o Florida Field Naturalist PUBLISHED BY THE FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY VoL. 43, No. 4 November 2015 Pages 139-201 FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY Founded 1972 OFFICERS PREsroENTs R. Todd Engstrom, 309 Carr Lane, Tallahassee, FL 32312. E-mail: engstrom® bio.fsu.edu Vice President: Mary Dowdell, 5209 Culbreath Road, Brooksville, FL 34601. E-mail: mary.dowdell@myfwc.com Secretary: Cole Fredricks, 325 Ruby Lake Loop, Winter Haven, FL 33884. E-mail: cfredricks@tampabay.rr.com Treasurer: Charles H. Fisher, Jr., 4806 W. Beach Park Dr., Tampa, FL 33609. E-mail: chfl shercpa@hotmaiL com Editor, Florida Field NATURALiSTt Scott Robinson, Florida Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800. E-mail: srobmson@flmnh.ufl.edu Directors, Serving Until Spring 2016 David Goodwin, 807 Woodcarver Lane, Brandon, FL 33510. E-mail: dave.goodwin@aol.com Graham Williams. E-mail: grahamevenwilliams@gmaiLcom Directors, Serving Until Spring 2017 Gina Kent. E-mail: ginakent@arcinst.org David Simpson, 139 S. Willow Street, Fellsmere, FL 32948. E-mail: simpsondavid@mac.com Directors, Serving Until Spring 2018 Emily Angell, 475 Easy Street, Avon Park, FL 33825. E-mail: epipher@archbold-station.org Erin Ragheb, 1105 SW Williston Road, Gainesville, FL 32601. E-mail: erin.ragheb® myFWC.com Honorary Members Samuel A. Grimes 1979; Helen G. Cruickshank 1980; Oliver L. Austin, Jr. 1982 Pierce Brodkorb 1982; William B. Robertson, Jr. 1992; Glen E. Woolfenden 1994 Ted Below 1999; Fred E. Lohrer 2009 All persons interested in Florida’s natural history, especially its abundant bird life, are invited to join the Florida Ornithological Society by writing to the IVeasurer. Annual membership dues are $25 for individual members, $30 for a family membership, $15 for students, $45 for contributing members, and $40 for institutional membership; add $5 for overseas delivery One-time contributions for life membership are $400 for individuals and $500 for families. All members receive Florida Field Naturalist. Notice of change of address, claims for undelivered or defective copies, and requests for information about advertising and subscriptions should be sent to the Treasurer. Florida Field Naturalist is published quarterly (March, May, September, and November) by the Florida Ornithological Society It is printed by E.O. Painter Printing Co., P.O. Box 877, DeLeon Springs, FL 32130. The permanent address of the Florida Ornithological Society is Division of Birds, Florida Museum of Natural History, Museum Road at Newell Drive, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. The Florida Ornithological Society web site is at www.fosbirds.org THIS PUBLICATION IS PRINTED ON NEUTRAL PH PAPER Florida Field Naturalist PUBLISHED BY THE FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY VoL. 43, No. 4 November 2015 Pages 139-201 Florida Field Naturalist 43(4):139-147, 2015. ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF A JAY WATCH POST-REPRODUCTIVE SURVEY OF FLORIDA SCRUB- JAYS {Aphelocoma coerulescens) Karl E. Miller^ Craig A. Faulhaber^, and Jay O. Garcia^ Wish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1105 SW Williston Road, Gainesville, Florida 32601 E-mail: karLmiller@myfwc.com Wlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1239 SW 10th Street, Ocala, Florida 34471 E-mail: craig.faulhaber@myfwc.com ^Ocala National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, 40929 State Road 19, Umatilla, Florida 32784 E-mail: jogarcia@fs.fed.us Abstract."— We assessed the accuracy of the Jay Watch survey methodology in con- junction with ongoing Florida Scrub-Jay {Aphelocoma coerulescens) research in the Oc- ala National Forest during 2012 and 2013, We compared the numbers of family groups, adults, and fledglings estimated during Jay Watch post-reproductive surveys with the same parameters obtained through demographic monitoring on the same study sites. We found close agreement between estimates derived from short-term Jay Watch surveys (conducted by teams of volunteers and trained staff) and the same parameters obtained through intensive demographic monitoring by a full-time field biologist. Intraclass cor- relation coefficients between data sources were high (0.83“0.95), We found some dis- crepancies in fledgling numbers between Jay Watch and demographic monitoring, but such discrepancies were uncommon and most likely to occur in densely vegetated forest stands that were populated by multiple family groups that each had fledglings. Some of our Jay Watch participants were skilled biologists with prior experience with Florida Scrub-Jays, which may have increased the accuracy of our results. Volunteers have become increasingly important in collecting survey and monitoring data on biological organisms in a wide range 139 140 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST of ecological projects. Citizen-science projects enable scientists to address research questions across broad spatial and temporal scales with large data sets while providing opportunities for volunteers to increase their understanding of and appreciation for the natural environment. Because birdwatching is popular among the general public, bird-monitoring projects have been among the most successful in integrating citizen scientists (e.g., Sullivan et al. 2009). Studies have examined various characteristics of citizen-science projects that affect data quality (Lewandowski and Specht 2015), but relatively few have compared the accuracy of data collected by volunteers with that of data collected by biologists who use more intensive survey methods at the same locations. “Jay Watch” was created in 2002 by the Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem Working Group with the primary goal of using volunteers to conduct annual assessments of Florida Scrub-Jay {Aphelocoma coerulescens) populations throughout the region (TNG 2010). The Florida Scrub- Jay, the only bird species endemic to Florida, is listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1987). The species is non-migratory, largely sedentary, and lives in extended family groups that cooperatively defend the territory and care for young (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Jay Watch was initially coordinated by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) with direction from Archbold Biological Station. Since 2012, the program has been coordinated by Audubon of Florida with assistance from various partners including FWC. Each year, the Jay Watch program coordinator works with professional biologists to train volunteers in using playback surveys to monitor scrub-jay populations during the post-reproductive period (June-July). Although the program is now widely used (68 sites were monitored in 2014; M. Korosy, unpublished data), there have been limited efforts to rigorously assess the accuracy of these data on a site-by-site basis (TNC 2008). We conducted an accuracy assessment of Jay Watch survey methodology in conjunction with ongoing Florida Scrub- Jay research at the Ocala National Forest (ONF). Our primary objective in this study was to assess whether we could use the Jay Watch protocol effectively in our study population to increase the number of sites that we monitor while maintaining data quality. Our secondary objective was to use our findings to make general recommendations about the Jay Watch protocol and its use elsewhere. Specifically, we compared the numbers of family groups, adults, and fledglings estimated using Jay Watch surveys with the same parameters obtained through more intensive demographic monitoring on the same study sites. Miller et al.^ — Florida Scrub-Jay Survey 141 Methods Study site. — ONF supports the largest remaining Florida Scrub- Jay population (Stith et al. 1996) and is one of three areas critical to the recovery of the species (USFWS 1987). Located in Marion, Lake, and Putnam counties, ONF encompasses approximately 91,000 ha (225,000 acres) of scrub and sand pine (Pinus clausa) habitat, which are man- aged for multiple objectives including forest products, wildlife habitat, and recreation (USFS 1999). The ONF landscape is unique in that suitable habitat for Florida Scrub- Jays occurs in hundreds of small clear-cut patches within an extensive matrix of forest habitat unsuitable for scrub-jays. Most stands are roller chopped and reseeded with sand pine after they have been clear-cut. Ongoing research at ONF seeks to identify how for- est management and landscape configuration influence scrub-jay population density and annual productivity. Forest stands used in this assessment ranged from 12 to 62 ha in size and 1 to 10 years postharvest. Field methods for demographic monitoring. — -Within selected focal stands, we color- banded scrub-jays and visited their territories regularly to assess family group com- position and breeding status (e.g., Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Our goal was to band at least one member of each family group. We trap tamed scrub-jays with walk-in, single-cell Potter traps and drop traps constructed of welded wire and baited with pea- nuts. Each banded individual received a U.S. Geological Survey aluminum band and a unique combination of three plastic color bands. During April-Mune of 2012 and 2013, a full-time trained biologist (hereafter “lead biologist”) conducted regular monitoring and territory mapping on the sites without the use of playback recordings. The lead biologist visited each focal stand regularly (typically at 4- to 5-day intervals, sometimes more frequently) to assess the status of each family group and maintain an ongoing roster of its members. Breeding status was determined in the field through vocalizations (the female-specific “hiccup” call) and behavior (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984, 1996), and special care was taken to note the location of territorial encounters between neighboring groups (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991, Bibby et al. 1992). Observations were recorded in the field on aerial photos ranging in scale from 1:2,400 to 1:13,000. Field methods for Jay Watch surveys.— JblY Watch uses territory mapping methods that emphasize the importance of obtaining simultaneous registrations of birds from neighbor- ing territories (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Playbacks ehcit territorial vocahzations and encoun- ters between scrub-jays during the post-reproductive period (late June-early July), when juveniles can be easily distinguished from adults by plumage and behavior. We established survey points 150 m apart (sometimes closer or farther apart depending on the configuration of the stand) for the Jay Watch monitoring protocol. Teams of paired observers played record-? ings of Florida Scrub-Jay territorial calls (most of which we had recorded locally at ONF) at each survey point to elicit responses from resident scrub-jays. Each survey point was visited aS times on non-consecutive mornings. Territorial interactions and other clues (e.g., group composition, direction of travel, presence of color bands) were used to map approximate ter- ritory boimdaries and to enumerate group members. Use of paired observers maximized the likelihood of maintaining visual contact with observed scrub-jay famihes and helped avoid double counting. Maps and data sheets were interpreted afterward by analysts using consis- tent rules to determine the number of family groups, adults, and fledghngs. We trained most participants 4-6 weeks prior to the surveys. As is usually done with Jay Watch elsewhere (C. Millett and M. Korosy, personal communication), we paired more experienced participants with less experienced participants during surveys. Unlike most other Jay Watch surveys, our more experienced participants sometimes includ- ed trained wildlife biologists. For example, the lead biologist often participated in Jay Watch surveys. Other less skilled participants included citizen volunteers and students as well as staff employed by FWC, USFWS, and the U.S. Forest Service who had little experience with scrub-jay behavior. 142 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Accuracy assessment and analyses. — We compared the numbers of family groups, adults, and fledglings determined by demographic monitoring with estimates derived by three (2012) or two (2013) analysts who interpreted Jay Watch survey maps and data sheets. Analysts completed this exercise independently vdthout conferring with one another, using only information available from the Jay Watch survey. The lead fleld bi- ologist who conducted demographic monitoring did not serve as an analyst. If scrub-jay territories extensively overlapped two neighboring stands, we assigned 0.5 group (and half of its members) to each stand for analyses. When sample sizes allowed, we used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to test for differences between Jay Watch results for each analyst against demographic monitoring results. Chi-square tests of independence were not appropriate, given that these were repeated or paired measures. We also used Winer’s (1971) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess the reliability of repeated measurements by different analysts. High ICC val- ues indicate that the error of measurement associated with each analyst is constant. In addition, we compared results stand by stand qualitatively. Given the vocal and conspicuous nature of this species, we were not concerned with inaccurate species identification or with measuring detectability of individuals at a given point. Playbacks of scrub-jays are known to increase detection rates to near 1.0 (Breininger et al. 2006; T. Castellon and K. Sieving, unpublished data). Results In 2012, demographic monitoring on 12 focal stands identified 35 family groups comprising 79 adults and 16 fledglings. Jay Watch survey data 3delded almost identical results, particularly when interpreted by analyst #1 and analyst #2 (Table 1). Statistical comparisons between demographic data and Jay Watch either were not possible because of the large number of ties (i.e., demographic and Jay Watch data did Table 1. Comparing the accuracy of Jay Watch post-reproductive survey analyses with intensive monitoring data from a full-time field biologist, ONF, 2012 (Grp = number of family groups, Ad = number of adults, Juv = number of juveniles). Intensive 2012 monitoring Analyst 1 Analyst 2 Analyst 3 Stand # Acres Grp Ad Juv Grp Ad Juv Grp Ad Juv Grp Ad Juv 1621 44.6 3 8 0 4 11 0 3 11 0 3 8 0 2506 40.9 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2532 53.0 3 6 1 3 6 1 3 6 1 2 4 1 2503/2624 152.9 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 4 8 0 4632 48.4 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 4720 28.6 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4727 38.3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 4729 31.2 2 6 4 2 5 5 2 6 6 2 6 7 4736 35.0 3 6 0 3 5 0 3 5 0 2 5 0 4745 65.1 4 10 2 4 10 2 4 9 2 4 9 2 21424 80.1 5 11 4 5 10 4 6 12 4 4 9 4 21440 47.1 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 4 3 6 4 Total 665.3 35 79 16 35 77 17 36 80 19 30 69 20 Miller et al.=™Florida Scrub-Jay Survey 143 not differ at most stands) or were not significant (P > 0.05), Analyst #3 sometimes undercounted the number of family groups present or overcounted the number of fledglings present, but the differences were small. The intraclass correlation coefficient for analyst performance was high, ranging from 0.89 (family groups) to 0.95 (fledglings). In 2013, demographic monitoring on 10 focal stands identified 35.5 family groups comprising 83.5 adults and 37,5 fledglings. (We included 0.5 group at stand 4736 because that group’s territory straddled the border between that stand and an adjacent stand not included in this assessment; see Methods.) Jay Watch survey data yielded very similar results (Table 2). Statistical comparisons between demographic and Jay Watch data were not significant (P > 0.05). Analysts performed similarly, with the intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.83 (family groups) to 0.92 (adults). Stands with discrepancies in the number of family groups tended to be those with several family groups and no banded birds (e.g., in 2012 only 2 of 11 adult scrub-jays were banded in stand 21424; Table 1). Discrepancies in the number of fledglings were uncommon (79% of comparisons at the stand level were the same; Fig. 1). When discrepancies occurred, they were almost always in stands that were both densely vegetated and populated by neighboring family groups that had fledglings. Discussion We found close agreement between population estimates derived from short-term Jay Watch playback surveys (by teams of volunteers and trained staff) and the same parameters obtained from demographic Table 2. Comparing the accuracy of Jay Watch post-reproductive survey analyses with intensive monitoring data from a full-time field biologist, ONF, 2013 (Grp = number of family groups, Ad = number of adults, Juv = number of juveniles). 