DOCSLIB.ORG

Boreal Chickadee (Poecile Hudsonica) Scott Hickman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Boreal Chickadee (Poecile Hudsonica) Scott Hickman Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica) Scott Hickman Chippewa Co., MI 5/23/1998 © Allen Chartier This species sponsored by Copper Country Audubon. (Click to view a comparison of Atlas I to II) Perhaps no species is more commonly regarded likely due to a paucity of information; the species’ irregular pattern of short-range, as an indicator of pristine boreal habitat in sometimes irruptive, migration (Ficken et Michigan than Boreal Chickadee. This more al.1996), its preference for difficult to survey reticent relative of the extroverted Black-capped black spruce-tamarack wetlands (Green 1995), Chickadee is a resident of the coniferous forests and its relatively quiet and secretive behavior that extend from Alaska through the Canadian during the breeding season (Ficken et al. 1996). Maritimes and south to sections of the northernmost U.S. (Ficken 1996). Genetic The breeding season range of Boreal Chickadee analysis indicates that Boreal Chickadees in Michigan was determined to be confined to emerged as a species approximately one and a the UP by MBBA I. Evers (1991) concluded half million years ago when they diverged from that MBBA I revealed two disjunct nesting Eurasian ancestors that entered North America populations within the UP; a western population two million years earlier (Gill et al. 2005). In primarily west of Marquette, and an eastern Michigan, the Boreal Chickadee is a resident in population extending east from central Alger the UP where it is an uncommon breeding County. MBBA II substantiated the continued species (Payne 1983, Chartier and Ziarno 2004). existence of these same two populations, but indicates that the western population has Distribution expanded while the eastern population has Early accounts of Boreal Chickadee distribution contracted. in Michigan are inconsistent. Cook (1893) describes it as a “rare winter visitor” to northern The reason for these distributional changes can Michigan. Barrows (1912) includes reports not be conclusively determined. Differences in indicating Boreal Chickadee as abundant in the survey effort constitute one possibility. UP, rarer in the LP, and sometimes found as far Observer hours were not recorded during south as St. Clair County, but hesitates to accept MBBA I, but were extrapolated by Kalamazoo these reports as acceptable documentations. No Nature Center data editors. These estimates “unquestionable” breeding records for Boreal indicate that effort within the species’ western Chickadee existed for Michigan even as late as UP range during MBBA II increased by 34% 1950 (Wood 1951). These inconsistencies were © 2010 Kalamazoo Nature Center Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica) Scott Hickman from MBBA I, while effort within the eastern estimated total population decline of 73% from UP population’s range decreased by 8%. This 1965 - 2005 (Butcher and Niven 2007) has disparity may have significantly contributed to prompted the National Audubon Society to list the reported changes in distribution, particularly it as a “common songbird in decline”. if the decrease in survey effort in the eastern UP Following this continental trend, the number of was primarily within boreal habitat. UP townships listed as confirmed, probable, or possible for nesting Boreal Chickadees has Disparity in habitat loss during the interval declined by 39%, 33%, and 25%, respectively between atlases is another possibility. Logging since MBBA I. However, this decrease is in boreal forests in the western UP is generally chiefly confined to the eastern UP population. perceived as minimal on public land, light on The total number of townships reporting Boreal non-industrial, privately owned land, and only Chickadees is unchanged for the western moderate on lumber company land (J. Ferris, population with 32 townships reporting Boreal pers. comm.). The impression is similar for the Chickadees during both atlases. In stark eastern UP, except that sale of land between contrast, the number of townships within the forest companies in this region has been eastern