DOCSLIB.ORG

Decline of a Traditional Roost-Site for Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria Interpres, Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis Fulv

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decline of a Traditional Roost-Site for Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria Interpres, Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis Fulv Australian Field Ornithology 2016, 33, 244–250 http://dx.doi.org/10.20938/afo33244250 Moorland Point: Decline of a traditional roost-site for Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres, Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva and other shorebirds in northern Tasmania Hazel A. Britton1* and James F. Hunter2 1P.O. Box 5054, Ulverstone TAS 7315, Australia. Email: [email protected] 2P.O. Box 129, Sheffield TAS 7306, Australia. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract. The Moorland Point area has been an important high-tide roost for certain migratory shorebird species on the central-north coast of Tasmania, where shorebirds are generally scarce. Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres and Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva roost on a small rocky headland and adjacent piles of seaweed along with up to three Grey-tailed Tattlers Tringa brevipes (all mainly in summer), and Double-banded Plover Charadrius bicinctus roost above the high-tide mark 250 m to the east (mainly February–early August). More than 300 counts of shorebirds have been made at this site from 1985 to 2014. All these species have declined in recent years. Ruddy Turnstone, Pacific Golden Plover and Grey-tailed Tattler may have been affected by factors elsewhere in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, but local disturbance is also implicated and needs further management in addition to the recent initiative to block vehicles from the beach. The situation highlights some of the problems in conserving shorebird species that favour scattered small sites and may escape the attention given to sites supporting large numbers of more social shorebirds. Introduction National surveys of shorebirds were initiated in the 1980s (Lane 1987), and these first made JH aware that Moorland Tasmania lies at the southern extremity of the East Point was an important site for the Ruddy Turnstone. Lane Asian–Australasian Flyway for migratory shorebirds, and listed the top 20 sites for the common migrants and this hence may be of special interest for monitoring changes site would have been number 8 for the Ruddy Turnstone if in numbers of shorebirds that arrive there each year from it had been known to him at the time. This paper provides an update on this small but special high-tide roost, their breeding areas in Arctic Siberia (or Alaska), including demonstrating its importance and showing how numbers Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres and Pacific Golden of shorebirds have changed (declined) since 1985–2000. Plover Pluvialis fulva. Although Boullanger Bay/Robbins Passage in north-western Tasmania is the premier area for migratory shorebirds in the state, very few migratory Methods shorebirds from the Northern Hemisphere are encountered on the central-north coast between East Inlet at Stanley Between 2000 and 2009, JH and Peter Britton (PB) and the north-eastern Arm of the Rubicon Estuary in and HB made many visits to Moorland Point: a total of Narawntapu National Park (20 km east of Devonport: 274 visits when birds were counted. All visits by PB and Figure 1). Several species are seen irregularly, mainly HB were at or near high tide, whereas those by JH were at passing through on migration and seldom remaining all stages of the tide. Between 2010 and 2014, observation throughout the austral summer. An exception is in the area effort was unavoidably reduced, but 42 more counts were between the Don River Estuary (41°9′S, 146°20′E; 3 km made by JH and HB. Maximum numbers of birds observed west of Devonport) and Rubicon Estuary (41°7′S, 146°33′E; in previous counts by JH (1985–2000) were also used to 19 km east of Devonport), where Ruddy Turnstones can determine trends over the longer 30-year period. regularly be seen feeding amongst the seaweed beds of the rocky shelf at low tide, along with two other migratory On each visit, all shorebirds were counted at or near the species (Pacific Golden Plover and Double-banded Plover Moorland Point roost-site, including a small site nearby Charadrius bicinctus). The Ruddy Turnstone is a species that was favoured by the Double-banded Plover (Figure that often avoids the open mudflat habitats favoured by the 1). On some occasions, birds leaving