 species • The ABA Checklist is a copyrighted work owned by American Birding Association, Inc. and cannot be reproduced without the express written permission of American Birding Association, Inc. • 93 Clinton St. Ste. ABA, PO BOX 744 Delaware City, DE 19706, USA • (800) 850-2473 / (719) 578-9703 • www.aba.org The comprehensive ABA Checklist, including detailed species accounts, and the pocket-sized ABA Trip List can be purchased from ABA Sales at http:// www.buteobooks.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Ohio Shores
    Birds of Ohio Shores: Diversity, Ecology and Management of Shorebirds in Ohio Woodlands Stewards Friday Morning Webinar, October 2, 2020 From Plovers to Pipers (who dey): A diversity tour of Ohio Shorebirds 2 Large Plovers: 3 Common Plovers: 4 Uncommon Plovers: 5 Avocet and Black-Necked Stilt 6 Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs 7 Solitary and Spotted Sandpipers 8 Willet and Upland Sandpiper 9 Whimbrel 10 Hudsonian and Marbled Godwits 11 Ruddy Turnstone and Sanderling 12 “Peeps” (= Calidris spp.) Hard to identify; they all look alike and often occur in large flocks. 13 Dublin and Pectoral Sandpiper 14 White-rumped and Baird’s Sandpipers 15 Semi-palmated and Least Sandpipers 16 Stilt and Buff-breasted Sandpipers 17 End of the “peeps” 18 Long and Short-billed Dowitcher 19 American Woodcock and Wilson’s Snipe 20 Wilson’s and Red-necked Phalaropes 21 And if that were not enough! 22 Breeding, juvenile, fall and spring plumages! 23 Prebalternate and prebasic molts (all spp. of shorebirds, not limited to peeps) Feathers wear so plumage changes spring to fall. 24 Shorebird Guilds Body Size Leg Length Bill size and shape Foraging behavior Habitat type (wetland zone) 25 Shorebird Guilds Small gleaners (beach, dry mudflat) Small probers (moist mudflat) Large probers (moist mudflat, shallow water) Large gleaners (shallow water) 26 Shorebird Habitats Meadow/Marsh Deep (er) Water Shallow Water Wet Mudflat Dry Mudflat 27 28 Shorebird Habitats Dry mudflat species: Killdeer Baird’s Sandpiper Buff-breasted Sandpiper Black-bellied Plover Golden Plover 29
    [Show full text]