DOCSLIB.ORG

Snowy Plover Diets in 1995 at a Coastal Southern California Breeding Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Snowy Plover Diets in 1995 at a Coastal Southern California Breeding Site NOTES SNOWY PLOVER DIETS IN 1995 AT A COASTAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BREEDING SITE MARK A. TUCKER and ABBY N. POWELL, United States GeologicalSurvey, BiologicalResources Division, California Science Center, Department of Biology, San Diego State University,San Diego, California92182-4614 (currentaddress for Powell:USGS• Biol. Res. Div., Northern PrairieWildlife Research Center. Depart- ment of BiologicalSciences, University of Arkansas,Fayettevilleq Arkansas 72701) The SnowyPlover (Charadrius alexandrinus) feeds by peckingat the groundfor invertebratesand catchinginsects in the air whileon the run. Alongthe PacificCoast, Snowy Plovers feed on both marine and terrestrialinvertebrates. but little more specificinformation is available(Reeder 1951, Page et al. 1995). Variousmethods are availablefor studyingavian diets, including stomach content, fecal analysisqand direct observation(Rosenberg and Cooper 1990). Stomach- contentanalysis requires sacrifice of a large numberof birdsor the use of stomach pumps(Ramer et al. 1991, Martin and Hockey 1993). Poulinand Lefebvre(1995) reportedtartar emeticto be safeand more effectivethan fecalanalysis for investigat- ingavian diets, yet 70 (2.9%) of the birdsthey sampled died. They foundsome families were more sensitiveto the chemicalthan othersand did not test it on plovers.Use of thesetechniques on a threatenedbird like the SnowyPlover would not be acceptable or appropriate(Ralph et al. 1985). Directobservation of the preyof smallshorebirds is difficultbecause their prey are so small(Baker 1977• Rundle1982). Fecalanalysis has been used successfully in diet studiesof othershorebirds (Swarth 1983, Nicholls1989, Le V. Dit Durreland Kelley1990, Shafferand LaPorte1994). Althoughthere is some bias associatedwith fecal analysisdue to the differential digestionand passage rates of preyitems, there is generally good agreement between fecaland stomach-contentanalyses (Rosenberg and Cooper 1990). Fecalsamples are relativelyeasy to collect,and prey fragmentsare easilyextracted because birds lack digestiveenzymes capable of breakingdown chitinous exoskeletons (Swarth 1983). Soft-bodiedorganisms such as polychaeteworms, however, break down readilyand are not well representedin fecalsamples (Rundle 1982, Shafferand LaPorte 1994). The objectivesof thisstudy were to describethe diet of the SnowyPlover during the 1995 breedingseason at a singlecoastal southern California breeding site and to identifyavailable invertebrate prey in the samearea. We choseto usefecal samples as the least invasivemethod to investigatediets to minimize the impacts on this threatenedspecies. The SantaMargarita River mouth, in Camp PendletonMarine Corps Base (33 ø 13' 57" N, 117 ø24' 37"W), SanDiego County, provides a varietyof habitatsfor foraging and breedingSnowy Plovers.As part of ongoingresearch on Snowy Ploversin southernCalifornia, Powell et al. (1995) estimatedthat the populationbreeding at this sitein 1995 was92 malesand 69 females.Sandy beach and saltflats were the major habitatsused for nesting. We collectedfecal samples opportunistically between April andJuly of 1995 during routinenest monitoringand banding.We observedadult and young ploversfirst through binocularsor spottingtelescopes, then searchedthe ground where we observeda bird defecating.We found that binocularsworked better than spotting scopes,because of betterdepth of fielddefinition, especially when we workedalone. We easilydistinguished fresh feces from old, dried droppings.We did not collect samplesif therewas any doubt whether they had beendeposited by a SnowyPlover. Activelyforaging plovers defecate about every eight minutes (Swarth 1983). Snowy 44 