DOCSLIB.ORG

The 2007 Watchlist for United States Birds Watchlist Here We Present the 2007 Watchlist for United States Birds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 2007 Watchlist for United States Birds Watchlist Here We Present the 2007 Watchlist for United States Birds The 2007 WatchList for United States Birds WatchList Here we present the 2007 WatchList for United States birds. We present this list in hopes that it will help prioritize conservation efforts in the United States and in other countries that also host these species. Our WatchList includes three related lists (see Appendix 1): 1) Species of Highest National Concern (or Red WatchList; 59 species), 2) Declining Species (or Yellow WatchList, in part; 49 species), and 3) Rare Species (or Yellow WatchList, in part; 70 species). Species are assessed on the basis of four factors: population size, range size, Immature Red-headed Woodpecker threats, and population trend (for more (Melanerpes erythrocephalus). detail, see below under Species Photo/Ardith Bondi Assessment). Species that score high in all four categories are of highest national Gregory S. Butcher1, Daniel K. Niven2, Arvind O. Panjabi 3, concern, species that score high for David N. Pashley4, and Kenneth V. Rosenberg5 threats and population trend go on the list of declining species, and species that 1 National Audubon Society, 1150 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036; [email protected] score high for population and range size are categorized as rare. Our main list 2 National Audubon Society and Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820; [email protected] consists of species found in the 49 con- 3 Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 230 Cherry Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521; tinental states; we maintain separate lists [email protected] for Hawaii and for Puerto Rico/Virgin 4 American Bird Conservancy, P.O. Box 249, The Plains, VA 20198; Islands, but these are not presented here. [email protected] Lists of birds of conservation concern 5 Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, NY 14850; have been created for decades. Perhaps the [email protected] best known of such lists is the United States Gregory S. Butcher is Director of Bird Conservation for the National Audubon Society. He has a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Washington. Butcher previously served as Director of Bird Population Studies at Cornell University’s Laboratory of Ornithology and is an elective member of the American Ornithologists’ Union. Daniel K. Niven is Audubon’s Senior Scientist for Bird Conservation. Previously he directed Audubon’s Important Bird Program, where he guided the development of IBA criteria and helped launch state IBA programs. Niven, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, brings to Audubon a lifelong interest in birds and conserva- tion, having participated in CBCs since he was a toddler. Arvind O. Panjabi is director of the International Program at the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory in Colorado, where he focuses on grassland and forest bird conser- vation in Mexico. He also manages the Partners in Flight Species Assessment Database, an international online database of conservation status assessment scores and related information for U.S., Canadian, and Mexican birds. David N. Pashley is Vice-President for Conservation Programs at American Bird Conservancy. Previously, he received a Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries from Louisiana State University and worked for several years for The Nature Conservancy in Louisiana. He was National Coordinator for Partners in Flight for six years and United States Coordinator for the North American Bird Conservation Initiative for four years. Kenneth V. Rosenberg is Director of Conservation Science at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and is also Chair of Partners in Flight’s International Science Committee. With a Ph.D. from Louisiana State University, Ken is a lifelong birder and has studied birds in Peru, Mexico, and throughout the United States. 