the roost-site when most numerous and diverse assemblages of shorebirds disturbed flew west to a subsidiary roost-site in East (at least in eastern Australia: Lane 1987; Higgins & Davies Devonport (Figure 1). Counts were made at both roost-sites 1996), and hence may be overlooked by shorebird surveys (Moorland Point and East Devonport) on three occasions that focus on mudflats. in 2008, within c. 15–30 minutes of each other. Mean and maximum counts of each species in each ‘summer’ period A high-tide roost at Moorland Point (41°9′S, 146°27′E; (October–March) and each ‘winter’ period (May–August) 10 km east of Devonport) has been known and regularly were tabulated for the three main species (Ruddy Turnstone, visited by volunteer counters for many years. The birds Pacific Golden Plover and Double-banded Plover). For roost here on a rocky point and among adjacent piles of the Ruddy Turnstone and Pacific Golden Plover, linear seaweed (Figure 2), and mostly feed on an extensive rock regressions were calculated for the summer maximum platform that is exposed at low tide. JH has been recording numbers from 1985 to 2014, using SPSS Statistics birds here since 1985 (Hunter 2002) and provided data v. 16. Maximum numbers were considered appropriate to from this site for a state-wide assessment (Bryant 2002). analyse, as on some counts it was clear that birds had Decline of shorebirds at Moorland Point, Tasmania 245 Kilometres Figure 1. Locations of high-tide shorebird roost-sites east of Devonport, northern Tasmania. Large grey circle = Moorland Point roost-site, medium black circle = East Devonport subsidiary roost-site, and small white circle = Double-banded Plover roost-site. Map source: Cradle Coast NRM Victorian Wader Study Group in south-eastern Australia (compiled by Clive Minton, Roz Jessop and Chris Hassell, and reported in the Victorian Wader Study Group Bulletin). Results Maximum counts and seasonal means for 2000–2014 are shown in Table 1 for the Ruddy Turnstone, along with estimates of previous breeding success in the Arctic. Maximum counts and seasonal means are shown in Table 2 for the Pacific Golden Plover and Double-banded Plover (the latter a winter visitor from breeding grounds in New Zealand). Trends in maximum numbers are shown for Ruddy Turnstone (1985–2014) and Pacific Golden Plover (2000–2014) in Figures 3–4. Figure 2. Moorland Point, Tasmania, showing beach and main shorebird roost-site (seaweed beds on rocky shelf) Ruddy Turnstone and Pacific Golden Plover were most and recent stone placements to limit vehicle access. Photo: numerous from mid September to mid April each year, Hazel A. Britton as for most trans-equatorial migratory species. Small numbers of Ruddy Turnstones remained over winter moved away in response to unusual tides or disturbance in most years, but the Pacific Golden Plover was not from people. Counts in September were not used for recorded in winter. The Double-banded Plover consistently analyses of the two northern migrants (Ruddy Turnstone arrived in February (from New Zealand) and departed in and Pacific Golden Plover), as they may have included July/August. These species are considered individually new arrivals as well as birds that had spent the winter in below. Up to three Grey-tailed Tattlers Tringa brevipes Tasmania. Estimates of breeding success in the Arctic for were observed between September and April each year the Ruddy Turnstone the previous year were deduced from until 2012, with the last record being a single bird on the proportion of first-year birds in catches made by the 19 March 2012. One Tattler over-wintered in 2001. 246 Australian Field Ornithology H.A. Britton & J.F. Hunter Table 1. Maximum (max.) and mean (with standard error) numbers of Ruddy Turnstones counted at Moorland Point, Tasmania, in ‘summer’ (October–March) and ‘winter’ (May–August), 2000–2014. Dates are recorded as day, month. Estimates of breeding success in the previous Arctic breeding season are taken from the percentage of juvenile birds in the total catch of Ruddy Turnstones in south-eastern Australia compiled by C.D.T. Minton, R. Jessop & C. Hassell, and reported in the Victorian Wader Study Group Bulletin annually; ratings: poor 0–10%, moderate/average 11–20%, good 21–30%, exceptional/ very good >30%; # = too few non-zero counts to make useful estimates of variance; – = no birds recorded. Year Summer Estimated (Oct.