DOCSLIB.ORG

First Record of a South Island Pied Oystercatcher in Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Record of a South Island Pied Oystercatcher in Australia VOL. 18 (4) DECEMBER 1999 153 AUSTRALIAN BIRD WATCHER 1999, 18 , 153-159 First Record of a South Island Pied Oystercatcher in Australia by BO TOTTERMAN\ GREG CLANCY2 and ROBERT MOFFATT3 1Empire Vale, via Ballina, N.S.W 2478 2P.O. Box 63, Coutts Crossing, N.S.W 2460 3National Parks & Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 91, Alstonville, N.S.W 2477 Summary A single South Island Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus finschi was observed at Ballin a, New South Wales, between 6 November 1998 and 21 February 1999. This record was accepted by the Birds Australia Rarities Committee, and is the first confirmed record for Australia. There have been several unconfirmed reports of the species from both Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands. Introduction The South Island Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus finschi (SIPO) is endemic to New Zealand, where it is migratory, breeding mainly at inland sites on the South Island. Most birds migrate to the North Island in the non-breeding season, but some disperse only as far as the coast of the South Island, or south to Stewart Island (Marchant & Higgins 1993). There is only one accepted record outside New Zealand, a vagrant in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in 1983 (Hay 1985). Several other reports from outside New Zealand, including the Kermadec, Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands, are all unconfirmed, confusing, and appear not to have been precisely identified (Marchant & Higgins 1993, Carter 1998). This paper documents the continuing presence of a SIPO at South Ballina, N.S.W, first observed in November 1998, and present until February 1999. The record has been accepted by the Birds Australia Rarities Committee (case 258). Discovery An unusual oystercatcher was observed roosting with an adult Pied Oystercatcher H. longirostris by BT at Robins Beach, South Ballina, New South Wales (28°56'S, 153°32'E), at 0740 h on 6 November 1998. It was observed only briefly with the intention of returning with other observers. It was noted as a possible hybrid Pied H. longirostris x Sooty Oystercatcher H. fuliginosus. At 1500 h, the bird was observed foraging in the wash zone with an adult Pied Oystercatcher, close to the site of the earlier observation, by a banding crew from the New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service (N.PWS.), consisting of the authors and three additional observers, Brad Cheers, Gabrielle Holder and Simon Walsh. The conditions were fine, with a light to moderate wind, and good visibility. The habitat is a gently sloping sandy ocean beach, rising to low, grassed dunes. The beach is 21 kfn of uninterrupted sand, extending from the mouth of the Richmond River southwards to rock outcrops in the Broadwater National Park. It has a tidal range of less than 2m. From July to December, the northern 17 km of the beach is divided by Pied Oystercatchers into breeding territories. The site where the unusual oystercatcher was observed is in a breeding territory of long standing, but which was vacant for unknown reasons in the 1998 breeding season. The bird was initially observed from a four-wheel-drive vehicle, and was later approached on foot to within about 30m for closer study and photography. TOTTERMAN, CLANCY & AUSTRALIAN 154 MOFFATT BIRD WATCHER Notes were based on observations using 8 x binoculars and a Kowa 25 x telescope. Photographs were taken by GC, Brad Cheers and Simon Walsh. Both birds continued to forage while being watched for 20 minutes. All observers left the site to complete their banding activities, and returned about half an hour later. The unusual oystercatcher, still foraging as before, was induced to fly so that it could be observed and photographed when in flight. BT had initially n'lentioned the possibility of a hybrid or aberrant bird. In an ensuing discussion about its identity, RM suggested the likelihood of a New Zealand oystercatcher, and GC agreed with the possibility. None of the observers had any useful experience with all species of New Zealand oystercatchers, and it was agreed to consult the literature for independent conclusions. The consensus at a later meeting of the authors was that the bird was unquestionably a SIPO. To avoid additional disturbance to breeding Pied Oystercatchers with clutches and dependent chicks elsewhere on the beach, it was agreed to suppress