2013 Intensive monitoring Analyst 2 Analyst 3 Stand # Acres Grp Ad Juv Grp Ad Juv Grp Ad Juv 4632 48.43 2 4 2 1 3 1 2 5 2 4727 38.3 2 5 3 2 5 3 1 3 3 4736 35 3.5 7.5 3.5 4 9 5 2 5 4 4745 65.13 5 10 7 4 10 7 4 10 5 21424 80.06 4 9 7 4 11 7 4 11 7 21440 47.08 3 8 3 3 9 3 4 10 4 27312 60.44 4 12 1 5 14 1 4 13 2 27314 62.45 2 4 3 2 4 3 3 6 3 27316 55.69 4 9 4 4 9 4 3 8 ’ 4 27406 128.16 6 15 4 6 16 4 6 15 5 Total 620.74 35.6 83.5 37.5 35 90 38 33 86 39 144 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Figure 1. Difference in fledgling counts between Jay Watch estimates and demographic monitoring data, 2012-2013. Comparisons were made at the stand level. monitoring data (by a fulbtime lead biologist). This finding strengthens our ability to draw conclusions from short-term post-reproductive surveys at ONF, and consequently allows us to monitor a larger study area each year without sacrificing accuracy. We conducted this assessment in conditions representative of sites monitored by Jay Watch across Florida, so our results may have applicability to the use of Jay Watch elsewhere. For example, we surveyed small populations (1-10 family groups per stand) in small habitat patches (forest stands were <60 ha), and most scrub-jay populations monitored by Jay Watch elsewhere are small (78% are <10 family groups; M. Korosy, unpublished data). Sites in our assessment also represented a range of vegetative conditions, with average height of scrub oaks ranging from 1-3 m. Some caveats should be noted. The average skill level of field staff in our Jay Watch surveys was very high, which may have increased our accuracy. In-depth field training for participants is critically important for any program that uses volunteers (e.g., Koss et al. 2009, Lewandowski and Specht 2015), and some programs choose to use only professionals for certain tasks at some stages of the data collection or verification process (e.g., Anderson et al. 2001). We took such an approach by usually allocating the most difficult tasks (i.e., note taking) to those with the highest skill levels. Miller et al.- — Florida Scrub-Jay Survey 145 An assessment of Jay Watch data at a few sites on the Lake Wales Ridge found that the accuracy of fledgling numbers varied although differences were not statistically significant (TNC 2008; R. Bowman, unpublished data). We found some discrepancies in fledgling numbers between Jay Watch and demographic monitoring, but they were infrequent and more likely to be overestimates than underestimates (Fig. 1). In our experience, the behavior of juveniles can potentially lead to overcounting, especially in high- density populations such as those in our study area (4-5 family groups per 41 ha [100 acres], K. Miller, unpublished data). Juvenile Florida Scrub- Jays often wander into neighboring territories, where they mix with, and are tolerated by, offspring from other groups (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996; K. Miller, personal observation). Our study suggests that analysts should pay careful attention to this possibility in densely populated study sites, especially where vegetation height reduces visibility. In addition, many of the scrub-jays on our stands were color banded, which facilitated accurate data collection. Jay Watch monitoring programs in high-density scrub-jay populations without any color banded individuals may not be as successful. The labor -intensive nature of collecting Florida Scrub- Jay data across large spatial and temporal extents would seem to make the regional assessment of population status and trend an ideal candidate for citizen science. On the other hand, research indicates that projects that use quantitative measurements are better suited for citizen science than projects that ask volunteers to collect more qualitative data (Galloway et al. 2006). Assessing the meaning of interactions among multiple birds observed at a playback station involves a combination of quantitative skills (e.g., how many adults and juveniles are seen?) and qualitative judgments that are learned only through experience (e.g., is this a territorial encounter?). The Jay Watch program provides annual training for all volunteers to improve their ability to make such assessments (TNC 2010). Given the complexity of data collected by Jay Watch, we recommend pairing volunteers with trained biologists (or with highly experienced volunteers) to produce the most accurate results. Any training should include a special emphasis on taking careful and unambiguous notes in the field to make it easier for analysts to summarize the data later. Although it is possible that Jay Watch monitoring programs that rely exclusively on volunteer citizen scientists may not 5deld the same accuracy as our study, we did not evaluate that directly in our assessment. We recommend repeating this type of assessment at other Jay Watch locations that use only less-experienced volunteers. 146 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Acknowledgments We acknowledge The Nature Conservancy and Audubon of Florida for their invest- ment in citizen science. We thank our dedicated field assistants K. Cattrano, M. Miet- zelfeld, and A. Sirman for conducting our demographic monitoring, and we thank J, Rodriguez and C. Sunquist for helping to recruit and train volunteers for our Jay Watch surveys. E. Leone calculated the intraclass correlation coefficients. R. Bowman, M. Ko- rosy, and K. Sieving provided access to unpublished data. A. Cox, B. Crowder, M. Korosy, C. Millett, and an anonymous reviewer reviewed earlier drafts of the manuscript. Fund- ing for our project was provided by FWC’s Nongame Wildlife Trust Fund, FWC’s allot- ment of Section 6 funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in-kind support from various project partners. We dedicate this paper to Glen Woolfenden in honor of his life-long commitment to the meticulous field study of Florida birds in their natural environment. Literature Cited Anderson, D., K. Burnham, B. Lubow, L. Thomas, P. Corn, P. Medica, and R. Marlow. 2001. Field trials of line transect methods applied to estimation of desert tortoise abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:583-597. Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, and D. A. Hill. 1992. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London. Breininger, D. R., B. Toland, D. M. Oddy, and M. L. Legare. 2006. Landcover character- ization and Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) population dynamics. Bio- logical Conservation 128:169-181. Fitzpatrick, J. W., M, T. Kopeny and G. E. Woolfenden. 1991. Ecology and Development- related Habitat Requirements of the Florida scrub Jay {Aphelocoma coerulescens coe- rulescens). Nongame Wildlife Program, Technical Report No. 8. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. Galloway, A, W. E., M. T. Tudor, and W. M. Vander Haegen. 2006. The reliability of citi- zen science: a case study of Oregon white oak stand surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1425-1429. Koss, R., K. Miller, G. Wescott, A. Boxshall, A. Bellgrove, P. Gilmour, A. Bunce, J. McBurnie, and D, Ierodiaconou. 2009. An evaluation of Sea Search as a citizen sci- ence programme in marine protected areas. Pacific Conservation Biology 15:116-127. Lewandowski, E., and H. Specht. 2015. Infiuence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys. Conservation Biology 29:713-723. Stith, B. M., j. W. Fitzpatrick, G. E. Woolfenden, and B. Pranty. 1996. Classification and conservation of metapopulations: A case study of the Florida scrub jay. Pages 187-216 in Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation (D. R. McCullough, Ed.). Island Press, Washington, D.C. Sullivan, B. L., C. L. Wood, M. J. Iliff, R. E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling. 2009. eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation 142:2282-2292. The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Unpublished Jay Watch annual report. The Nature Conservancy. 2010. Jay Watch annual report, . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; Threatened Status for the Florida Scrub-Jay. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 52, No. 106, Wednesday, May 21, 1986. Proposed Rules. U.S. Forest Service. 1999. National Forests in Florida: Land and Resource Management Plan. Tallahassee, Florida. Miller et al.—Florida Scrub-Jay Survey 147 Winer, J. B. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd ed. WooLFENDEN, G. E., AND J. W. FITZPATRICK. 1984. The Florida Scrub Jay: Demography of a Cooperative-breeding Bird. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. WooLFENDEN, G. E., AND J. W. FiTZPATRiCK. 1996. Florida Scrub-Jay {Aphelocoma coerule- scens). Pages 1-28 in The Birds of North America, No. 228 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C. Florida Field Naturalist 43(4):148-159, 2015. A TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE LIVE OAK TREE’S BIRD COMMUNITY IN CENTRAL FLORIDA DURING AUTUMN WARBLER MIGRATION Michael C. Hughes, Jessica L. Logue, and Sheila Prabhakar^ Department of Natural and Health Sciences, Southeastern University, 1000 Longfellow Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida 33801 ^Corresponding author; E-mail: sabraham@seu.edu Abstract.—The composition and structure of terrestrial avian communities of in- land Florida, particularly in relation to the time of day, have been relatively little stud- ied. This study employed a novel technique for investigating a bird community that uses a single live oak tree in central Florida. By recording field observations during four different time blocks over the course of ten weeks, we quantified the composition of the community that uses this tree during the fall. Thirty species were recorded, com- prised primarily of year-round residents. Migratory species made up 22% of the total abundance. Blue-Gray Gnatcatchers (Polioptila caerulea) spent a highly disproportional amount of time in the tree per visit as compared to Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata) and Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) (these were the three most common species observed). Gnatcatchers were found to stay longer because they use the live oak as a foraging site, whereas the latter two species did not often feed at the tree. Overall species richness and total bird density increased as winter approached; these variables correlated with migration induced by the changing of the seasons rather than to individual weather con- ditions. Birds were most abundant and diverse during the early afternoon (1200-1500) time block. Average vertical zonation in the tree changed dramatically from time block to time block, showing the effects of daily temperature variations on the behavioral pat- terns of this avian community. Several studies have focused on the influence of abiotic factors on bird diversity, activity, and behavior. However, one critical factor that has been little studied in the wild is the time of day in relation to activity patterns (Steiger et al. 2013). Although studies have focused on one particular bird species in relation to circadian rhythm (Kumar et al. 1992, Lehman et al. 2012, Pandey and Bhardwaj 2011), none have focused specifically on the temporal activity patterns of an entire community of terrestrial birds in a temperate forest ecosystem. Thus, there remains a prominent void in knowledge regarding the changing behavioral patterns of a community of birds in relation to the various times of day. Moreover, there have been no studies in temperate regions documenting the composition of a community that uses an individual tree. A single tree has the potential to be a good standard by which to compare avian diversity and activity patterns from habitat to habitat. We analyzed how bird diversity at a single tree changes throughout 148 Hughes et al.—Autumn Birds of a Live Oak 149 the course of the day^ identif5dng trends that indicate which abiotic variables have the greatest effect on bird activity, abundance, and species richness. The concept of studying birds in relation to a specific species of tree has been utilized before (Howe 1977, Chavez-Ramirez and Stack 1994), but the interest of this study is to focus not just on one species of tree, but on one individual tree. Avian species richness is correlated to the complexity and diversity of foliage height in a habitat (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, MacArthur 1964, Willson 1974), so we chose a tree that has a variety of foliage heights but is also a common enough species that the results will remain relevant across multiple types of habitats. By and large, the most common tree in central Florida is the live oak {Quercus virginiana). Live oaks are sought after by both insectivores and acom-eating birds (Kushlan and Hines 2014). This variety of nutritional opportunities has a direct relationship with the variation of species that inhabit this environment (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Willson 1974). Live oaks also provide a variety of niches that may be used by different species of birds, which may prove valuable to this study because each species chooses its habitat according to the resources available (Lack 1971, Lanyon 1981). Our results could potentially be applied to broader applications in a variety of live oak- dominated habitats throughout the state. Due to the number of variables under investigation, this study has multiple specific aims. • To quantify the composition and structure of the tree community during autumn and early winter (the term “tree community” used henceforth in this paper refers to birds observed on the tree being studied) • To find patterns and trends tracking the tree community’s responses to abiotic factors (weather conditions, etc.) • To determine how species richness, bird abundance, and total minutes spent in each vertical zone of the tree varies according to the time of day (specifi cally in regard to four pre-determined time blocks) It is expected that time of day and weather patterns will have the most prominent effects on bird diversity and activity. By casual observation, it seems that most birds in hot climates tend to become active early in the morning (in the first hour or two after sunrise) and again in the late afternoon. Therefore, we propose that the highest total number of birds will be active during the 0600-0900 time block and the 1500-1800 time block. Additionally, due to the hot temperatures of the early afternoon, we expect the 1200-1500 time block to be the least productive in terms of avian abundance. 