18 AMERICAN BIRDS Endangered Species List (http://www.fws. 1): five critical, 10 endangered, 15 vul- next BirdLife list. Another reason for gov/endangered/wildlife.html), which nerable, and 12 near threatened. differences is that BirdLife puts strong carries the force of law. Most such lists, Seventeen of our Red WatchList species stress on population trend (especially including this WatchList, are merely are considered of least concern by 10-year trends) and threats and less on advisory. We have long been concerned BirdLife. On the other hand, 25 species population and range size. Several that there are too many different lists listed by BirdLife (17 of them near species with tiny ranges and populations with similar purposes, so here we combine threatened, the least-threatened catego- have been recently downlisted (but not the efforts of two organizations that for- ry) are not on our Red WatchList; all but delisted) by BirdLife because conserva- merly published separate lists—National three of them are listed in one of our tion efforts have resulted in recent Audubon Society (http://www.audubon. other two categories. population trends that are stable or org/bird/watchlist/) and American Bird increasing. (However, these species Conservancy (ABC) (http://www.abcbirds. remain on both their list and ours.) org/greenlist.htm). In addition, we pro- Similarly, several species with moderate- pose steps to unify our list with other ly large ranges and population sizes have U.S. lists and to adopt a process by shown steep declines and are thus listed which international, continental, nation- by BirdLife despite these relatively large al, regional, and state lists can relate to range and population sizes; these each other appropriately. include one Endangered and seven This list is based primarily on the Vulnerable species that occur on our Partners in Flight (PIF) approach to Yellow WatchList (Appendix 1), plus the species assessment for several reasons: Bathing Allen’s Hummingbird Northern Bobwhite, which we do not because the authors know it best, because (Selasphorus sasin). Photo/Jackie Allison list and they consider Near Threatened. it has been peer-reviewed (Carter et al. 2000, Beissinger et al. 2000) and Only Northern Bobwhite, Ferruginous Yellow WatchList: improved as a result of that peer review Hawk, and Cassin’s Finch are considered Declining or Rare Species (Panjabi et al. 2005), and because we as near threatened by BirdLife but remain The Yellow WatchList is an early have been able to score all U.S. species unlisted by us. (Northern Bobwhite was warning list that includes two groups of using this system. However, we know that the number one common bird in decline birds that might easily join the Red there are experts who prefer modifications in a recent article in Audubon magazine WatchList. The Declining list includes to this system, and we hope to work with [Butcher 2007], showing that we share 70 species that would join the Red them to obtain a consensus approach prior with IUCN/BirdLife a major concern for WatchList should their declines con- to the next edition of the WatchList. its population decline.) CBC data show tinue long enough to cause their Although heavily influenced by the PIF stable populations for Cassin’s Finch, population or range sizes to fall below process, this is not an official exercise of lending a little less weight to the popula- certain thresholds. The Rare list includes PIF or the PIF Science Committee. tion declines shown on the Breeding 49 species that would join the Red Bird Survey (BBS) (Butcher and Niven WatchList should they begin to decline Red WatchList: 2007). Both BBS and CBC show in population (or accelerate declines that Highest National Concern increasing populations for Ferruginous have already begun). The Red WatchList, the list of species Hawk, suggesting that it should be of highest national concern, is essentially delisted at this time (Sauer et al. 2005; Species Assessment a list of globally threatened birds that Butcher and Niven 2007). As mentioned previously, determining occur in the United States. The World Given that the lists are quite similar the placement of a bird on or off the Conservation Union (IUCN) is respon- in intent, why do there remain so many WatchList is based on the assessment of sible for creating Red lists of globally differences in the final result? One four factors: population size, range size, threatened species; they have delegated answer is timing. Each list uses the most threats, and population trend (Panjabi et the authority for the bird list to BirdLife up-to-date information available. al. 2005). Each of these factors is scored International (http://www.birdlife.org/ BirdLife updates some species every on a scale of one to five, where one datazone/species/index.html). Categories year and all species every four years, means low vulnerability to extinction for globally threatened birds include which is more frequent than most other due to that