Shorebirds in Marine Environments

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Shorebirds in Marine Environments Shorebirds in Marine Environments FRANK A. PITELKA EDITOR MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNlA BERKELEY CALIFORNIA 94720 Studies in Avian Biology No. 2 A PLJEKICATION OF THE COOPER ORNlTJ3OLOGICAL SOCIETY Cover Photographs: front, Sanderlings (Calidris alba); rear, Western Sandpipers (Calidris mawi); both taken on wintering grounds in central coastal California by Kenneth W. Gardiner. STUDIES IN AVIAN BIOLOGY Edited by RALPH J. RAITT with assistanceof JEAN P. THOMPSON at the Department of Biology New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003 Studies in Avian Biology, as successorto Pacific Coast Avifauna, is a series of works too long for The Condor, published at irregular intervals by the Cooper Ornithological Society. Manuscripts for consideration should be sub- mitted to the Editor at the above address. Style and format should follow those of this and the previous issue or of The Condor. Price: $8.00 plus $0.90 for postage and handling ($0.50 plus 5% of price); for sales in California, add 6% of price for sales tax ($0.48). All orders cash in ad- vance; make checks payable to Cooper Ornithological Society. Send orders to Cooper Ornithological Society, c/o Department of Biology, University of Cali- fornia, Los Angeles, CA 90024. For information on other publications of the Society, see recent issues of The Condor. Printed by the Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas 66044 13 June 1979 ii CONTENTS Preface . v Acknowledgments . vii Introduction: The Pacific Coast Shorebird Scene . 1 By Frank A. Pitelka Part 1: Distribution, Migration, and Conservation . 13 Aspects of the Occurrence of Shorebirds on a Central California Estuary........................................................... 15 By Gary W. Page, Lynne E. Stenzel, and Claire M. Wolfe Habitat Utilization by Wintering and Migrating Shorebirds on Humboldt Bay,California . 33 By R. H. Gerstenberg Banding Studies of Migrant Shorebirds in Northwestern Costa Rica . 41 By Susan M. Smith and F. Gary Stiles Notes on Charadriiformes of the South Coast of Peru . 49 By R. A. Hughes The Autumnal Migration of Baird’s Sandpiper . 55 By Joseph R. Jehl, Jr. Movements and Habitat Use by Wintering Populations of Willets and Marbled Godwits . 69 By Paul R. Kelly and Howard L. Cogswell Semipalmated Sandpiper Migration in North America . 83 By B. A. Harrington and R. I. G. Morrison Seasonal Habitat Use by Arctic Alaskan Shorebirds . 100 By P. G. Connors, J. P. Myers, and F. A. Pitelka A Preliminary Assessmentof Timing and Migration of Shorebirds Along the North Central Alaska Peninsula . 113 By Robert Gill, Jr. and Paul D. Jorgensen Migratory Shorebird Populations on the Copper River Delta and Eastern Prince William Sound, Alaska . 125 By M. E. “Pete” Isleib An Evaluation of the Copper River Delta as a Critical Habitat for Migrating Shorebirds . 131 By Stanley E. Senner Results of the California Shorebird Survey . 147 By Ronald M. Jurek Conservation and Management of Coastal Wetlands in California . 151 By John Speth Shorebird Census Studies in Britain . 157 By A. J. Prater Effect of Habitat Loss on the Numbers of Overwintering Shorebirds . 167 By J. D. Goss-Custard Summarizing Remarks, Part 1 . 179 By Joseph R. Jehl, Jr. 111 Part2: Ecology . 183 Feeding Ecology of Black Oystercatchers on South Farallon Island, California (abstract only) . 185 By Stephen H. Morrell, Harriet R. Huber, T. James Lewis, and David G. Ainley Seasonality of Summer Habitat and Social System of Red Phalaropes (abstract only) . 187 By Douglas Schamel and Diane Tracy Availability and Utilization of Invertebrates as Shorebird Food on a Humboldt Bay Mudflat (abstract only) . 189 By L. F. Carrin, N. D. Holmberg, and S. W. Harris Flocking Behavior in Wintering Dunlin (abstract only) . 191 By S. Shanewise and S. G. Herman Biology of Shorebirds Summering on Enewetak Atoll . 193 By Oscar W. Johnson Winter Ecology of a Black Oystercatcher Population . 207 By E. B. Hartwick and W. Blaylock Feeding Ecology of Three Species of Plovers Wintering on the Bay of Panama, Central America . 217 By Joseph G. Strauch, Jr. and Lawrence G. Abele Territoriality in Non-Breeding Shorebirds . 23 1 By J. P. Myers, P. G. Connors, and F. A. Pitelka The Energetics of Foraging by Redshank, Tringa totanus . 247 By J. D. Goss-Custard Summarizing Remarks, Part 2 . 