150 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Study Site and Methods This study was conducted on a tree in a field lightly interspersed with live oaks and slash pines (Pinus elliottii) on a minimally-disturbed, suburban area of property (28° 3' N, 81° 56' W) owned by Southeastern University. The specific field study site (Fig, 1) is comprised of two live oaks {Quercus virginiana; hereafter called “the study tree”) with overlapping canopies that are situated 22 m from the lakeside vegetation of Lake Holloway in Lakeland, Florida. Maximum height of the tree is approximately 9.5 m. The two trees are fairly typical for live oaks in size, structure, and surrounding habitat, and thus have no specific advantage over other live oak trees. There is one slash pine and one live oak 15 meters and 13.5 meters away, respectively, from the study tree. From August 22 to November 4, 2014, a total of twenty 3-hour observations were made between 0600 and 1800, with this time period divided into 3-hour time blocks. During each study, researchers actively watched for birds in the area; one primarily re- sponsible for data recording, and the other responsible for identifying each species. The observers remained under a low-profile, camouflaged shelter unless an unidentifiable species flew into the target tree, in which case, researchers would walk around the tree in order to identify the species visually or by camera. Environmental variables were recorded (from weather.com under current hourly weather conditions for zip code 33801), and each bird was recorded, noting its species, behavior, and total time spent in the tree. If the researchers did not actually see the time that the bird left, then the bird was recorded as having stayed in the tree for a standard of five minutes. Behaviors (especially foraging behaviors) were recorded using sequential observations rather than point observations, which permits the researcher to observe the same individual bird through a broader range of activities (Morrison 1984). Figure 1. The field study “tree;” two Quercus virginiana trees with overlapping canopies. Hughes et al. — ^Autumn Birds of a Live Oak 151 Abbreviations for various behavioral notes were used when applicable for singing, call- ing, resting, feeding on vegetation, feeding on arthropods, and preening. Species interactions and interesting observations were also recorded. The relative vertical location of each bird within the tree was also recorded throughout the duration of its visit. Birds of prey were recorded if they passed over the site, flew by the tree, or landed. The reason birds of prey were recorded as they passed by was due to the slight impact that they might have on the behavior of passerine birds currently in the tree at the time. Non-raptorial species that passed by overhead were not recorded because they are not a reputable source for a population density estimate (Sutherland et al. 2004). Coefficients of correlation (Table 4) were calculated by standard statistical procedures (Triola 2011). Graphs and tables were produced by Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word, respectively. Results Tree community composition & structure Throughout the period of this ten week study, a total of 30 bird species were recorded and 415 individual birds were counted (Table 1). Excluding the birds of prey that passed by the tree and never landed, 43% of the birds recorded were either blue jays or mockingbirds (Table 2). Greatest in species richness at this tree, according to foraging behavior, were species that glean insects from vegetation: Gnatcatchers, warblers, and so forth. Ground foragers, including Blue Jays and Northern Mockingbirds, were second in diversity. Blue-gray Gnatcatchers spent a far greater amount of time in the tree per visit than did ground foragers (Table 3). Due to autumn being a peak time for migration in warblers and other birds, the composition of this avian community shifted according to the outflow and influx of migratory species. Warbler abundance clearly peaked in mid to late October (Fig. 2). Resident species comprised 77.5% of the birds observed at the tree. Winter visitors (18.6%) were well-represented, whereas summer visitors (3.9%) were scarce. Environmental conditions Temperature and humidity at this site are inversely proportional (Table 4). Although temperature and relative humidity seemed to play important roles in determining the species richness and total number of birds that were present in the tree at any given time, statistical analysis proved no significant correlation. Trending from the first week of the study to the final week, there are weak positive correlations of time of season to species richness and total bird abundance. As winter approached, the average richness and abundance of birds observed per study increased as the temperature decreased. Other biotic and abiotic factors that were measured seemed to have negligible influence. Table 1. Total number of birds seen per species at the study site in Lakeland, FL* W = winter visitor; S = summer visitor; R = year- round resident (based on Dunn and Alderfer 2008). Relative abundance measured in birds seen per daylight hour of field study. Abundance at study tree based off of relative abundance values given by Stevenson and Anderson (1994), and only indicates birds at this one tree. Note that migration is not taken into account for the values. Scientific name English name Residence Count Relative abundance Abundance at study tree 152 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST o B o cd cti d d 0 OJ CO 5h Im d cd cd « CO O t> CD O O 00 CO CQ I>l>b-COCD^'^'^ tHtHtHi-HtHOOOOOOOOOO ddddddddddddddd Od o O CD CO o '^THoa5Goooi>cDCDCDLO'?t^^^^cocoeq(Moq > ^ a I cd 0) = :a 1 0) ? he cd W i d 0) d cd A cd •S cd a> 1 a» d d (D d 'd i o o a m 1 cd q m m o O S he d 3 Q> d ^ I d V S S 5 "d d 0) O) 5 'o d ® . S o b •tS Oh I § I S a g S 8 ci, g. s S a •S o 8 a 0 a 1 § CO g g ^ oq O ^ .1 a a. _CJ eo ^ 8 s .o o CO ^ 2 e & g o ^ a ^ cq q •s g S«» CJ -b h ^ CO g a Q. CO g c^ 'a CD a o ^ a d ■S 8 .2 ^ ^ 2 ® •2 o § § ^ -2 .b b .b 4 q q d -a I o CJ a d S "d •2 d 3 § iq N a a .d .S s o bd a CO CO 'C d d iC. "4^ O o o ^ ^ g -b g a "a 1 3 ^ § a Q g w O CO -d a ■4^ o a IP •1^ ^ o q Hughes et al— Autumn Birds of a Live Oak 153 b ^ m 0 ^ o S * a e n d ^ o 0) O G) G) Q %4 U U cd ^ od cd cd ^ « ^ c^ oa c^ o o o o o o o o o ^ ^ Ph Ph cd M > ■5 d « -a ® O a .a ^ 4J ^ Cd rt Sh 0) e O P^ ^ .s ^ I § § I 1 •S CO g a S g e •2 g 4 Q o .o 3 d) a o d a Q »»^ S .e e S d S o s s o a o CJ a ’§ a d) CO O »o cq fc. 154 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Table 2. Total number of birds versus total time spent in the tree. Quantity % of total Minutes % of total Blue Jays & mockingbirds 169 43% 879 20% Blue-gray Gnatcatchers 57 15% 1,877 42% Warblers (6 spp.) 76 19% 1,024 23% Other birds (16 spp.) 90 23% 688 15% Time of day Surprisingly, the highest average diversity per study occurred during the 1200-1500 time block (Table 5). The lowest average was recorded in the late afternoon (1500-1800), Total bird abundance per study followed a similar trend. A total of 130 birds were recorded in the early afternoon (1200-1500), making that the most abundant and species-rich time block. Collectively, birds were found to be active primarily (80%) in the mid and outer canopy during the early morning (Fig. 3). Lower, medium, and high branches were utilized somewhat evenly during the late morning. Early afternoon saw mid-level activity skyrocket, with more than twice as much time spent here as spent high in the canopy. Late afternoon reversed this trend, with over 50% of the birds moving back into the high canopy. Overall, data shows a marked reversal of which vertical zones of the tree are collectively most utilized, var5dng according to the time of day. Discussion Tree community composition & structure In quantif3dng the composition and structure of the bird community that uses this tree during the autumn, the most clearly marked pattern is the way in which each species behaves during its visits to the tree. Although Blue-gray Gnatcatchers were not the most abundant species Table 3. Relative prevalence of feeding activity observed at the tree. Total individuals seen at tree Individuals seen feeding at tree % of total Blue Jays & Northern Mockingbirds 169 37 22% Blue-gray Gnatcatchers 57 36 63% Warblers (6 spp.) 76 28 37% Other birds (16 spp.) 90 34 38% All species total* 392 135 34% Excluding birds of prey Hughes et al,-— Autumn Birds of a Live Oak 155 Figure 2. Warbler abundance per week of field study. at the study tree^ each gnatcatcher spent a far longer amount of time in the tree than did either of the two most abundant species (Table 2). Clear trends show that gnatcatchers exhibit a much higher feeding rate in the study tree than blue jays and mockingbirds (Table 3); gnatcatchers spend more time in the tree because the majority of them are there to feed. Blue jays and mockingbirds use the tree much less for feeding, and thus do not need to spend extended periods of time there. This is consistent with the fact that mockingbirds and blue jays are primarily ground foragers (Derrickson and Breitwisch 1992, Tarvin and Woolfenden 1999), whereas gnatcatchers are foliage-gleaning insectivores (Kershner and Ellison 2012). Environmental conditions Throughout the course of the study, the composition of this tree community shifted with the arrival of migratory species. For example, the warbler abundance trend (Fig. 2) shows strong incidence of migratory behavior, peaking in mid to late October. Overall, the collected data suggests that abiotic factors such as temperature and humidity do not directly correlate to the activity of this community; rather, it is the cumulative effects of seasonal changes that brings in migratory species that increase both the abundance and diversity of birds at the tree (Table 4). However, these data may or may not represent this community’s functioning in the long term. Ecosystem processes tend to vary widely based on factors such as temperature fluctuations, herbivore or pathogen outbreaks, and the production at a given trophic level 156 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST S 0 o *© 'a fc |3 8 8 > I ■-S -S &0 o ® O- d ^ g I ■S b 1 ^ rt d .2 .2 o o o o 0) © A .>■ ^ ed bo bo © © d d ^ ^ o cd ed ^ d © © © .2 ^ ^ > ^ +3 ^ ^ ‘m ® ^ ^ o “a -a j O ® bJD a d O © © ^ ^ ^ ^ to 5 00 o ^ LO ^ 05 CO »-H M th « CO « ^ S |> N O ^ 1-H ™ O O o O O O d © ca 4J o 4J 05 B ^ m ^ 2 ? d m .2 pQ cd m .2 ca .2 d o l-l -M A & s © 3 +3 o ’o © p. 3 4J o "o © a 3 4^ O ”o © ft ft E B m H m H m * Hughes et al. — ^Autumn Birds of a Live Oak 157 Table 5. Effects of time of day on bird activity. Time Mean total abundance Mean species richness Mean visit length (min) 0600^0900 20.6 6.6 10 0900=1200 18.6 7.2 15 1200=1500 26 8.4 11 1500=1800 18.2 5.2 10 oscillating back and forth from being predator-limited to food-limited (Chapin et al. 2002). A large proportion of the variability is due to climatic variation, which may or may not be predictable. Therefore, continuing data collection for a decade or more would yield much better long-term results that would balance out any potentially misleading results from data being collected on a year that does not represent the long-term average. Time of day The largest number of individual birds seen was during the early afternoon (1200-1500) time block: 130 birds. As we had originally predicted that this would be the least productive time block due to it being the hottest part of the day, this spike was very much unexpected. However, during this time block they did not stay as long as they did in other times of day. It was instead the 0900-1200 block during which the birds spent the most amount of time in the tree (Table 5). In fact, the birds spent an average of 46% longer in the tree during 0900-1200 than during the early afternoon, despite the latter seeing the highest number of visits. Essentially, birds most frequently visited the tree during the early afternoon, but they stayed for much longer during more infrequent late morning visits. This is likely due to increased foraging during the late morning. The clearest trend pertaining to temporal activity in this avian community was regarding what vertical zone of the tree was collectively most utilized by birds during a given time block (Fig. 3). Our data support the conclusion that as the temperature rises during the heat of midday, many birds move their activity into the middle of the tree to stay protected from the hot sun. Then later, as the intensity of the sun on the outer canopy of the tree decreases, more birds return their activity to the exterior of the tree, which allows for quicker identification of threats from predators. Thus, only during one of four time blocks (1200-1500) did thermal requirements outweigh the obligation to be in a better location to detect avian predators. This is consistent with the previously proposed idea that safety from predators (Villen-Perez et al. 2013) is more important than thermal requirements (Du Plessis et al. 2012). 158 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Ground ««0«»Low ««iN»Medium 'High Figure 3. Mean vertical zonation by time block. The data from this study have implications for avian community ecology on a local and regional scale. Future studies could compare avian activity patterns between natural areas and nearby residential areas, using trees of the same species, with similar size and foliage volume, as the common factor. Acknowledgments This research would not have been possible without the support and involvement of multiple people. Hughes and Logue are very thankful for the consistent encourage- ment, corrections, and advice presented by Dr. Sheila Abraham. She provided valuable insights and consistent encouragement as she took special interest in our project, seeing it through from start to finish. Dr. Jeremy Day-Storms was also a huge help in bring- ing this research to fruition, taking care of the legal jargon and ensuring cooperation between the university staff and ourselves. We owe a special thanks to Georgia McMil- len for identifying the plant species present at the study site. Thanks also go out to Dr. Berhane Ghaim, for his wisdom in statistical analysis. We are grateful to Stewart Skeate for providing many helpful suggestions that improved the manuscript. Finally, we thank Southeastern University for granting us a section of university-owned property on which to conduct our field study. Literature Cited Chapin, F. S., Ill, P. A. Matson, and P. Vitousek. 2002. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosys- tem Ecology. Springer. Chavez-Ramirez, F., and R. D. Slack 1994. Effects of avian foraging and post-foraging behavior on seed dispersal patterns of Ashe juniper. Oikos. 71:40-46. Derrickson, K. C., and R. Breitwisch. 1992. Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). In The Birds of North America, No. 7 (A. Poole, Ed.). The Birds of North America Online, Ithaca, New York, Retrieved from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Northern_Mockingbird/lifehistory. Hughes et al. — ^Autumn Birds of a Live Oak 159 DU Plessis, K., R. Martin, P. Hockey, S. Cunningham, and A. Ridley. 2012, The costs of keeping cool in a warming world: implications of high temperatures for foraging, thermoregulation and body condition of an arid-zone bird. Global Change Biology. 18(10):3063-3070. Dunn, J. L., and J. Alderfer. 2008. National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of East- ern North America. National Geographic Society: Washington, D.C. Howe, H. F, 1977. Bird activity and seed dispersal of a tropical wet forest tree. Ecology 58(3):539-550. Kershner, E. L., and W. G. Ellison. 2012. Blue-gray Gnatcatcher ( Polioptila caerulea ). In The Birds of North America Online, No. 23 (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithol- ogy, Ithaca, New York. Retrieved from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds: Kumar V., B. S. Kumar, and B, P, Singh. 1992. Photostimulation of blackheaded bunting: subjective interpretation of day and night depends upon both photophase contrast and light intensity. Physiology & Behavior. 51:1213-1217. Kushlan, J.A., and K. Hines. 2014. Attracting Birds to South Florida Gardens, UPF, Gainesville, Florida. Lack, D. 1971. Ecological Isolation in Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts. Lanyon, W. E. 1981. Breeding birds and old field succession on fallow Long Island farm- land, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 168:1-60. Lehman, M., K. Spoelstra, M.E. Visser, and B, Helm. 2012. Effects of Temperature on Circadian Clock and Chronotype: An Experimental Study on a Passerine Bird. Chro- nobiology International 29(8):1062--1071. MacArthur, R, H., and J, W. MacArthur. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594-598. MacArthur, R. H. 1964. Environmental factors affecting bird species diversity. American Naturalist 98:387-397. Morrison, M, L, 1984. Influence of sample size and sampling design on analysis of avian foraging behavior. Condor 86:146-150, Pandey, R., and S. Bhardwaj S. 2011. Circadian and seasonal responses in Indian Weaver Bird: Subjective interpretation of day and night depends upon both light intensity and contrast between illuminations. Chronobiology International: The Journal Of Biological & Medical Rhythm Research. 28(9):758-763. Steiger, S., M. Valcu, K. Spoelstra, B. Helm, M. Wikelski, and B. Kempenaers. 2013. When the sun never sets: diverse activity rhythms under continuous daylight in free- living arctic-breeding birds. Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 280(1764):!. Sutherland, W. J., I. Newton, and R. E. Green. 2004. Bird Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Tarvin, K. a., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). In The Birds of North America, No. 469 (A. Poole, Ed,), The Birds of North America Online, Ithaca, New York. Retrieved from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds: Triola, M. F. 2011. Essentials of Statistics, 4th ed. Addison- Wesley. Villen-Perez, S., L. Carrascal, and J, Seoane. 