factor and five means high Critcally Endangered, Endangered, lists. Nonetheless, we expect that there vulnerability. For range size and threats, Vulnerable, and Near Threatened. Of is some new information relied upon for separate scores are calculated for breed- the 59 Red WatchList birds, 42 are in this report (especially on population ing and nonbreeding seasons; to create one of the four IUCN categories (Table trends) that will justify changes in the a combined national score, only the THE 107TH CHRISTMAS BIRD COUNT AMERICAN BIRDS 19 highest of the respective breeding and how much evaluation schemes have nonbreeding scores is used. Thus, the evolved over time, it is often difficult to combined score is a sum of four scores determine when a change in assessment and ranges from 4 to 20. is due to an actual improvement or dete- To be on the WatchList, a species rioration of a species’ conservation needs a combined score of 14 (or 13 if condition. We hope to put more empha- the population trend score is 5). To be sis on this in the near future. on the list of species of Highest National To begin the process of comparing Concern (Red WatchList), a species assessments, we compared this WatchList needs a combined score of 16, plus a Roosting Marbled Godwits with the previous Audubon and American score of 8 or more for threats plus trend, (Limosa fedoa).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Redalyc.Coloration Anomaly of a Male Collared Trogon (Trogon Collaris)
    Acta Zoológica Mexicana (nueva serie) ISSN: 0065-1737 [email protected] Instituto de Ecología, A.C. México Eisermann, Knut; Omland, Kevin Coloration anomaly of a male Collared Trogon (Trogon Collaris) Acta Zoológica Mexicana (nueva serie), vol. 23, núm. 2, 2007, pp. 197-200 Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Xalapa, México Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=57523211 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Acta Zoológica Mexicana (n.s.) 23(2): 197-200 (2007) Nota Científica COLORATION ANOMALY OF A MALE COLLARED TROGON (TROGON COLLARIS) Resumen. Reportamos la observación de un macho adulto de Trogon collaris con vientre amarillo, similar al color del vientre de Trogon violaceus o Trogon melanocephalus. El pico era de color amarillo sucio y el anillo orbital era oscuro. Con base en publicaciones sobre coloración anormal en otras especies, asumimos que fueron alteraciones genéticas o de desarrollo del individuo las que causaron el color amarillo en lugar del rojo usual del plumaje ventral. Collared Trogon (Trogon collaris) occurs in several disjunct areas from central Mexico to the northern half of South America east of the Andes (AOU 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th ed. AOU. Washington D.C.). At least eight subspecies are recognized (Dickinson 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. 3rd ed. Princeton Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Brilliant Iridescent Feather Nanostructures
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.31.446390; this version posted May 31, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Evolution of brilliant iridescent feather nanostructures 2 Klara K. Nordén1, Chad M. Eliason2, Mary Caswell Stoddard1 3 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 4 08544, USA 5 2Grainger Bioinformatics Center, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL 60605, USA 6 7 Abstract 8 The brilliant iridescent plumage of birds creates some of the most stunning color displays 9 known in the natural world. Iridescent plumage colors are produced by nanostructures in 10 feathers and have evolved in a wide variety of birds. The building blocks of these 11 structures—melanosomes (melanin-filled organelles)—come in a variety of forms, yet how 12 these different forms contribute to color production across birds remains unclear. Here, we 13 leverage evolutionary analyses, optical simulations and reflectance spectrophotometry to 14 uncover general principles that govern the production of brilliant iridescence. We find that a 15 key feature that unites all melanosome forms in brilliant iridescent structures is thin melanin 16 layers. Birds have achieved this in multiple ways: by decreasing the size of the melanosome 17 directly, by hollowing out the interior, or by flattening the melanosome into a platelet. The 18 evolution of thin melanin layers unlocks color-producing possibilities, more than doubling 19 the range of colors that can be produced with a thick melanin layer and simultaneously 20 increasing brightness.