–Apr.) Winter breeding success Max. Date of Mean Standard No. of Year Max. Date of Mean Standard No. of max. count error counts (May– max. count error counts Aug.) 2000–2001 240 20.12 151.6 16.41 14 2001 40 7.05 20.8 4.70 10 Good Moderate– 2001–2002 190 19.12 125.3 11.77 16 2002 13 23.06 5.0 1.80 7 poor 2002–2003 255 25.12 112.2 12.70 26 2003 20 17.06 16.9 5.20 8 Good 2003–2004 200 24.11 107.9 14.82 19 2004 10 25.08 1.6 0.97 9 Very poor 2004–2005 155 26.10, 30.12 109.9 5.74 27 2005 3 23.06 0.4 # 8 Average 2005–2006 320 5.11, 19.12 111.4 24.15 17 2006 56 28.08 21.9 6.75 10 Very good 2006–2007 200 4.10 86.1 12.22 17 2007 0 – 0.0 # 8 Poor 2007–2008 225 17.10 126.6 15.67 16 2008 18 16.07 6.0 # 3 Good 2008–2009 150 4.10 92.4 9.73 10 2009 2 20.06 0.5 # 4 Very poor 2009–2010 100 2.10, 3.02 75.5 8.88 11 2010 19 24.07 18.0 # 2 Good 2010–2011 98 17.02 57.6 17.20 5 2011 11 1.07 5.5 # 2 Very good 2011–2012 110 30.11 58.4 10.50 8 2012 10 6.06 10.0 # 1 Average 2012–2013 90 21.11 85.0 # 3 2013 5 27.06 5.0 # 1 Very poor 2013–2014 90 3.02 46.5 # 2 2014 13 24.08 7.5 # 2 Very good Table 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Age-Related Differences in Ruddy Turnstone Foraging and Aggressive Behavior
    AGE-RELATED DIFFERENCES IN RUDDY TURNSTONE FORAGING AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR SARAH GROVES ABSTRACT.--Theforaging behavior of fall migrant Ruddy Turnstoneswas studiedon the Mas- sachusettscoast on 2 different substrates,barnacle-covered rocks and sand and weed-litteredflats. Foragingrates differedsignificantly between the 2 substrates.On eachsubstrate the foragingand successrates of adults and juveniles differed significantly while the frequenciesof successwere similarfor both age-classes.The observeddifferences in foragingrates of adultsand juvenilesmay be due to the degreeof refinementof foragingtechniques. Experience in searchingfor and handling prey may be a primary factor accountingfor thesedifferences, and foragingperformance probably improves with age and experience.Alternatively, the differencesmay be due to the presenceof inefficient juveniles that do not survive to adulthood. Both adultsand juveniles in the tall-depressedposture were dominant in aggressiveinteractions much morefrequently than birds in the tall-levelposture. In mixedflocks of foragingadult and juvenile turnstones,the four possibletypes of aggressiveinteractions occurred nonrandomly. Adult over juvenile interactionsoccurred more frequently than expected,and juvenile over adult interac- tions were never seen.A tentative explanationof this phenomenonmay be that juveniles misinter- pret or respondambivalently to messagesconveyed behaviorally by adultsand thusbecome espe- cially vulnerableto aggressionby adults.The transiencyof migrantsmade it unfeasibleto evaluate
    [Show full text]
  • List of Shorebird Profiles
    List of Shorebird Profiles Pacific Central Atlantic Species Page Flyway Flyway Flyway American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) •513 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) •••499 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) •488 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) •••501 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)•490 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) •511 Dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.)•••485 Dunlin (Calidris alpina)•••483 Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemestica)••475 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)•••492 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ••503 Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa)••505 Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva) •497 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)••473 Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)•••479 Sanderling (Calidris alba)•••477 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)••494 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia)•••507 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)•509 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) •••481 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) ••515 All illustrations in these profiles are copyrighted © George C. West, and used with permission. To view his work go to http://www.birchwoodstudio.com. S H O R E B I R D S M 472 I Explore the World with Shorebirds! S A T R ER G S RO CHOOLS P Red Knot (Calidris canutus) Description The Red Knot is a chunky, medium sized shorebird that measures about 10 inches from bill to tail. When in its breeding plumage, the edges of its head and the underside of its neck and belly are orangish. The bird’s upper body is streaked a dark brown. It has a brownish gray tail and yellow green legs and feet. In the winter, the Red Knot carries a plain, grayish plumage that has very few distinctive features. Call Its call is a low, two-note whistle that sometimes includes a churring “knot” sound that is what inspired its name.