WesternBirds 30:44-48, 1999 NOTES Ploverscan foragefar from their nests.so we couldnot assumethat fecal samples collectedin a particularhabitat containedfragments of prey that were actually consumedthere. Collectedfeces were labeledwith the date, location,and identityof the individualplover, then preservedin 70% ethanol. We identifiedfecal contents through an OlympusSZ10 researchstereo dissecting microscope.and used our reference collections to helpidentify exoskeleton fragments (Table1). We attemptedto identifyfragments to familyor orderby directcomparison of partsto our referencecollection, combined with keysto invertebrateidentification (Rickettset al. 1985. Borror et al. 1989). In addition to fecal samples, we sampled invertebratesto build a reference collectionand obtain a qualitativeinventory of prey items. The habitats at the samplingsites, all locatedsouth of the Santa Margarita River mouth, were unpro- tectedsandy beach, protected sandy beach, salt flat, and mudflat.The unprotected sandy beach site• which was exposed to wave action, included upper (above the tideline)and lower (intertidal)beach. The mudflatconsisted of a 5-cm sun-bakedclay layer coveredwith benthicalgae, and underneaththe claylayer there was coarsewet sand.Salt flatswere sampledduring both •'normal"dry conditionsand aftervery high spring tides had inundatedlarge sectionsof this area. The Santa Margarita River changedcourse in 1993• leavinga smalltidal lagoon in its old path, andthe protected sandybeach site, which was not exposedto wave action,was locatedin this area. We did not sample much in sand dunes to avoid disturbingthe Least Terns (Sterna antillarum) nestingthere. We usedsticky traps and sweepnets to collectflies and other flyinginsects and stickytraps to capturecrawling insects. Subsurface invertebrates were collectedwith corestaken to 5 cm (the distancelikely to be accessibleto a probingplover) and then siftedthrough a 1-mm sieve.We occasionallycaptured by hand. Pit traps were not usedsince they couldtrap ploverchicks. Invertebrates were labeledwith locationand date and preservedin 70% ethanol. The prey items identifiedin 32 fecal samplesfrom adult ploversincluded at least nine familiesin six ordersof insects(Figure 1). Beetles(Coleoptera) occurred in 23 (72%) of the samples,and rove beetles(Staphylinidae) were the mostfrequent prey. Half of the fecal samplescollected at the unprotectedsandy beach site contained remnantsof rove beetles only. Flies (Diptera) occurredin 14 (44%) of the fecal samples,and a singlefecal samplefrom the unprotectedsandy beach site contained over 35 fly heads. Long-leggedflies (Dolichopodidae)and shoreflies(Ephydridae) were the primarydipteran families found in the feces(Figure 1). Insectlarvae were Table 1 FragmentsFound in Snowy Plover FecalSamples Used for Inver- tebrate Identification Order Family Partsused for identification Coleoptera Staphylinidae elytra.wings, carapace, head, mandible, antennae, legs Carabidae carapace,head, mandible Cicindelidae carapace,elytra Diptera Ephydridae wings,head. abdominal segments Dolichopodidae wings,head. legs, abdominal segments Anthomyiidae wings,head Hymenoptera Braconidae wings Hemiptera Saldidae wings.body, head Decapoda Hippidae carapace NeogastropodaNassaridae shell 45 NOTES Figure 1. Frequencyof variousfamilies of invertebratesin fecal samplesof adult Snowy Plovers.Numbers to the right of barsindicate number of samples. found in 16 (25%) of the fecal samples,especially in salt flat and protectedsandy beach habitats.Ninety-seven percent of all fecescollected from adultscontained at least one of these three insect families:the Staphylinidae,Dolichopodidae, or Ephydridae. The fecesof threefledglings and one two-week-oldchick were collectedfrom sandy beach sites.All four samplesincluded rove beetles.Long-legged flies were in two samples,Braconidae in one sample,and insectlarvae in one sample.The fecesof