259 By John A. Wiens iv Studies in Avian Biology No. 2:v-vii, 1979. PREFACE Early in 1976, George J. Divoky, then chairman of the Pacific Seabird Group, reported that the governing committee of the PSG had decided to sponsor a symposium on shorebirds at its next annual meeting, in January 1977. He invited me to organize it. I welcomed the opportunity for several reasons. First, I had attended the PSG’s second annual meeting in December 1975 and found the program and its attendants to be a good mix of interests in research on marine birds. Attendance by representatives from federal and state agencies, both active field workers and administrators, was better than at most ornithological meetings. Moreover, the membership as a whole evinced a sense of mission with regard to environmental welfare of marine birds, reflecting the ongoing and prospective research on their ecology and conservation sponsored by government agencies. All this boded well for a program on shorebirds that would direct attention to matters of habitat critical for shorebirds as well as their basic biology. Second, in the prior 20 years or so, research on basic ecology and behavior of shorebirds had advanced more rapidly on their breeding grounds than on migra- tory and wintering grounds, and some balancing of attention was clearly in order. This need was made all the more conspicuousby the simple fact that shorebirds spend 9-11 months on the latter, only l-3 months on the former. A symposium reflecting current research interests on their nonbreeding areas could help to improve the balance. Third, in view of the expanding front of research on shorebirds on the two sides of the north Atlantic, especially their migration patterns and winter habitat use, the time was clearly opportune for a review of parallel needs along the Pacific Coast. The western European community is well ahead for several reasons-its relatively compact geography, the numbers of active field observers, the magni- tude ot their “ringing” programs, and the tradition of winter-season travel by ornithologists to southern Europe and Africa. By 1970, the surge of interest in shorebirds in Great Britain led to the organization of a Wader Study Group, with its own bulletin (no. 22 issued in August 1978). Along the Pacific Coast, by comparison, informational and manpower resources for research on shorebirds are limited, and to date, both geography (bear in mind distances on our long, linear coast) and politics appear to discourage the sort of international collabo- ration needed to address problems of habitat needs and migration patterns of shorebirds. Still, the Pacific Coast is not without some bright spots of accom- plishments: The California Shorebirds Study, a cooperative program initiated with concern for preservation of wetland habitats and concluded in 1973 with a 275page report, represents the only systematic and intensive use of shorebirds as indicators yet undertaken in the New World (see papers by Jurek and Speth). The Offshore Continental Shelf Environmental AssessmentProgram in Alaska, initiated in 1975 and for which the Bureau of Land Management is primary spon- sor, representsa massive effort to provide baseline data and to assessprospective impact of coastal developments on biota generally, including shorebirds. A vol- canic rush of new information is forthcoming. Questions of focus and follow-up for all this work remain, in California, Alaska, and elsewhere. It seemed clear that a symposium could help to bring all these matters into better perspective for both field workers and government agencies. V Accordingly, I sought papers on various aspects of shorebird biology and hab- itat conservation, which the contents of this volume illustrate well. By late sum- mer, 1976, the developing program for the symposium spilled over the single day initially planned, and an extra half day was added. Time would not have allowed more papers than the contents of this volume. Yet initially, I did hope that more papers would result from my solicitations to Latin American workers and to representatives of government agencies responsible for coastal habitats in Ore- gon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska, but my success in these two respects was only modest. With regard to Latin America, survey work of the sort illustrated by papers of Hughes (Peru) and of Smith and Stiles (Costa Rica) badly needs doing in other sectors of the Pacific Coast. Existing distributional information is still relatively rough, and data for a picture of relative abundance in species such as the Sand- erling with immensely broad latitudinal distribution are scant or non-existent. Further, it appears that some discontinuities in coastal occurrence may reflect migratory landfalls or stagingareas after or before long distanceflights. A possible example is the Knot. It is important to try to identify these critical coastal sectors. Still further, more primary work as well as a summary for the occurrence of nonbreeders during the boreal summer are needed for tropical and austral coasts. The paper by Johnson for nonbreeders on a Pacific atoll suggestsproblems of interest beyond mere distribution. A coordinated program for year-round cen- susingof selected sectors spacedalong the Pacific Coast from San Diego to Tierra de1 Fuego would serve as an essential foundation for more sophisticatedwork on shorebird biology as well as on assessmentand conservation of coastal habitats. With regard to the North American coast north of California, the greatest amount of work is of course going on in Alaska, illustrated here by four papers. I had hoped to get a more general paper reviewing problems of coastal habitat classification and preservation as seen in these critical times for that state.