    [Show full text]
  • AVIAN PARAMYXOVIRUSES in SHOREBIRDS and Gulls
    journal Diseases, 46(2), 2010, pp. 481-487 \Vildlife Disease Association 2010 AVIAN PARAMYXOVIRUSES IN SHOREBIRDS AND GUllS laura l. Coffee,1,5 Britta A. Hanson,' M. Page Luttrell;' David E. Swa~ne,2 Dennis A. Senne,3 Virginia H. Goekjlan," lawrence J. Niles,4,6 and David E. Stallknecht1, 1 Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Departrnent of Population Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA 2 Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, US Departrnent of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia 30605, USA 3 US Departrnent of Agriculture, Anirnal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, Iowa 50010, USA 4 Endangered and Nongame Species Program, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 400, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, USA 5 Current address: Cornell University, College of Veterinary Medicine, S2-118 Schurman Hall, Biomedical Sciences, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA 6 Current address: Conserve Wildlife Foundation, 516 Farnsworth Avenue, Bordertown, New Jersey 08505, USA 7 Corresponding author (email: [email protected]) ABSTRACT: There are nine serotypes of avian paramyxovirus (APMV), including APMV-1, or Newcastle disease virus. Although free-flying ducks and geese have been extensively monitored for APMV, limited information is available for species in the order Charadriiforrnes. From 2000 to 2005 we tested cloacal swabs from 9,128 shorebirds and gulls (33 species, five families) captured in 10 states within the USA and in three countries in the Caribbean and South America. Avian paramyxoviruses were isolated from 60 (0.7%) samples by inoculation of embryonating chicken eggs; isolates only included APMV-1 and APMV-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Observations in Siriuspasset, North Greenland, 2016 and 2017
    Bird observations in Siriuspasset, North Greenland, 2016 and 2017 WON YOUNG LEE (Med et dansk resumé: Fugleobservationer i Siriuspasset, Nordgrønland, 2016 og ’17) Abstract During the summer seasons of 2016 and 2017, bird observations were recorded near Siriuspasset in Nansen Land, North Greenland. Breeding birds were surveyed in a 9 km2 area. Wader populations were dense compared to other sites in North and Northeast Greenland, and Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius and Lapland Longspur Calca- rius lapponicus were found to breed far north of their previously known distributions in Greenland. Introduction Description of the study area and methods During the summers of 2016 and 2017, a Danish-Korean The study site was located on the east shore of J. P. Koch expedition performed biological and paleontological Fjord at the southwestern end of Siriuspasset, at alti- studies near Siriuspasset in Nansen Land, North Green- tudes of 0-300 m a.s.l., and here a well-vegetated area land. Compared to the North Greenland region as a of 9 km2 was censused for breeding birds (Figs 1 & 2). whole, Siriuspasset and its surroundings have very lush This was delimited by the coast, a river and features in vegetation, comparable to areas 900 km to the south in the terrain. Northeast Greenland (cf. Fig. 20 in Aastrup et al. 2005). From 25 July to 13 August, 2016 and 30 June to 21 Siriuspasset is a well-known habitat for both muskoxen July, 2017 breeding birds were monitored daily in the Ovibos moschatus and wolves Canis lupus, and high census area. In both years, the survey periods were actu- numbers of moulting Pink-footed Geese Anser brachyr- ally too late to census breeding waders, as failed breed- rhynchus were recorded there in 2009 during an aerial ers may have left by then (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • 3966 Tour Op 4Col
    The Tasmanian Advantage natural and cultural features of Tasmania a resource manual aimed at developing knowledge and interpretive skills specific to Tasmania Contents 1 INTRODUCTION The aim of the manual Notesheets & how to use them Interpretation tips & useful references Minimal impact tourism 2 TASMANIA IN BRIEF Location Size Climate Population National parks Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA) Marine reserves Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) 4 INTERPRETATION AND TIPS Background What is interpretation? What is the aim of your operation? Principles of interpretation Planning to interpret Conducting your tour Research your content Manage the potential risks Evaluate your tour Commercial operators information 5 NATURAL ADVANTAGE Antarctic connection Geodiversity Marine environment Plant communities Threatened fauna species Mammals Birds Reptiles Freshwater fishes Invertebrates Fire Threats 6 HERITAGE Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage European history Convicts Whaling Pining Mining Coastal fishing Inland fishing History of the parks service History of forestry History of hydro electric power Gordon below Franklin dam controversy 6 WHAT AND WHERE: EAST & NORTHEAST National parks Reserved areas Great short walks Tasmanian trail Snippets of history What’s in a name? 7 WHAT AND WHERE: SOUTH & CENTRAL PLATEAU 8 WHAT AND WHERE: WEST & NORTHWEST 9 REFERENCES Useful references List of notesheets 10 NOTESHEETS: FAUNA Wildlife, Living with wildlife, Caring for nature, Threatened species, Threats 11 NOTESHEETS: PARKS & PLACES Parks & places,
