Birds of Conservation Concern: 2002–2007
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
345 Fieldfare Put Your Logo Here
Javier Blasco-Zumeta & Gerd-Michael Heinze Sponsor is needed. Write your name here Put your logo here 345 Fieldfare Fieldfare. Adult. Male (09-I). Song Thrush FIELDFARE (Turdus pilaris ) IDENTIFICATION 25-26 cm. Grey head; red-brown back; grey rump and dark tail; pale underparts; pale flanks spotted black; white underwing coverts; yellow bill with ochre tip. Redwing Fieldfare. Pattern of head, underwing co- verts and flank. SIMILAR SPECIES Song Thrush has orange underwing coverts; Redwing has reddish underwing coverts; Mistle Thrush has white underwing coverts, but lacks pale supercilium and its rump isn’t grey. Mistle Thrush http://blascozumeta.com Write your website here Page 1 Javier Blasco-Zumeta & Gerd-Michael Heinze Sponsor is needed. Write your name here Put your logo here 345 Fieldfare SEXING Male with dark or black tail feathers; red- dish feathers on back with blackish center; most have a broad mark on crown feathers. Female with dark brown tail feathers but not black; dull reddish feathers on back with dark centre (but not blackish); most have a thin mark on crown feathers. CAUTION: some birds of both sexes have similar pattern on crown feathers. Fieldfare. Sexing. Pattern of tail: left male; right fe- male. Fieldfare. Sexing. Pat- AGEING tern of Since this species doesn’t breed in Aragon, only crown feat- 2 age groups can be recognized: hers: top 1st year autumn/2nd year spring with moult male; bot- limit within moulted chestnut inner greater co- tom female. verts and retained juvenile outer greater coverts, shorter and duller with traces of white tips; pointed tail feathers. -
Diet and Habitat Use of Scoters Melanitta in the Western Palearctic - a Brief Overview
163 Diet and habitat use of scoters Melanitta in the Western Palearctic - a brief overview A. D. Fox Department of Wildlife Ecology and Biodiversity, National Environmental Research Institute, Kalø, Grenåvej 12, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark. E-mail: tfo@dmu. dk If patterns of scoter distribution and abundance are to be understood, there is a need to know upon which prey items these birds feed, how they obtain these prey items and the habitats from which these food items are most easily harvested. Dietary studies and descriptions of habitats exploited by Common and Velvet Scoter in the non-breeding season are reviewed. The existing literature strongly suggests that, outside of the breeding season, these species forage mainly upon marine bivalve mol luscs (especially those less than 4cm long) that live on the surface or within the upper 3cm of clean, coarse, sandy substrates in waters less than 20m deep. Although there is a large energetic cost to diving, han dling and crushing such prey prior to digestion, such sedentary prey items often occur in very high densities, offering a locally abundant and predictable feeding resource. Since single species often dominate the diet, but dominant food items differ between feeding areas, it seem s likely that scoters simply take whatever prey is locally available in suffi cient abundance to fulfil nutritional needs. Large differences in docu mented prey size frequency distributions suggest that scoters may not select for specific prey size classes below an upper digestive limit. However, in the absence of any precise understanding of how scoters obtain their prey, nor any simultaneous studies of available benthic food abundance and size class distributions in scoter diets, it is not possible to confirm if differences simply reflect differences in profitability between different prey at different sites at different times of the year. -
Host Alarm Calls Attract the Unwanted Attention of the Brood Parasitic
www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Host alarm calls attract the unwanted attention of the brood parasitic common cuckoo Attila Marton 1,2*, Attila Fülöp 2,3, Katalin Ozogány1, Csaba Moskát 4,5 & Miklós Bán 1,3,5 It is well known that avian brood parasites lay their eggs in the nests of other bird species, called hosts. It remains less clear, however, just how parasites are able to recognize their hosts and identify the exact location of the appropriate nests to lay their eggs in. While previous studies attributed high importance to visual signals in fnding the hosts’ nests (e.g. nest building activity or the distance and direct sight of the nest from vantage points used by the brood parasites), the role of host acoustic signals during the nest searching stage has been largely neglected. We present experimental evidence that both female and male common cuckoos Cuculus canorus pay attention to their host’s, the great reed warbler’s Acrocephalus arundinaceus alarm calls, relative to the calls of an unparasitized species used as controls. Parallel to this, we found no diference between the visibility of parasitized and unparasitized nests during drone fights, but great reed warblers that alarmed more frequently experienced higher rates of parasitism. We conclude that alarm calls might be advantageous for the hosts when used against enemies or for alerting conspecifcs, but can act in a detrimental manner by providing important nest location cues for eavesdropping brood parasites. Our results suggest that host alarm calls may constitute a suitable trait on which cuckoo nestlings can imprint on to recognize their primary host species later in life. -