Recommended publications
  • A Classification of Living and Fossil Genera of Decapod Crustaceans
    RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2009 Supplement No. 21: 1–109 Date of Publication: 15 Sep.2009 © National University of Singapore A CLASSIFICATION OF LIVING AND FOSSIL GENERA OF DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS Sammy De Grave1, N. Dean Pentcheff 2, Shane T. Ahyong3, Tin-Yam Chan4, Keith A. Crandall5, Peter C. Dworschak6, Darryl L. Felder7, Rodney M. Feldmann8, Charles H. J. M. Fransen9, Laura Y. D. Goulding1, Rafael Lemaitre10, Martyn E. Y. Low11, Joel W. Martin2, Peter K. L. Ng11, Carrie E. Schweitzer12, S. H. Tan11, Dale Tshudy13, Regina Wetzer2 1Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] 2Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007 United States of America [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 3Marine Biodiversity and Biosecurity, NIWA, Private Bag 14901, Kilbirnie Wellington, New Zealand [email protected] 4Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan, Republic of China [email protected] 5Department of Biology and Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602 United States of America [email protected] 6Dritte Zoologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien, Austria [email protected] 7Department of Biology, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504 United States of America [email protected] 8Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242 United States of America [email protected] 9Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P. O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands [email protected] 10Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, 10th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20560 United States of America [email protected] 11Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 12Department of Geology, Kent State University Stark Campus, 6000 Frank Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analysis of Anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) Inferred from Nuclear 18S Ribosomal DNA (18S Rdna) Sequences
    MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 25 (2002) 535–544 www.academicpress.com Phylogenetic analysis of anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) inferred from nuclear 18S ribosomal DNA (18S rDNA) sequences Peter H.H. Weekers,a,* Gopal Murugan,a,1 Jacques R. Vanfleteren,a Denton Belk,b and Henri J. Dumonta a Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ledeganckstraat 35, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium b Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78207, USA Received 20 February 2001; received in revised form 18 June 2002 Abstract The nuclear small subunit ribosomal DNA (18S rDNA) of 27 anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) belonging to 14 genera and eight out of nine traditionally recognized families has been sequenced and used for phylogenetic analysis. The 18S rDNA phylogeny shows that the anostracans are monophyletic. The taxa under examination form two clades of subordinal level and eight clades of family level. Two families the Polyartemiidae and Linderiellidae are suppressed and merged with the Chirocephalidae, of which together they form a subfamily. In contrast, the Parartemiinae are removed from the Branchipodidae, raised to family level (Parartemiidae) and cluster as a sister group to the Artemiidae in a clade defined here as the Artemiina (new suborder). A number of morphological traits support this new suborder. The Branchipodidae are separated into two families, the Branchipodidae and Ta- nymastigidae (new family). The relationship between Dendrocephalus and Thamnocephalus requires further study and needs the addition of Branchinella sequences to decide whether the Thamnocephalidae are monophyletic. Surprisingly, Polyartemiella hazeni and Polyartemia forcipata (‘‘Family’’ Polyartemiidae), with 17 and 19 thoracic segments and pairs of trunk limb as opposed to all other anostracans with only 11 pairs, do not cluster but are separated by Linderiella santarosae (‘‘Family’’ Linderiellidae), which has 11 pairs of trunk limbs.