UP population noting Boreal Chickadees preceded by heavier harvesting (D. Kuhn, pers. dropped from 24 to six, a decrease of 75%. No comm.). It is then possible that the reported eastern population townships achieved contraction of Boreal Chickadee range in the confirmed status, only one was listed as eastern UP is due to somewhat greater loss of probable, and five as possible. habitat combined with less survey effort than in the western UP. As explained above for distribution, it is possible that the decrease in eastern UP Boreal Breeding Biology Chickadees indicated by MBBA II is due to Boreal Chickadees are cavity nesters requiring relatively less survey effort and greater habitat conifer-dominated habitat, preferably wet areas loss in the eastern portion of the UP. While the containing spruce (Evers 1991). They begin importance of habitat loss is easily appreciated, forming pair bonds while members of winter the influential effect of survey effort within flocks which start dissolving in late April in habitat is often not recognized. Surveying central Ontario (McLaren 1975). Pairs nest in primarily preferred habitat underestimates existing holes or excavate their own within population declines while primarily surveying stumps or trees of a wide variety of species, as marginal habitat overestimates declines (Lawler long as there is soft heartwood underlying a and O’Connor 2004). Differences in survey more solid exterior (McLaren 1975). Their effort within habitat type are unknown for either clutch of six to nine eggs is likely laid in late MBBA I or MBBA II. May or early June in the UP (Schinkel 1994). Males feed incubating females for the 15 days it Conservation Needs takes for eggs to hatch, after which both sexes Dependence of Boreal Chickadee upon black deliver food until the young fledge 18 days later spruce/tamarack/fir wetlands makes (McLaren 1975). conservation of these habitats critical to their survival (Merkel 2006). In particular, Abundance and Population Trends availability of mature stands for winter habitat The world-wide population of Boreal Chickadee has been highlighted as a concern (Hadley and is contained within North America and is an Desrochers 2008). Suspected reasons for estimated 7,800,000 individuals (PIF 2007). decline in this species within North America as Although this is a large number, this species’ a whole include excessive logging and global © 2010 Kalamazoo Nature Center Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica) Scott Hickman warming (National Audubon Society 2009). Philadelphia, PA, and the American Climate change has been predicted to possibly Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. exclude Boreal Chickadee from Michigan as a Hadley, A., and A. Desrochers. 2008. Winter nesting species (Price 2002), and CBC data habitat use by Boreal Chickadee flocks in a indicate that the North American winter range managed forest. Wilson Journal of of Boreal Chickadee is already moving north Ornithology 120:139-145. (Niven et al. 2009). McLaren, M. A. 1975. Breeding biology of the Boreal Chickadee. Wilson Bulletin 87:344- Literature Cited 354. Merkel, K. 2006. In Cutright, M. J., B. R. Barrows, W.B. 1912. Michigan Bird Life. Harriman, and R. W. Howe, editors. 2006. Special Bulletin. Michigan Agricultural Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Wisconsin. College. Lansing, MI. Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, Butcher, G. S., and D. K. Niven. 2007. Waukesha, WI. Combining data from the Christmas Bird Lawler, J. J., and R. J. O’Connor. 2004. How Count and the Breeding Bird Survey to well do consistently monitored Breeding determine the general continental status and Bird Survey routes represent the trends of North American Birds. National environments of the conterminous United Audubon Society, Ivyland, PA. States? Condor 106:801-814. <http://stateofthebirds.audubon.org/cbid/con National Audubon Society. 2009. Number five, tent/Report.pdf.> Accessed 3 Feb 2009. common bird in decline, Boreal Chickadee Chartier, A.T., and J. Ziarno. 