    [Show full text]
  • Printable Species Checklist Only (PDF)
    Waterfowl N Shorebirds N Gulls and Terns N Owls N Greater Scaup American Avocet Bonaparte’s Gull Barn Owl ◡ Lesser Scaup ◡ Black Oystercatcher Franklin’s Gull Great Horned Owl ◡ Harlequin Duck Black-bellied Plover Heermann’s Gull Snowy Owl Surf Scoter American Golden-Plover Mew Gull Northern Pygmy-Owl White-winged Scoter Pacific Golden-Plover Ring-billed Gull Barred Owl ◡ Black Scoter Semipalmated Plover Western Gull 2 Short-eared Owl Long-tailed Duck Killdeer ◡ California Gull Northern Saw-whet Owl ◡ Bufflehead Whimbrel Herring Gull Kingfishers Common Goldeneye Long-billed Curlew Iceland Gull Belted Kingfisher ◡ Barrow’s Goldeneye Marbled Godwit Glaucous-winged Gull 2 ◡ Woodpeckers Hooded Merganser ◡ Ruddy Turnstone GWxWestern Gull (hybrid) ◡ Red-breasted Sapsucker ◡ Common Merganser Black Turnstone Caspian Tern P Downy Woodpecker ◡ Red-breasted Merganser Red Knot Common Tern Hairy Woodpecker ◡ Ruddy Duck ◡ Surfbird Loons Pileated Woodpecker ◡ Quail and Allies Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Red-throated Loon Northern Flicker ◡ California Quail ◡ Stilt Sandpiper Pacific Loon Falcons Ring-necked Pheasant ◡ Sanderling Common Loon American Kestrel ◡ P Grebes Dunlin Yellow-billed Loon 1 Merlin Peregrine Falcon Pied-billed Grebe ◡ Rock Sandpiper Cormorants Flycatchers Horned Grebe Baird’s Sandpiper Brandt’s Cormorant Olive-sided Flycatcher Red-necked Grebe Least Sandpiper Pelagic Cormorant ◡ Western Wood-Pewee P Eared Grebe Pectoral Sandpiper Double-crested Cormorant ◡ Willow Flycatcher Western Grebe Semipalmated Sandpiper Pelicans ◡ Hammond’s Flycatcher
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Partitioning by Wintering Shorebirds : a Behavioral Comparison of Two Species in a Tropical Estuary
    UC Berkeley Student Research Papers, Fall 2006 Title Resource Partitioning By Wintering Shorebirds : A Behavioral Comparison of Two Species in a Tropical Estuary Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fb344vf Author Greene, Andrew D. Publication Date 2006-12-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California RESOURCE PARTITIONING BY WINTERING SHOREBIRDS: A BEHAVIORAL COMPARISON OF TWO SPECIES IN A TROPICAL ESTUARY ANDREW D. GREENE Environmental Science Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 USA Abstract. Shorebirds often feed in multispecies groups that display interesting niche dynamics. On Moorea, French Polynesia, the Wandering Tattler (Tringa incana) and Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva) are the dominant shorebird species during the northern winter. These species’ feeding behavior was observed at the Temae estuary on the northeast side of the island. Relative abundance of the two species was determined using transect counts at the estuary and an adjacent beach. T. incana displayed more striking and sprinting behavior, while P. fulva displayed more picking and walking behavior. T. incana also consumed more crabs than P. fulva. The two species existed in relatively equal abundance in the estuary; T. incana was more common on the beach. Though these data suggest some differences in feeding niche, a great deal of overlap was observed. The degree of niche partitioning appears to be greater in this study than in similar studies conducted on these species’ breeding grounds. Key words: feeding behavior; Pluvialis fulva; Tringa incana; Moorea, French Polynesia; resource partitioning; estuary INTRODUCTION spatial distribution of each bird species’ preferred prey (Ribeiro et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Attracting Hummingbirds to Your Garden Using Native Plants
    United States Department of Agriculture Attracting Hummingbirds to Your Garden Using Native Plants Black-chinned Hummingbird feeding on mountain larkspur, fireweed, and wild bergamot (clockwise from top) Forest National Publication April Service Headquarters Number FS-1046 2015 Hummingbird garden guide Many of us enjoy the beauty of flowers in our backyard and community gardens. Growing native plants adds important habitat for hummingbirds and other wildlife—especially pollinators. Even small backyard gardens can make a difference. Gardening connects us to nature and helps us better understand how nature works. This guide will help you create a hummingbird- What do hummingbirds, friendly garden. butterflies, and bees have in common? They all pollinate flowering plants. Broad-tailed Hummingbird feeding on scarlet gilia Hummingbirds are Why use native plants in restricted to the Americas with more your garden? than 325 species of Hummingbirds have evolved with hummingbirds in North, Central, and native plants, which are best adapted South America. to local growing seasons, climate, and soil. They prefer large, tubular flowers that are often (but not always) red in color. In this guide, we feature seven hummingbirds that breed in the United States. For each one, we also highlight two native plants found in its breeding range. These native plants are easy to grow, need little water once established, and offer hummingbirds abundant nectar. 