The Kingbird Vol. 61 No. 2 – June 2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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olume 61 No. 2 June 2011 pp. 105-196 CONTENTS Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) Call-types of New York: Their taxonomy, Flight Call Vocalizations, and Ecology Matthew A. Young . 106 A 2010 Nassau County Big Year Robert J. Berlingeri . 124 Notes and Observations Additions to the New York State Checklist New York State Avian Records Committee . 132 The 111th Christmas Bird Count in New York State . 132 Fifty Years Ago in The Kingbird Chickadee Migration in Monroe County Howard S. Miller . 134 Highlights of the Season — Winter 2010-11 W. Bradley Carlson . 135 Regional Reports . 144 Photo Gallery . 149 Standard Regional Report Abbreviations, Reporting Deadlines and Map of Reporting Regions . 195 Editor – S. S. Mitra Regional Reports Editor – Robert G. Spahn Circulation and Membership Managers – Barbara Butler, Berna Lincoln Cover Illustration – Eastern Kingbird, Calverton, Suffolk, © Luke Ormand. The Kingbird 2011 June; 61 (2) 105 RED CROSSBILL (Loxia curvisrotra) CALL-TYPES OF NEW YORK: THEIR TAXONOMY, FLIGHT CALL VOCALIZATIONS, AND ECOLOGY Matthew A. Young Cornell Lab of Ornithology 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, NY 13820 [email protected] Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) populations around the world vary greatly in traits ranging from overall size and bill morphology to flight call vocalizations. Their taxonomy has a confused history, but it is now known that differences in flight call vocalizations are critical to differentiating as many as 25 distinct groups known as call-types (Groth 1993, Benkman 1999, Irwin 2010a), and that many of these may represent incipient species (Parchmen et al. 2006). These call-types correspond with small differences in bill depth morphology, which correlate with differing ecological specializations (Benkman 1993, Benkman 1999, Irwin 2010a). For example, the average bill depth for large-billed call-type 2, which is most efficient feeding on ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) (Benkman 1993), is 9.67mm (Groth 1993a), whereas the small-billed call-type 3, which is most efficient feeding on Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) (Benkman 1993), is 8.19mm (Groth 1993a). Bill depth is thought to be most heritable, since it’s resistant to wear, unlike bill length (Benkman 1993). Most call-types have a key conifer or conifers (Benkman 1993) on which they feed most efficiently, and these key conifers exist in a core zone of occurrence (Dickermen 1987, Knox 1992, Kelsey 2008, Young 2010), which is an area where the corresponding call-type is most abundant. Often when key conifers fail in this core zone of occurrence, crossbills will switch to alternate conifers that provide the highest energy yields (Benkman 1987). This is why call-types can be seen foraging on several different species of conifers. Bill depth differences aside, it’s still nearly impossible to identify crossbills definitively in the field based on morphology, and therefore it’s essential to record crossbill flight calls for analysis. Extremely large or small specimens of a given call-type can overlap morphologically with several other call-types (Groth 1993a). As many as ten call-types of Red Crossbill can be found across North America (Groth 1993a, Benkman 1999, Ken Irwin 2010a), and as already stated, each may represent a different species, or more likely, an incipient species (Parchman et al. 2006). Types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 find their home, or core zone of occurrence, in regions of the West where call-types appear to be adaptively radiating (Benkman 1993, Benkman 1999, Irwin 2010a). The most widespread call-types in North America are Types 1, 2, 3, 4 (Groth 1993a), and 10 (Irwin 2010a), with Type 1 most common in the East (Young 2010, Blankenship et al. 2010). Records of a quasi-resident Appalachian Red Crossbill call-type date back to before Griscom (1937), and Groth’s studies in the 1980s 106 The Kingbird 2011 June; 61 (2) revealed Type 1 to be common in North Carolina and Virginia (Groth 1988, 1993a). Evidence presented by Sewall (2010) supports the idea that Red Crossbill flight calls are an example of reliable signaling because identification of appropriate companions and mates is essential to species integrity through prezygotic isolation. Sewall (2009) has also presented evidence that adults show limited vocal learning, likely facilitating distinctive flight calls in Red Crossbill types. It can certainly be challenging to differentiate flight calls of the various Red Crossbill call-types and some on-line sites offer help (Groth 1993b, Young 2008b, Irwin 2010b). Flight calls are the sound typically described as “jip-jip” or “whit-whit”. To be able to find and identify crossbills, it’s essential to develop a familiarity with these flight calls, which occasionally are also given by perched birds. Birds that are singing can give flight-like calls, but it is highly recommended that birds singing not be identified to call-type until more work is done on crossbill song vocalizations. Knowing when and where to look for crossbills is very important. Birds flying overhead are often the most vocal, and believe it or not, birds feeding atop a conifer just 15 meters away can be very quiet and easily missed. When feeding, the sound most often heard is the very subtle crackling of the birds extracting the seed from the seedcoat. Sometimes this is the only sound they make as the seedcoats drop to the ground. With much practice, however, many of the call-types (hereafter Type or Types) can be identified in the field. Nearly all flight call recordings can be identified with certainty via audiospectrographic analysis (once in a while you need to let one go as unidentified). The audiospectrographic analysis gives a computer printout of the bird’s voice. To analyze them I used Raven Pro 1.3 (Charif et al. 2008). In this paper I will discuss New York State’s Red Crossbills, focusing on their flight call vocalizations and also their ecology and taxonomy. TAXONOMY In previous work on New York State taxonomy of Red Crossbills, four geographical subspecies were identified as occurring within the state (Bull 1974, p. 566): L. curvirostra minor – from south-central Canada to north-central US. L. c. pusilla – Newfoundland, winters in northeast US. L. c. sitkensis – Alaska to northwest California, winters to northeast US. L. c. benti – southern Montana to southwest US. As noted above, contemporary crossbill researchers prefer to describe Red Crossbill taxa in terms of call-types. By definition, crossbill call-types don't correspond neatly with geographical subspecies, because several crossbill call- types can at least occasionally nest sympatrically. The distribution and ranges listed below for each call-type are defined from the analysis of several hundreds The Kingbird 2011 June; 61 (2) 107 of crossbill recordings obtained via The Macaulay Library of Sounds at The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Florida Museum of Natural History, The Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley (aka Jeff Groth’s collection), Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics, xeno-canto, and several other crossbill enthusiasts across the country. For distribution, I also referenced Ken Irwin (2010a) and Evans and O’Brien (2002). Based on the work of flight calls (Groth 1993a, Benkman 1999, Irwin 2010a), I have identified these forms from smallest to largest occurring in New York State (NYS). Type 3—Smallest-billed Form First Type Specimen: Craig W.