    [Show full text]
  • To View the Apr/May Issue of the Sandpiper (Pdf)
    The andpiper APRIL/MAY 2018 Redwood Region Audubon Society www.rras.org S APRIL/MAY FIELD TRIPS Every Saturday: Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary. Sunday, April 8: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife carpooling available. Walks generally run 2-3 hours. All These are our famous, rain-or-shine, docent-led fi eld trips at Refuge. This is a wonderful 2-to 3-hour trip for people ages, abilities and interest levels welcome! For more the Marsh. Bring your binocular(s) and have a great morning wanting to learn the birds of the Humboldt Bay area. It information, please contact Melissa Dougherty at 530-859- birding! Meet in the parking lot at the end of South I Street takes a leisurely pace with emphasis on enjoying the birds! 1874 or email [email protected]. (Klopp Lake) in Arcata at 8:30 a.m. Trips end around 11 a.m. Beginners are more than welcome. Meet at the Refuge Walks led by: Cédric Duhalde (Apr 7); Cindy Moyer (Apr Visitor Center at 9 a.m. Call Jude Power (707-822- 3613) Saturday, April 14: Shorebird Workshop, Part 14); Michael Morris (Apr 21); Christine Keil (Apr 28). If you for more information. III at Del Norte Pier. Meet at 10 a.m. to watch the are interested in leading a Marsh walk, please contact Ken rising tide at the foot of W. Del Norte St. bring in waves Burton at [email protected]. Sunday, April 8: Shorebird Workshop, Part II of godwits, willets, turnstones, and curlews. Tide will turn at South Spit. First we’ll look for beach-loving around noon; we hope to see a good show by then.
    [Show full text]
  • Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist
    Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist Arcata, Humboldt County, California (Updated Fall 2014) The following list of 327 species was updated by Rob Fowler and David Fix in 2014 from the list they compiled in 2009. Data came from sightings entered in eBird; Stanley Harris's Northwest California Bird (2005, 1996, 1991); historical records in North American Birds magazine and its supporting unpublished Humboldt County summaries; the 2006 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Elias Elias); the 1995 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Kristina Van Wert); and personal communications with many birders. Formatting by Camden Bruner. Call the Northwest California Bird Alert at (707) 822-5666 to report or hear reports of rare birds! Abbreviations: A - Abundant; occurs in large numbers C - Common; likely to be found U - Uncommon; occurs in small numbers, found with seearching R - Rare; expected in very small numbers, not likely to be found Ca - Casual; several records, possibly may occur regularly Ac - Accidental; 1-3 records, not reasonably expected to occur Sp - Spring (Marsh - May) S - Summer (June to mid-July) F - Fall (mid-July through November) W - Winter (December through February) Here Waterfowl: Breeds Spring Summer Fall Winter _____ Greater White-fronted Goose R R R _____ Emperor Goose Ac _____ Snow Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Ross's Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Brant U Ac U R _____ Cackling Goose A U C _____ Canada Goose C C C C yes _____ Tundra Swan Ca Ca _____ Wood Duck U U U U yes _____ Gadwall C C C C yes _____ Eurasian Wigeon R U R _____
    [Show full text]
  • Carcinization in the Anomura–Fact Or Fiction? II. Evidence from Larval