the two-week-oldchick contained only rove beetles. We identified22 familiesof invertebratesin samplesfrom all habitats.The insect familieswere the Ephydridae,Dolichopodidae, Anthomyidae, Coelopidae, Asilidae (Diptera);Staphylinidae, Carabidae, Cicindelidae, Curculionidae, Tenebrionidae (Co- leoptera);Braconidae, Dryinidae, Formicidae(Hymenoptera), and Saldidae(Hemi- ptera). Non-insectfamilies were the Hippidae (Decapoda),Conidae (Gastropoda), Halacaridae(Acarina), and five of polychaetes(Annelida): the Spionidae,Glyceridae, Arabellidae,Capitellidae, and Opheliidae. Dolichopodidae and Ephydridae were present in all habitatssampled, and Staphylinidaeoccurred in all but one of the habitats. Unidentifiedinsect larvae were collectedat bothsandy beach sites. The greatestvariety 46 NOTES of potentialprey itemsavailable to foragingplovers occurred at the unprotectedsandy beachsite, mainly because of the presenceof fivefamilies of polychaeteworms. Snowy Ploversappeared to concentratetheir foragingeffort on a few terrestrial insectfamilies (mainly flies and beetles)at the Santa Margarita River mouth. The families most abundant in our sampleswere widely distributedamong habitats. However, polychaeteworms are digestedtoo completelyto be identifiedin fecal samplesby our technique,so the extent to which worms contributedto the diet of Snowy Ploversin our studywas unknowmthey may be important.Reeder (1951) foundpolychaete worms in the stomachsof three SnowyPlovers collected during the breedingseason along the southernCalifornia coast.We observedSnowy Plovers feedingon worms on severaloccasions. Polychaete worms couldbe importantprey for Snowy Ploversforaging in intertidalareas. Hofmann and Hoerschelmann(1969; cited in Cramp and Simmons 1983) reported that the stomach of one Kentish Plover (Charadrius a. alexandrinus) contained 124 beetle heads. Grover and Knopf (1982) reported rove beetlesas abundantwhere SnowyPlovers forage in Oklahoma.We found rove beetlesin the majorityof
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nordmann's Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi
    Final Report Nordmann’s Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi Cipto Dwi Handono1, Ragil Siti Rihadini1, Iwan Febrianto1 and Ahmad Zulfikar Abdullah1 1Yayasan Ekologi Satwa Alam Liar Indonesia (Yayasan EKSAI/EKSAI Foundation) Surabaya, Indonesia Background Many shorebirds species have declined along East Asian-Australasian Flyway which support the highest diversity of shorebirds in the world, including the globally endangered species, Nordmann’s Greenshank. Nordmann’s Greenshank listed as endangered in the IUCN Red list of Threatened Species because of its small and declining population (BirdLife International, 2016). It’s one of the world’s most threatened shorebirds, is confined to the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (Bamford et al. 2008, BirdLife International 2001, 2012). Its global population is estimated at 500–1,000, with an estimated 100 in Malaysia, 100–200 in Thailand, 100 in Myanmar, plus unknown but low numbers in NE India, Bangladesh and Sumatra (Wetlands International 2006). The population is suspected to be rapidly decreasing due to coastal wetland development throughout Asia for industry, infrastructure and aquaculture, and the degradation of its breeding habitat in Russia by grazing Reindeer Rangifer tarandus (BirdLife International 2012). Mostly Nordmann’s Greenshanks have been recorded in very small numbers throughout Southeast Asia, and there are few places where it has been reported regularly. In Myanmar, for example, it was rediscovered after a gap of almost 129 years. The total count recorded by the Asian Waterbird Census (AWC) in 2006 for Myanmar was 28 birds with 14 being the largest number at a single locality (Naing 2007). In 2011–2012, Nordmann’s Greenshank was found three times in Sumatera Utara province, N Sumatra.