2 Hummingbirds and pollination Ruby-throated Hummingbird feeding on the At rest, a hummer’s nectar and pollen heart beats an of blueberry flowers average of 480 beats per minute. On cold nights, it goes into What is pollination? torpor (hibernation- like state), and its Pollination is the process of moving pollen heart rate drops to (male gamete) from one flower to the ovary of another 45 to 180 beats per minute.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EUPHONIA Quarterly Journal of Mexican Avifauna Volume 1, Number 2 December 1992 the EUPHONIA Quarterly Journal of Mexican Avifauna
    THE EUPHONIA Quarterly Journal of Mexican Avifauna Volume 1, Number 2 December 1992 THE EUPHONIA Quarterly Journal of Mexican Avifauna Editor: Kurt Radamaker Associate Editors: Michael A. Patten, Deb Davidson Spanish Consultant: Luis Santaella Consultant: Steve N.G. Howell Proofreaders: Richard A. Erickson, Bob Pann Circulation Manager: Cindy Ludden For an annual subscription to The Euphonia, please send 15.00 dollars U.S. payable to The Euphonia P.O. Box 8045, Santa Maria, California, 93456-8045, U.S.A. Checks drawn on Bancomer in Pesos accepted. The Euphonia encourages you to send in manuscripts. Appropriate topics range from recent sightings to scientific studies of Mexican birds. Feature articles in Spanish are encouraged. Please send manuscripts, preferably on diskette written in Wordperfect (although almost any major word processor file will suffice), to Kurt Radamaker, P.O. Box 8045, Santa Maria, California 93456, U.S.A. Please send summaries for Recent Ornithological Literature to Michael A. Patten at P.O. Box 8561, Riverside, California, 92515-8561, U.S.A. Recent sightings (with details) should be sent to Luis Santaella, 919 Second St., Encinitas, California 92024, U.S.A. Contents 27 OBSERVATIONS OF NORTH AMERICAN MIGRANT BIRDS IN THE REVILLAGIGEDO ISLANDS Steve N.G. Howell and Sophie Webb 34 PARASITISM OF YELLOW-OLIVE FLY­ CATCHER BY THE PHEASANT CUCKOO Richard G. Wilson 37 SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPER RECORDS FOR BAJA CALIFORNIA Thomas E. Wurster and Kurt Radamaker 39 RECENT RECORDS OF MAROON-CHESTED GROUND-DOVE IN MEXICO Steve N.G. Howell 42 OBSERVATION OF A BENDIRE'S THRASHER FROM NORTHEAST BAJA CALIFORNIA Brian Daniels, Doug Willick and Thomas E.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List
    Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List The target species list (species to be surveyed) should not change over the course of the study, therefore determining the target species list is an important project design task. Because waterbirds, including shorebirds, can occur in very high numbers in a census area, it is often not possible to count all species without compromising the quality of the survey data. For the basic shorebird census program (protocol 1), we recommend counting all shorebirds (sub-Order Charadrii), all raptors (hawks, falcons, owls, etc.), Common Ravens, and American Crows. This list of species is available on our field data forms, which can be downloaded from this site, and as a drop-down list on our online data entry form. If a very rare species occurs on a shorebird area survey, the species will need to be submitted with good documentation as a narrative note with the survey data. Project goals that could preclude counting all species include surveys designed to search for color-marked birds or post- breeding season counts of age-classed bird to obtain age ratios for a species. When conducting a census, you should identify as many of the shorebirds as possible to species; sometimes, however, this is not possible. For example, dowitchers often cannot be separated under censuses conditions, and at a distance or under poor lighting, it may not be possible to distinguish some species such as small Calidris sandpipers. We have provided codes for species combinations that commonly are reported on censuses. Combined codes are still species-specific and you should use the code that provides as much information as possible about the potential species combination you designate.
