DOCSLIB.ORG

Identification of Long-Toed Stint, Pintail Snipe and Asiatic Dowitcher Alan R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Identification of Long-Toed Stint, Pintail Snipe and Asiatic Dowitcher Alan R Identification of Long-toed Stint, Pintail Snipe and Asiatic Dowitcher Alan R. Kitson These three Asiatic species are not on the British and Irish list ... yet spent the 24 weeks from 9th February to 26th July 1977 watching birds I in Mongolia, on a scholarship awarded to me by the British Council under the Cultural Exchange Programme now existing between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of Mongolia. I was based at Ulan Bator and made most of my observations in the Toal River valley there. In addition, I undertook two expeditions. The first, in April and May, was to Orok Nor, a lake which lies in the arid steppe region between the Gobian Altai and the Hangai mountains, approximately 750 km southwest of the capital. The second was to wetlands in the Hangai mountains themselves. All my observations were between 960 and io8°E, and 450 and 50°N. A full itinerary is given in Kitson (1978). Of some 360 species recorded in Mongolia, I saw 230, many of which are poorly or misleadingly described in the European literature. In this paper, I attempt to remedy this in the case of three non-passerine species; future papers will cover eight passerines. I must stress that my notes refer to birds in or approaching breeding plumage. Where relevant, I have included other notes derived from personal observations in Turkey and Canada. Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta I saw four in Mongolia: two in winter or transitional plumage at Orok Nor on 7th May and two in breeding plumage at Ulan Bator from 16th to 23rd May (Kitson 1978). The latter pair was intensively studied and I was also able to photograph one of them with Temminck's Stint C. temminckii and to compare them with that species and my memories of Least Sandpiper C. minutilla. Since typical birds of all three species exhibit pale yellow to brown or olive legs, their separation in trio from the other four Holarctic stints is not difficult, but their individual characters are still incompletely understood. To my eyes, Long-toed is the same size as Temminck's, although, when it stretches its neck (see below), it can seem to be fractionally larger. Certainly, it never appears as diminutive as Least. Conversely, in plumage • S«»8 \.DTU. Diras 71: 550-502, December I07HJ Long-toed Stint, Pintail Snipe and Asiatic Dowitcher 559 tones, Long-toed is—with Least—the darkest of all stints, far more re­ miniscent in breeding dress of Little Stint C. minuta than the relatively drab and uniform Temminck's. Thus, Long-toed in summer is essentially a bright, black-and-orange-spangled bird, with a strong, warmly coloured pattern to its head reminiscent of a Pectoral Sandpiper C. melanotos in autumn (fig. i). My description of the Ulan Bator birds contains the following greater detail: Forehead and crown dark brown, with (most obvious from behind). Scapulars chestnut tinge and heavy black flecking; black, with broad orange fringes and white supercilium white and prominent behind tips, the former forming conspicuous band eye, white, tinged rusty over and in front over folded wing. Tertials black, with of eye; cheeks rufous-brown; sides of neck broad rufous-orange fringes. Wing-coverts light rusty brown, this colour extending as also centrally black, with orange fringes a wash behind pectoral band of dark and white tips. Underparts below chest flecks. Mantle mainly black, bordered on pure white. both sides by single fine yellow-buff lines Fig. i. Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta in summer plumage, Mongolia, May 1977 (Alan R. Kitson) Thus, the breeding plumage of Long-toed is close to that of Least except for a greater incidence of orange and rufous tones, which is responsible for its generally brighter, more fiery appearance. It should also be noted that my observations do not support an earlier indication by Wallace {1974) of sullied underparts on Long-toed. Judging from the individuals at Orok Nor, Long-toed in winter plumage takes on a more dun appearance. The red tones of breeding dress are replaced by brown, but retention of the black feather centres ensures that the pattern of spangled upperparts is not lost. Interestingly, both my birds showed pale lines on their mantles—a feature not noted on skins by Wallace (1974), but present on the Swedish immature of October 1977 (per P. J. Grant)—and had their breast markings reduced to more or less pectoral patches. 560 Long-toed Stint, Pintail Snipe and Asiatic Dowitcher All four called with an unvaried dry purring 'prrp' and never pro­ duced any of the variant calls or rapidly repeated notes described by Slater (1970) or Wallace (1974). To my ears, Least utters a high thin 'preet'. I also noted two behavioural points of interest. First, it seemed to me that the two at Ulan Bator, which frequently associated closely with larger waders such as Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola, were using them as watch-dogs. When the larger, longer-necked birds saw me, they invariably took flight and were instantly followed by the stints. Secondly, I can con­ firm that, as mentioned by Wallace (1974), Long-toed adopts an un­ usually pronounced alert posture when alarmed, as shown in my drawing (fig. 2). They were always quick to detect my presence and, long before Fig. 2. Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta in summer plumage, Mongolia, May 1977, showing alert posture adopted when alarmed (Alan R. Kitson) any Temminck's showed unease, would cease feeding and stretch their necks up to a greater extent than I have seen done by other stints. I. J. Ferguson-Lees {in litt.) confirms that this neck stretching and generally elongated appearance was very characteristic of Long-toed in winter habitats in Sri Lanka. Pintail Snipe Gallinago stenura During May, I saw snipes which were certainly not Snipe G. gallinago, although of the same size. Since Pintail has been taken in Mongolia far more widely than Swinhoe's Snipe G. megala (Vaurie 1964) and the birds showed features not associated with Swinhoe's by Madge (1977), I assumed that they were the former. I agree with the points that Madge made. In comparison with Snipe, the blunter wing tips, barred underwing and paler; browner upperwing of Pintail Snipe were obvious. I was parti­ cularly struck by the similarity of the pale buff mottling on the upper- wing to that of Solitary Snipe G. solitaria. This character, and the lack of a prominent white trailing edge to the secondaries, makes Pintail Snipe look very different from Snipe. My birds rarely called, but, when they did, it was with a short, rasping 'squik' or 'squok'. The note had a rather more definite structure than the usually extended call of Snipe. Long-toed Stint, Pintail Snipe and Asiatic Dowitcher 561 Those that I saw were migrants. They frequented grassy areas around pools and dykes. Unlike the ever-present Snipe, which stood probing in mud or flooded grass at the water's edge, the Pintail Snipe consistently kept to higher, grassy ground and always sat. All members of a flock of 60 on 23rd, when the weather was inhospitable, with the temperature below freezing, behaved thus, sitting in grass up to their flanks, or behind tus­ socks, apparently not feeding. Asiatic Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus I came across a total of 14 in Mongolia, all in summer plumage: two at Ogii Nor on 17 th June and a flock of 12 at Hont Nor on 22 nd June (Kitson 1978). I have found the descriptions of this species in the literature, for example King et al. (1975), somewhat confusing and I consider it important to stress that the Asiatic Dowitcher differs distinctly from its two Nearctic congeners in size, plumage pattern and voice. But for its true dowitcher bill, it is more likely to be mistaken for a Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica. To my eyes, Asiatic is the same size as Bar-tailed Godwit, and not smaller than that species as stated by King et al. (1975). I was able to compare all 12 members of the flock at Hont Nor with a Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa, doubtless of the small eastern race melanuroides (Vaurie 1965). I judged that they stood practically as tall and were equal in bulk. In general appearance too, I saw a resemblance to Bar-tailed. My notes on structure and plumage may be summarised as follows: Bill straight and thick with barely dis- and tertials dark brown. Inner primaries cernible bulb immediately behind tip; and all secondaries silvery, sullied white on bill length between 150 and 200% of head upper surface and palest on primaries and length. Leg length estimated to equal that trailing edge of secondaries; pattern of of Bar-tailed, with feet fully protruding silver on hindwing more pronounced than beyond tip of tail in flight and not partly on Nearctic dowitchers and Spotted Red- so, as in Long-billed Dowitcher L. scolo- shank Tringa erythropus. Underwing mainly paceus. On ground, large snipe-like head white, with contrasting dark point and and long, godwit-like neck striking; in sullied dusky (but not noticeably barred) flight, heavy body (and shallow wing coverts. Stripe up back, rump and tail beats) also noted. Both bill and legs black basically white, but heavily overlaid with (former ruling out confusion with godwits). black bars: back divide thus much less Head, throat, neck, breast and belly red, marked than on other dowitchers, which varying individually in tone from rusty to ejdiibit unmarked white blaze. Ventral orange-red and apparently unmarked. area white, probably lightly barred or Dark eye-stripe and paler supercilium.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disaggregation of Bird Families Listed on Cms Appendix Ii
    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 2nd Meeting of the Sessional Committee of the CMS Scientific Council (ScC-SC2) Bonn, Germany, 10 – 14 July 2017 UNEP/CMS/ScC-SC2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II (Prepared by the Appointed Councillors for Birds) Summary: The first meeting of the Sessional Committee of the Scientific Council identified the adoption of a new standard reference for avian taxonomy as an opportunity to disaggregate the higher-level taxa listed on Appendix II and to identify those that are considered to be migratory species and that have an unfavourable conservation status. The current paper presents an initial analysis of the higher-level disaggregation using the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World Volumes 1 and 2 taxonomy, and identifies the challenges in completing the analysis to identify all of the migratory species and the corresponding Range States. The document has been prepared by the COP Appointed Scientific Councilors for Birds. This is a supplementary paper to COP document UNEP/CMS/COP12/Doc.25.3 on Taxonomy and Nomenclature UNEP/CMS/ScC-Sc2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II 1. Through Resolution 11.19, the Conference of Parties adopted as the standard reference for bird taxonomy and nomenclature for Non-Passerine species the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Non-Passerines, by Josep del Hoyo and Nigel J. Collar (2014); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 74/Thursday, April 16, 2020/Rules