The Birds of the Phoenix Park, County Dublin: Results of a Repeat Breeding Bird Survey in 2015
The Birds of the Phoenix Park, County Dublin: Results of a Repeat Breeding Bird Survey in 2015 Prepared by Lesley Lewis, Dick Coombes & Olivia Crowe A report commissioned by the Office of Public Works and prepared by BirdWatch Ireland September 2015 Address for correspondence: BirdWatch Ireland, Unit 20 Block D Bullford Business Campus, Kilcoole, Co. Wicklow. Phone: + 353 1 2819878 Email: [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Survey design ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Field methods ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Data analysis & interpretation ........................................................................................................... 12 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Species diversity and abundance -
Comparative Historical Demography of Migratory and Nonmigratory Birds from the Caribbean Island of Hispaniola
Evol Biol (2012) 39:400–414 DOI 10.1007/s11692-012-9164-9 RESEARCH ARTICLE Comparative Historical Demography of Migratory and Nonmigratory Birds from the Caribbean Island of Hispaniola Anna L. Fahey • Robert E. Ricklefs • Steven C. Latta • J. Andrew DeWoody Received: 25 October 2011 / Accepted: 2 February 2012 / Published online: 29 February 2012 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract Islands offer unique opportunities for studies of Maximum significantly reduced effective population sizes evolution and historical demography. We hypothesized that of most migratory North American bird populations and wintering North American migrant bird species would some resident Hispaniolan bird populations. Our data fur- show genetic evidence of population expansion over recent ther revealed that mismatch statistics were poorly corre- millennia due to the expansion of their breeding distribu- lated with and less informative than the neutrality test tions following the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet. In statistics, a consideration for future demographic studies. contrast, we presumed that non-migratory species would exhibit more stable historical demographies. We used Keywords Avian evolution Á Mismatch distribution Á mtDNA sequences from 649 individuals of 16 avian spe- Tajima’s D Á Fu and Li’s D and F Á Mitochondrial DNA Á cies on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola to test this Migration prediction. Mismatch distributions did not differ signifi- cantly between migrants and non-migrants. However, neutrality indices indicated population expansion in the Introduction migrant species, as well as two non-migratory resident species with extensive distributions. Evidence of popula- The inference of historical demography from variation in tion expansion was less consistent in other non-migratory mtDNA sequences was first pioneered for human popula- residents. -
Phoenicurus Ochruros
Phoenicurus ochruros -- (Gmelin, 1774) ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- PASSERIFORMES -- MUSCICAPIDAE Common names: Black Redstart; Rougequeue noir European Red List Assessment European Red List Status LC -- Least Concern, (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., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) EU27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) At both European and EU27 scales this species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern within both Europe and the EU27. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Albania; Andorra; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Canary Is. (to ES); Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Gibraltar (to UK) Vagrant: Faroe Islands (to DK); Iceland Population The European population is estimated at 5,760,000-10,000,000 pairs, which equates to 11,500,000-20,000,000 mature individuals. -
Green Sandpiper Uttering Call of Wood Sandpiper.—With Reference to J