2013. Foraging patch selection in winter: A balance between predation risk and thermoregulation benefit. Plos ONE, 8(7): 1-10. Willson, M. F. 1974. Avian community organization and habitat structure. Ecology 55:1017-1029. Florida Field Naturalist 43(4):160-166, 2015. STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PIN-TAILED WHYDAH (Vidua macroura) IN FLORIDA Bill Pranty^ and Valeri Ponzo^ '^8515 Village Mill Row, Bayonet Point, Florida 34667 E-mail: billpranty@hotmaiLcom ^1353 Oak View Drive, Sarasota, Florida 34232 E-mail: vponzo@comcast.net The Pin-tailed Whydah (Vidua macroura) is native to forests and wooded grasslands of sub-Saharan Africa, Popular in aviculture in many parts of the world and raised locally for the pet trade, escaped and/or released whydahs have been breeding in Puerto Rico since the 1960s (Raffaele et al. 1998, Oberle 2000) and have recently begun to breed in California (K. L. Garrett in litt.). Non-breeding whydahs have been observed in several other regions, including Florida. The whydah's status in the state is relatively recent, being first reported in an unpublished list (Neville 1990) that provided no location, date, or observer. Robertson and Woolfenden (1992) and Stevenson and Anderson (1994) cited Neville’s list without providing additional information. The first detailed Pin-tailed Whydah observation in Florida was from Volusia County in June 1994 (Pranty 1995) and the first verifiable (e.g., photographic) record, also from Volusia County, was in June 1999 (Pranty 2000, Table 1). Through 2011, there had been at least 31 observations and 13 verifiable records of whydahs in Florida, with most of these very recent (Greenlaw et al. 2014). Here, we update the status of the Pin-tailed Whydah in Florida based on verifiable records. We used five sources to locate whydah records: (1) the FOS Field Observations Committee seasonal reports published in Florida Field Naturalist, (2) eBird ; (3) the Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS) website for Florida ; (4) the Miami Bird Board ; and (5) a request for information that we posted in October 2014 to the BRDBRAJN listserver . We used Greenlaw et al. (2014) to determine regional boundaries in Florida, For reasons of quality-control, we restrict this paper to verifiable records, all of which represent photographs. Despite the plethora of 160 Table 1. Photographic records of Pin-tailed Whydah in Florida {n = 32), listed alphabetically by county and location. “Female plumage” refers to whydahs in non-descript plumage (i.e., adult females, adult males in basic plumage, and juveniles). BPA (Bill Pranty archive) catalog numbers are provided for all records. Records first mentioned on eBird or EDDMapS are listed here with their original source followed by the BPA number. +NSRA = North Shore Restoration Area. + = EDDMapS erroneously listed the Pranty and Ponzo — Pin-tailed Whydah in Florida CO CO 00 lO lO ffl CD CO 00 w © o T dd df u p CO eo CO a p us a d « t> tH cq lO rH lO d m lO J> d o o 00 b- CD CO CO iO cq 05 05 fcH cq m CD 00 CD CO CD S cq cq CD CO u ffl O P cq GO o ffl P P CO 00 cq © ffl ffl m m pq ffl PQ « W 00 © PQ m m P 00 m © © © © © © © © bo bo p2 bo bo p2 bD p2 r2 p2 p2 bD p2 p2 r2 bo © cd S cd s 'd a d a p2 d a "d a d a "d a 'd a 'd a "d a d a p3 'd a 'd a "d a d a rB 'a 'a © 4J "S, 'a © 'a © © 4J © © -u © © 4J © ■+J 'a m pg d d p2 d d p2 d d d ri d d d d d d d r2 'd 'd "d U 'd !l-i l-j E 5-1 'd E E s "d B a s a a a s B B a © © 4J B a .2 .2 c2 'd "d 'd 13 "d No. ■i=H tH rH 10 cq rH rH rH rH rH tH rH © 'g © M © 5h r2 "E p (§ a, a, P r2 < a OQ ffl cd < PQ m d 0 1 .52 "2 ’« o P d d J ^ 'SdK i_J . 1 d rH o o > 5“ ;d ^ ^ 'o S-i CO S S 0) TO d d ^ cd d O) biD t-J t-J § t t d > o o P W fe fe ? ^ 'I 1 1 i g d d 0^10) POP cd "d f-i Jh 5h ^ ^ cd cd cd cd cd d OOOOOd oS fflpqmpQfflOHffi iHcqeo'^iocst* 00 N d u d a> N p. d 0) ^cd •a o ^ . P M P O O ^ oq cq CO CO o ^ oq cq O p a ® © 0 cq 02 cc ^ o o O o cq cq t? P O m to oo cq cq cq >» P pd P bo bo bo d d d 2 S g o o o pQ pjQ pQ CO CO CO © © rH ^ ^ cd cd P P HM P P © w PP OSMPffl o cd ■p p d O th cq eo lo s© 161 Lee Sanibel Island city park 21-23 Oct 2011 V. McGrath; K. 1 alternate male BPA 9645; BPA Rose; R. Parks 1497; BPA 2368 18 Miami-Dade Homestead, “Dump Marsh” industrial 22 Oct 2011 C. Goodrich+ 1 alternate male BPA 7994 19 Orange Lake Apopka NSRA+ preserve 20Jul2013 T. Kalbach 1 female plumage eBird; BPA 8099 162 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST I " .3 II PQ m a <^ < CO CO CQ CO O 00 ^ 05 O t> lO O t> 05 rH ^ CO 00 Lo oa ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Pn fl, pin PL, Ph pqoopqHooracofflpqmmpQPQffl Xi 5-( cd CO cd 05 PQ 01 o -u o PQ cd cd s s 05 0) -U 4J Cd cd __ cd 05 PQ x! • cd hQ cd cd cd 3 § nQ CO « CO cd cd 05 05 PQ PQ B S ^ 'd Ph PQ PQ 05 CO cd Id 'd S B cd cd d d 5h u 05 05 Cd cd s s cd cd d d 5h 05 05 "d 'd s a cd cd d d Sn Jh d d cd cd cd cd S):^ '1 o 05 43 4J O 43 d •Ei) he £ cd kQ CQ H" H' ^ X 00 o o C hJD © d 3 a 05 d O d rH <1 X C m < 3 c & X !> i> © o X X X d rH rH 03 rH X CD tH 03 X CO 05 > ‘1^ ^ CO X 05 Si Cd a >. PQ m xs d he KH Si o ?! 05 X X S X Si Si Si Si cd cd cd cd >» >> a >. CO bo d •S a pS CO O LM M-l g -d -M 05 m m m III IIS CO CO CO CO CO of _ cd cd d cd cd ^ .2 X § .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 §3 Ph PQ Ph P^ pL, C/D > X »0 ^ b- 00 S5 © M 5 © >» d •+J .d 'm u ^ 2 © ^ hD •S ,d hfl -S g bD ■© d d cq lO V s i A d dq d & m d © .2 u o d etf ^ © ’S Pn .2 m .t3 g § s a m rt © Q ■S bD d "C 0 d d a ea -fi -S In In P P & © o 05 05 00 05 05 Jd 05 C5 eq eq 05 05 ® « QO 00 GO Q •iH tH fH tH rH tH rH Burnett and Moulton — North Florida House Sparrows 169 sampling sites. The only detection took place in a parking lot in downtown Gainesville, in an area surrounded by small, local businesses. All other urban sites (those with non-detections) are located in highly commercialized (non-retail) areas. All non-urban sites (all non- detections) are located in areas with single-family housing, or in wooded areas. Results from this component of the study indicate the lack of broad distribution of House Sparrows within the city of Gainesville (assuming perfect detectability), and provide further evidence for the rarity of House Sparrows in residential areas, given the conspicuous and sedentary nature of this species (e.g., Summers-Smith 1963). Component II. In the second component of our study, we conducted 61 ten-minute, unlimited radius point counts at 16 sites in urban areas (Table 1) where House Sparrow colonies were previously observed by JLB, and according to eBird observations (eBird 2012). Point counts were conducted from 4 June 2013 to 19 January 2014. All sites are located in high-intensity urban habitat (Table 1; FNAI 2012b), near retail (primarily grocery) stores. We conducted between one and 11 independent point counts at each site. We visited 11 of the 16 sites more than once (Table 2). We detected House Sparrows at 13 (of 16) sampling sites. The three sites with zero House Sparrow detections were sampled only once, and therefore is not sufficient data to confirm absence. The maximum number of House Sparrows counted at any given location during a single point count was 50. Of the 11 non-random sites we visited more than once. House Sparrows were detected between 25% and 100% of visits (Table 1), indicating either variability in the detectability of House Sparrows at sites or varied temporal use of sampling sites. Relative to other parts of their range and other regions of the United States, the House Sparrow is seemingly rare and less dense in Gainesville, Florida (pers. obs.; eBird 2012). Our studies indicate this species no longer occurs in very large groups as was once observed (A. Kratter and S. K. Robinson, pers. comm.), and suggest the limited distribution of House Sparrows across the city of Gainesville. Possible explanations for the restricted distribution of House Sparrows across the urban-suburban gradient include presence of more aggressive, urban exploiter species (Corvus spp,, Larus delaw arensis, Quiscalus spp.), consequential attacks of territoriality in gardens (Woodall 1996), socioeconomic effects on the landscape (i.e., as neighborhood income increases House Sparrows decrease; Shaw et al. 2008) and long-term changes to habitats in residential areas in this city (MPM, pers. obs.). Although our results and communications with long-term residents of Gainesville suggest patterns of House Sparrow absence in residential areas and a limited distribution in highly urbanized habitat, more rigorous studies are necessary to confirm these findings. 170 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST u StH o CD CD O" CO 00 rH O- to o 00 CO oq 02 02 CO O) o o CO rH O £ 00 O O CO 02 1—1 CD 02 I> oq 00 lO to X 00 02 rH oq CD oq 00 00 to o CD o o o oq oq 02 l> 02 rH I> tH X t> 02 CO cq oq o CD oq IH lO CD CO CD CO 00 O CO CO lO lO GO rH to to 00 02 oq rH oq O 02 o 4-3 •a GO 00 rH CD rH 02 CD tH 02 00 £> rH 02 CO oq iH CO oq t> O IH CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO oq cq cq cq CO eo CO CO CO CO eo P3 oq cq oq" oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq B op op op op op op op GO 00 1 op op op op op 00 1 00 1 op op op GO op op op 00 1 GO 1 0 a © !N 00 oq o CD tH tH C- 02 i> f-H s> oq IH cq oq 02 o o oq O to CO • CD l> o rH to oq o CD 00 CD 00 lO 00 CD oq o to 02 o 00 02 o 02 CO t- to LO 02 02 i> rH 02 CO IH 00 oq CO X CO CO o to 00 02 rH rH to tH -3 CD I> lO O 02 oq o- lO CD CO CO oq CO 02 IH rH X oq X tH 02 cq to eo CO 15 O lO o oq t> CO CD oq eo 02 rH 00 CO I> to 00 o 00 CO to o X oq G cd t> CD I>- CD CD CD CD t- CD CD CD o- CD CD X CD CD o- X CD CD X X X CD d oi 05 Od 02 02 02 02* 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02' 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 N— ( CM oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq CM oq oq oq oq oq cq oq oq % fl 0) g ta ta 0 B 0 ■S C! §•2 o 4-3 0) O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o to •S Q o tH oq 3 • £ ’S ^ a m “a -d S e s © a ft -2 o © O t* 5 =j 8 ® -g 5^ p Ph o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oq o o o © ^ •s ” 5 t>c A d TO .S 43 d g © 0 iS ^ ^ - ce g a © 1^ © ' 00 02 o rH oq CO to tH (M CO lO CD D- 00 02 tH y*H tH tH tH tH rH rH rH rH oq oq cq oq oq oq Burnett and Moulton^-North Florida House Sparrows 171 i © i> I> CO eo CO !> eo o I> o o IQ tH rH 00 CO rH 00 Ift CD o to o F*! C^ 05 03 m •pH 05 Ift o- o 00 03 lO CO 03 o 0- 05 o +3 ”a c^ O- CO t> 00 CG 0- c» t>- CO 00 TO 00 CO eo CO CO CO CO co CO CO w & d e4 03 c4 03 d 03 d 03 03 03 03 03 & P « 1 m 1 m 1 m 1 ® Op m m 00 1 op 00 i iM m © d c- o o o o l> o c- CO CO o o o S ■rH 1ft o o m tH Ift CO CO o o o m eo 'ft o O lO CO 03 03 1ft & 0 IQ Ift lO t> 5-4 t-H o 03 CO 03 CO fi 4J N 03 o lo- 03 03 03 Ift o- 03 lO t> N © CO CO CO co CO CO CO CO co CO CO ZD Q d J d d d d d d d d d d d d 03 03 03 03 03 03 C3 03 03 03 03 ■*a ^ m m w © -g d 1 11 o O •S "o ® P # ^ s lO o o i> eo 1ft o 03 o o o o ^ © t-- o II ^ d £ C3 Ift Sft CD l> t> 00 o fH o rH o tH o tH 6 s “E © » .-g © m ■*» 3 ■s ^ 1 S © ® a 0 J © P 1 d o O "s P i s P CO o o CO o o CO o CO ift 1ft 03 j i ® fl 03 1— i tH lO rH tH fH 03 ■pH §S ft m % m ^ s eS © a © f-^ 09 ^ a § •S •g d s 9 I S ^ s © m © ft +a d m d ■4=3 d a 1 1 *s § o ffl CO 03 CO rH Ift rH rH CO 00 tH w w ft Q s m "S fl g % 1 ^ "S p a.g © d ■■IJ d ^ 3 ^ +3 § i fl & § § § fl m § 9 9 9 d d 4a © d d3 s hi m IM u u u u u ^ 1 p P p p p p p p p p p p © a ^ 06 s © a s s a a a a a a a a ^ 4a © o o o o o o o o o o o o 2 ft rt d fl § d d d d d d d ^ R d a d d m d cd d d d g 4a •S ^ “g ^ 1 P rt P d p d d « d p 1 d 1 d p s d p? d p d p d p rt ffi o O o o o o o o o o o o 0 U P w ® . ® « .“g ® » ^ s a © 3 CO O- 00 05 o rH 03 CO ift l> ffi 03 03 03 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 172 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Literature Cited Anderson, T. R. 2006. Biology of the Ubiquitous House Sparrow. Oxford University Press. Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D., Hill, D. A. and Mustoe, S. H. 2000. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London. eBird 2012. eBird: An Online Database of Bird Distribution and Abundance [web appli- cation]. eBird, Ithaca, New York, . FNAJ [Florida Natural Areas Inventory]. 2012a. Cooperative Land Cover Map (v 2.03). FNAI [Florida Natural Areas Inventory]. 2012b. Florida Land Cover Classification Sys- tem Definitions for the Cooperative Land Cover Map v2.3. Shaw, L. M., D. Chamberlain, and M. Evans. 2008. The House Sparrow Passer domesticus in urban areas: Reviewing a possible link between post-decline distribution and hu- man socioeconomic status. Journal of Ornithology 149:293-299. Summers-Smith, J. D. 1963. The House Sparrow. Collins, London. Woodall, P. F. 1996. Limits to the distribution of the House Sparrow Passer domesticus in suburban Brisbane, Australia. Ibis 138:337-340. Florida Field Naturalist 43(4):173-178, 2015. OREGON JUNCO (Junco hyemalis oreganus group) IN PASCO COUNTY; FIRST FLORIDA RECORD, AND FIRST SUMMER RECORD OF ANY JUNCO IN FLORIDA Bill Pranty\ Da\yd Gagne^, and G-ail A. Deterra^ ^8515 Village Mill Row, Bayonet Point, Florida E-mail: billpranty@hotmaiLcom ^6046 Concordia Drive, New Port Richey, Florida 34653 ^2974 Shannon Circle, Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 On 30 June 2014, we disco¥ered and photographed an “Oregon Jimco“'— a Dark-e^^ed Jimco (Junco hyemaUs) of the western oregaims group, perhaps J. h. montanus (Figs. l-2)^at North Anclote Bar, Pasco County, Florida (28° 13’ 58.15" N, 82° 50’ 24.24" W). The junco represents the first record in Florida of an “Oregon” Junco, and the first record of any junco during summer. The weather was hot (about 90° F), sunny, and breezy, and the sky was mostly clear. Accessible solely by private boat or Florida Park Service boat, North Anclote Bar is the northernmost island of Anclote Key Preserve State Park, Measured with Google Earth (image date, 17 January 2014), North Anclote Bar is 1,0 km long and about 100 m across at its widest point, but its size and shape change frequently. During our visit, on a Monday, there were fewer than 30 people and 10 boats on the island. At about 1105 hours, DG noticed a small passerine flying south about 2.5 m above the ground and about 10 m east of us. Given the scarcity of vegetated habitats faither north on the island, it is possible that we discovered the bird as it made landfall, perhaps after having crossed the Gulf of Mexico. The bird continued flying until it perched at the top of a tall mangrove about 60 m southeast of us. Through Ms telescope, DG identified the bird as a junco, which then flew 30 m farther south to a dense Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) shrub. Over the next 35 minutes, the junco remained on or close to the ground in the pepper shrub, and we glimpsed it sporadically. At one point, the Junco flew northwest toward a white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), but was repelled midair by a male Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). At 1142 hours, the junco again flew northwest to the white mangrove shrub, successfully reaching it, and after a few minutes perched in the open, where we were able to observe it closely 173 174 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Figures 1 and 2, Second-year male “Oregon” Dark-eyed Junco perched in a white mangrove at North Anclote Bar, Anclote Key Preserve State Park, Pasco County, 30 June 2014. Photographs by Gail A. Deterra. These images represent the first record in Florida of an “Oregon” Junco and the first record of any junco in the state during summer. Based on its plumage and its presence in Florida, the junco was suggested to be a member of the migratory subspecies montanuSj which breeds from central British Columbia and southwestern Alberta to eastern Oregon, western Idaho, and western Montana. The junco’s pesence in Florida during June, while highly unusual, is not unprecedented for western-breeding passerines; records of Western Wood-Pewee, Golden- crowned Sparrow, and Varied Bunting have also occurred in the state during the month. In Fig. 1, the bu:^-brown flanks are just visible to the right of the shoulder. The flank color, together with the blackish head and strong contrast with the brown back, rule out all other junco forms. Pranty et al— Oregon Jimco in Florida 175 for 20 seconds and to photograph it (e.g.^ Figs. 1™2). Because the junco appeared to be exhausted and heat-stressed (e.g., was often observed gaping), we left it alone once we had obtained satisfactory images. At 1150 hours, as we were departing the island, the junco flew past us in good light, providing excellent views. At no time did we hear the junco vocalize. Description.