    21282 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 74 / Thursday, April 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR United States and the Government of United States or U.S. territories as a Canada Amending the 1916 Convention result of recent taxonomic changes; Fish and Wildlife Service between the United Kingdom and the (8) Change the common (English) United States of America for the names of 43 species to conform to 50 CFR Part 10 Protection of Migratory Birds, Sen. accepted use; and (9) Change the scientific names of 135 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0047; Treaty Doc. 104–28 (December 14, FXMB 12320900000//201//FF09M29000] 1995); species to conform to accepted use. (2) Mexico: Convention between the The List of Migratory Birds (50 CFR RIN 1018–BC67 United States and Mexico for the 10.13) was last revised on November 1, Protection of Migratory Birds and Game 2013 (78 FR 65844). The amendments in General Provisions; Revised List of this rule were necessitated by nine Migratory Birds Mammals, February 7, 1936, 50 Stat. 1311 (T.S. No. 912), as amended by published supplements to the 7th (1998) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Protocol with Mexico amending edition of the American Ornithologists’ Interior. Convention for Protection of Migratory Union (AOU, now recognized as the American Ornithological Society (AOS)) ACTION: Final rule. Birds and Game Mammals, Sen. Treaty Doc. 105–26 (May 5, 1997); Check-list of North American Birds (AOU 2011, AOU 2012, AOU 2013, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (3) Japan: Convention between the AOU 2014, AOU 2015, AOU 2016, AOS Wildlife Service (Service), revise the Government of the United States of 2017, AOS 2018, and AOS 2019) and List of Migratory Birds protected by the America and the Government of Japan the 2017 publication of the Clements Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Checklist of Birds of the World both adding and removing species.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Profile of Afghanistan
    NEPA Biodiversity Profile of Afghanistan An Output of the National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management (NCSA) for Afghanistan June 2008 United Nations Environment Programme Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch First published in Kabul in 2008 by the United Nations Environment Programme. Copyright © 2008, United Nations Environment Programme. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. United Nations Environment Programme Darulaman Kabul, Afghanistan Tel: +93 (0)799 382 571 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.unep.org DISCLAIMER The contents of this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of UNEP, or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Unless otherwise credited, all the photos in this publication have been taken by the UNEP staff. Design and Layout: Rachel Dolores
    [Show full text]
  • Wilson's Snipe
    Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicate) Torrey Wenger Monroe Co., MI. 4/10/2007 © Allen Chartier (Click to view a comparison of Atlas I to II) Wilson’s Snipe is a victim of the lumpers and dwelling sandpiper was reported in 23% of Michigan’s townships; in MBBA II, they were splitters. In 1945, Wilson’s Snipe was reported in only 14.5%, a drop of nearly 40%. combined with other snipe species worldwide as The most significant decrease occurred in the the Common Snipe, Gallinago gallinago (AOU SLP: Wilson’s Snipe were found in almost 60% 1945). In 2002, based on behavioral and fewer townships and were not found in 14 structural differences, it was split off again counties where they were previously (Banks et al. 2002). While this frustrates casual documented. birders and competitive listers alike, the bird itself certainly does not care. This on-again, Some of this decline may be caused by observer off-again status is not the origin of the infamous bias. First, snipe are most detectable during “snipe hunt”, where children are sent into the their early mating season, as males make bushes searching for a non-existent bird. “winnowing” flights above their territories – if observers delayed the start of their fieldwork, All snipe feed by using their long bills to probe they missed this species. Second, the snipe is a for small insects and larvae in mud and moist habitat specialist, preferring wetlands with low soils. A snipe can open just the tip of its bill, herbaceous vegetation, sparse shrubs, and enabling it to capture and swallow small prey scattered trees (Mueller 1999) – if observers items without removing its bill from the soil.