NOTES Gannets robbing gulls.—On 5th August 1957, I spent the day at sea in Dingle Bay, Co. Kerry, in the trawler "Ros Brin". As soon as trawling operations began, we were accompanied by a few Storm Petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus), Fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), Great Black-backed Gulls (Larus marinus), Lesser Black-backed Gulls (L. fuscus), and large numbers of Herring Gulls (L. argentatus). During the gutting periods, and especially when any small waste fish were thrown over-board, six to eight Gannets (Sula bassana), would join in the feast. Any fish that sank too deep for the gulls were immediately taken by the Gannets by the normal manner of diving, but on numerous occasions when a gull sitting on the surface had a fish it could not swallow quickly—i.e. small plaice, dabs and other flat fish—one or other of the Gannets would plunge in a shallow-angled frontal dive at the gull, entering the water about two yards away and snatching the fish from the gull's bill on breaking the surface. The fish was swallowed on the surface. This was repeated many times, and the Gannets also frequently fluttered along the water and snatched fish from the bills of other gulls which they passed. On several occasions, too, a Gannet was seen to lunge into the air after a retreating gull that was attempting to rise from the water with a fish; the Gannet "treading water" with wings half-open and neck fully extended upwards in its endeavour to snap the fish from the slowly rising and heavily gorged' gull. -
Driven Grouse Shooting
Driven grouse shooting RSPB Council updated our previous policy on driven grouse shooting in October 2020. Our policy is to support licensing of driven grouse shooting across the UK, following expected progress on this issue in Scotland in 2020. Unless substantial progress (including effective licensing, stopping raptor killing, cessation of burning on peat soils, and banning use of lead ammunition) is made in reforming driven grouse shooting by 2025 in line with RSPB principles for sustainable gamebird shooting, we will consequently call on governments to introduce a specific ban on driven grouse shooting. Background Driven grouse shooting is defined as where shooters sit in lines of grouse butts on open moorland, and red grouse are then driven by beaters and dogs over the guns to shoot. The activity usually involves shooting large grouse “bags” (where large numbers of grouse are shot in a day). It is a unique hunting type to the UK (mainly England and Scotland) and shooters will pay large sums of money for a day’s shooting. Typically, gamekeepers are employed to kill predators that eat grouse; heather is burned to create young heather (the main foodplant of red grouse); and other additional management techniques are employed to produce as many red grouse as possible for shooting. The red grouse shooting season opens on the 12 August (“the Glorious Twelfth”). The alternative walked up grouse shooting involves a small number of shooters accompanied by dogs. They generally take small and sustainable numbers of grouse, as walked up shooting is more about the hunting experience. This is much less of a conservation issue for us. -
Breeding of the Black Redstart in Britain a Century-Old Record by George W
(110) BREEDING OF THE BLACK REDSTART IN BRITAIN A CENTURY-OLD RECORD BY GEORGE W. TEMPERLEY. IN 1916, seven years before T. A. Coward found the Black Redstart (Phcenicurus ochrurus gibraltariensis) breeding on the Sussex coast and so established what was then thought to be the first British record, F. C. R. Jourdain wrote an article in The Zoologist on the status of the Black Redstart in England as a breeding species. In that article he reviewed every alleged instance of breeding that had been reported up to that date and showed that in every such case an error in identification had been made—" with the possible exception of Hancock's .... which however requires confirmation before it can possibly be accepted." Hancock's record here referred to was published in 1874 in his Catalogue of the Birds of Northumber land and Durham and reads as follows :—" In 1845, a pair [of Black Redstarts] nested in the garden of the late Rev. James Raine, the historian of Durham, in that City; and I am indebted to Mr. Wm. Proctor for their nest, which is now in my collection. An egg belonging to it was kindly presented to me by the Rev. James Raine, son of the above named gentleman." William Proctor, who gave the nest to Hancock, was the curatOr- taxidermist of Durham University Museum. He had already published the record himself, for in a " List of Birds found in the County," published as an Appendix to the Rev. G. Ornsby's Sketches of Durham, in 1846, he had written thus of the Black Redstart— " Very rare ; a nest with five eggs was taken near Crook Hall in the summer of 1845." It will be noted that this was written just one year after the event and twenty-eight years before the publica tion of Hancock's " Catalogue." Additional details of the occurrence are to be found in a chapter by Canon H. -