    Contributions to Zoology, 73 (3) 165-205 (2004) SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague Carcinization in the Anomura - fact or fiction? II. Evidence from larval, megalopal and early juvenile morphology Patsy+A. McLaughlin Rafael Lemaitre² & Christopher+C. Tudge² ¹, 1 Shannon Point Marine Center, Western Washington University, 1900 Shannon Point Road, Anacortes, 2 Washington 98221-908IB, U.S.A; Department ofSystematic Biology, NationalMuseum ofNatural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, U.S.A. Keywords: Carcinization, Anomura, Paguroidea, Lithodidae, Paguridae, Lomisidae, Porcellanidae, larval, megalopal and early juvenile morphology, pleonal tergites Abstract Existing hypotheses 169 Developmental data 170 Results 177 In this second carcinization in the Anomura ofa two-part series, From hermit to king, or king to hermit? 179 has been reviewed from early juvenile, megalopal, and larval Analysis by Richter & Scholtz 179 perspectives. Data from megalopal and early juvenile develop- Questions of asymmetry- 180 ment in ten ofthe Lithodidae have genera provided unequivo- Pleopod loss and gain 18! cal evidence that earlier hypotheses regarding evolution ofthe Uropod loss and transformation 182 king crab erroneous. of and pleon were A pattern sundering, - Polarity or what constitutes a primitive character decalcification has been traced from the megalopal stage through state? 182 several early crabs stages in species ofLithodes and Paralomis, Semaphoronts 184 with evidence from in other supplemental species eight genera. Megalopa/early juvenile characters and character Of major significance has been the attention directed to the states 185 inmarginallithodidsplatesareofnotthehomologoussecond pleomere,with thewhichadult whenso-calledseparated“mar- Cladistic analyses 189 Lomisoidea 192 ginal plates” ofthe three megalopal following tergites.
    [Show full text]
  • Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment
    UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.10 Annex 2b CMS Scientific Council: Flyway Working Group Reviews Review 2: Review of Current Knowledge of Bird Flyways, Principal Knowledge Gaps and Conservation Priorities Compiled by: JEFF KIRBY Just Ecology Brookend House, Old Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SQ, U.K. June 2010 Acknowledgements I am grateful to colleagues at BirdLife International for the input of analyses, technical information, advice, ideas, research papers, peer review and comment. Thus, I extend my gratitude to my lead contact at the BirdLife Secretariat, Ali Stattersfield, and to Tris Allinson, Jonathan Barnard, Stuart Butchart, John Croxall, Mike Evans, Lincoln Fishpool, Richard Grimmett, Vicky Jones and Ian May. In addition, John Sherwell worked enthusiastically and efficiently to provide many key publications, at short notice, and I’m grateful to him for that. I also thank the authors of, and contributors to, Kirby et al. (2008) which was a major review of the status of migratory bird species and which laid the foundations for this work. Borja Heredia, from CMS, and Taej Mundkur, from Wetlands International, also provided much helpful advice and assistance, and were instrumental in steering the work. I wish to thank Tim Jones as well (the compiler of a parallel review of CMS instruments) for his advice, comment and technical inputs; and also Simon Delany of Wetlands International. Various members of the CMS Flyway Working Group, and other representatives from CMS, BirdLife and Wetlands International networks, responded to requests for advice and comment and for this I wish to thank: Olivier Biber, Joost Brouwer, Nicola Crockford, Carlo C. Custodio, Tim Dodman, Roger Jaensch, Jelena Kralj, Angus Middleton, Narelle Montgomery, Cristina Morales, Paul Kariuki Ndang'ang'a, Paul O’Neill, Herb Raffaele and David Stroud.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Maps of the Eastern Alaska Range, Alaska, (44 Quadrangles, 1:63360 Scale)