    [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]
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0047; FXMB 12320900000//201//FF09M29000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/16/2020 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2020-06779, and on govinfo.gov Billing Code 4333–15 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 10 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0047; FXMB 12320900000//201//FF09M29000] RIN 1018–BC67 General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory Birds AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), revise the List of Migratory Birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by both adding and removing species. Reasons for the changes to the list include adding species based on new taxonomy and new evidence of natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories, removing species no longer known to occur within the United States or U.S. territories, and changing names to conform to accepted use. The net increase of 67 species (75 added and 8 removed) will bring the total number of species protected by the MBTA to 1,093. We regulate the taking, possession, transportation, sale, purchase, barter, exportation, and importation of migratory birds. An accurate and up-to-date list of species protected by the MBTA is essential for public notification and regulatory purposes. DATES: This rule is effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric L. Kershner, Chief of the Branch of Conservation, Permits, and Regulations; Division of Migratory Bird Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: MB; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-2376.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide of Bird Watching Course on Sado Island
    Guide of bird watching course on Sado island SPRING Recommended theme: Migratory birds in Washizaki Place: Washizaki cape in northeastern in Sado Birds: Duck, Grebe, Plover, Snipe, Wagtail, etc. -Watch the birds stay and regroup their flocks in Washizaki. List of birds that can be observed on Sado in spring English name Scientific name *Duck etc. Mandarin duck Aix galericulata Gadwall Anas strepera Falcated duck Anas falcata Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope American Wigeon Anas americana Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Eastern spot-billed duck Anas zonorhyncha Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Northern pintail Anas acuta Garganey Anas querquedula Teal Anas crecca Common pochard Aythya ferina Tufted duck Aythya fuligula Greater scaup Aythya marila Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus Black scoter Melanitta americana Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Smew Mergellus albellus Common merganser Mergus merganser Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator *Grebe Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis *Plover, Snipe, etc. Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus Pacific golden-plover Pluvialis fulva Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius 1 Kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus Lesser sand-plover Charadrius mongolus Black-winged stilt Himantopus himantopus Eurasian woodcock Scolopax rusticola Solitary snipe Gallinago solitaria Latham's snipe Gallinago hardwickii Common snipe Gallinago
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (And 113 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 62Nd AOU Supplement (2021), Sorted Taxonomically
    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2168 Bird Species (and 113 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 62nd AOU Supplement (2021), sorted taxonomically Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Highland Tinamou HITI Nothocercus bonapartei NOTBON Great Tinamou GRTI Tinamus major TINMAJ Little Tinamou LITI Crypturellus soui CRYSOU Thicket Tinamou THTI Crypturellus cinnamomeus CRYCIN Slaty-breasted Tinamou SBTI Crypturellus boucardi CRYBOU Choco Tinamou CHTI Crypturellus kerriae CRYKER White-faced Whistling-Duck WFWD Dendrocygna viduata DENVID Black-bellied Whistling-Duck BBWD Dendrocygna autumnalis DENAUT West Indian Whistling-Duck WIWD Dendrocygna arborea DENARB Fulvous Whistling-Duck FUWD Dendrocygna bicolor DENBIC Emperor Goose EMGO Anser canagicus ANSCAN Snow Goose SNGO Anser caerulescens ANSCAE + Lesser Snow Goose White-morph LSGW Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Intermediate-morph LSGI Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Lesser Snow Goose Blue-morph LSGB Anser caerulescens caerulescens ANSCCA + Greater Snow Goose White-morph GSGW Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Intermediate-morph GSGI Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Greater Snow Goose Blue-morph GSGB Anser caerulescens atlantica ANSCAT + Snow X Ross's Goose Hybrid SRGH Anser caerulescens x rossii ANSCAR + Snow/Ross's Goose SRGO Anser caerulescens/rossii ANSCRO Ross's Goose
    [Show full text]
  • British Birds VOLUME 69 NUMBER IO OCTOBER I976