Tringarefs V1.3.Pdf
Introduction I have endeavoured to keep typos, errors, omissions etc in this list to a minimum, however when you find more I would be grateful if you could mail the details during 2016 & 2017 to: [email protected]. Please note that this and other Reference Lists I have compiled are not exhaustive and best employed in conjunction with other reference sources. Grateful thanks to Graham Clarke (http://grahamsphoto.blogspot.com/) and Tom Shevlin (www.wildlifesnaps.com) for the cover images. All images © the photographers. Joe Hobbs Index The general order of species follows the International Ornithologists' Union World Bird List (Gill, F. & Donsker, D. (eds). 2016. IOC World Bird List. Available from: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ [version 6.1 accessed February 2016]). Version Version 1.3 (March 2016). Cover Main image: Spotted Redshank. Albufera, Mallorca. 13th April 2011. Picture by Graham Clarke. Vignette: Solitary Sandpiper. Central Bog, Cape Clear Island, Co. Cork, Ireland. 29th August 2008. Picture by Tom Shevlin. Species Page No. Greater Yellowlegs [Tringa melanoleuca] 14 Green Sandpiper [Tringa ochropus] 16 Greenshank [Tringa nebularia] 11 Grey-tailed Tattler [Tringa brevipes] 20 Lesser Yellowlegs [Tringa flavipes] 15 Marsh Sandpiper [Tringa stagnatilis] 10 Nordmann's Greenshank [Tringa guttifer] 13 Redshank [Tringa totanus] 7 Solitary Sandpiper [Tringa solitaria] 17 Spotted Redshank [Tringa erythropus] 5 Wandering Tattler [Tringa incana] 21 Willet [Tringa semipalmata] 22 Wood Sandpiper [Tringa glareola] 18 1 Relevant Publications Bahr, N. 2011. The Bird Species / Die Vogelarten: systematics of the bird species and subspecies of the world. Volume 1: Charadriiformes. Media Nutur, Minden. Balmer, D. et al 2013. Bird Atlas 2001-11: The breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. -
Hunting in SWEDEN
www.face-europe.org Page 1 of 14 Hunting in SWEDEN SURFACE AREA Total surface area 449,964 km² Woodlands 62 % Farming area 9 % Huntable area n.a. average huntable area n.a. HUNTER/POPULATION Population 9,000,000 Number of Hunters 290,000 % Hunters 3.2 % Hunters / Inhabitants 1:31 Population density inhabitants/km² 22 Source: http:www.jagareforbundet.se, 2005 Handbook of Hunting in Europe, FACE, 1995 www.face-europe.org Page 2 of 14 HUNTING SYSTEM Competent authorities The Parliament has overall responsibility for legislation. The Government - the Ministry of Agriculture - is responsible for questions concerning hunting. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for supervision and monitoring developments in hunting and game management. The County Administrations are responsible for hunting and game management questions on the county level, and are advised by County Game Committees - länsviltnämnd - with representatives of forestry, agriculture, hunting, recreational and environmental protection interests. } Ministry of Agriculture (Jordbruksdepartementet) S-10333 Stockholm Phone +46 (0) 8 405 10 00 - Fax +46 (0)8 20 64 96 } Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) SE-106 48 Stockholm Phone +46 (0)8 698 10 00 - Fax +46 (0)8 20 29 25 Hunters’ associations Hunting is a popular sport in Sweden. There are some 290.000 hunters, of whom almost 195.000 are affiliated to the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management (Svenska Jägareförbundet). The association is a voluntary body whose main task is to look after the interests of hunting and hunters. The Parliament has delegated responsibility SAHWM for, among other things, practical game management work. -
Developing Methods for the Field Survey and Monitoring of Breeding Short-Eared Owls (Asio Flammeus) in the UK: Final Report from Pilot Fieldwork in 2006 and 2007
BTO Research Report No. 496 Developing methods for the field survey and monitoring of breeding Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) in the UK: Final report from pilot fieldwork in 2006 and 2007 A report to Scottish Natural Heritage Ref: 14652 Authors John Calladine, Graeme Garner and Chris Wernham February 2008 BTO Scotland School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA Registered Charity No. SC039193 ii CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................v LIST OF APPENDICES...........................................................................................................vi SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... viii CRYNODEB............................................................................................................................xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................xvi 1. BACKGROUND AND AIMS...........................................................................................2