    [Show full text]
  • 57 HUMMINGBIRDS 1 PLAIN-CAPPED STARTHROAT Heliomaster Constantii 11.5–12.5Cm Field Notes: Often Makes Low Sallies to Capture Flying Insects
    Copyrighted Material 57 HUMMINGBIRDS 1 PLAIN-CAPPED STARTHROAT Heliomaster constantii 11.5–12.5cm field notes: Often makes low sallies to capture flying insects. voice: A loud peek; song transcribed as chip chip chip chip pi-chip chip chip..., or chi chi chi chi whit-it chi.... habitat: Shrubby, arid woodland, woodland edge and thickets. distribution: Rare vagrant from Mexico. 2 BAHAMA WOODSTAR Calliphlox evelynae 8–9.5cm field notes: Female has buff tips on outermost tail feathers. Feeds on nectar and by hawked insects. voice: A dry prititidee prititidee prititidee; also a sharp tit titit tit titit, which often speeds into a rattle. habitat: Mixed pine forests, forest edge, clearings, scrub and large gardens. distribution: Very rare vagrant from the Bahamas. 3 LUCIFER HUMMINGBIRD Calothorax lucifer 9–10cm field notes: Male has 3 a forked tail. Feeds on nectar and insects which are obtained by brief fly-catching sallies. voice: Twittering chips. habitat: Desert areas with agave, mountain slopes and canyons. distribution: Summers in SW Texas and S Arizona. 4 RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD Archilochus colubris 8–9.5cm field notes: Feeds on nectar; insects are taken during fly-catching sallies. voice: 4 A squeaking cric-cric. habitat: Woodland edge, copse and gardens. distribution: Summers in E USA and S Canada, from Alberta eastwards. 5 BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD Archilochus alexandri 10cm field notes: Female very similar to Ruby-throated Hummingbird. voice: A husky tiup, tiv or tipip. 5 Song is a weak warble. habitat: Dry scrub. distribution: Summers in W and SW USA. 6 ANNA’S HUMMINGBIRD Calypte anna 10–11cm field notes: Feeds on nectar and insects, which are gleaned or hawked.
    [Show full text]
  • The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata
    THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE SURFBIRD, APHRIZA VIRGATA JOSEPH R. JEHL, JR. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 The taxonomic relationships of the Surfbird, ( 1884) elevated the tumstone-Surfbird unit Aphriza virgata, have long been one of the to family rank. But, although they stated (p. most controversial problems in shorebird clas- 126) that Aphrizu “agrees very closely” with sification. Although the species has been as- Arenaria, the only points of similarity men- signed to a monotypic family (Shufeldt 1888; tioned were “robust feet, without trace of web Ridgway 1919), most modern workers agree between toes, the well formed hind toe, and that it should be placed with the turnstones the strong claws; the toes with a lateral margin ( Arenaria spp. ) in the subfamily Arenariinae, forming a broad flat under surface.” These even though they have reached no consensuson differences are hardly sufficient to support the affinities of this subfamily. For example, familial differentiation, or even to suggest Lowe ( 1931), Peters ( 1934), Storer ( 1960), close generic relationship. and Wetmore (1965a) include the Arenariinae Coues (1884605) was uncertain about the in the Scolopacidae (sandpipers), whereas Surfbirds’ relationships. He called it “a re- Wetmore (1951) and the American Ornithol- markable isolated form, perhaps a plover and ogists ’ Union (1957) place it in the Charadri- connecting this family with the next [Haema- idae (plovers). The reasons for these diverg- topodidae] by close relationships with Strep- ent views have never been stated. However, it silas [Armaria], but with the hind toe as well seems that those assigning the Arenariinae to developed as usual in Sandpipers, and general the Charadriidae have relied heavily on their appearance rather sandpiper-like than plover- views of tumstone relationships, because schol- like.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Ecology of Montezuma Quail in the Davis Mountains of Texas