    Report of Investigations 2015-6 GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE EASTERN ALASKA RANGE, ALASKA, (44 quadrangles, 1:63,360 scale) descriptions and interpretations of map units by Warren J. Nokleberg, John N. Aleinikoff, Gerard C. Bond, Oscar J. Ferrians, Jr., Paige L. Herzon, Ian M. Lange, Ronny T. Miyaoka, Donald H. Richter, Carl E. Schwab, Steven R. Silva, Thomas E. Smith, and Richard E. Zehner Southeastern Tanana Basin Southern Yukon–Tanana Upland and Terrane Delta River Granite Jarvis Mountain Aurora Peak Creek Terrane Hines Creek Fault Black Rapids Glacier Jarvis Creek Glacier Subterrane - Southern Yukon–Tanana Terrane Windy Terrane Denali Denali Fault Fault East Susitna Canwell Batholith Glacier Maclaren Glacier McCallum Creek- Metamorhic Belt Meteor Peak Slate Creek Thrust Broxson Gulch Fault Thrust Rainbow Mountain Slana River Subterrane, Wrangellia Terrane Phelan Delta Creek River Highway Slana River Subterrane, Wrangellia Terrane Published by STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS 2015 GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE EASTERN ALASKA RANGE, ALASKA, (44 quadrangles, 1:63,360 scale) descriptions and interpretations of map units Warren J. Nokleberg, John N. Aleinikoff, Gerard C. Bond, Oscar J. Ferrians, Jr., Paige L. Herzon, Ian M. Lange, Ronny T. Miyaoka, Donald H. Richter, Carl E. Schwab, Steven R. Silva, Thomas E. Smith, and Richard E. Zehner COVER: View toward the north across the eastern Alaska Range and into the southern Yukon–Tanana Upland highlighting geologic, structural, and geomorphic features. View is across the central Mount Hayes Quadrangle and is centered on the Delta River, Richardson Highway, and Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Major geologic features, from south to north, are: (1) the Slana River Subterrane, Wrangellia Terrane; (2) the Maclaren Terrane containing the Maclaren Glacier Metamorphic Belt to the south and the East Susitna Batholith to the north; (3) the Windy Terrane; (4) the Aurora Peak Terrane; and (5) the Jarvis Creek Glacier Subterrane of the Yukon–Tanana Terrane.
    [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]
  • Distributional Notes on the Birds of Peru, Including Twelve Species Previously Unreported from the Republic
    Number 37 26 March 1969 OCCASIONAL PAPERS OF THE MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY Baton Rouge, Louisiana DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF PERU, INCLUDING TWELVE SPECIES PREVIOUSLY UNREPORTED FROM THE REPUBLIC By John P. O’Neill During eight years of participation in Louisiana State University Peruvian expeditions my field companions and I have collected a number of specimens that represent extensions of known range for the species involved. Two of the specimens here reported are in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. All the others were collected by personnel of the Louisiana State University Museum of Zoology and deposited in that museum. Sub­ specific determinations have been made with the use of comparative material at these two institutions. Extensions of range represent departures from previously known status as given by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Most of the specimens here reported came from two localities: (1) Balta, a Cashinahua Indian village on the Río Curanja (at the point where the streams known to the local Cashinahuas as the Xumuya and the Inuya enter the Río Curanja, lat. 10°08' S, long. 71°13' W, elevation ca. 300 m), Depto. Loreto; (2) Yarinacocha, an oxbow lake about 15 km by road NNW of Pucallpa, Depto. Loreto. Other localities are identified in the accounts of the species under discussion. Dean Amadon of the American Museum of Natural History kindly per­ mitted me the use of collections in his care. Charles E. O’Brien of the same institution and Rodolphe Meyer de Schauensee of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia supplied information pertaining to the status of certain species in Peru.