— When the junco was in flight and at a distance of about 5 m, BP estimated its length to be roughly comparable to that of an Eastern Phoebe (Sajornis phoehe), or perhaps 16-17 cm in length; DG estimated the junco to be roughly 16 cm in length. When chased by the Red- winged Blackbird, the junco was noticeably smaller but not hugely so. The junco slender with a round head, a conical bill, and a long, slightly notched tail. "^Tien perched, it appeared rather long- legged. The head was wholly blackish with no darker pattern visible on the face. The back was brown and the rump and tail were gray; the bold white outer rectrices w^ere especially conspicuous when the junco was ill flight. The wings were grayish with the tertials broadly edged with pale on their inner surtaces. Although not clearly shown in any of our photographs, the Junco had a blackish upper breast, buffy-brown flanks, and whitish lower breast, belly, and vent. Except for the dark irides, the bare parts were pale pink. Junco taxonomy and identification —The Dark-eyed Junco is composed of 14 subspecies in four groups: the Slate-colored group f subspecies carolincnsis, cismontanus, and hyemalis) of northern and eastern North .America; the Oregon group (subspecies mearnsi, oreganus^ pinosus, pontilis, shufeldti, thurberi, and toumseiidi) ol western North America; the Gray-headed group (subspecies caniceps and dorsalis) of the southern Rockies; and the l¥liite-wjnged group ^ subspecies aikeni) of the Black Hills and eastern Rtjckies (Nolan et aL 2002, Chesser et aL 2014). Two other Dark- eyed Junco forms may merit recognition as groups: mearnsi (“Pink- sided” Junco) of the Oregon group; and dorsalis (“Red-backed” Junco) of the GrayJieaded group (Chesser et aL 2014). Additionally,, several authorities, including Rising ( 1996) and Nolan et aL (2002), consider cism-ontanus, which breeds in the Canadian Rockies and winters widely, to represent iiitergrades betw^een the Slate-colored and Oregon groups; these authoiities use the English name of “Cassiar” Junco without inclusion of a scientific trinomial. Identification of the Pasco Comity junco —The identification of the North Anclote Bar passerine as a junco is straightforward, considering its generally terrestrial behavior, size and shape, pink conical bill, and relatively simple plumage pattern with white outer rectrices. The identification of the junco to subspecies~or even group—is more problematic, owing to extensive plumage variation, including 176 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST intergrades among and between groups. For confirmation that the junco represented an individual of the Oregon group, we posted our photographs to the “ID Frontiers” listserv and we emailed our images to other authorities. We received comments from 11 individuals (see Acknowledgments), all of whom agreed that the Pasco County junco was an “Oregon” Junco, ruling out all other forms, including “Cassiar,” “Pink-sided,” and “Slate- colored” juncos. Other juncos share some plumage features of the Pasco County individual, but the combination of blackish head contrasting sharply with the brown back and with the buffy-brown flanks is diagnostic of “Oregon” Junco. Many “Cassiar” Juncos share the blackish head— all other juncos have gray or gray-brown heads, often with conspicuous blackish facial patches— but the flanks are gray or gray-buff; also, the back is often gray and shows less contrast with the head. “Pink-sided” Junco shares the pinkish or buffy flanks but the head is gray with a black face. Alvaro Jaramillo, Michael Price, Peter Pyle, and David Sibley identified the junco as a male, and Pyle and Ted Floyd aged it as an immature (e.g., in its second calendar year). Pyle (in litt., 9 July 2014) offered extensive comments on its age and sex: “Female Oregon Juncos are duller and browner or grayer in the head than this, without the sharp contrast between the head and back. I would not even expect the best of adult females to look like this, certainly not second-year females. On sum it’s a second-year due to the molt limits in the tertials, the browner and more worn looking primary coverts, the brown and pointed outer primaries, and the worn-looking rectrices. It is thus a second-year male, and the head plumage is perfect for this, being slightly less bold and clean than after-second-year males show.” Based on its plumage and its non-sedentary behavior (as evidenced by its appearance in Florida), Floyd and Pyle suggested that the Pasco County junco was an individual of the migratory subspecies montanus (referred to as shufeldti by Pyle 1997), which breeds in mountains from central interior British Columbia and southwestern Alberta to eastern Oregon, western Idaho, and western Montana (Rising 1996, Nolan et al. 2002). Status of Dark-eyed Juncos in Florida. -—hi Florida, the Dark- eyed Junco is a migrant and winter resident in the Panhandle and extreme northern peninsula, considered irregular by Robertson and Woolfenden (1992) and Stevenson and Anderson (1994) and regular by Greenlaw et al. (2014); it is a very rare and irregular visitor as far south as the Keys. Stevenson and Anderson (1994:659-660, 709) list the range of photographic or specimen records as 17 October™3 March, with accepted reports extending this range to 6 October—12 Pranty et al,— -Oregon Junco in Florida 177 April. Stevenson and Anderson (1994) questioned other reports as early as 30 August and as late as 8 May. Two post- 1994 photographic records provide later spring dateSj with single “Slate-colored'' Juncos at Garden Key Dry Tortugas National Park, Monroe County 16 April 1995 (Pranty 1996; K. Karlson, BPA 7291) and Wesley Chapel, Pasco County 29 April 2012 (Pranty 2012; K. Tracey BPA 2423). Stevenson and Anderson (1994) state that all junco specimens from Florida refer to J. h, hyemalis except for one J. h. cismontanus felled by the WCT¥ tower, Leon County 5 December 1955 (Tall Timbers Research Station 2165). Through courtesy of Jim Cox, we catalogued three photographs (BPA 8536a-c) of this specimen, a female of undetermined age, into Pranty's personal archive. The specimen has gray upperparts, breast, and flanks with light brown tinges throughout, and the remainder of the uriderparts white. There is no contrast between the head and back arid ijif darker farv. Reports of “Oregon,” “Pink-sided,” and “White-winged” juncos exist from Floiida (Stevenson and Anderson 1994, FOS Field Observations Committee reports), but no archived photographs or written details are known to exist for any of these, some of which may instead refer to “Cassiar” Juncos. Thus, the “Oregon” Junco that we photographed at North Anclote Bar, Pasco County on 30 June 2014 represents the first record for Florida. It is also the first report and record of any junco in the state during summer. We have archived our photographs into Pranty's personal archive, with catalog numbers BPA 8512a-c (Deterra) and BPA8513a-e (Pranty). The occurrence of a western passerine such as an “Oregon” Junco in Florida during June, although certainly unusual, is not unprecedented. Three other western-breeding passerines that represented first Florida records were also found in the state during the same inonth—Western Wood“Pewee (Contopus sordidulus) west of Archbold Biological Station, Highlands County 19 June 1995 CWoolfenden et al. 1996); Golden- crowTied Sparrow {Zonotrichia atricapilla) at Islamorada, Monroe County 20 June 1990 (Hoffman et al. 1991); and Varied Bunting {Passerina versicolor) at Siesta Key Sarasota County 1 June 2005 (Woolfenden and van Deventer 2006 j. AcKNO¥/LEDGMENTS For commenting on our photographs, we thank Cameron Cox, Elias Elias, Ted Floyd, Jon Greenlaw, Richard Hoyer, Alvaro Jaramillo, Ed Kwater, Tony Leukering, Michael Price, P'eter Pyle, and David Sibley. Peter Pyle especially provided detailed commentary Jim Cox graciously provided photographs of the cismontanus specimen, and Lyn Ather- ton, Kevin Karlson, John Murphy and Don Robinson kindly responded to other queries. Valeri Ponzo provided critical support to BP. Jon S. Greenlaw, Ted Floyd, and Nathan Pieplow improved drafts of the manuscript. 178 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Literature Cited Chesser, R= T,, R. C. Banes, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I J. Lovette, A. G. Navarro-Siguenza, P. C, Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, D. F. Stotz, and K. Winkler, 2014, Fifty-fifth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check- list of North American Birds. The Auk 131(4):CSi=CSxv. . Greenlaw, J. S., B. Pranty, and R, Bowman. 2014. The Robertson and Woolfenden Florida Bird Species: An Annotated List. Special Publication No. 8, Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville. Hoffman, W., R. Sawicki, C. Thompson, and M. Carrington. 1991, Golden-crowned Spar- row appears in Florida, Florida Field Naturalist 19:19-21. Nolan, V., Jr., E. D. Ketterson, D, A, Cristol, C. M. Rogers, E. D. Clotfelter, R. C. Titus, S, J. Schoech, and E. Snajdr. 2002. Dark-eyed Junco {Junco hyemalis). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, . Pranty, B. 1996. Field Observations spring report: March-May 1995. Florida Field Nat- uralist 23:99-108. Pranty, B. 2012. Field Observations spring report: March-May 2012. Florida Field Nat- uralist 40:123-135. Pyle, P. 1997. Identification Guide to North American Birds. Part 1, Columbidae to Plo- ceidae. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California. Rising, J. D, 1996. A Guide to the Identification and Natural History of the Sparrows of the United States and Canada, Academic Press, New York, Robertson, W. B., Jr., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1992. Florida Bird Species: An Annotated List. Special Publication No, 6, Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville. Stevenson, H. M., and B, H. Anderson. 1994, The Birdlife of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Woolfenden, G. E,, B. Pranty, J. W. Fitzpatrick, and B. S. Nelson. 1996. Western Wood- Pewee recorded in Highlands County, Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 24:61-67. Woolfenden, G. E., and M. van Deventer. 2006. First record of the Varied Bunting from Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 34:1-3. Florida Field Naturalist 43(4):179-184, 2015. ROOSTING SITES OF A FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (Eumops floridanus) Jeffery A. Gore^ Mark S. Robson^’^, Ricardo Zambrano^, AND Nancy J. Douglass^ Wlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 3911 Highway 2321, Panama City, Florida 32409 E-mail: jeff.gore%myfwc. com ^Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 8535 North-lake Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33412 '"^Present address: 50 Whistlewood Lane, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28739 ^Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 3900 Drane Field Road, Lakeland, Florida 33811 The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) is endemic to south Florida^ and its poxmiation is believed to be small (Belwood 1992, Timm and Genoways 2004). It is one of the rarest mammal species in North America and recently was listed as endangered by the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2013), Knomdedge of roost site preferences is imporinni to the conservation of bats (Fenton 1997), but little is known about i oost selection by the Florida bonneted bat. Florida bonneted bats have been found loostiiig in tree cavities excavated by Red-cockaded Woodpeckeis iPicoides borealis) in Charlotte and Polk counties (Belwood 1981, B, Scofield, USFWS, unpublished data). Since 2003, Florida bonneted bats have also been documented roosting in man- made bat houses in Charlotte and Lee counties (USFWS 2013). Even though the Florida bonneted bat was reported first in urban areas of southeast Florida and has been observed there intermittently since the 1930s, roost sites of Florida bonneted bats in the urban environment of southeast Florida remain poorly known (Barbour 1936, Schwartz 1952, Belwood 1992, Timm and Geiiow^ays 2004). Florida bonneted bats have been reported to roost under barrel tiles on roofs and in palm trees in urban areas, but this information comes largely from indirect reports of brief incidental observations (Barbour and Davis 1969, Belwood 1992, Timm and Genoways 2004). Radiotelemetiy offers a method of tracking bats to their roosts that js more efficient and iiiiunnative than incidental observations, but because 179 180 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST few Florida bonneted bats have been captured away from roosts (USFWS 2013), telemetry has been attempted only twice for tracking Florida bonneted bats to roosts. We conducted those two telemetry efforts in the 1990s but did not publish results because the tracking periods were brief and we assumed that more detailed telemetry work on Florida bonneted bats would be forthcoming. Yet no subsequent similar work has been conducted, and the limited information we obtained remains the only record of nightly movements and roost selection by Florida bonneted bats. Our findings also provide the only description of the influence of radio attachment on Florida bonneted bats. As interest in the Florida bonneted bat increases with the species' designation as endangered, these results may now prove useful to those studying the ecology of the Florida bonneted bat and working to conserve the species. We attached radios (Model BD-2N, Holohil Inc., Carp, Ontario) to two male Florida bonneted bats, one in 1995 and one in 1997, and released the bats near their capture sites in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Radios were attached with latex adhesive to fur and skin between the shoulder blades (Skin-Bond, Smith & Nephew Inc., Largo, Florida); the radio and adhesive weighed <4% of the mass of each bat (Aldridge and Brigham 1988). Because the bats flew quickly through a residential neighborhood with numerous buildings and dense vegetation, we typically could triangulate precise locations for a bat only when it was roosting. Our first study animal was a bat that flew down the chimney and into the living room of a house on Hardee Road in Coral Gables on 5 June 1995. The homeowner captured the animal with kitchen tongs and threw it onto the front yard. The next morning the homeowner retrieved the bat alive from the lawn and took it to a veterinary clinic where it was determined to be an adult male Florida bonneted bat with an injured wing. The bat weighed 36 g (forearm length = 65 mm, testes length = 7.6 mm). After an extended period of rehabilitation in captivity, the bat was transferred to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for release. We fitted the bat with a radio and released the animal at dusk on 10 November 1995 at the northern edge of the University of Miami in Coral Gables. The bat was released by hand and flew quickly and directly over the university campus and out of range of the radio receivers, including a receiver on the roof of a campus building. Despite repeated attempts to detect the bat with telemetry receivers on the ground, in vehicles along the roads, and in fixed-wing aircraft above Coral Gables, we never detected the bat again. Our second telemetry effort yielded much more information than the first. On 15 March 1997, a male Florida bonneted bat flew down the chimney and into the living quarters of a home on Alhambra Circle Gore et al— Bonneted Bat Roost Sites 181 in Coral Gables. The bat was injured by the family dog and taken to a wildlife rehabilitator, who determined it weighed 28 g but could not fly readily. After 6 weeks of rehabilitation^ the bat was transferred to us for release. We attached a radio to the bat on 4 August, and, given the earlier experience, we kept the bat in captivity overnight to confirm that the radio was still attached and operational. But by morning, the radio had becomn detached from the bat. We reattached the radio and confirmed it was still attached at dusk when we released the bat at the Granada Golf Course (25.75240° N, 80.27822° W), near its capture site. We followed the bat for 48 hours and observed it foraging and at several roost sites (Table 1). The most frequently used night roost was. in a chimney of an occupied house. On one occasion, we viewed the chimney from inside the house and confirmed that the bat was roosting just below the top edge of the chimney. After the first night the bat roosted for