DOCSLIB.ORG

Boreal Chickadee [Poecile Hudsonicus] Distribution & Habitat Associations in Alberta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Boreal Chickadee [Poecile Hudsonicus] Distribution & Habitat Associations in Alberta Boreal Chickadee [Poecile hudsonicus] Distribution & Habitat Associations in Alberta The Boreal Chickadee is a common, iconic and well-loved feature of Canada’s natural landscape, in particular throughout the boreal forest. In an effort to better understand the detailed status of the Boreal Chickadee and other individual bird species in Alberta, the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) has partnered with the Boreal Avian Modelling (BAM) Project. Through this partnership we aim to develop a deeper understanding of how the management of wildlife habitat and human footprint* affect birds in the boreal forests of Alberta. This report focuses on our results for the Boreal Chickadee. General habitat associations found in our analyses corresponded well to existing expectations [SUMMARY] based on the natural history of this species1. We found that the abundance of the Boreal Chickadee was highest in old coniferous forests and lowest in deciduous forest, regardless of forest age. Abundance declined sharply with increasing density of linear footprint (e.g., seismic lines and pipelines) in the landscape. Abundance also declined with increasing areas of forestry, agriculture and urban-industrial footprint when that footprint was in the immediate vicinity of the point count. As a result of our analyses, we can predict the Boreal Chickadee abundance to be lower in areas of Alberta where human footprint is the highest. *The ABMI defines “human footprint” as “the visible conversion of native ecosystems by humans to support temporary or permanent residential, recreational, or industrial land use.” Vegetation recovery in human footprints has not been incorporated in the present analyses. Photo credit: Wayne Lynch The Boreal Chickadee is one of the few passerine species of North America that is a permanent resident of boreal forests. INTRODUCTION OFFICIAL STATUS The Boreal Chickadee is one of the few landbirds in North The Boreal Chickadee is listed as Secure by Alberta ESRD, and America that is a permanent resident of boreal forest. This as Least Concern by IUCN (ver 3.1). species occurs most frequently in coniferous forest, preferring spruce and balsam fir forest types1. The northern edge of their RESULTS SUMMARY range almost entirely coincides with the northern limit of white spruce forests. Boreal Chickadees nest in cavities that The compiled data sets of the ABMI, BAM, and the Breeding they excavate on their own or that they expand from existing Bird Survey (BBS) included 19,659 point-count locations from natural cavities or old woodpecker holes1. Boreal Chickadees Alberta. Boreal Chickadee was detected at 1,064 or 5.4% of all typically nest in trees or snags that are characterized by softened surveyed locations. heartwood but with a hardened outer shell of sapwood. The Boreal Chickadee generally forages in the forest canopy by gleaning for insects on conifer branches or by probing into bark, but will supplement their diet with seeds and berries1. During the summer and fall, Boreal Chickadees often store food on the underside of branches which they can retrieve during the harsh winter months. Photo credit: Jason Cheever The Boreal Chickadee occurence was highest in the Subalpine, Montane, Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills and Lower Boreal Highliands Natural Subregions. SPECIES OCCURRENCE The Boreal Chickadee occurred most often in the Rocky Subregions. BAM data provided half of the detections which Mountain (10.4% occurrence), Foothills (8.9% occurrence), were concentrated mainly in the Central Mixedwood, Lower Boreal (5.8% occurrence), and Canadian Shield (4.3% Foothills, and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural Subregions. occurrence) Natural Regions. In contrast, the Boreal Chickadee Data from the ABMI and the BBS covered the remainder of the was nearly absent from the Parkland (0.3% occurrence) and province. Grassland Natural Regions (0% occurrence). Occurrence was highest (>8% occurrence) in the Subalpine, Montane, Lower Foothills, Upper Foothills, and Lower Boreal Highlands Natural ABMI // 3 ABMI / BOREAL CHICKADEE Habitat Associations HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS The relative abundance of Boreal Chickadees was highest in older coniferous forest habitat, and lowest in deciduous forest irrespective of its age (Figure 1). Relative abundance of Boreal Chickadee generally increased with forest age in both coniferous and mixedwood forest types. Boreal Chickadee 1.2 Deciduous 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.2 1.0 Pine 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Upland Spruce 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Abundance 0.2 0.0 Lowland Spruce Lowland 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.2 Mixedwood 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0−20 21−40 41−60 61−80 81−100 101−120 120−140 140+ Years Since Last Disturbance Figure 1. Abundance of Boreal Chickadees by forest type and age. Abundance was measured as number of individuals per hectare standardized to a scale of 0 to 1. Data source: ABMI, BAM, BBS, Alberta Vegetation Inventory, Grassland Vegetation