    [Show full text]
  • Nesting Birds and Two Fox Species
    BIODIVERSITY CHANGES AT THE INTERFACE OF MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS: Nesting birds and two fox species David R. Klein, University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK Heather Renner, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Homer, AK Richard Kleinleder, URS, Homer, AK Climate warming in the Arctic and Subarctic has brought about decline in the seasonal extent of sea ice, rising sea levels, accelerated coastal erosion, and changes in the distribution and biodiversity of species of mammals and birds. What are the consequences of these climate- induced changes for nesting birds and resident mammals at the ecosystem and species levels on the St. Matthew Islands? The St. Matthew Islands, now part of Alaska, were discovered during an exploration cruise by Lieutenant Synd of the Russian Navy in the mid-1760’s. Captain Cook “re-discovered” and named the islands in 1778. •In 1909, St. Matthew and adjacent islands were given protective status as a bird reserve by President Theodore Roosevelt, designated as the Bering Sea Reservation These islands attained “Wilderness” status within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in 1980 Several million sea birds, including >15 species, nest on the St. Matthew Islands, and walrus, sea lions, and seals haul out there Pinnacle Is. There are two vertebrate species endemic to these islands McKay’s bunting Plectrophenax hyperboreus Singing vole Microtus abreviatus Ian Jones photo The St. Mathew Islands are the nesting location for the major portion of the Bering Sea rock sandpiper population The St. Matthew Islands include 3 islands, the largest is about 52 km long, as the biologist walks, and averages ~6 km wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Environmental Assessment: Kent Island Restoration at Bolinas Lagoon
    DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON Marin County Open Space District and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District August 2012 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON PREPARED FOR Marin County Open Space District Marin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 499-6387 and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 1455 Market St San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 503-6703 PREPARED BY Carmen Ecological Consulting Grassetti Environmental Consulting Peter R. Baye, Coastal Ecologist, Botanist August 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................1 1.2 Document Structure ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................3 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................3 2.2 Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................................3 2.3 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Provisional List of Birds of the Rio Tahuauyo Areas, Loreto, Peru
    Provisional List of Birds of the Rio Tahuauyo areas, Loreto, Peru Compiled by Carol R. Foss, Ph.D. and Josias Tello Huanaquiri, Guide Status based on expeditions from Tahuayo Logde and Amazonia Research Center TINAMIFORMES: Tinamidae 1. Great Tinamou Tinamus major 2. White- throated Tinamou Tinamus guttatus 3. Cinereous Tinamou Crypturellus cinereus 4. Little Tinamou Crypturellus soui 5. Undulated Tinamou Crypturellus undulates 6. Variegated Tinamou Crypturellus variegatus 7. Bartlett’s Tinamou Crypturellus bartletti ANSERIFORMES: Anhimidae 8. Horned Screamer Anhima cornuta ANSERIFORMES: Anatidae 9. Muscovy Duck Cairina moschata 10. Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 11. Masked Duck Nomonyx dominicus GALLIFORMES: Cracidae 12. Spix’s Guan Penelope jacquacu 13. Blue-throated Piping-Guan Pipile cumanensis 14. Speckled Chachalaca Ortalis guttata 15. Wattled Curassow Crax globulosa 16. Razor-billed Curassow Mitu tuberosum GALLIFORMES: Odontophoridae 17. Marbled Wood-Quall Odontophorus gujanensis 18. Starred Wood-Quall Odontophorus stellatus PELECANIFORMES: Phalacrocoracidae 19. Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus PELECANIFORMES: Anhingidae 20. Anhinga Anhinga anhinga CICONIIFORMES: Ardeidae 21. Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum 22. Agami Heron Agamia agami 23. Boat-billed Heron Cochlearius cochlearius 24. Zigzag Heron Zebrilus undulatus 25. Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 26. Striated Heron Butorides striata 27. Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 28. Cocoi Heron Ardea cocoi 29. Great Egret Ardea alba 30. Cappet Heron Pilherodius pileatus 31. Snowy Egret Egretta thula 32. Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea CICONIIFORMES: Threskiornithidae 33. Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis 34. Roseate Spoonbill Platalea ajaja CICONIIFORMES: Ciconiidae 35. Jabiru Jabiru mycteria 36. Wood Stork Mycteria Americana CICONIIFORMES: Cathartidae 37. Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 38. Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture Cathartes burrovianus 39.
    [Show full text]