the day on a utility pole in a residential backyard. The bat roosted on the side of the pole, but near the top and under the cover of a U-sliaped conduit attached to the side of the pole. With a spotting scope we could see the bat^s tail and the radio antenna protruding from the conduit. Near dusk the bat emerged from the roost and took flight directly upward from the flat top of the pole rather than dropping into flight as expected. Shortly after the bat emerged from its roost on the second day, we found it alive on the groond with the detached transmitter about 10 cm away. The bat was soaking wet and near a small decorative water fountain on the side ol a house. It may have flown to drink at the bubbling fountain and fell into the metal bowl. If so, that would be counter to the presumption that these bats drink only on the wing from large open- water sources. We returned the bat to the wildlife rehabilitator and after 4 days released it at Granada Golf Course with the radio again attached. The bat flew as before over golf courses and neighborhoods and used several night roosts (Table 1). But at 2315 (EST) on the second night the bat stopped mnving, and we assumed it was roosting in a backyard. The next morning we found the bat near the 'ground clinging to the outside of an air conditioning unit with the detached radio transmitter nearby. The bat's back was injured where the radio had been detached. We returned the bat to the wildlife rehabilitator, and it died 4 days later. Over 5 iiiglits, the bat roosted at least 19 times at 11 locations, including three day roosts (Table 1). The bat spent an average of 35.2 min at each night roost (n = 10, range 2-118 min). The day roosts were in a structure on a utility pole, in a cavity in a slash pine (Pinus elUottii), and in the chimney of a house. The greatest distance between any two signal locations was 3.9 km north to south and 2.8 km east to 182 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Table 1. Location, substrate, and minimum time occupied for roosts used by a Florida bonneted bat over 5 days, Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida, August 1997. Minimum time Observation Roost at roost Date time Location/street substrate/ activity (minutes) 5 Aug 20:38 Granada Golf Course bat released 22:30 Granada Golf Course pine tree A® 25 23:30 2412 North Greenway chimney A 118 6 Aug 2:03 Granada Golf Course pine tree A 16 2:19 Granada Golf Course royal palm A 37 3:16 Granada Golf Course pine tree A 32 9:00 912 Sorolla utility pole cavity day roost >12 h 20:23 912 Sorolla left utility pole 22:00 2412 North Greenway chimney A 37 23:03 2412 North Greenway chimney A 37 7 Aug 0:23 2412 North Greenway chimney A 22 3:18 1125 Milan royal palm B 2 4:00 1125 Milan royal palm B 26 6:25 915 Milan pine tree B day roost >12 h 20:30 915 Milan left pine tree B 20:40 1415 Capri bat captured on ground 11 Aug*’ 20:20 Granada Golf Course bat released 2nd time 21:05 30th and Red Ficus tree {Ficus sp.) 21:45 2412 North Greenway chimney A 12 Aug 0:20 2412 North Greenway chimney A 1:45 Desoto and Andalusia tree or utility pole 20:22 843 Almeria chimney B day roost >12 h® 20:55 Granada Golf Course pine tree C 21:35 642 Sevilla chimney C 23:15 636 Palermo unknown 13 Aug 7:00 636 Palermo injured and captured ^Species was not recorded for pine tree A. Pine trees B and C were slash pines (Pinus elliottii). '’Time in the roost was not recorded on 11-13 August. •^The bat left the roost at Desoto at an unknown time and was not found until just before sunset the next evening at Almeria; presumably it spent the entire day in chimney B. west, but the bat may have ranged farther during short periods when we were unable to detect it. Roosts were tightly clustered within the area in which the bat flew; the mean distance between a roost and its nearest neighbor was 330 m, and the greatest distance between two roosts was 2.0 km. The bat frequently flew over the Granada and Biltmore golf courses, and we occasionally heard feeding buzzes there, but the bat also flew and presumably foraged above houses and tree-lined streets throughout the neighborhood around the golf courses. Gore et al.— Bonneted Bat Roost Sites 183 Florida bonneted bats have been reported roosting in longleaf pines (Pinus palustris), royal palms (Roystonea sp.), and buildings, especially under barrel tile roofs (Jennings 1958, Barbour and Davis 1969, Belwood 1992). Our data support these observations, but the bat we followed frequently roosted in chimneys and did not use barrel tile roofs. Most houses in Coral Gables are of a Mediterranean architectural style that m.ay enhance their attraction as bat roosts; chimneys of many houses have a stucco surface with an integrated arch cover over the flue opening. Bats may find this to be a more appealing roost than a typical squared-off, open-top chimney. The observation we made of the bat taking flight upward from, the flat top of a utility pole corroborates a similar report received by Barbour and Davis (1969:234) and indicates that this species does not always require a roost that allows individuals to drop into flight. Our brief tracking suggests that Florida bonneted bats use a variety of night roosts and may switch regiilaily among day roosts. We do not know, however, whether the roosting behavior of the single rehabilitated male bat we followed is typical of Florida bonneted bats. Interestingly in 2014, Florida bonneted bats were found roosting at the edge of the roof of the same house, at 305 Alhambra Circle, where the bat we followed in 1997 was first found (K. Bohn, Florida International University, personal communication), which suggests that roost sites may be used over multiple years. Florida bonneted bats are large molossids with narrow wings suited for fast flight across long distances (Best et al. 1997), and it has been speculated that they may cover long distances nightly when foraging (Barbour and Davis 1969, Belwood 1992). The bat we released in 1995 flew quickly beyond our detection range, but the bat we followed in 1997 ranged <4 km from its day roosts. We do not know how either of these bats may have moved over longer time periods or how the radio transmitters or their prior injuries affected their behavior. The distance that Florida bonneted bats range has impoitant implications for conservation of the species, especially if local populations have become isolated through habitat fragmentation. More research is needed to determine roost selection and movem.ent patterns of Florida bonneted bats in urban and natural habitats. However, alternative methods of attaching transmitters should be evaluated before other telemetry studies of Florida bonneted bats are conducted. Acknowledgments We tharik Pat Knox for her care and rehabilitation of the injured bats. We thank R, Boughton, B. Crowder, E. Garrison, and K. Wilkins for pro¥iding helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was funded through the Florida Noiigame Wildlife Trust Fund. 184 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Literature Cited Aldridge, H. D. J. N., and R. M. Brigham. 1988. Load carrying and maneuverability in an insectivorous bat: a test of the 5% “rule” of radio-telemetry. Journal of Mammalogy 69:379-382. Barbour, T. 1936. Eumops in Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 17:414. Barbour, R. W,, and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky Belwood, J. J. 1981. Wagner’s mastiff bat, Eumops glaucinus floridanus (Molossidae) in southwestern Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 62:411-413. Belwood, J. J, 1992. Florida mastiS hat Eumops glaucinus floridanus. Pages 216-223 in Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. VoL L Mammals (S. R.Humphrey, Ed.) Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Best, T. L., W. M. Kiser, and J. C. Rainey. 1997. Eumops glaucinus. Mammalian Species 551:1-6. Fenton, M. B, 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1- 14. Jennings, W, L. 1958. The ecological distribution of bats in Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. Schwartz, A. 1952. The Land Mammals of Southern Florida and the Upper Florida Keys. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Timm, R. M., and H. H. Genoways. 2004. The Florida bonneted bat, Eumops floridanus (Chiroptera: Molossidae): Distribution, morphometries, systematics, and ecology Journal of Mammalogy 85:852-865. USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 2013. Endangered species status for the Flori- da bonneted bat. Federal Register 78:61003-61043. Florida Field Naturalist 43(4):185~188, 2015. SECOND RECORD OF A NATURAL FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (Eumops floridanus) ROOST IN ALONGLEAF PINE {Pinus palustris) Emily N. Ahgell and Greg Thompson Archhold Biological Station, 123 Main Drive, Venus, Florida 33960 Florida bonneted bats (Eumops floridanus), formerly known as Wagner^ mastiff bat (Elumops glaucinus), are arguably one of the rarest mammals in North America. Their population size is unknown, but is estimated to be fewer than 250 adults (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). In October 2013, the species was listed as federally Endangered (USFWS 2013). This species has an extremely limited range, with known occurrences limited to Charlotte, Collier. Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Okeechobee, and - most recently -- Polk counties (USFWS 2013). It was previously believed that the Florida bonneted bat (hereafter called the bonneted bat) exisi;ed only in the state's soutlieimmost counties. Flowever, the discover}^ of individuals along the Kissiriirnee River in 2008 during a range“Wide smwey established a new northern limit approximately 50 mi north of the one previously demonstrated (Marks and Marks 2008). The Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) is a 106,000 ac active military base located in Polk and Highlands counties where long-term monitoring and habitat management of several Threatened species - including Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) (Picoides borealis) - occurs. RCWs excavate carities in living, old-growth pine trees infected with heart-rot fungus iPhellmus pinii) (e.g., Conner et al. 2001), and the excavation of each carity may take up to several years to complete (e.g., Harding 1997). During a loutine census of RCW cavities on 21 August 2013 using a pole-mounted camera system, we (GT) discovered several bats roosting in the botturo. of a natural RCW cavity. The cavity was 7,1 m high in a 32.8 cm dbli old-giTiwth longleaf pine tree with a slightly enlarged (5-7 cm) entrance diameter The cavity excavation was completed in 2009 and was used by RCWs as a roost in 2009 and 2012, suggesting that it had been a bat roost for less than one year at the time when bats were first noticed. Additional measurements of the cavity can be taken when and if the bats vacate the roost, to minimize disturbance. The roost tree was located in a patch of scrubby flatwoods, characterized by an open canopy of widely spaced longleaf pine trees and a low, shrubby understory interspersed with small openings of barren sand (FNAI 2010) (Fig. 1). The main oak species present included 185 186 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Figure 1* Habitat surrounding Florida bonneted bat roost in a longleaf pine tree cavity (middle) excavated by Red-cockaded Woodpeckers at the Avon Park Air Force Range, Polk County. dwarf live oak (Quercus minima), sand live oak {Q. geminata), scrub oak (Q. inopina), and Chapman's oak (Q, chapmanii). The oaks were sparse and ranged between approximately 0.3-2. 1 m tall. Dominant plant species also present included a moderate cover of saw palmetto {Serenoa repens), fetterbush {Lyonia lucida), rusty staggerbush {L. ferruginea), Atlantic St. John's-wort (Hypericum tenuifolium), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), and bottlebrush threeawn (A. spiciformis). The roost tree was located approximately 1.1 km from the nearest permanent wetland, and bordered on a North Florida slash pine (P. elliottii var. densa) plantation. A concurrent survey of bonneted bats by USFWS taking place at APAFR (USFWS 2014) resulted in echolocatiori recordings being taken of the bats in flight. Using an ultrasonic recorder device, the individuals were confirmed as bonneted bats. Upon conducting an emergence survey on 15 October 2014, we counted 16 bats leaving the roost at dusk and took videos of an additional four adults and at least two juvenile bats in the cavity space above the entrance (a total of >22 bats). Due to red-heart fungus infecting the tree, the cavity space was extensive. Based upon limited data from other colonies (Belwood AnGELL and THOMPSON' — BONNETED BaT RoOST IN LoNGLEAF PiNE 187 1992), it is possible that this group is a harem comprised of one male and multiple females. This is only the second recorded natural roost of this species in a pine tree, the first being a group of eight adults discovered roosting in a longleaf pine RCW cavity 4.6 m high near Punta Gorda (Charlotte County) in 1979 (Belwood 1981). Other natural roost sites of the bonneted bat have included the spaces between royal palm fronds {Roystonea regia) (Belwood 1981) and limestone outcroppings (Timm and Genoways 2004). The roost at Avon Park Air Force Range is the only known natural roost in current usage; the remaining three known active colonies utilize artificial structures such as bat houses and the space under roof tiles (Myers 2015). This is the first roost to be discovered in Polk County and contains the first confirmed evidence of bonneted bats breeding north of Charlotte County (Jennifer Myers, pers. comm.). Very little is known of the life history of the bonneted bat, making management of this critically imperiled species difficult. Loss of habitat and natural roost sites is a threat to the population (FWC 2014), and although the number of individuals at APAFR is likely small (USFWS 2014), natural RCW cavities may be an important source of roost sites. By excavating cavities in live pines in a community where fires and storms make standing dead trees scarce, RCWs are considered a keystone species in this ecosystem (Blanc and Walters 2008). Through the continuation of managing longleaf pine habitat for RCWs, we may in turn be maintaining habitat for the endangered Florida bonneted bat. Acknowledgments We thank Brian Scofield for his aid in identifying the bats to species, and Reed Bow- man, Greg Schrott, and Stephen Mugel for kindly reviewing our manuscript. We also thank Jennifer Myers, Marilyn Knight, and Paula Halupa for assisting with the emer- gence survey. Continuing gratitude goes to Paul Ebersbach and Mark Fredlake and sup- port from the U.S. Department of Defense (Project #ASPR149011) for Archbold’s moni- toring and research on endangered species at APAFR. Special thanks to Holly Ober for suggestions that improved the manuscript. Literature Cited Belwood, J. J. 1981. Wagner’s mastiff bat, Eumops glaucinus floridanus (Molossidae) in southwestern Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 62:411-413. Belwood, J. J. 1992. Florida mastiff bat. Eumops glaucinus floridanus. Pages 216-223 in S. R. Humphrey (Ed.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. University Press of Florida. Gainesville. Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, and J. R. Walters. 2001. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Surviving in a Fire-maintained Ecosystem. University of Texas Press, Austin. FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission]. 2014. Florida bonneted bat: Eumops floridanus. . Accessed 9 October 2014. 188 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST FNAI [Florida Natural Areas Inventory]. 2010. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Scrubby Flatwoods. . Accessed 23 October 2014. Harding, S. R. 1997. The D)uiamics of Cavity Excavation and Use by the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). M.Sc. thesis. Virginia Pol5rtechiiic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. MARiffi, G. E., AND C. S. Marks. 2008. Status of the Florida bonneted bat {Eumops florida- nus). Supplemental report. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy under grant agreement number 401815G192, Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. Myers, J, 2015. Florida’s Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus). Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem Working Group Meeting. Avon Park Air Force Range, Avon Park, Florida. 5 February 2015. Timm, R., and J. Arroyo-Cabrales. 