    [Show full text]
  • The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of COVID-19 Lockdown Effects on Wildlife Conservation Insights from the First European Locked Do
    Biological Conservation 249 (2020) 108728 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Perspective The good, the bad and the ugly of COVID-19 lockdown effects on wildlife conservation: Insights from the first European locked down country T ⁎ Raoul Manentia, , Emiliano Morib, Viola Di Canioa, Silvia Mercurioa, Marco Piconec, Mario Caffid, Mattia Brambillae,f, Gentile Francesco Ficetolaa,g, Diego Rubolinia a Dipartimento di Scienze e Politiche Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Celoria 26, I-20133 Milano, Italy b Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Ricerca sugli Ecosistemi Terrestri, Via Madonna del Piano 10, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy c Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Informatica e Statistica, Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia, Via Torino 55, I-30172 Venezia, Italy d Osservatorio Ornitologico Pianura Bresciana ‘Padernello’, via Cavour 1, I-25022 Borgo San Giacomo, BS, Italy e Fondazione Lombardia per l'Ambiente, Settore biodiversità e aree protette, Largo 10 luglio 1976 1, I-20822 Seveso, MB, Italy f Museo delle Scienze, Sezione di Zoologia dei Vertebrati, Corso del Lavoro e della Scienza 3, I-38122 Trento, Italy g Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, LECA, Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, Rue de la Piscine 2233, F-38000 Grenoble, France ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The COVID-19 pandemic zoonosis has determined extensive lockdowns worldwide that provide an un- Coronavirus precedented opportunity to understand how large-scale shifts of human activities can impact wildlife. We ad- Conservation dressed the impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on wildlife in Italy, the first European country that performed a Crisis countrywide lockdown, and identified potentially beneficial and negative consequences for wildlife conservation Pandemic and management.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Guide for Breeding Ecology of Kentish Plover
    Practical guide for investigating breeding ecology of Kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus Tamás Székely, András Kosztolányi & Clemens Küpper Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Version 3, 1 April 2008 Photos by T. Székely, A. Kosztolányi & C. Küpper Rationale The Kentish/snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus is a small cosmopolitan shorebird (body mass about 40-44 g). In the last few years we have developed a suite of methods to investigate its behaviour and ecology in the field. We thought this practical guide may be useful for students and researchers with an interest in small plovers. Some aspects of these methods may be relevant for other shorebirds and ground-nesting birds in general. Our fundamental motivation in writing this guide is to show that the Kentish plover is an easy species to work with, if one is willing to pay attention to a few potential pitfalls. We hope that this guide will elicit further research. Please contact us if you have questions and comments, and let us know of any errors. Note that Kentish plovers have been studied in several countries and by a good range of researchers, and we don't claim that our methods work best. Many Kentish plover populations are now declining. You need to be sensible about fieldwork, and carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of using a particular method. The last thing you want is to put an extra burden on plover populations - they have a hard time anyway to cope with predators, floods and threats humans are imposing upon them.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Shorebird Profiles
    List of Shorebird Profiles Pacific Central Atlantic Species Page Flyway Flyway Flyway American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) •513 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) •••499 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) •488 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) •••501 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)•490 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) •511 Dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.)•••485 Dunlin (Calidris alpina)•••483 Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemestica)••475 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)•••492 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ••503 Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa)••505 Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva) •497 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)••473 Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)•••479 Sanderling (Calidris alba)•••477 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)••494 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia)•••507 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)•509 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) •••481 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) ••515 All illustrations in these profiles are copyrighted © George C. West, and used with permission. To view his work go to http://www.birchwoodstudio.com. S H O R E B I R D S M 472 I Explore the World with Shorebirds! S A T R ER G S RO CHOOLS P Red Knot (Calidris canutus) Description The Red Knot is a chunky, medium sized shorebird that measures about 10 inches from bill to tail. When in its breeding plumage, the edges of its head and the underside of its neck and belly are orangish. The bird’s upper body is streaked a dark brown. It has a brownish gray tail and yellow green legs and feet. In the winter, the Red Knot carries a plain, grayish plumage that has very few distinctive features. Call Its call is a low, two-note whistle that sometimes includes a churring “knot” sound that is what inspired its name.
    [Show full text]
  • Charadrius Alexandrinus (Kentish Plover)
    Charadrius alexandrinus (Kentish Plover) European Red List of Birds Supplementary Material The European Union (EU27) Red List assessments were based principally on the official data reported by EU Member States to the European Commission under Article 12 of the Birds Directive in 2013-14. For the European Red List assessments, similar data were sourced from BirdLife Partners and other collaborating experts in other European countries and territories. For more information, see BirdLife International (2015). Contents Reported national population sizes and trends p. 2 Trend maps of reported national population data p. 5 Sources of reported national population data p. 8 Species factsheet bibliography p. 13 Recommended citation BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Further information http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/euroredlist http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/european-red-list-birds-0 http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/ Data requests and feedback To request access to these data in electronic format, provide new information, correct any errors or provide feedback, please email [email protected]. THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds Charadrius alexandrinus (Kentish Plover) Table 1. Reported national breeding population size and trends in Europe1. Country (or Population estimate Short-term population trend4 Long-term population trend4 Subspecific population (where relevant) 2 territory) Size (pairs)3 Europe (%) Year(s) Quality Direction5 Magnitude (%)6 Year(s) Quality Direction5 Magnitude (%)6 Year(s) Quality Albania 200-450 1 2002-2012 medium - 10-20 2002-2012 medium - 10-30 1980-2012 medium Armenia 20-40 <1 2002-2012 medium ? ? Austria 40-45 <1 2008-2012 good 0 0 2001-2012 good + 20-30 1980-2012 good C.