    British Birds VOLUME 69 NUMBER IO OCTOBER I976 Distinguishing Great Snipe from Snipe D. I. M. Wallace Records of the Great Snipe Gallinago media are among the hardest to prove. The Rarities Committee has harped upon this theme and observers unfamiliar with the species and lacking The Handbook in their libraries are not given more than a few pointers to the possi­ bilities of its identification. This paper is therefore concerned with restating and clarifying the differences between it and the Snipe G. gallinago. GROUND CHARACTERS The Great Snipe is the largest of the three species in western Europe, but it does not exceed the Snipe in all standard measurements. It is 5% to 10% longer- and broader-winged and about 10% longer- legged, but 10% shorter-billed and marginally shorter-tailed. It is bulkier, primarily because of its stouter bill, larger head, greater girth and broader wings. The second last difference gives it more of a ball shape on the ground. In the ideal circumstances of Snipe being present for comparison, these differences are obvious. Subtle but constant plumage differences are not restricted to the usually invisible tail markings and merit full discussion. General plumage pattern The Great Snipe is more barred than the Snipe, both above, where the individual feather patterns are very intricate, and below, where the markings are strong and numerous, extending in all plumages [Brit. Birds, 6g: 377-383, October 1976] 377 378 Great Snipe and Snipe over a wider area. This increased complexity reduces the clarity of the back stripes and the prominence of the white belly, which is virtually invisible in immatures.
    [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]
  • Snow Leopards and Other Animals in the Mountains of The
    EXPEDITION REPORT Expedition dates: 29 June – 22 August 2009 Report published: November 2010 Mountain ghosts: snow leopards and other animals in the mountains of the Altai Republic, Central Asia. BEST BEST FOR TOP BEST WILDLIFE BEST IN ENVIRONMENT TOP HOLIDAY VOLUNTEERING GREEN-MINDED RESPONSIBLE VOLUNTEERING SUSTAINABLE AWARD FOR NATURE ORGANISATION TRAVELLERS HOLIDAY HOLIDAY TRAVEL Germany Germany UK UK UK UK USA EXPEDITION REPORT Mountain ghosts: snow leopards and other animals in the mountains of the Altai Republic, Central Asia. Expedition dates: 29 June – 22 August 2008 Report published: November 2010 Authors: Volodymyr Tytar I.I Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Matthias Hammer (editor) Biosphere Expeditions 1 © Biosphere Expeditions www.biosphere-expeditions.org Abstract This study was part of an expedition to the Altai mountains in the Kosh Agach region of the Altai Republic, run by Biosphere Expeditions from 29 June to 22 August 2009. The aim was to continue a survey of snow leopard (Uncia uncia) in this area, as well as surveying the snow leopard's primary prey species, argali (Ovis ammon) and Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica), together with secondary prey species. Using the Snow Leopard Information Management System (SLIMS) developed by the International Snow Leopard Trust (ISLT), presence/absence surveys (SLIMS form 1) of snow leopard and prey species were conducted throughout the study period across the entire survey area. In 2009 surveys were extended to areas away from the Talduair massif site (core area) to the valleys and surrounding ridges of the Karaghem mountain pass. Interviews with local, semi-nomadic herders also formed an important part of the research procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy
    Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy May 2007 1 Shorebird Strategy Committee and Members of the Joint Venture Science Team Bob Gates, Ohio State University, Chair Dave Ewert, The Nature Conservancy Diane Granfors, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bob Russell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bradly Potter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mark Shieldcastle, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Greg Soulliere, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cover: Long-billed Dowitcher. Photo by Gary Kramer. i Table of Contents Plan Summary................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... 2 Background and Context ................................................................................................. 3 Population Status and Trends ......................................................................................... 6 Habitat Characteristics .................................................................................................. 11 Biological Foundation..................................................................................................... 14 Planning Framework.................................................................................................. 14 Migration and Distribution........................................................................................ 15 Limiting
    [Show full text]