2008. Eumops floridanus. The lUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. . Accessed 4 August 2014, Timm, R. M., and H, H. Genoways. 2004. The Florida Bonneted Bat, Eumops florida- nus (Chiroptera: Molossidae): distribution, morphometries, systematics, and ecology. Journal of Mammalogy 85:852-865. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Endangered species status for the Florida bonneted bat; final rule. Fed- eral Register VoL 78 No. 191. October 2, 2013. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 2014. Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops florida- nus) Acoustical Survey at Avon Park Air Force Range. June 2014. Florida Field Naturalist 43(4): 189-198, 2015. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Spring Reporti March - May 2016*— This report consists of significant bird observations compiled by the Field Observations Committee (FOC). Electronic submissions to the FOC should be in the following format: species, number of individuals, age and sex of the bird(s), color morph if applicable, location (including county), date, observer(s), and significance. Seasons are winter (December-February), spring (March- May), summer (June-July), and fall (August-November). Submit observations to regional compilers within two weeks after the close of each season, or to the state compiler within one month. Addresses of the compilers follow this report. Sight-only observations are considered “reports” while only those observations supported by verifiable evidence (photographs, video or audio recordings, or specimens) are called “records.” Species for which documentation is required by the FOC and by the FOS Records Committee (FOSRC; ) are marked here with an asterisk (*). A county designation (in italics) accompanies the first-time listing of each site in this report. Abbreviations in this report are: AFB - Air Force Base, AFR - Air Force Range, CA “ Conservation Area, EOS = end of season, m. obs. = many observers, NERR = National Estuarine Research Reserve, nm = nautical miles, NP = National Park, NSRA - North Shore Restoration Area, NWR = National Wildlife Refuge, SF = State Forest, SP = State Park, STA ~ Stormwater Treatment Area, STF = sewage treatment facility, WMA = Wildlife Management Area, WRF ~ Water Reclamation Facility, and N, S, E, W, etc., for compass directions. Bold-faced entries denote birds newly reported or verified in Florida, or record numbers. Photographs or video- or audio-recordings archived by the FOC are identified by a plus (+), Summary of the Spring Season Weather was largely unremarkable throughout the spring season, though some regions reported that March and May were drier than normal. Migration had a slow start, but a series of cold fronts beginning on 10-11 April produced at least three classic fallouts during the next three weeks. The western Panhandle enjoyed the best spring in recent years with 31 species of warblers and the northeast region nearly matched that with 27. The winter irruption of Pine Siskin continued through mid-April, with good numbers of the species present from as far south as Lake County and numbers as high as 240 in Escambia. FOSRC review species listed in this report include two separate observations of Red-billed Tropicbird, Neotropic Cormorant from three different locations, a first-cycle Thayer’s Gull at Daytona Beach Shores, two reports of Inca Dove in the Panhandle, Cassin’s Kingbird, Yellow-green Vireo, a singing Kirtland’s Warbler, two reports of “Audubon’s” Yellow-rumped Warbler, Black-faced Grassquit, one record of Lazuli Bunting, and a continuing Bullock’s Oriole in Gainesville. Mid-April saw the complete abandonment of nesting activity at Seahorse Key {Levy) where pelicans, cormorants, and waders have nested for decades. Some of the birds (fewer than half according to USFWS flight-line counts) moved to Snake Key two miles away and nested successfully, but the cause of their withdrawal from Seahorse Key remains unknown. Species Accounts Black-bellied Whistling-Duck: 4 at Jefferson County Recycling Center {Jefferson) 18 April (M. Smith); up to 9 at Brooker Creek Preserve {Pinellas) 23-28 Apr (R. Hoover, 189 190 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST T. Mast); 35 in 5 locations in w. Panhandle 5-31 May (m. obs.); 106 at Lem Turner Spray Fields 22 May (D. Foster) provided a record high count for Duval. Greater White-fronted Goose: 1 at Hague {Alachua) to 2 Mar (R, Norton et aL). Snow Goose: 4 at Liberty West Park (Duval) 1-10 Mar (B. Richter); 2 at Walnut Hill catfish farms (Escambia) 4 Mar (B. & L, Duncan). Ross’s Goose: 1 at Walnut Hill catfish farms 4 Mar (B. & L. Duncan). Canada Goose: 7 northbound at Tierra Verde (Pinellas) 14 Mar (+R Clark); 2 in N St. Pe- tersburg (Pinellas) 24 Mar (D. Kandz); 1 at Mount Dora (Lake) 31 Mar (+D. O’Neil); 3 newly hatched goslings at Largo (Pinellas) 8 May (R, Johnsen). Gadwall: 40 at mouth of Apalachicola River (Franklin) 29 Mar (J, Murphy), American Wigeon: 1 at Cockroach Bay (Hillsborough) 11 Mar (E. Kwater); 20 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP (Alachua) 26 Mar (L. Davis, R. Rowan); 2 at Brooker Creek Pre- serve 10-25 Apr (+T Mast et aL); 1 male at Spoonbill Pond (Duval) 17 May (+K. Dailey). Northern Shoveler: 200 on 2D, Hillsborough Bay (Hillsborough) 31 Mar (E. Kwater). Canvasback: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP to 15 Mar (S. Goodman, C. Leonard et aL). Redhead: 1 male at Perdue Pond Wildlife Area (Duval) through 27 Mar (D. Foster). Ring-necked Duck: 2 at Spoonbill Pond through 17 May (B, Richter). Greater Scaup: 14 at Gandy Beach (Pinellas) (+J. Drucker, K. Yakota); 1 male at William E. Dunn WRF (Pinellas) 3 Apr (+T, Leukering). Common Eider: 1 at Amelia Island SP (Nassau) 3-9 Mar (+K. Dailey). Surf Scoter: 20 at Fort Pickens (Escambia) 7 Apr (B. & L. Duncan). White-winged Scoter: 1 in Gulf Breeze (Santa Rosa) 1 Mar (B. & L. Duncan); 1 at Saint George Sound (Franklin) 1 Mar (R. Cassidy); 3 at Spoonbill Pond 3-7 Mar (+B. Rich- ter); 1 immature/female at Fort De Soto Park (Pinellas) 8-9 Mar (+Dave Roemer); 3 at Naval Live Oaks, Gulf Islands National Seashore (Santa Rosa) 9 Mar (C. & S. Coster). Black Scoter: 12 at Fort Pickens 7 Apr (B. & L. Duncan). Bufflehead: 6 at William E. Dunn WRF 21 Mar (B. Ahern et aL), with 2 still present 25 Mar (C, & M, Yarrow). Red-breasted Merganser: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP to 1 Mar (B. Ewing, S. Ewing); 1 at Lake Santa Fe (Alachua) 5 Mar (R, Rowan, M. Manetz). Pacific Loon: 1 at Fort Pickens 9 Mar (B. Duncan); 1 at Fort Pickens 18 Mar (M. Rose et aL); 1 at Gulf Breeze 17 Apr (B. & L. Duncan). Common Loon: 1 at Ferndale Preserve, Minneola (Lake) Apr 24 (G, Quigley). Horned Grebe: 300 at Saint George Sound 1 Mar (R. Cassidy, L. Cassidy). American Flamingo: Up to 8 at STA-2 (Palm Beach) 7 Mar-25 Apr (+J. Boyd, R. Schofield, C. Weber, m. obs.); 1 on Highway 27, 10 mi. S of STA-2 (Palm Beach) 25 Apr (W. Parker); 1 flying over Biscayne NP (Miami-Dade) 6 May (C. Thibodeau). Great Shearwater: 8 at Pensacola Beach (Escambia) 19 Apr (D. Stangeland). Audubon’s Shearwater: 2 near Hospital Key (Monroe) 1 May (C. Fisher, K. Knight); 1 3-12 nm off Boynton Inlet (Palm Beach) 16 Apr (W. Parker, m. obs.); up to 82 from Key West to Dry Tortugas NP (Monroe) 21 Apr (D, Simpson). White-tailed Tropicbird: 1 E of Dry Tortugas NP 21 Apr (D. Simpson). *Red-billed Tropicbird: 1 adult 3-12 nm off Boynton Inlet 16 Apr (Ra. Diaz, D. Simpson, R. Schofield, G. Weber, m. obs.); 1 adult, 1 immature 20 mi N of Key West (Monroe) 6 May (+D. Doyle), details submitted to FOSRC. Magnificent Frigatebird: 1 at Huguenot Memorial Park (Duval) 5 Apr (B. Richter). Masked Booby: 1 3-12 nm off Boynton Inlet 16 Apr (D. Simpson, R. Schofield, C. Weber, m. obs.); 1 adult 3.5 nm offshore Biscayne NP (Miami-Dade) 1 May (R. Featherly, D. Schaffter); 95 adults and juveniles at Hospital Key (Monroe) 22 May (D. Doyle). Brown Booby: 1 at St, Augustine Pier (St. Johns) 13-20 Mar (A. Ryan); 1 immature 15 nm off St. Petersburg Beach (Pinellas) 15 Mar (E. Plage); 1 juvenile at Ponce de Leon Field Observations 191 Inlet (Volusia) 14 Apr (M. Brothers); 1 adult 3-12 nm off Boynton Inlet 16 Apr (Ra. Diaz, m. obs.); 27 counted by vessel from Garden Key to Rebecca Shoals {Monroe) 22 May (D. Doyle). Red-footed Booby: 1 immature on Bush Key, Dry Tortugas NP {Monroe) 19 April (L. Manfredi); 1 white-tailed brown morph adult at Fort Pickens 11 May (B. Duncan) provided the second record for the W Panhandle. Northern Gannet: 1 immature offshore Collier 6 May (D, Doyle); at least 100 were 0-15 nm off St. Petersburg Beach 15 Mar (E. Plage). *Neotropic Cormorant: several plus possible hybrids at Wakodahatchee Wetlands {Palm Beach) 29 Apr (m. obs.); 1 at STA-2 12 Apr (D. Simpson); 1 at Peaceful Waters Sanctu- ary {Palm Beach) 14 Apr (L. Hess). Great Cormorant: 1 adult in flight with 100+ Double-crested Cormorants at T. M. Good- win WMA {Brevard) 2 Apr (D. Simpson). American White Pelican: As many as 6 at Key West golf course {Monroe) 17-28 May (D. Doyle). Brown Pelican: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 30 Apr (D. Mickelson, D. Shehee, T. Tompkins). American Bittern: 1 at Orlando Wetlands Park {Orange) 22 Mar (E. Kwater); 1 at Brook- er Creek Preserve 10 Apr (T. Mast). Least Bittern: 2 pairs nested at Imeson Center {Duval) 25-31 May (K. Dailey, D. Foster); 16 inch several juveniles at Cockroach Bay 28 May (E. Kwater). Great Blue Heron, white morph: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP to 15 Mar (C. Leonard et ah); 1 paired with Blue form in Palmetto {Manatee) 17 Apr (E. Kwater). Reddish Egret: 2 pairs nested at a freshwater site near Ruskin {Hillsborough) 16 May (E. Kwater). Yellow-crowned Night-Heron: Up to 6 at Lake Apopka NSRA {Lake) 4 Apr and 24 May (S. Wilson, G. Quigley et al.); 1 adult at Emeralda Marsh CA {Lake) 24 Apr (G. Quig- ley). White Ibis: 389 at Tallahassee {Leon) 4 Mar (R. Cassidy). Glossy Ibis: 1 at Honeymoon Island SP {Pinellas) 29 Mar-4 Apr (J. Wells, E. Kwater, et al.); 4 at Pensacola {Escambia) 18 Apr (B. & L. Duncan, C. Brown); 6 at Brooker Creek Preserve {Pinellas) 25 May (J. Wells). White-faced Ibis: 1 at St. Marks NWR {Wakulla) 15 Mar (J. Cavanagh); 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP to 10 Apr (D. Segal, G. Parks et al.). Roseate Spoonbill: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP throughout the period (S. Goodman, A, Kent et al.); 2 nests contained young at a new breeding site in T. M. Goodwin WMA 2 Apr (C. Cimino). Swallow-tailed Kite: 4 in Alachua 1 Mar (D. O’Keefe, F. Baird); 23 in Pensacola 5 Mar (B. Tetlow, J. Brady); 42 at Grassy Point {Santa Rosa) 14 Mar (B, & L. Duncan et al.); 1 in N Jefferson 28 Mar (M. Smith, L. Most). Snail Kite: 8, possibly 12 at East Lake Toho {Osceola) 27 Apr (A. Kent). Mississippi Kite: 1 early at Tallahassee {Leon) 1 Apr (R. Cassidy); 1 at Brooker Creek Preserve 15 May (+B. Surman); a pair copulated at Crystal River {Citrus) 22 May (S. Levins), providing the first known county record; 1 adult at CR 44 & US 441 {Lake) 29 May (A. Horst). Broad-winged Hawk: 1 at Key West Tropical Forest & Botanical Garden {Monroe) 3 May (C. Fisher, K. Knight). Short-tailed Hawk: 1 dark morph in Brandon {Hillsborough) 13 Mar (E. Kwater); up to 2 at Minneola 13 Mar-22 May (G. Quigley, m. obs.); 1 at Westside Industrial Park {Du- val) 15 Mar (+B. Richter), providing first verifiable county record; 1 at Mount Dora 23 Mar (B. Matasick); up to 3 in Alachua 3 Apr-EOS (A. Kent, M. Bruce, S. Ewing); 1 light morph at Tarpon Springs {Pinellas) 5 Apr (E. Kwater); 1 at Emeralda Marsh CA24 Apr (G. Quigley); 1 at Sabal Bluff Preserve {Lake) 25 Apr (G. Quigley); 1 at Key 192 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST West Tropical Forest & Botanical Garden 3 May (C. Fisher, K. Knight); 1 light morph at Key West Tropical Forest & Botanical Garden 24 May (D. Doyle). Black Rail: 1 in Everglades NP {Miami-Dade) 1-29 Mar (Ra. Diaz). King Rail: 1 at Old Keystone Road {Pinellas) 25 May (J. Wells). Virginia Rail: 1 was late at St. Marks NWR 3 May (J. Cavanagh), Purple Gallinule: 1 at Sav/grass Lake Park (Pinellas) 28 Mar-16 Apr (D. White, +J. Cla5rton); 1 at Chattahoochee (Gadsden) 15 Apr (R. Cassidy); 2 adults at Key West golf course 18-31 May (D, Doyle). Limpkin: Up to 13 at Westside Industrial Park (Duval) 13 May (D. Foster). Sandhill Crane: 1 at Lake Maggiore (S Pinellas) 30 Apr (B. Douglass). Whooping Crane: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 14 Mar-2 May (P. Chaon, P. Hosner et ah); 2 at Leesburg 9 May (L, Streeper). Black-necked Stilt: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 1 Mar (A. Kent, S. Goodman); 1 at Hone5nnoon Island SP 18 Apr (E, Kwater, T. Kalbach); 8 at Fort De Soto Park (Pinel- las) 27 Apr (D, Tonnessen). American Avocet: 13 at Alligator Point (Franklin) 27 Mar (J. Murphy); 1 at Fort De Soto Park 29 Mar (+B. Lessard, M. Gardler); 1 at Weedon Island Preserve (Pinellas) 29 Mar (C. Cox); 10 at Fort De Soto Park 3 Apr (E. Plage); 6 at Gandy Beach 22 Apr (+A. Ruben); 2 at Newnans Lake (Alachua) 3 May (F. Lee). Black-bellied Plover: 10 at Lake Jem sod fields (Lake) 18 Mar (G. Quigley). Snowy Plover: 1 on nest with egg at Outback Key (Pinellas) 20 May (+D. Sauvageau). Semipalmated Plover: Up to 7 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 25 Apr-22 May (M. O’Sullivan, S. Salazar et ah). Piping Plover: 53 at Outback Key 3 Mar (+D. Sauvageau). Spotted Sandpiper: 17 at Jim Woodruff Dam/Lake Seminole (Gadsden) 4 May (R. Cas- sidy, D. Cassidy, S. Cassidy); 7 at Potts Preserve (Citrus) 15 May (B. Hansen); 12 at The Villages (Lake) 22 May (G. Quigley). Solitary Sandpiper: 1-4 at Brooker Creek Preserve 17-31 Mar (+T. Mast); 1 in N Jefferson 28 Mar (M, Smith, L. Most); 3 at Marl Bed Flats (Seminole) 17 Apr (J. Leavens); 4 at Fort De Soto Park 28 Apr (E. Plage); 1 in Spring Hill (Hernando) 24 May (A. & B. Hansen). Whimbrel: 1 at Mashes Sand County Park (Wakulla) 5 Apr (M. Smith, L. Most, K. Seward, B. Bergstrom); 10 at East Lake Toho 27 Apr (A. Kent); 3 at Fort De Soto Park 28 Apr (E. Plage); 4 at Fort De Soto Park 15 May (L. McIntosh); 3 at South Anclote Key (Pinellas) 20 May (E. Plage). Long-billed Curlew: 1 at St. Vincent NWR (Franklin) 3 Mar (J. Murphy); 2 at Alafia Banks (Hillsborough) 30 Mar-2 Apr (E. Kwater, et al); 1 at South Anclote Key 20 May (E. Plage). Hudsonian Godwit: 1 at St. Marks NWR 1-2 May (+J. O’Connell et al). Marbled Godwit: 50 at Mashes Sand County Park 5 Apr (M. Smith, L. Most, et al.). Ruddy Turnstone: 1 at Jim Woodruff Dam/Lake Seminole 4 May (R. Cassidy, D. Cassidy, S. Cassidy) provided an unusual inland record. White-rumped Sandpiper: Up to 3 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 25 Apr-3 May (D. Segal, H. Adams et aL); 2 at Jim Woodruff Dam/Lake Seminole 4 May (R. Cassidy et al) provided an unusual inland record; 1 at Spoonbill Pond 17 May-EOS (+K. Dailey); 1 at Gandy Beach 29 May (+C. Gjervold); 1 at Three Rooker Bar (Pinellas) 30 May (+C. Yilmaz). Baird’s Sandpiper: 1 at Shell Island (Bay) 14 Apr (P. Mason). Pectoral Sandpiper: Up to 9 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 29 Mar-2 May (M. Manetz, B. Shea et ah). Purple Sandpiper: 1 at Huguenot Memorial Park 1 Mar (+K. Dailey); 1 at Ponce de Leon Inlet to 14 Apr (M. Brothers). Curlew Sandpiper: 1 male in alternate plumage at Merritt Island NWR (Brevard) 6-9 May (+M. Harris, m. obs.). Field Observations 193 Stilt Sandpiper: Up to 5 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 29 Mar-26 Apr (M. Manetz, B, Tarbox et aL); at least 25 at Marl Bed Flats 17 Apr (J. Leavens). Buff-breasted Sandpiper: 1 at Tyndall AFB {Bay) 22 Apr (K. Christman). Wilson’s Snipe: 1 remained at Brooker Creek Preserve through 29 Apr (+T. Mast). Wilson’s Phalarope: 4 at Fort De Soto Park 30 Apr (P. Bottjer, +J. Clayton et aL); 1 at Alligator Point 4 May (+J. Murphy). PoMARiNE Jaeger: 2, 15 nm off St. Petersburg Beach 15 Mar (E. Plage). Parasitic Jaeger: 2 at Daytona Beach Shores (Volusia) 3 Mar (E. Kwater). Bonaparte’s Gull: 1 at Spoonbill Pond 17 May (+K. Dailey). Herring Gull x Lesser Black-backed Gull (probable): 1 adult at Daytona Beach Shores {Volusia) 4 Mar (+M. Brothers). *Thayer’s Gull: 1 first-cycle at Daytona Beach Shores 3-30 Mar (+E. Kwater, M. Broth- ers et aL). Iceland Gull: 1 first-cycle at Tomoka Landfill (Volusia) 3 Mar (+E. Kwater, M. Brothers et aL); a different first-cycle at Daytona Beach Shores 4 Mar (M. Brothers). Lesser Black-backed Gull: 10 at Walnut Hill catfish farms 4 Mar (B. & L. Duncan) was a record number for the area; 1 there 9 Mar (R Baker, P. Beasley); 3 at Fort Pickens 12 Mar (B. & L. Duncan); 1 at Fort Pickens 21 Apr (B. & L. Duncan). Glaucous Gull: 1 at Fort Pickens 28 Mar (B. & J. Callaway, P. Baker, R Beasley). Great Black-backed Gull: 1 at Alligator Point 7 Apr (J. Murphy); 1 first-cycle at South Anclote Key 20 May (E. Plage). Black Noddy: 1 at Garden Key {Monroe) 2 May (C. Fisher, K. Knight); up to 2 on Bush Key, Dry Tortugas NP {Monroe) 18 Apr-10 May (L, Manfredi, D. Simpson). Sooty Tern: 1 at old St. George Island causeway {Franklin) 17 May (J. Murphy). Bridled Tern: 1 off Boynton Inlet 16 Apr (D. Simpson, et aL); 2 from Key West to Dry Tortugas NP 21 Apr (D. Simpson); 3 off Hospital Key 1 May (C. Fisher, K. Knight). Least Tern: 2 at Disappearing Island {Volusia) 18 Mar (M. Brothers); 2 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 24 May (G. Parks). Gull-billed Tern: 1 at Isla Del Sol {Pinellas) 18 Mar (E, Plage); 2 at Alafia Banks 30 Mar (E. Kwater); 16 at St. George Island {Franklin) 17 May (R. Cassidy); 1 at Cockroach Bay 28 May (E, Kwater). Caspian Tern: 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 26 Mar (L. Davis). Black Tern: 1 at ValPak Lake {Pinellas) 27 Apr (+J. Cla5rton); 1 at Courtney Campbell Causeway {Pinellas) 19 May (+D. Laliberte). Roseate Tern: 8 off Hospital Key 1 May (C. Fisher, K. Knight). Common Tern: 2-4 at Fort De Soto Park 14-23 Mar (B. Ahern, +J. Clayton et aL); 3 at Gandy Beach 18 May (J. Clayton). Arctic Tern: 1 at Bald Point SP {Franklin) 28 Apr (J. Murphy); 1 at Ponce de Leon Inlet 15 May (M. Brothers). White-winged Dove: 2 in Atlantic Beach {Duval) 3 Mar (D. Pridgen). *Inca Dove: 1 at Big Lagoon SP {Escambia) 1 May (+J. Thomasson); 5 at Jay {Santa Rosa), 1 pair copulating 26 May (D. & C, Ware). Key West Quail-Dove: 1 seen infrequently at Long Key SP {Monroe) 1-16 March (m. obs,, continuing from previous season). Yellow-billed Cuckoo: 2 at Bonner Park {Pinellas) 29 Mar (J. & I. Gibbons). Mangrove Cuckoo: 1 at Emerson Point {Manatee) 25 Apr (E. Kwater). Black-billed Cuckoo: 1 at St. George Island SP {Franklin) 20 Apr (J. Cavanagh); 1 at Fred Howard Park {Pinellas) 21 Apr (-i-M. James); 1 juv at Fort Zachary Taylor SP {Monroe) 30 Apr (C. Fisher). Smooth-billed Ani: 1 continued at Snake Road near Seminole Reservation {Broward) 27 Apr (G. Langley); 1 on Sugarloaf Key {Monroe) 10 May (C. Goodrich). Groove-billed Ani: 1 first seen 28 Dec 2014 (R. Harrod) remained at Fort De Soto Park through 23 Apr, tying the latest Pinellas spring date (M. Hughes, fide R. Smith). 