publication of the observation. Details were released in a note in the Australasian Wader Study Group newsletter Tattler in January 1999 (Straw 1999), after all the surviving chicks had fledged, and by press release by N.P.WS. in February. Subsequent observations In order to obtain additional details of the plumage and bare parts, moult and behaviour, BTlater observed the SIPO on several occasions. Until early December it was seen alone, or together with between one and three Pied Oystercatchers, mostly near the original site, or a few kilometres farther north, towards the mouth of the Richmond River. On 12 December, BT observed the bird 10 km south of the original site, at Broadwater Beach in the Broadwater National Park, at a site that is regularly used by non-breeding Pied Oystercatchers during the breeding season. This site is interspersed with exposed rocks and backed by high dunes. The bird was roosting and foraging in a flock of 37 immature and non-breeding Pied Oystercatchers and one immature Sooty Oystercatcher. On 19 January 1999, BT and visiting observer Mike Carter studied and photographed the bird, which was roosting and foraging in the same flock that had moved northwards to one of the vacated breeding territories, and had been augmented by more Pied Oystercatchers. Carter, who has more experience with New Zealand oystercatchers than the authors, agreed with the identification. The bird was subsequently observed by numerous local, interstate and international ornithologists and bird-watchers. At the time of writing, it was last observed by BT on 21 February 1999. Description Unless otherwise stated, this description of the SIPO is based on field notes by BT and GC, and photographs taken on 6 November 1998. The high number of references to Pied Oystercatcher are due to their constant and convenient presence for comparison. General appearance and size The bird was a black-and-white oystercatcher of short and dumpy appearance, with very short legs and a very long, narrow bill (Plate 46). All the lines of VOL. 18 (4) First South Island Pied Oystercatcher DECEMBER 1999 in Australia 155 South Island Pied Oystercatcher (foreground) with Pied Oystercatcher, South Ballina, N.S.W., 6 November 1998. Note the generally dumpy appearance and the short legs Plate 46 Photo: Brad Cheers demarcation between different coloured plumage were sharp and distinct, without fuzzy edges. In flight, a long and wide white bar on the upperwing, an almost completely white underwing, and a triangle of white feathers extending well up the back were prominent features. The bird was approximately 10% smaller than a Pied Oystercatcher, when judged by silhouette area, and similarly small when viewed head-on in flight. It stood no more than two-thirds the height of a Pied Oystercatcher, because of its smaller body and very short legs. The tail appeared shorter than that of a Pied Oystercatcher and, in flight, the wing was also slightly shorter. Bare parts The bill was both proportionally and actually longer than that of a Pied Oystercatcher. The length of the bill was estimated to be at least 1.6 times that of the head. It was of less depth at the base, less tapered and thinnty than that of a Pied Oystercatcher, and was slightly up-curved. Lateral compression extended well into the basal half, adding to the thin appearance. Bill colour was not noticeably different from that of adult Pied Oystercatchers, grading from bright orange at the base to a yellowish tip. The legs were of a thickness similar to those of a Pied Oystercatcher. The bird's most striking feature was its tibiae, which were very short and barely visible when the bird was at rest. The tarsi, also very short for an oystercatcher, were estimated as 20% shorter than those of a Pied Oystercatcher. Combined, the tibiae and tarsi were at least a third shorter, and many observers found this to be the best field character for separation from a Pied Oystercatcher. The colour of the TOTTERMAN, CLANCY & AUSTRALIAN 156 MOFFATT BIRD WATCHER legs was a dirty grey-pink, with a brownish tinge visible in certain light conditions. The colour changed gradually to a deeper pink-purple by March 1999, but was still not as bright as on an adult Pied Oystercatcher. The orbital-ring appeared to be thinner, and of a proportionally smaller outside diameter, than on a Pied Oystercatcher. It was just visible with the naked eye in bright sunlight, but in poor light was difficult to observe, even with binoculars. The colour was diffieult to define, but was dull and more brown than orange. It did not directly match the colour