Inventory, and the ABMI’s provincial Human Footprint Inventory version 2007. Whiskers represent 90% confidence intervals. ABMI // 4 ABMI / BOREAL CHICKADEE Response to Human Footprint The abundance of the Boreal Chickadee (hereafter, abundance) showed a steep decline (nonlinear) in relation to the increased area of soft linear features (seismic lines, pipelines) near the point- count stations. Abundance also declined when forestry, agriculture and urban-industrial footprint increased near the point-count station (Figure 2). Boreal Chickadee 1.0 Soft Linear (100 ha) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.0 Cultivation (7 ha) Cultivation 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 undance 1.0 Ab Forestry (7 ha) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Urban−Industrial (7 ha) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Human Footprint Figure 2. Abundance of Boreal Chickadee as a function of percent human footprint. Abundance was measured as number of individuals per hectare standardized to a scale of 0 to 1. Shaded areas represent 90% confidence intervals. Data source: the ABMI field data, the ABMI’s provincial Human Footprint/Habitat Inventory version (2007) clipped to 150m radius circles (7 ha) around each point-count and 1km2 (100 ha) around each ABMI site centre. ABMI // 5 Reference Habitat Suitability Current Habitat Suitability Change in Habitat Suitability ABMI / BOREAL CHICKADEE Figure 3a. Predicted provincial reference conditions for Figure 3b. Predicted provincial habitat suitability for Boreal Figure 3c. The difference between reference conditions Boreal Chickadee calculated by statistically controlling Chickadees (circa 2007). Mean habitat suitability under (Figure 3a) and current habitat suitability (Figure 3b) of the (removing) human footprint effects. eanM habitat suitability current conditions was 0.335. Data source: The ABMI’s Boreal Chickadee in Alberta (circa 2007). Data source: The under reference conditions was 0.363. Data source: the field data, the ABMI’s provincial Human Footprint/Habitat ABMI’s field data, the ABMI’s provincial Human Footprint/ ABMI’s field data, the ABMI’s provincial Human Footprint/ Inventory version (2007) and the ABMI’s wall-to-wall Habitat Inventory version (2007) and the ABMI’s wall-to-wall Habitat Inventory version (2007) and the ABMI’s wall-to- landcover (vegetation) map (circa 2000). Predictions are landcover (vegetation) map (circa 2000). The map is made to wall landcover (vegetation) map (circa 2000). Predictions made to a scale of provincial quarter sections (Alberta a scale of provincial quarter sthe ections (Alberta Township 6 are made to a scale of provincial quarter sections (Alberta Township System). System). Township System). ABMI // Boreal Chickadee Mapping the Provincial Habitat Suitability of the of Suitability Habitat the Provincial Mapping Mapping the Provincial Habitat Suitability of the ABMI / BOREAL CHICKADEE Boreal Chickadee CHANGE IN HABITAT SUITABILITY Using the statistical relationships defined in Figure 2 (between human footprint, habitat, and Boreal Chickadees), it is possible to create maps that empirically predict the habitat suitability of this species in every quarter section of the province (Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c). Mean habitat suitability across the province has decreased by 7.7% from reference (0.363) to current (0.336) conditions. Provincially, Boreal Chickadee habitat suitability was lowest in regions where agriculture, urbanization, and energy-related footprint was highest. No human footprint (i.e., human development or land use) is predicted to positively influence Boreal Chickadee abundance. POPULATION TRENDS According to BirdLife International’s RedList assessment, the large range and population size of the Boreal Chickadee are above the thresholds for a Vulnerable listing under these two criteria. The overall population of Boreal Chickadees may be in decline but not, apparently, in Alberta1. The ostensible decline is not sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion of the IUCN. The present data set is not suitable for temporal analysis for the following reasons: 1) The ABMI data set is not yet sufficient for temporal analysis Photo credit: Royal Alberta Museum 2) The BBS has inadequate coverage of the northern boreal forest in Alberta 3) The BAM uses information from specific research REFERENCES projects and thus does not provide estimates of long term temporal change 1. Ficken, M. S., M. A. Mclaren, and J. P. Hailman. 1996. Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica), The Birds of North America Online. A. Poole, Ed. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North America Online database: http: bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/254 2. For more information on the Boreal Avian Modelling program and the North American Breeding Bird Survey please see www.borealbirds.ca and www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS respectively. ABMI // 7 The ABMI & Next Steps THE ABMI NEXT STEPS The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) is an The ABMI is a provincial biodiversity monitoring independent non ‐profit organization that operates a long- term program designed specifically to track trends in landbird biodiversity monitoring program for Alberta.
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]