2004. A Birder’s (Poecile hudsonicus). National Audubon Guide to Michigan. American Birding Society, Ivyland, PA. <http://stateofthebirds Association. Colorado Springs, CO. .audubon.org/cbid/profile.php?id=5>. Cook, A.J. 1893. Birds of Michigan, 2nd Accessed 8 Feb 2009. edition. Bulletin 94. Michigan Agricultural Niven, D. K., G. S. Butcher, G. T. Bancroft, W. Experimental Station. Lansing, MI. B. Monahan, and G. Langham. 2009. Birds Evers, D. C. 1991. Boreal Chickadee (Parus and climate change, ecological disruption in hudsonicus). In Brewer, R., G. A. McPeek, motion. National Audubon Society, New and R. J. Adams, editors. The Atlas of York, NY. <http://www.audubon.org/news Breeding Birds of Michigan, Michigan State /pressroom/bacc/pdfs/Birds%20and%20Cli University Pres, East Lansing, MI. mate%20Report.pdf> Accessed 11 Feb Gill, F .B., B. Slikas, and F. H. Sheldon. 2005. 2009. Phylogeny of titmice (Paridae): II. Species Payne, R.B. 1983. A Distributional Checklist relationships based on sequences of the of the Birds of Michigan. MP 164. mitochondrial cytochrome-B gene. Auk University of Michigan Museum of 122:121-143. Zoology. Ann Arbor, MI. Green, J. 1995. Birds and forests, a Partners in Flight (PIF). 2007. PIF Landbird management and conservation guide. Population Estimates Database [web Minnesota Department of Natural application]. Version 2004. Rocky Resources, St. Paul, MN. Mountain Bird Observatory. <http://www. Ficken, M. S., M. A. McLaren, and J. P. rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/default.aspx>. Hailman. 1996. Boreal Chickadee (Parus Price, J. 2002. Global warming and songbirds hudsonicus). In The Birds of North – Michigan. American Bird Conservancy, America, No. 254. A. Poole and F. Gill, Boulder, CO. editors. The Academy of Natural Sciences, © 2010 Kalamazoo Nature Center Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica) Scott Hickman Schinkel, D. 1994. Boreal Chickadee (Parus hudsonicus). In McPeek, G.A., and R.J. Adams, editors. The Birds of Michigan. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN. Wood, N.A. 1951. The Birds of Michigan. MP 75. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Ann Arbor, MI. Suggested Citation Hickman, Scott. 2010. Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica). In Chartier, A.T., J.J. Baldy, and J.M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gray-Headed Chickadee Captive Flock and Propagation a Scoping Report
    Gray-headed Chickadee Captive Flock and Propagation A Scoping Report Aaron Lang Dr. Rebecca McGuire Wildlife Conservation Society, Arctic Beringia Program 3550 Airport Way, Suite 5 Fairbanks, AK 99709 Photo Credit: Aaron Lang [email protected] A report to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in fulfillment of cooperative agreement 19-054 under State Wildlife Grant T-33 Project 10.0, April, 2020. ADF&G and the Wildlife Conservation Society have co-ownership of all content. Recommended Citation: McGuire, R. 2020. Gray-headed Chickadee captive flock and propagation: A scoping report. A report by the Wildlife Conservation Society to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in fulfillment of cooperative agreement 19-054, Fairbanks. Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 TRIGGERS FOR MOVING FORWARD ................................................................................ 2 3.0 REVIEW OF SELECT (PRIMARY) LOCATIONS OF CAPTIVE CHICKADEES OR SIMILAR SPECIES ........................................................................................................................ 3 4.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF A CAPTIVE FLOCK FACILITY, INCLUDING CAPTIVE PROPAGATION ........................................................................................................... 7 5.0 OPTIONS FOR LOCATION OF CAPTIVE HOUSING ....................................................... 14 6.0 INITIAL STOCKING ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Chickadee Parus Hudsonicus