of any of the many juvenile and immature Pied Oystercatchers present. The iris was not noted with any confidence, and only recorded as being between orange and brown. Plumage Upperbody Head, neck and mantle, black. Back, wholly white, appearing as a wedge between the black scapulars, extending from the rump. Rump and uppertail­ coverts, entirely white. Tail, black and sharply demarcated from the tail-coverts, superficially appearing as a terminal band. Because the tail-coverts were white, not black as on a Pied Oystercatcher, the black band was clearly narrower. The boundaries between black and white were all clear and sharp. Underbody Breast, black, with the remainder of the underparts white. The black plumage ended slightly higher up the breast than on most Pied Oystercatchers, with a sharp line of demarcation between the colours.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Black Oystercatcher
    Alaska Species Ranking System - Black Oystercatcher Black Oystercatcher Class: Aves Order: Charadriiformes Haematopus bachmani Review Status: Peer-reviewed Version Date: 08 April 2019 Conservation Status NatureServe: Agency: G Rank:G5 ADF&G: Species of Greatest Conservation Need IUCN: Audubon AK: S Rank: S2S3B,S2 USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern BLM: Final Rank Conservation category: V. Orange unknown status and either high biological vulnerability or high action need Category Range Score Status -20 to 20 0 Biological -50 to 50 11 Action -40 to 40 -4 Higher numerical scores denote greater concern Status - variables measure the trend in a taxon’s population status or distribution. Higher status scores denote taxa with known declining trends. Status scores range from -20 (increasing) to 20 (decreasing). Score Population Trend in Alaska (-10 to 10) 0 Suspected stable (ASG 2019; Cushing et al. 2018), but data are limited and do not encompass this species' entire range. We therefore rank this question as Unknown. Distribution Trend in Alaska (-10 to 10) 0 Unknown. Habitat is dynamic and subject to change as a result of geomorphic and glacial processes. For example, numbers expanded on Middleton Island after the 1964 earthquake (Gill et al. 2004). Status Total: 0 Biological - variables measure aspects of a taxon’s distribution, abundance and life history. Higher biological scores suggest greater vulnerability to extirpation. Biological scores range from -50 (least vulnerable) to 50 (most vulnerable). Score Population Size in Alaska (-10 to 10) -2 Uncertain. The global population is estimated at 11,000 individuals, of which 45%-70% breed in Alaska (ASG 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 1 General Introduction 1.1 Shorebirds in Australia Shorebirds
    CHAPTER 1 General introduction 1.1 Shorebirds in Australia Shorebirds, sometimes referred to as waders, are birds that rely on coastal beaches, shorelines, estuaries and mudflats, or inland lakes, lagoons and the like for part of, and in some cases all of, their daily and annual requirements, i.e. food and shelter, breeding habitat. They are of the suborder Charadrii and include the curlews, snipe, plovers, sandpipers, stilts, oystercatchers and a number of other species, making up a diverse group of birds. Within Australia, shorebirds account for 10% of all bird species (Lane 1987) and in New South Wales (NSW), this figure increases marginally to 11% (Smith 1991). Of these shorebirds, 45% rely exclusively on coastal habitat (Smith 1991). The majority, however, are either migratory or vagrant species, leaving only five resident species that will permanently inhabit coastal shorelines/beaches within Australia. Australian resident shorebirds include the Beach Stone-curlew (Esacus neglectus), Hooded Plover (Charadrius rubricollis), Red- capped Plover (Charadrius ruficapillus), Australian Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris) and Sooty Oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus) (Smith 1991, Priest et al. 2002). These species are generally classified as ‘beach-nesting’, nesting on sandy ocean beaches, sand spits and sand islands within estuaries. However, the Sooty Oystercatcher is an island-nesting species, using rocky shores of near- and offshore islands rather than sandy beaches. The plovers may also nest by inland salt lakes. Shorebirds around the globe have become increasingly threatened with the pressure of predation, competition, human encroachment and disturbance and global warming. Populations of birds breeding in coastal areas which also support a burgeoning human population are under the highest threat.