    [Show full text]
  • Arenaria Interpres (Ruddy Turnstone)
    Arenaria interpres (Ruddy Turnstone) European Red List of Birds Supplementary Material The European Union (EU27) Red List assessments were based principally on the official data reported by EU Member States to the European Commission under Article 12 of the Birds Directive in 2013-14. For the European Red List assessments, similar data were sourced from BirdLife Partners and other collaborating experts in other European countries and territories. For more information, see BirdLife International (2015). Contents Reported national population sizes and trends p. 2 Trend maps of reported national population data p. 4 Sources of reported national population data p. 7 Species factsheet bibliography p. 10 Recommended citation BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Further information http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/euroredlist http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/european-red-list-birds-0 http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/ Data requests and feedback To request access to these data in electronic format, provide new information, correct any errors or provide feedback, please email [email protected]. THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds Arenaria interpres (Ruddy Turnstone) Table 1. Reported national breeding population size and trends in Europe1. Country (or Population estimate Short-term population
    [Show full text]
  • SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae
    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does not include Alcidae CREATED BY AZA CHARADRIIFORMES TAXON ADVISORY GROUP IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Original Completion Date: October 2013 Authors and Significant Contributors: Aimee Greenebaum: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Vice Chair, Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Alex Waier: Milwaukee County Zoo, USA Carol Hendrickson: Birmingham Zoo, USA Cindy Pinger: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Chair, Birmingham Zoo, USA CJ McCarty: Oregon Coast Aquarium, USA Heidi Cline: Alaska SeaLife Center, USA Jamie Ries: Central Park Zoo, USA Joe Barkowski: Sedgwick County Zoo, USA Kim Wanders: Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Mary Carlson: Charadriiformes Program Advisor, Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Perry: Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Crook-Martin: Buttonwood Park Zoo, USA Shana R. Lavin, Ph.D.,Wildlife Nutrition Fellow University of Florida, Dept. of Animal Sciences , Walt Disney World Animal Programs Dr. Stephanie McCain: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Veterinarian Advisor, DVM, Birmingham Zoo, USA Phil King: Assiniboine Park Zoo, Canada Reviewers: Dr. Mike Murray (Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA) John C. Anderson (Seattle Aquarium volunteer) Kristina Neuman (Point Blue Conservation Science) Sarah Saunders (Conservation Biology Graduate Program,University of Minnesota) AZA Staff Editors: Maya Seaman, MS, Animal Care Manual Editing Consultant Candice Dorsey, PhD, Director of Animal Programs Debborah Luke, PhD, Vice President, Conservation & Science Cover Photo Credits: Jeff Pribble Disclaimer: This manual presents a compilation of knowledge provided by recognized animal experts based on the current science, practice, and technology of animal management.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Water Requirements for the Rubicon River
    Environmental Water Requirements for The Rubicon River Tom Krasnicki Aquatic Ecologist Water Assessment and Planning Branch Water Resources Division DPIWE. Report Series WRA 02/01 May, 2002. Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i GLOSSARY OF TERMS ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. THE RUBICON RIVER 3 2.1 General Description 4 2.1.1 Catchment and Drainage System 3 2.1.2 Geomorphology and Geology 6 2.1.3 Climate and Rainfall 7 2.1.4 Vegetation 8 2.1.5 Land Use and Degradation 9 2.1.6 Port Sorell Estuary 9 2.1.7 Hydrology 11 2.2. Site Selection 13 2.2.1 The Rubicon River at Smith and Others Rd. 13 3. VALUES 15 3.1 Community Values 15 3.2 State Technical Values 17 3.3 Endangered species 18 3.4 Values Assessed 19 4. METHODOLOGY 20 4.1 Physical Habitat Data 20 4.2 Biological Data 21 4.2.1 Invertebrates 21 4.2.2 Fish 21 4.3 Hydraulic Simulation 21 4.4 Risk Analysis 22 5. RESULTS 24 5.1 Physical Habitat Data 24 5.2 Biological Data 25 5.3 Risk Analysis 26 6. DISCUSSION 29 6.1 Vertebrate Fauna 30 6.1.1 Mordacia mordax and Geotria australis 30 6.1.2 Gadopsis marmoratus 30 6.1.3 Pseudaphritis urvillii 31 6.1.4 Galaxias truttaceus and Galaxias maculatus 31 6.1.5 Galaxias brevipinnis and Neochanna cleaveri 31 6.1.6 Prototroctes maraena 32 6.1.7 Lovettia sealii and Retropinna tasmanica 32 6.1.8 Anguilla australis 32 6.1.9 Salmo trutta 32 6.1.10 Nannoperca australis and Perca fluviatilis 33 6.2 Invertebrate Fauna 33 6.2.1 Astacopsis gouldi 33 6.3 Flow Recommendations 34 6.3.1 Rubicon River at Smith and Others Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Field Ornithologists April 2020 Newsletter