    Boreal Chickadee Parus hudsonicus The Boreal Chickadee occupies the boreal forest zone of the Nearctic region. It reaches a southern limit of its breeding range in northeastern Vermont, where it is uncom­ mon, locally distributed, and often over­ looked. Unlike the Black-capped Chicka­ dee, the Boreal usually sticks close to dense spruce woods and avoids human settle­ ments; it is generally more retiring and less inquisitive than the Black-capped. The best technique for locating this spe­ lets, Red-breasted Nuthatches, and Downy cies is to listen for it in appropriate habitat. Woodpeckers. Its version of the chick-a-dee call is a hoarse, Boreal Chickadees feed principally on somewhat nasal, drawling sick-a-day. Once tree-infesting insects and spiders, their pupae learned, the song is easy to remember and and eggs, some fruit, and the seeds of coni­ to distinguish from that of the Black-capped; fers and birches. Though less active and vo­ the two species often forage together in cal than Black-capped Chickadees, Boreals winter, so the calls may be compared di­ forage busily over tree twigs and branches, rectly. The Boreal also has several chip often out of sight among dense conifer nee­ notes, uttered in a petulant tone, and a short dles. In early spring, pairs often come to the warbled song that is seldom heard (Pough ground where melted snow has uncovered 1949)· edible material dropped from the trees (Mc­ This species may be found in somewhat Laren 1975). In winter Boreals may visit wet coniferous forests, especially those con­ feeding stations, where they are partial to taining black spruce.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Bird Highlights
    Winter Bird Highlights FROM PROJECT FEEDERWATCH 2018–19 FOCUS ON CITIZEN SCIENCE • VOLUME 15 Focus on Citizen Science is a publication highlight- A FeederWatcher photo on the ing the contributions of citizen scientists. This is- sue, Winter Bird Highlights 2019, is brought to you by cover of a new book! Project FeederWatch, a research and education pro- ject of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Bird Studies Canada. Project FeederWatch is made possible by the n upcoming book, Wildlife Disease Ecology, efforts and support of thousands of citizen scientists. features a chapter Project FeederWatch Staff by Cornell Lab or- WILDLIFE DISEASE ECOLOGY A Linking Theory to Data and Application Cornell Lab of Ornithology nithologists and House Finch Edited by Kenneth Wilson, Andy Fenton and Dan Tompkins Emma Greig eye disease researchers André Project Leader and Editor Anne Marie Johnson Dhondt and Wes Hochachka. Project Assistant According to the publisher, Holly Faulkner Project Assistant Cambridge University Press, David Bonter “Each chapter in the book in- Director of Citizen Science Wesley Hochachka troduces a host and disease Senior Research Associate and explains how that system has aided our general Bird Studies Canada understanding of the evolution and spread of wildlife Kerrie Wilcox diseases, through the development and testing of im- Project Leader Rosie Kirton portant epidemiological and evolutionary theories.” Project Support The book’s cover (pictured above) has a photo of a Kristine Dobney Project Assistant House Finch with eye disease taken by FeederWatcher Jody Allair Director of Citizen Science Gary Mueller. The book is scheduled for publication in Denis Lepage November.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Habitat Use by Boreal Chickadee Flocks Within a Managed Forest Landscape
    ADAM HADLEY WINTER HABITAT USE BY BOREAL CHICKADEE FLOCKS WITHIN A MANAGED FOREST LANDSCAPE Mémoire présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université Laval dans le cadre du programme de maîtrise en sciences forestières pour l’obtention du grade de de maître ès sciences (M.Sc.) FACULTÉ DE FORESTERIE ET DE GÉOMATIQUE UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL QUÉBEC 2006 © Adam Hadley, 2006 i Résumé On considère que les espèces résidentes d’oiseaux habitant les latitudes nord sont les espèces les plus exposées aux effets de la perte d’habitat et de la fragmentation de la forêt boréale. Nous connaissons très peu l’écologie hivernale des oiseaux boréaux résidents bien que la dynamique de leur population semble être fortement influencée par des événements qui ont lieu en-dehors de la saison de reproduction. Mon objectif était de déterminer comment l’augmentation de la densité des lisières forestières et la réduction de la proportion de forêt boréale mature influencent une espèce résidente d’oiseau. J’ai enregistré les mouvements de 85 volées hivernales de mésanges à tête brune (Poecile hudsonica) non marquées et de sept volées dont les membres étaient marqués individuellement avec des bagues de couleur. De janvier à mars (2004 et 2005), j’ai suivi des volées de mésanges en raquettes à la forêt Montmorency et j’ai enregistré leurs déplacements en temps réel en utilisant un récepteur GPS. Grâce aux volées d’individus marqués, j’ai découvert que les mésanges à tête brune comptent en moyenne 4 oiseaux par volée, occupent un territoire hivernal moyen de 14.7 ha et conservent les mêmes membres dans leur volée pendant l’hiver.