    ECOLOGY OF MONTEZUMA QUAIL IN THE DAVIS MOUNTAINS OF TEXAS A Thesis By CURTIS D. GREENE Submitted to the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences Sul Ross State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2011 Major Subject: Range and Wildlife Management ECOLOGY OF MONTEZUMA QUAIL IN THE DAVIS MOUNTAINS OF TEXAS A Thesis By CURTIS D. GREENE Approved as to style and content by: _______________________________ ____________________________ Louis A. Harveson, Ph.D. Dale Rollins, Ph.D. (Chair of Committee) (Member) ____________________________ Patricia Moody Harveson, Ph.D. (Member) _______________________ Robert J. Kinucan, Ph.D. Dean of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences ABSTRACT Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae) occur throughout the desert mountain ranges in the Trans Pecos of Texas as well as the states of New Mexico and Arizona. Limited information on life history and ecology of the species is available due to the cryptic nature of the bird. Home range, movements, and preferred habitats have been speculated upon in previous literature with the use of observational or anecdotal data. With modern trapping techniques and technologically advanced radio transmitters, Montezuma quail have been successfully monitored providing assessments of their ecology with the use of hard data. The objective of this study was to monitor Montezuma quail to determine home range size, movements, habitat preference, and assess population dynamics for the Davis Mountains population. Over the course of two years (2009 – 2010) a total of 72 birds (36M, 35F, 1 Undetermined) were captured. Thirteen individuals with >25 locations per bird were evaluated in the home range, movement, and habitat selection analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Chile a Photo Guide
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be 88 distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical 89 means without prior written permission of the publisher. WALKING WATERBIRDS unmistakable, elegant wader; no similar species in Chile SHOREBIRDS For ID purposes there are 3 basic types of shorebirds: 6 ‘unmistakable’ species (avocet, stilt, oystercatchers, sheathbill; pp. 89–91); 13 plovers (mainly visual feeders with stop- start feeding actions; pp. 92–98); and 22 sandpipers (mainly tactile feeders, probing and pick- ing as they walk along; pp. 99–109). Most favor open habitats, typically near water. Different species readily associate together, which can help with ID—compare size, shape, and behavior of an unfamiliar species with other species you know (see below); voice can also be useful. 2 1 5 3 3 3 4 4 7 6 6 Andean Avocet Recurvirostra andina 45–48cm N Andes. Fairly common s. to Atacama (3700–4600m); rarely wanders to coast. Shallow saline lakes, At first glance, these shorebirds might seem impossible to ID, but it helps when different species as- adjacent bogs. Feeds by wading, sweeping its bill side to side in shallow water. Calls: ringing, slightly sociate together. The unmistakable White-backed Stilt left of center (1) is one reference point, and nasal wiek wiek…, and wehk. Ages/sexes similar, but female bill more strongly recurved. the large brown sandpiper with a decurved bill at far left is a Hudsonian Whimbrel (2), another reference for size. Thus, the 4 stocky, short-billed, standing shorebirds = Black-bellied Plovers (3).
    [Show full text]
  • And Anna's Hummingbirds
    Rufous (Selasphorus rufus) and Anna’s Hummingbirds (Calypte anna) population changes in Western Washington by Lauren N. Rowe A Senior Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science (Wildlife Conservation) School of Environmental and Forest Sciences University of Washington Box 352100 Seattle, Washington 98195-2100 2018 Rufous (Selasphorus rufus) and Anna’s Hummingbirds (Calypte anna) population changes in Western Washington Lauren N. Rowe Abstract Western Washington is home to a large variety of bird species including Rufous Hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) and Anna’s Hummingbirds (Calypte anna). Hummingbirds’ diets largely consist of nectar from blooming flowers or from human provided hummingbird feeders. Rufous Hummingbirds are long-distance migrants and travel to Washington to breed and their arrival date in Washington State has been earlier due to climate changes (Courter 2017). In Washington, Rufous Hummingbirds are in decline (Sauer, et al., 2017). Anna’s Hummingbirds have undergone a large range expansion and now are present in Washington year round. One large reason Anna’s Hummingbirds have been able to expand northward is by the use of exotic flowering plants in gardens and hummingbird feeders providing an additional food source (Birds of North America, 2017). This study will utilize data acquired from a survey sent out to Audubon Society members in western Washington about their hummingbird feeders, what species they see, and if there has been a change in Rufous or Anna’s Hummingbirds sightings over the years to try to answer questions related to the population changes of both of these species in the past several years.
    [Show full text]