    Western Field Ornithologists April 2020 Newsletter Message from WFO President Kurt Leuschner The coronavirus pandemic is now impacting society in serious and profound ways. Every day we learn more about this virus, its toll on society, and the habits we need to practice in order to minimize its spread. As you learned from our earlier message, the WFO board decided that we must postpone our annual conference that was set to be held in September in Reno. We did this to protect the health of our members and to protect WFO from a potentially significant financial loss. We’re very disheartened that we had to cancel what was to be our 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of Western Field Ornithologists. The venue was exciting, we were organizing wonderful field trips led by stellar leaders, speakers were on tap, and we looked forward to seeing old friends and the chance to make new ones. Our annual WFO conference is a signature annual accomplishment and we are fully aware of how important this yearly event is for everyone. WFO is both a scientific and a social organization. Interacting with one another and enjoying each other’s company is a key reason many of us are part of the WFO. This newsletter and others to follow are one way we can keep the WFO community engaged and further our mission even though we may not physically see many of you again until 2021. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the articles and updates, the artwork, the information on some of our board members, and the art and writings by several young scholars.
    [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]
  • Disease Should Be Considered a Major Threatening Process Leading to Australian Fauna Declines and Extinctions
    Australia’s Faunal Extinction Crisis – Senate inquiry submission Wildlife Health Research Group, Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne Disease should be considered a major threatening process leading to Australian fauna declines and extinctions The following submission relates specifically to Points 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 of the Committee’s Frame of Reference. Key points: Diseases can be important threatening processes for wild animal populations, that directly cause or synergistically drive faunal declines and extinctions, with current examples in Australia (Section 1) Other factors, such as habitat degradation/destruction, chronic stress, previous declines and invasive species may contribute to the effects of disease in populations (Section 2) Known infectious diseases with population‐level effects in Australian fauna include chytrid fungus, toxoplasmosis, psittacine beak‐and‐feather disease, trypanosomes, sarcoptic mange, chlamydiosis, Koala retrovirus, mucormycosis, Pilchard herpesvirus and Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease. The level of understanding of how these diseases affect our wildlife populations varies significantly, but all desperately require further research to effectively protect affected species. Other infectious and non‐ infectious diseases may play crucial roles in the current and future decline of Australian fauna, however, there is currently insufficient baseline data and surveillance to effectively detect or address these threats and avert future extinctions (Section 3) Key actions needed to
    [Show full text]
  • STATUS ASSESSMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS for the COMMON TERN (Sterna Hirundo) in the GREAT LAKES REGION
    STATUS ASSESSMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMON TERN (Sterna hirundo) IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION Francesca J. Cuthbert Linda R. Wires Kristina Timmerman University of Minnesota Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Biology 1980 Folwell Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108 USA September 2003 For additional copies, contact: Nongame Bird Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Bldg., 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056 Recommended Citation: Cuthbert, F.J., Wires, L.R. and K. Timmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) in the Great Lakes Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MN. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………..iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………….….1 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………..2 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….…………………2 TAXONOMY…………………………………………………………………………….3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………3 RANGE…………………………………………………………………………………...4 BAND RECOVERY DATA AND POPULATION BOUNDARIES……………….…5 HABITAT………………………………………………………………………………...6 Breeding Season Habitat Requirements…………………………………………...6 Post-Breeding Staging Habitat Requirements……………………………………..8 Winter Habitat Requirements……………………………………………………...8 BIOLOGY………………………………………………………………………..………8 Migration and Wintering Grounds………………………………………………...8 Reproduction………………………………………………………………………9 Diet and Foraging Ecology………………………………………………………10 Mortality and Longevity…………………………………………………………11 POPULATION SIZE AND TRENDS………………...………………………..12
    [Show full text]