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Combined Data Sets Yields Trend Estimates for Vulnerable Spruce-Fir Birds in Northern United States
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277337479 Analysis of combined data sets yields trend estimates for vulnerable spruce-fir birds in northern United States Article in Biological Conservation · July 2015 Impact Factor: 3.76 · DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.029 CITATION READS 1 120 7 authors, including: Joel Ralston William V. Deluca Saint Mary's College Indiana University of Massachusetts Amherst 8 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 211 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Michale J. Glennon Wildlife Conservation Society 14 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: William V. Deluca Retrieved on: 27 June 2016 Biological Conservation 187 (2015) 270–278 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Analysis of combined data sets yields trend estimates for vulnerable spruce-fir birds in northern United States ⇑ Joel Ralston a, , David I. King a,b, William V. DeLuca a, Gerald J. Niemi c, Michale J. Glennon d, Judith C. Scarl e, J. Daniel Lambert e,f a Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA 01003, USA b United States Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 201 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA 01003, USA c Department of Biology and Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, 5013 Miller Trunk Highway, Duluth, MN 55811, USA d Wildlife Conservation Society, Adirondack Program, 132 Bloomingdale Avenue, Saranac Lake, NY 12983, USA e Vermont Center for Ecostudies, PO Box 420, Norwich, VT 05055, USA f High Branch Conservation Services, 3 Linden Road, Hartland, VT 05048, USA article info abstract Article history: Continental-scale monitoring programs with standardized survey protocols play an important role in Received 15 January 2015 conservation science by identifying species in decline and prioritizing conservation action.
    [Show full text]
  • OFONEWS Newsletter of the Ontario Field Ornithologists
    OFONEWS Newsletter of the Ontario Field Ornithologists Volume 15 Number 2 June 1997 Distinguished Ornithologist by Jean Iron The Board of Directors of the Ontario Crow or Raven? Field Ornithologists recently created a new by Ron Pittaway award: The Distinguished Ornithologist Award. This award will be granted from New birders often ask me what is the best way to tell an American Crow from a time to time to individuals in recognition Common Raven. Experience with the two is necessary before most birders feel ofoutstanding contributions to the study of comfortable distinguishing them. Ravens are bigger, but size is an unreliable field birds in Ontario and Canada. The first mark unless the two species are together which is not often! Calls are one ofthe best recipient of the new OFO award will be distinctions. Crows give a distinct caw that is usually unmistakable; ravens croak, W. Earl Godfrey, dean of Canadian orni­ honk, gurgle and more, but they do not caw. thologists and author of The Birds of In the mid-1980s, I noted a behaviour ofcrows that is not exhibited by ravens. Canada. The award will be granted to Earl It is a very useful for identification. Crows habitually flick their folded wings and Godfrey on 18 October 1997 at the OFO fan their tails. This "wing-tail flicking" is done one to three times, especially just Annual General Meeting in Burlington. after perching. Wing-tail flicking is a characteristic behaviour ofcrows and is done Earl Godfrey became Curator of throughout the year. It is easily seen at long distances.