    [Show full text]
  • Trophic Facilitation by the Oystercatcher Haematopus Palliatus Temminick on the Scavenger Snail Buccinanops Globulosum Kiener in a Patagonian Bay
    Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 325 (2005) 27–34 www.elsevier.com/locate/jembe Trophic facilitation by the oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus Temminick on the scavenger snail Buccinanops globulosum Kiener in a Patagonian bay Pedro Daleoa,b,*, Mauricio Escapab,c, Juan Pablo Isaccha,b, Pablo Ribeiroa,b, Oscar Iribarnea,b aDepartamento de Biologı´a (FCEyN), Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Funes 3250, CC 573 Correo Central, B7600WAG, Mar del Plata, Argentina bConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı´ficas y Te´cnicas (CONICET), Argentina cInstituto Argentino de Oceanografı´a (IADO), Argentina Received 25 August 2004; received in revised form 4 April 2005; accepted 7 April 2005 Abstract This study investigated the role of the American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) as a resource subsidizer for the scavenger snail Buccinanops globulosum in a northern Patagonian bay (40845VS, 64856VW, San Antonio Bay, Argentina). The most frequent food item for the snails was dead crabs Cyrtograpsus angulatus Dana, and the snails preferred this item. In the field, most dead crabs (78%) resulted from oystercatcher predation. Field densities of dead crabs were within the 95% confidence limits of the estimated densities produced by oystercatcher foraging activity, suggesting that a large proportion of carrion available for snails is a byproduct of oystercatcher predation. Dead crabs with injuries were more rapidly detected and consumed by snails, probably because injuries produced by oystercatchers increase leakage of body fluids and facilitate penetration of the proboscis of the snails. Our results suggest that oystercatcher predation subsidize this scavenger snail by increasing availability of food, decreasing variability in their provision and facilitating their consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Oystercatcher Foraging ­ Hollenberg and Demers 35
    Black Oystercatcher foraging ­ Hollenberg and Demers 35 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) foraging on varnish clams (Nuttallia obscurata) in Nanaimo, British Columbia Emily J. R. Hollenberg 1 and Eric Demers 2 1 406­3905 Quadra St., Victoria, B.C., V8X 1J1; email: [email protected] 2 Corresponding author: Biology Department, Vancouver Island University, 900 Fifth St., Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5S5; email: [email protected] Abstract: In this study, we investigated whether Black Oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani) feed on the recently intro­ duced varnish clam (Nuttallia obscurata), and whether they selectively feed on specific size classes of varnish clams. Sur­ veys were conducted at Piper’s Lagoon and Departure Bay in Nanaimo, British Columbia, between October 2013 and February 2014. Foraging oystercatchers were observed, and the number and size of varnish clams consumed were recor­ ded. We also determined the density and size of varnish clams available at both sites using quadrats. Our results indicate that Black Oystercatchers consumed varnish clams at both sites, although feeding rates differed slightly between sites. We also found that oystercatchers consumed almost the full range of available clam sizes, with little evidence for size­selective foraging. We conclude that Black Oystercatchers can successfully exploit varnish clams and may obtain a significant part of their daily energy requirements from this non­native species. Key Words: Black Oystercatcher, Haematopus bachmani, varnish clam, Nuttallia obscurata, foraging, Nanaimo. Hollenberg, E.J.R. and E. Demers. 2017. Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) foraging on varnish clams (Nuttallia obscurata) in Nanaimo, British Columbia. British Columbia Birds 27:35–41. Campbell et al.