    [Show full text]
  • Brochure: Share Our Seashore and Protect the Western Snowy Plover
    WHAT CAN YOU PloversPlovers andand DO? YourYour DogDog ShareShare • Respect posted habitat areas. Each person who visits the Seashore affects the Snowy Plover’s OurOur • Stay at least 50 feet away from the ability to survive. birds and nests. Dogs are prohibited from Seashore • Walk dogs only where authorized Snowy Plover nesting beaches Seashore and always on leash. during breeding season. Leashed dogs are allowed at: andand ProtectProtect thethe • Properly dispose of garbage to avoid • North Beach, from parking attracting predators. lot south to Lighthouse Beach WesternWestern • Leave drift wood lying on sand. It • Kehoe Beach, from Kehoe provides nesting and feeding habitat creek north to cliffs SnowySnowy for plovers. Upright • Limantour Beach, east of wood provides perches the beach trailhead for bird predators. PloverPlover • Report unprotected nests. • Walk near water line on beach. • Share knowledge with others. CALIFORNIA COASTAL • Volunteer to restore plover COMMISSION’S WHALE TAIL LICENSE habitat. PLATE GRANTS PROGRAM For More Information: www.nps.gov/pore www.prbo.org 415.464.5137 Point Reyes National Seashore 1 Bear Valley Rd National Park Service Point Reyes, CA 94956 Point Reyes National Seashore Designed and Edited by Brooke Sommerfeldt Brooke by Edited and Designed WHAT IS A WHY ARE THEY THREATENED? SNOWY PLOVER? The Snowy Plover is a federally threatened species. There are 3 main factors that threaten the plover. Physical Description SOURCE CAUSE EFFECT • sparrow-sized shorebird Direct Plover Disturbance • Human activity
    [Show full text]
  • Periodic Status Review for the Snowy Plover in Washington
    STATE OF WASHINGTON February 2016 Periodic Status Review for the Snowy Plover Derek W. Stinson Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Wildlife Program The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011). In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297). The procedures include how species list- ings will be initiated, criteria for listing and delisting, a requirement for public review, the development of recovery or management plans, and the periodic review of listed species. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is directed to conduct reviews of each endangered, threat- ened, or sensitive wildlife species at least every five years after the date of its listing by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The periodic status reviews are designed to include an update of the species status report to determine whether the status of the species warrants its current listing status or deserves reclas- sification. The agency notifies the general public and specific parties who have expressed their interest to the Department of the periodic status review at least one year prior to the five-year period so that they may submit new scientific data to be included in the review. The agency notifies the public of its recommenda- tion at least 30 days prior to presenting the findings to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. In addition, if the agency determines that new information suggests that the classification of a species should be changed from its present state, the agency prepares documents to determine the environmental consequences of adopting the recommendations pursuant to requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act.