    [Show full text]
  • Poor Prey Quality Is Compensated by Higher Provisioning Effort In
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Poor prey quality is compensated by higher provisioning efort in passerine birds Sarah Senécal1,2,3*, Julie‑Camille Riva1,3, Ryan S. O’Connor1,2,3, Fanny Hallot1,3, Christian Nozais1,3,4 & François Vézina1,2,3 In altricial avian species, nutrition can signifcantly impact nestling ftness by increasing their survival and recruitment chances after fedging. Therefore, the efort invested by parents towards provisioning nestlings is crucial and represents a critical link between habitat resources and reproductive success. Recent studies suggest that the provisioning rate has little or no efect on the nestling growth rate. However, these studies do not consider prey quality, which may force breeding pairs to adjust provisioning rates to account for variation in prey nutritional value. In this 8‑year study using black‑ capped (Poecile atricapillus) and boreal (Poecile hudsonicus) chickadees, we hypothesized that provisioning rates would negatively correlate with prey quality (i.e., energy content) across years if parents adjust their efort to maintain nestling growth rates. The mean daily growth rate was consistent across years in both species. However, prey energy content difered among years, and our results showed that parents brought more food to the nest and fed at a higher rate in years of low prey quality. This compensatory efect likely explains the lack of relationship between provisioning rate and growth rate reported in this and other studies. Therefore, our data support the hypothesis that parents increase provisioning eforts to compensate for poor prey quality and maintain ofspring growth rates. For altricial bird species that actively provision nestlings, access to high-quality food can signifcantly impact ofspring’s future survival by allowing nestlings to fedge early and gain access to high-quality territories 1–5.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Microphone Arrays to Investigate Microhabitat Selection by Declining Breeding Birds
    Ibis (2020), 162, 873–884 doi: 10.1111/ibi.12785 Using microphone arrays to investigate microhabitat selection by declining breeding birds JEFFREY P. ETHIER1 & DAVID R. WILSON2* 1Cognitive and Behavioural Ecology Program, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 232 Elizabeth Avenue, St. John's, NL, A1B 3X9, Canada 2Department of Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 232 Elizabeth Avenue, St John's, NL, A1B 3X9, Canada Understanding the microhabitat preferences of animals can help managers to develop better conservation and recovery strategies but this is challenging. Traditional methods are limited by cost, accuracy and human resources. In this study, we investigated avian microhabitat preferences using microphone arrays that are capable of accurately locating vocalizing birds. Our objective was to identify the microhabitat associations of two com- mon species in steep population decline, the Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus and the Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina. We deployed 68 eight-channel arrays at random locations in Labrador, Canada, during the 2016 avian breeding season. We returned in 2017 to the 18 array locations where the target species had been detected the previous year and characterized the microhabitat at the exact locations where they had been detected. We also characterized the microhabitat at randomly determined control loca- tions. Results show that Boreal Chickadees select trees with greater diameter-at-breast- height that are surrounded by greater stem density. We did not find evidence that Cape May Warblers exhibit microhabitat selection during song production. The study shows that microphone arrays are an effective tool for identifying preferred microhabitat that could be incorporated into future conservation or recovery strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Residents We Recommend Use of Audio Playback in Blocks That Contain Suitable Habitat
    Resident Boreal Species Four species of resident birds can be found across coniferous forests of the state’s northern tier counties, including the Spruce Grouse, Gray Jay, Boreal Chickadee, and Black-backed Woodpecker. All are at the southern limits of their continental range here and generally reside in low densities, making them highly-sought among birders. Each is a state Species of Greatest Conservation Need, with Spruce Grouse listed as Threatened and the others as Special Concern. The Atlas will play a key role in understanding the current status of these priority species. This document outlines tips and strategies to improve your chances of finding them. Nick Anich/WDNR Spruce Grouse WBBA I Breeding Range Spruce Grouse are more common than most people realize in Wisconsin, but because they are well camouflaged, reluctant to flush, and often located in remote conifer swamps, they are rarely seen. They should be searched for in any block in the northernmost two tiers of counties that has lowland conifer or young jack pine. Researchers have learned a great deal about this species since WBBA I. In short, the best way to find them is to seek out displaying males in off- road conifer stands during early mornings from mid-April to mid-May. Region: Northern two tiers of counties. The WBBA I map underestimates their total range; their likely range is much closer to this: Scott (1943). eBird Range Map Time of Year: Resident year-round, though they may move several miles away from breeding sites September–March. The prime display period for males is mid-March through mid-May but spring weather can determine if males get started earlier or later.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Storing in the Paridae