    [Show full text]
  • AFRICAN Black OYSTERCATCHER
    1 1 2 2 3 3 4 African Black Oystercatcher 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 Between 8 9 9 10 10 11 the tides 11 12 Text by Phil Hockey 12 13 13 14 he African Black Oystercatcher’s 14 15 15 first entry into the scientific ‘led- 16 16 17 ger’ happened only 141 years 17 18 T 18 19 ago, when a specimen collected at the 19 20 Cape of Good Hope was described by 20 21 21 22 Bonaparte. Bonaparte named the bird 22 23 moquini after the French botanist, 23 24 24 25 Horace Benedict Alfred Moquin Tandon, 25 26 director of the Toulouse Botanical 26 27 27 28 Gardens. Its first entry into the litera- 28 29 29 ture, however, predates this by more 30 30 31 than 200 years. 31 32 32 33 In 1648, Étienne de Flacourt, the 33 34 Governor-General of Madagascar, 34 35 35 36 visited Saldanha Bay. He wrote: ‘There 36 37 are birds like blackbirds, with a very shrill 37 38 38 39 and clear cry, as large as partridges, with 39 40 40 a long sharp beak and red legs: they are 41 41 42 very good to eat and when young they 42 43 43 44 taste like Woodcock’. The first descrip- 44 45 tions of the bird’s biology date from the 45 46 46 47 late 19th century – much of what was 47 48 written then was culled from knowledge 48 49 49 50 of the European Oystercatcher, and much 50 51 51 of it was wrong! 52 52 53 Now, at the end of the 20th century, it 53 54 54 55 seems as though this striking bird may 55 56 be moving from a confused past into an 56 57 57 58 uncertain future.
    [Show full text]
  • British Birds |
    VOL. LU JULY No. 7 1959 BRITISH BIRDS WADER MIGRATION IN NORTH AMERICA AND ITS RELATION TO TRANSATLANTIC CROSSINGS By I. C. T. NISBET IT IS NOW generally accepted that the American waders which occur each autumn in western Europe have crossed the Atlantic unaided, in many (if not most) cases without stopping on the way. Yet we are far from being able to answer all the questions which are posed by these remarkable long-distance flights. Why, for example, do some species cross the Atlantic much more frequently than others? Why are a few birds recorded each year, and not many more, or many less? What factors determine the dates on which they cross? Why are most of the occurrences in the autumn? Why, despite the great advantage given to them by the prevail­ ing winds, are American waders only a little more numerous in Europe than European waders in North America? To dismiss the birds as "accidental vagrants", or to relate their occurrence to weather patterns, as have been attempted in the past, may answer some of these questions, but render the others still more acute. One fruitful approach to these problems is to compare the frequency of the various species in Europe with their abundance, migratory behaviour and ecology in North America. If the likelihood of occurrence in Europe should prove to be correlated with some particular type of migration pattern in North America this would offer an important clue as to the causes of trans­ atlantic vagrancy. In this paper some aspects of wader migration in North America will be discussed from this viewpoint.
    [Show full text]
  • Haematopus Ostralegus
    Haematopus ostralegus -- Linnaeus, 1758 ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- HAEMATOPODIDAE Common names: Eurasian Oystercatcher; Pied Oystercatcher European Red List Assessment European Red List Status VU -- Vulnerable, (IUCN version 3.1) Assessment Information Year published: 2015 Date assessed: 2015-03-31 Assessor(s): BirdLife International Reviewer(s): Symes, A. Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Van den Bossche, W., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU) EU27 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU) This widespread shorebird is undergoing rapid population declines across the European part of its extremely large global range. It is therefore classified as Vulnerable (A2abc+3bc+4abc) in both Europe and the EU27. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Albania; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Faroe Islands (to DK); Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Gibraltar (to UK) Vagrant: Greenland (to DK); Luxembourg; Slovenia Population The European population is estimated at 284,000-354,000 pairs, which equates to 568,000-708,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 226,000-267,000 pairs, which equates to 453,000-533,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Trend In Europe and the EU27 the population size is estimated to be decreasing by 30-49% in 41.1 years (three generations) both in the breeding season and in winter.