    [Show full text]
  • 08 Checklist of Species
    Please note that the List below is in the sequence used in the Derbyshire Bird Report , but the monthly Bulletin BIRD NOTES will remain in the previous Voous Order pro tem . When submitting record slips, please use the EURING NUMBER shown after each species. This will greatly aid writing the Bird Notes and inputting into the computer database. The list uses British vernacular names as column 1 in the BOU BRITISH LIST A CHECKLIST of SPECIES RECORDED in DERBYSHIRE MUTE SWAN 0152 MONTAGU'S HARRIER 0263 GREAT BLACK-BACKED GULL 0600 DARTFORD WARBLER 1262 BEWICK'S SWAN 0153 GOSHAWK 0267 SOOTY TERN 0623 GRASSHOPPER WARBLER 1236 WHOOPER SWAN 0154 SPARROWHAWK 0269 LITTLE TERN 0624 SAVI'S WARBLER 1238 BEAN GOOSE 0157 BUZZARD 0287 GULL-BILLED TERN 0605 AQUATIC WARBLER 1242 PINK-FOOTED GOOSE 0158 ROUGH-LEGGED BUZZARD 0290 CASPIAN TERN 0606 SEDGE WARBLER 1243 WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE 0159 GOLDEN EAGLE 0296 WHISKERED TERN 0626 MARSH WARBLER 1250 LESSER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE 0160 OSPREY 0301 BLACK TERN 0627 REED WARBLER 1251 GREYLAG GOOSE 0161 KESTREL 0304 WHITE-WINGED BLACK TERN 0628 GREAT REED WARBLER 1253 CANADA GOOSE 0166 RED-FOOTED FALCON 0307 SANDWICH TERN 0611 BARNACLE GOOSE 0167 MERLIN 0309 COMMON TERN 0615 WAXWING 1048 BRENT GOOSE 0168 HOBBY 0310 ROSEATE TERN 0614 NUTHATCH 1479 EGYPTIAN GOOSE 0170 PEREGRINE 0320 ARCTIC TERN 0616 TREECREEPER 1486 RUDDY SHELDUCK 0171 RAZORBILL 0636 WREN 1066 SHELDUCK 0173 WATER RAIL 0407 LITTLE AUK 0647 STARLING 1582 MANDARIN DUCK 0178 SPOTTED CRAKE 0408 PUFFIN 0654 ROSE-COLOURED STARLING 1584 WIGEON 0179 CORNCRAKE
    [Show full text]
  • Plover, Snowy
    Plovers — Family Charadriidae 193 Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus Nesting on beaches, dunes, and salt flats, the Snowy Plover is among San Diego County’s scarcest and most threatened breeding birds. In 1993 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed it as threatened along the entire Pacific coast. Thorough surveys from 1995 to 1998 put the county’s breeding population between 240 and 325 individuals, most concentrated in two areas, Camp Pendleton and the Silver Strand (Powell et al. 2002). Surveys from 1978 to 1998 suggest the decline of this once common bird has continued. When not breeding the Snowy Plover is more wide- spread along the county’s coast but it is not much Photo by Anthony Mercieca more numerous, in spite of considerable migration. Human disturbance of the remaining habitat and a high level of predation mean that intensive manage- single breeding season, some individuals shift from site to site, although most remain at one site. ment is needed to sustain the population. These variables considered, about half the population Breeding distribution: Powell et al. (2002) surveyed San breeds in Camp Pendleton, with six to eight nests per year Diego County’s coastline intensively from 1994 to 1998 at the mouths of Aliso and French creeks (F4) and 67 to and provided an exhaustive view of the Snowy Plover’s 88 at the Santa Margarita River mouth (G4). The high distribution. Their detailed table enumerated nests rather count of individual plovers was 120 at the latter site 11 than birds per site; because of multiple clutches per year, June 1997 (B.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Size of Snowy Plovers Breeding in North America Author(S): Susan M
    Population Size of Snowy Plovers Breeding in North America Author(s): Susan M. Thomas, James E. Lyons, Brad A. Andres, Elise Elliot T-Smith, Eduardo Palacios, John F. Cavitt, J. Andrew Royle, Suzanne D. Fellows, Kendra Maty, William H. Howe, Eric Mellink, Stefani Melvin and Tara Zimmerman Source: Waterbirds, 35(1):1-14. 2012. Published By: The Waterbird Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1675/063.035.0101 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1675/063.035.0101 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/ page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non- commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. WATERBIRDS JOURNAL OF THE WATERBIRD SOCIETY VOL. 35, NO. 1 2012 PAGES 1-184 Population Size of Snowy Plovers Breeding in North America SUSAN M. THOMAS1,12, JAMES E. LYONS2, BRAD A. ANDRES3,*,ELISE ELLIOTT-SMITH4, EDUARDO PALACIOS5, JOHN F. CAVITT6, J. ANDREW ROYLE7, SUZANNE D.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Snowy Plovers and California Least Terns on Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve, Guadalupe CA
    Western Snowy Plovers and California Least Terns on Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve, Guadalupe CA 2018 Final Report Prepared for: The County of Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California Prepared by: Thomas E. Applegate and Sandra J. Schultz Wildwing Consulting Carlsbad, CA 92011 December 10, 2018 Table of Contents Summary........................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Methods............................................................................................................................................. 3 Snowy Plovers ................................................................................................................................ 3 California Least Terns ................................................................................................................... 4 Results ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Snowy Plovers ................................................................................................................................ 4 Nesting Population .....................................................................................................................
    [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]