    Wilson Bull., 101(2), 1989, pp. 289-304 FOOD STORING IN THE PARIDAE DAVID F. SHERRY’ Assra.Acr.-Food storing is widespread in the Paridae. Chickadeesand tits store seeds, nuts, and invertebrate prey in a scattereddistribution within their home range. They can establishhundreds to thousandsof cachesper day, and place only one, or a very few, food items at each cache site. Field experiments show that food is collected a few days after caching it, but there are also indications that stored food may remain available for longer periods. Behavioral and neurophysiologicalstudies show that memory for the spatial lo- cations of cachesites is the primary method used to retrieve stored food. The hippocampus plays an important role in the kinds of memory used to recover stored food, and is larger in size in families suchas the Paridae in which food storing is common. The ecologicaland evolutionary relations between food storing and diet, body size, seasonality of the food supply, memory, and social organization are not well understood,but study of the Paridae can help to answer many of these questions. The Paridae is one of several families of birds in which food storing is common. Food storing also occurs in many woodpeckers, nuthatches, and corvids, in a variety of raptors, shrikes, and bellmagpies (Cracticidae), in some muscicapid flycatchers (Powlesland 1980), and in bowerbirds (Pruett- Jones and Pruett-Jones 1985). Fourteen species of chickadees and tits are known to store food, and the behavior is known not to occur, or to occur very rarely, in two others (Table 1). That leaves thirty-one species for which there is no information on the occurrence of food storing.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Toronto
    i BIRDS OF TORONTO A GUIDE TO THEIR REMARKABLE WORLD • City of Toronto Biodiversity Series • Imagine a Toronto with flourishing natural habitats and an urban environment made safe for a great diversity of wildlife species. Envision a city whose residents treasure their daily encounters with the remarkable and inspiring world of nature, and the variety of plants and animals who share this world. Take pride in a Toronto that aspires to be a world leader in the development of urban initiatives that will be critical to the preservation of our flora and fauna. Cover photo: Jean Iron A flock of Whimbrel viewed from Colonel Samuel Smith Park on 23 May 2007 frames the Toronto skyline. Since the early 20th century, Toronto ornithologists have noted the unique and impressive spring migration of Whimbrel past the city’s waterfront within a narrow 22 – 27 May time frame. In this short stretch of May, literally thousands of Whimbrel migrate past Toronto each spring between their South American wintering grounds and their breeding grounds on the tundra coast of the Hudson Bay Lowlands. In some years, as much as one quarter of the entire eastern North American population is witnessed passing along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Afforded protection by the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1917, its population is probably still rebounding from intense market hunting pressure in the 19th century. City of Toronto © 2011 American Woodcock ISBN 978-1-895739-67-1 Barry Kent MacKay 1 “Indeed, in its need for variety and acceptance of randomness, a flourishing TABLE OF CONTENTS natural ecosystem is more like a city than like a plantation.
    [Show full text]
  • Vocalizations of the Boreal Chickadee
    VOCALIZATIONS OF THE BOREAL CHICKADEE MARGARET A. McLAREN VOCALIZATIONSare a conspicuousand complexaspect of the behavior of chickadees(Parus). While territorial advertizingsong tends to be the mostcomplex and widely recognizedvocalization of mostpasserines, the best known vocalization of all the chickadees is the familiar "chickadee- dee,"not an advertizingsong but a locativenote. The BorealChickadee (Parus hudsonicus)is of particularinterest because of conflictingreports in the literature of the occurrenceof a musical song (see Bent 1946). The present study of the vocalizationsof the Boreal Chickadee was carried out in AlgonquinProvincial Park, NipissingDistrict, Ontario. METt[ODS The Boreal Chickadee is known primarily as a bird of black spruce-balsamfir (Picea mariana-Abiesbalsamea) associations and these are the major arboreal com- ponentsof its habitat in Algonquin Park, but with considerableinterspersion of white spruce (Picea glauca), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides),and white birch (Betula papyri/era). Black-cappedChickadees (Parus atricapillus)were present on the study area, but no interactionbetween the two specieswas noted. Recordingsof vocalizationswere made with a Uher 4000-L tape recorder and a Uher M 537 microphone mounted in a Dan Gibson professional model parabola. All recordingswere made at 7• inches per sec and analyzed with the aid of a Kay Electric Company SonarGraphmodel 6061B. The band filter widths of this model are 45 hz for the narrow band and 300 hz for the wide band. Both wide and narrow band spectrograms,some made at •/• or • speed, were used in analysis of the structure of calls. On all spectrogramsall burns clearly separatedfrom other burns are designated syllables. On spectrograms of the musical call segments are groups of syllables, the entirety of which is repeated in the same sequence.
    [Show full text]