    [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]
  • The Role of Coastal Engineering in American Oystercatcher Conservation April 2016
    THE ROLE OF COASTAL ENGINEERING IN AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHER CONSERVATION APRIL 2016 Chris Farrell Marianne Korosy Julie Wraithmell Audubon Florida Our mission is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity. The production of this paper was supported by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Role of Coastal Engineering in American Oystercatcher Conservation Executive Summary Humans have engineered the coasts for centuries, trying to create stability for the built environment in a system that is inherently dynamic. Continued coastal development and sea level rise are increasing the demand for engineered coastlines. Simultaneously, restoration dollars made available by the Deepwater Horizon settlements in the Gulf of Mexico will likely fuel a boom of such projects—from oyster reefs to armoring. These projects are often designed to achieve one particular goal such as coastal protection, oyster restoration, or erosion control, yet often have unintended impacts that jeopardize declining populations of coastal wildlife. With advanced planning and consideration, coastal engineering projects can be designed to minimize impacts and in some cases provide benefits to these species. This report summarizes the impacts of coastal engineering on the American Oystercatcher and provides recommendations for permit applicants, project engineers, and regulatory reviewers to improve future projects for the benefit of these imperiled shorebirds.
    [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]
  • Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus Longirostris Review of Current Information in NSW May 2008
    NSW SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris Review of Current Information in NSW May 2008 Current status: The Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris is currently listed as Rare in South Australia under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act), but is not listed under Commonwealth legislation. The NSW Scientific Committee recently determined that the Pied Oystercatcher meets criteria for listing as Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), based on information contained in this report and other information available for the species. Species description: The Pied Oystercatcher is a medium-sized (45 cm), sturdy, strikingly black and white shorebird with a long orange-red bill, red eyes and stout red-pink legs. It has distinctive loud, piping calls. A similar species, the Sooty Oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus, has the same red bill, eyes and legs but is wholly black. Taxonomy: Haematopus longirostris Vieillot 1817, is monotypic (i.e. no subspecies) and an Australasian endemic species in a cosmopolitan genus. Distribution and number of populations: In NSW the Pied Oystercatcher occupies beaches and inlets along the entire coast, the northern and southern populations having possible interchange with the Queensland and Victorian populations, respectively. It occurs and breeds around the Australian and Tasmanian coastlines, but has declined throughout much of its range and is of conservation concern in south-eastern Australia because it is vulnerable to habitat destruction
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridisation by South Island Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus Finschi) and Variable Oystercatcher (H
    27 Notornis, 2010, Vol. 57: 27-32 0029-4470 © The Ornithological Society of New Zealand, Inc. Hybridisation by South Island pied oystercatcher (Haematopus finschi) and variable oystercatcher (H. unicolor) in Canterbury TONY CROCKER* 79 Landing Drive, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112, New Zealand SHEILA PETCH 90a Balrudry Street, Christchurch 8042, New Zealand PAUL SAGAR National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 8602, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand Abstract We document hybridisation between South I pied oystercatcher (Haematopus finschi) and variable oystercatcher (H. unicolor) in Canterbury from 1989 to 2005. From 2 observations of hybridisation between South I pied oystercatcher x variable oystercatcher when first discovered, the hybrid swarm has increased to around 17 pairs, including South I pied oystercatcher pairs, variable oystercatcher pairs, hybrid pairs, and mixed pairs. We present data on the birds and their offspring and speculate on possible causes and implications of hybridisation for conservation of the taxa. Crocker, T.; Petch, S.; Sagar, P. 2010. Hybridisation by South Island pied oystercatcher (Haematopus finschi) and variable oystercatcher (H. unicolor) in Canterbury. Notornis 57(1): 27-32. Keywords South Island pied oystercatcher; Haematopus finschi; variable oystercatcher; Haematopus unicolor; hybridisation; conservation management INTRODUCTION species. Hybridisation between these 2 species South I pied oystercatchers (Haematopus finschi) of oystercatchers has not been documented in (hereafter SIPO) and variable oystercatchers (H. detail previously. Here, we outline the discovery unicolor) (hereafter VOC) are taxa of uncertain and monitoring of an initial 2 hybridising pairs of affinities endemic to New Zealand’s main islands SIPO/VOC, leading to the establishment of a small (Banks & Paterson 2007).
    [Show full text]