194 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Great Horned Owl: 2 pair bred at Fort De Soto Park this winter/spring {fide R. Smith). Antillean Nighthawk: 1 at Garden Key 21 May (D. Doyle). Chimney Swift: 1 early at Orlando Wetlands Park 22 Mar (E. Kwater). Buff-bellied Hummingbird: 1 at Pensacola 7 Mar (V. Hedrick); 1 in Pace (Santa Rosa) 8-9 Mar (B. DeArman). Ruby-throated Hummingbird: 1 male at Palm Harbor (Pinellas) 9 Mar (B. Walker); up to 15 at Honeymoon Island SP 21 Apr (E. Kwater). Belted Kingfisher: 1 at Loggerhead Key (Monroe) 21 May (D. Doyle). Red-headed Woodpecker: 1 adult at Seminole (Pinellas) 15 Apr (D. EMers). Hairy Woodpecker: 2 (male and female) at Seminole SF (Lake) 2 Mar (G. Quigley); 1 at Tate’s Hell SF (Franklin) 8 Mar (J. Murphy). American Kestrel: 2 at Loggerhead Key 21 May (D. Doyle). Merlin: 1 at Tomoka Landfill 3 Mar (E. Kwater); 1 at Safety Harbor (Pinellas) 23 Apr (E. Kwater); 1 at Garden Key 20 May (D. Doyle). Peregrine Falcon: 1 in Bradenton (Manatee) 20 Mar (E. Kwater); 1 in Hillsborough Bay 31 Mar & 3 Apr (E. Kwater); 1 at Newnans Lake 21 Apr (R. Rowan, M. Manetz, J. Hin- termister); 1 at Pa3Ties Prairie Preserve SP 26 Apr (D. Segal, T. Anderson); 1 at Pen- sacola Beach 19 May (J. & B, Callaway); 1 at Tallahassee (Leon) 26 May (J. Cavanagh). Acadian Flycatcher: 1 at Potts Preserve 19 May-EOS (A. & B. Hansen, D. Grimes), scarce breeder in Citrus. Eastern Phoebe: 1 at Fort De Soto Park 5 May represented Pinellas' latest spring record (+D. True, T. Zambon). Vermilion Flycatcher: 1 continuing female along L-31W Canal (MiamLDade) 1-4 Mar (Ro. Diaz); 1 at Fort Pickens 16 Mar (B, & L. Duncan). Great Crested Flycatcher: 1 in Clearwater (Pinellas) 13 Mar (+T. Kalbach); 1 at Gaines- ville (Alachua) 17 Mar (A. Kratter). Brown-crested Flycatcher: 1 continued along C-lllE Canal (Miami-Dade) 1-4 Mar (M, Vasi, C. Sanchez). La Sacra’s Flycatcher: 1 at Lantana Nature Preserve (Palm Beach) 11-19 Mar (B. Hope, S. Young); 1 at Green Cay Wetlands (Palm Beach) 9 Mar (M. Gomes). Tropical Kingbird: 2 continued along L-31W Canal (Miami-Dade) 1-8 Mar (+Ro. Diaz). *Cassin’s Kingbird: 1 at St. George Island SP 27 Apr (+R. Cassidy, S. Cassidy, A. Cassidy). Western Kingbird: 1 in Stuart (Martin) 2 Mar (D. Doyle); 1 at Fort De Soto Park 2-5 Apr (E. Plage et aL); 1 at Fort Pickens 12 Apr (L. Tilley); 1 at Gulf Breeze 27 Apr (B. Duncan); up to 3 at Binion Rd. & Hooper Farms Rd. kingbird roost, Apopka (Orange) 3-9 May (P. Hueber). Eastern Kingbird: 1 possibly nesting at Cockroach Bay 28 May (E. Kwater). Gray Kingbird: 1 at Lake Apopka NSRA (Orange) 31 May (L. Malo, P. Hueber et aL). Scissor-tailed Flycatcher: Up to 3 at Fort De Soto Park 21 Apr (+J. Clayton et aL); 1 near Sawgrass Recreation Park (Broward) 25 Apr (J. Boyd); 1 at Honeymoon Island SP 3 May (+T. Kalbach); 1 adult male at M&M Dairy (Duval) 16 May (+M. Fethe). White-eyed Vireo: 100+ at Fort De Soto Park 27-28 Mar (J. Clayton, E. Plage, P. Plage); 100+ at Fred Howard Park 28 Mar (T. Mast); as many as 69 at Hone5mioon Island SP 28-29 Mar (E. Kwater, J. Wells et aL). Warbling Vireo: 1 at Fort Pickens 29 Apr (B. &, L. Duncan et aL). Philadelphia Vireo: 1 at Fort De Soto Park 29 Apr (+J. Gibson et aL). Red-eyed Vireo: 1 singing on territory at Brooker Creek Preserve 15 Mar (R. Harrod). *Yellow-green Vireo: 1 at Gulf Breeze 26-27 May (B. & L. Duncan) provided the 7th area record. Black-whiskered Vireo: 1 at Fort De Soto Park 20-22 Apr (+C. Rasmussen, m, obs.); a 2nd was discovered at Fort De Soto Park 24 Apr (+ J. Clayton). Tree Swallow: 7 very late at International Paper Wetlands (Escambia) 31 May (J. Cal- laway). Field Observations 195 Cliff Swallow: 1 at Fort De Soto Park 28 Mar (B, Ahern); 2 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 29 Mar (M. Manetz, F. Lee, M. O’Sullivan); 17 in Palm Harbor {Pinellas) 12 Apr (J. Wells); 32 at Jim Woodruff Dam/Lake Seminole 15 Apr (R. Cassidy); 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 3 May (A. Zions); 3 at Hone5mioon Island SP 3 May (T. Kalbach); 1 in Clearwater 27 May (T. Kalbach). Cave Swallow: 1 at Gulf Breeze 2 Mar (B. Duncan); 15 at Lake Maggiore (Pinellas) 7 Mar (+R. Smith, E & P Plage et al.); 1 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 29 Mar (M. Manetz, F. Lee, M. O’Sullivan); 1 at Gulf Breeze 12-13 Apr (B. & L. Duncan et ah). Golden-crowned Kinglet: 1 at a St. Petersburg bird bath 2 May (N. Ogden). Veery: 6 at Gainesville 22 Apr-8 May (G. Parks, R. Robinson et aL); 1 salicicola at Gulf Breeze 26 Apr (B. Duncan); 1 at Tallahassee 1 May (F. Rutkovsky). Gray-cheeked Thrush: 5 at Gainesville 27 Apr-9 May (A. Kent, G. Parks et al.); 4 at St. George Island SP 29 Apr (J. Cavanagh). Swainson’s Thrush: 5 at Gainesville 2-9 May (S. Ewing, G. Parks et al.). Wood Thrush: 6 at Gainesville 20 Apr-2 May (S. Ewing, A. Kratter et al.). American Robin: Up to 4 (inch 2 singing males) at Gainesville through EOS (G. Parks, M. Manetz); 2 at Gulf Breeze 31 May (D, Timmons). Bahama Mockingbird: 1 at Key West Tropical Forest & Botanical Garden 24-27 Apr (+F. Grenon). Cedar Waxwing: 40 at South Pasadena (Pinellas) 8 Apr (J. & 1. Gibbons); 220 at Picnic Island Park (Hillsborough) 22 Apr (C, Fisher). Ovenbird: 5 at Garden Key 21 May (D. Doyle). Worm-eating Warbler: 1 tied the latest Pinellas spring record at Bonner Park 13 May (K. Nelson). Louisiana Waterthrush; 1 at John Chesnut Park (Pinellas) 11 Mar (D. Gagne et aL); 3 at Sawgrass Lake Park 16 Mar (+J. Clajdon, S. Tavaglione); 7 at Juniper (Gadsden) 5 Apr (R. Cassidy). Northern Waterthrush: 3 at Garden Key 21 May (D. Doyle); 1 at Gulf Breeze 25 May (B. Duncan), a record late date for the area. Blue-winged Warbler: 1 at Turkey Creek Sanctuary (Brevard) 19 Apr (B, Haddad); 2 at Mead Botanical Garden (Orange) 21 Apr (J. Leavens, R Hueber); 1 at Honeymoon Island SP 21 Apr (E. Kwater, et al.); 1 at Fort De Soto Park 21-22 Apr (+J. Clayton & S. Tavaglione et al.); 1 at Fred Howard Park 21 Apr (+T. Mast). Prothonotary Warbler: 1 at Fort De Soto Park 21 Mar (B. Ahern). Swainson’s Warbler: Up to 6 at Fort De Soto Park 28 Mar~l Apr (E. Plage et al.); 3 at Dunedin Hammock Park 29 Mar (J. Miller, +C. Yilmaz); 1 at Spanish Pond (Duval) 29 Mar (H. Levy); 2-3 at Boca Ciega Millennium Park (Pinellas) 30 Mar-2 Apr (+W. Mee- han et aL); 1 at Sawgrass Lake Park 31 Mar (+J. Clayton); 1 at Central Winds Park (Seminole) 1 Apr (S. Simmons); 1 at Fort De Soto Park 12 Apr (M. Burns); 7 singing at Steinhatchee Springs WMA (Lafayette) 17 Apr ( J. Hintermister, S. Nesbitt). Tennessee Warbler: 1 at Fort Pickens 28 Mar (P. Baker, P. Beasley) provided an early record for the area; 1-3 at Fort De Soto Park 28 Mar-3 Apr (+B. Surman et al.). Orange-crowned Warbler: 1 at Garden Key 2 May (C. Fisher). Nashville Warbler: 1 at Mead Botanical Garden 3 Apr (J. Leavens). Connecticut Warbler: 1 male at Cedar Key (Levy) 6 May (D. Henderson); 1 at Veterans Memorial Park (Okaloosa) 6 May (+P, Pruitt); 1 at Weekiwachee Preserve (Hernando) 7 May (V. Capp); 1 at Waccasassa Bay Preserve (Levy) 16 May (G. Kent, A. Kent); 1 at Boca Ciega Millennium Park 26-28 May (C. Gjervold, J. Cla5rton). Mourning Warbler: 1 at Gulf Breeze 19 Apr (L. Duncan). Kentucky Warbler: 1 at Fort De Soto Park 28 Mar (E. Plage et al); 1 at Honeymoon Island SP 28 Mar (E. Kwater, T. Kalbach et al.); 1 at Honeymoon Island SP 21 Apr (C. Yilmaz & E. Kwater); 1 at Garden Key 2 May (C. Fisher). Hooded Warbler: Up to 7 at Mead Botanical Garden 2 Apr (J. Leavens). 196 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST American Redstart: 1 at Hague 1 Mar (D, Peacock, M. O’Sullivan et aL); 32 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 8 May (M. Manetz, B. Shea, R. Rowan); 3 at Boca Ciega Millen- nium Park 27 May (+J, Clayton). *Kirtland’s Warbler: 1 singing adult male at Lantana Nature Preserve 7 May (+C. Ed- wards). Cape May Warbler: 1 female at Garden Key 21 May (D. Doyle). Cerulean Warbler: 1 at Tallahassee 29 Mar (R. Cassidy); 1-2 at Fort De Soto Park 20-21 Apr (A. Whitlock). Magnolia Warbler: 1 at Lori Wilson Park (Brevard) 28 Apr (P, Mansfield). Yellow Warbler: 1 at Fort Pickens 19 May (J. & B. Callaway); 1 at Gulf Breeze 20 May (L, Duncan). Chestnut-sided Warbler: 1 first seen 12 Dec 2014 (M. Hafner) remained at Fort De Soto Park through 22 Apr (+ m. obs.); 3 at Fort De Soto Park 22 Apr (J. Clayton); 1 at Garden Key 21 May (D. Doyle). Blackpoll Warbler: 20 at Paynes Prairie Preserve SP 8 May (M. Manetz, B. Shea, R. Rowan); 2 at Boca Ciega Millennium Park 27 May (+J. Clayton). Black-throated Blue Warbler: 1 female at Garden Key 21 May (D. Doyle). Palm Warbler: 2 at Key West Tropical Forest & Botanical Garden 24 May (D. Doyle). *“Audubon’s” Yellow-rumped Warbler: 1 male, molting into alternate plumage at Para- dise Park, The Villages Mar 29 (G. Quigley); 1 at Garden Key 2 May (+C. Fisher, K. Knight). Details desired by FOSRC, Prairie Warbler: 36 at Honeymoon Island SP 8 Apr (E. Kwater). Townsend’s Warbler: 1 on Garden Key 26-29 Apr (D. Weidemann, m. obs.). Black-throated Green Warbler: 3 at Lori Wilson Park 28 Apr (P. Mansfield); 1 at Garden Key 21 May (D. Doyle). Yellovz-breasted Chat: 1 early migrant at St. Marks NWR 15 Mar (J. Cavanagh); 1 sing- ing on territory at Eastport Wastelands (Duval) 1-31 May (+K. Dailey). Saefron Finch: 1 in N St. Petersburg 26 Apr (+M. Burns). *Black-faced Grassquit: 1 continuing female at Bahia Honda SP (Monroe) 1-4 Mar (D. Vollmar). Chipping Sparrow: 1 was late at Fort De Soto Park 27 Apr (+D. Tonnessen). Clay-colored Sparrow: 1 at Chattahoochee 15 Apr (R. Cassidy); 2 at Honeymoon Island SP 21 Apr (E. Kwater, C. Yilmaz), provided the first spring Pinellas record. Field Sparrow: 1 at Lower Green Swamp Preserve (Hillsborough) 1 Mar (+C, Fisher). Vesper Sparrow: 1 at Titusville (Brevard) 9 Mar (J. Eager). Lark Sparrow: 1 continued at Peaceful Waters Sanctuary 17 March (m. obs.); 2 at Fort De Soto Park 4 Mar (+W. Meehan, A. Salas & D. Gagne); 1 at Eagle Lake Park (Pinel- las) 16 Mar (+K. Duncan); 1 at Hague to 19 Mar (M. O’Sullivan, L. Davis et aL); 3 at Fort De Soto Park 15 Apr (+J. & I. Gibbons); 1 at Eastport Wastelands 25-26 Apr (+K. Dailey); 1 at Bald Point SP 28 Apr (+J. Murphy). Grasshopper Sparrow: 2 at Boca Ciega Millennium Park 21 Mar (B. Ahern et aL); 1 at Fort De Soto Park 20 Apr (E. Plage, S. Tavaglione, J. Clayton). Le Conte’s Sparrow: 1 at Micanopy (Alachua) to 14 Mar (P. Chaon, R. Rowan et aL). Song Sparrow: 1 was late at St. Marks NWR 29 Apr (J, Cavanagh). Lincoln’s Sparrow: 1 at Possum Branch Preserve (Pinellas) 15 Mar (+J. Swenfurth). Swamp Sparrow: 1 was late at Honeymoon Island SP 3 May (T. Kalbach). White-throated Sparrow: 1 at Garden Key 30 Apr-3 May (C. Fisher, K. Knight). Dark-eyed Junco: 1 at Gulf Breeze 24 Apr (B. & L. Duncan). Summer Tanager: 1 of 2 that wintered remained in Safety Harbor (Pinellas) through 4 Apr (C. Yilmaz); 1 female at Garden Key 7 May (D. Doyle). Scarlet Tanager: 1 early male at Fort De Soto Park 30 Mar (T. Mossbarger, +P. Graber et aL). Field Observations 197 Western Tanager: 1 at High Springs {Alachua) 18 Feb-20 Apr (M. Lynch, J. Lynch et ah); 1 male at Zoo Miami (Miami-Dade) 18 Mar (E. Bugallo). Blue Grosbeak: 1 at Key West Tropical Forest & Botanical Garden 8 May (D. Doyle). *Lazuli Bunting: 1 visiting a private residence in Sarasota 10-22 Mar (m. obs.). Details desired by FOSRC. Indigo Bunting: 1 female at Key West Tropical Forest & Botanical Garden 24 May (D. Doyle). Dickcissel: 5 at Fort De Soto Park 21 Apr (G. Deterra); 1 at Fort De Soto Park 22-25 Apr (+J. Clayton et ah); 22 at Fort Zachary Taylor SP 30 Apr (C. Fisher); 2 males & 1 female along L-31W Canal 1 Mar (Ro. Diaz). Bobolink: 40 at Honeymoon Island SP 25 Apr (T. Kalbach); 1 late at N St. Petersburg 25 May (P. Plage). Eastern Meadowlark: 8 at Tampa International Airport {Hillsborough) 24 May (C. Fisher). Yellow-headed Blackbird: 1 in N Okaloosa 1 May (R Baker, C. Tebay). Rusty Blackbird: 15 at New Smyrna Beach (Volusia) 6 Mar (M. Brothers); up to 26 in Gainesville to 13 Mar (K. Malone, R. Rowan et al.). Brewer’s Blackbird: 1 female at Bayport {Hernando) through 10 Mar (J. Mann). Shiny Cowbird: 1 at Dog Island {Franklin) 1 May (J. Murphy); 1 at Honeymoon Island SP 3 May (+T. Kalbach); 1 male at Lake Apopka NSRA 30-31 May (+B. Sicolo et ah, P. Hueber et al.). Bronzed Cowbird: 1 in E Clearwater 8-13 Mar (+R. & D. Lane, m. obs.). Orchard Oriole: 1 male at Fort De Soto Park 27 Mar (+S. Tavaglione et al.); up to 19 at Fort De Soto Park 1 Apr (J. Whitehead, S. Wilcox, R. Overland). *Bullock’s Oriole: 1 in Gainesville to 1 Mar (A. Kent., S. Goodman et ah). Pine Siskin: At least 6 at Clearwater Lake Restoration Area {Lake) Mar 15 (G. Quigley et al.); 240 at Cantonment {Escambia) 15 Mar (B. & J. Callaway); 20 in Hyde Grove {Duval) 19 Mar (C. Wainwright); 40 at Tallahassee 31 Mar (J. Cavanagh); up to 101 in Alachua through 4 May (R. Robinson et al.). American Goldfinch: 1 at Pace 23 May (D. Stangeland, B. DeArman). Acknowledgments Rex Rowan provided comments that greatly improved an earlier draft of this manuscript. I also thank my predecessor Brian Ahern for his efforts serving the FOC as Chair and state compiler since the Summer 2013 season, and for his guidance in preparing this report. Contributors: Howard Adams, Brian Ahern, IVina Anderson, Fay Baird, Peggy Baker, Pam Beasley, Brad Bergstrom, Peter Bottjer, John Boyd III, Jim Brady, Michael Brothers, Cecil Brown, Matt Bruce, Ezequiel Bugallo, Mark Burns, Jerry & Brenda Callaway, Vince Capp, Aurora Cassidy, Deborah Cassidy, Lydia Cassidy, Rodney Cassidy, Shiloh Cassidy, Jim Cavanagh, Philip Chaon, Kevin Christman, Carolyn Cimino, Peter Clark, JoAnna Clayton, Cindy & Steve Coster, Cameron Cox, Kevin Dailey, Lloyd Davis, Bridgette DeArman, Gail Deterra, Rangel Diaz (Ra. Diaz), Robin Diaz (Ro. Diaz), Bonnie Douglass, Diana Doyle, Jacob Dmcker, Bob & Lucy Duncan, Kathy Duncan, Jim Eager, Del Ehlers, Carl Edwards, Benjamin Ewing, Sam Ewing, Roxanne Featherly, Charles Fisher, Jr., David Foster, David Gagne, Murray Gardler, John & Ivy Gibbons, Jerry Gibson, Colin Gjervold, Marcello Gomes, Steven Goodman, Ted Goodman, Carl Goodrich, Pamela Graber, Francois Grenon, Debbie Grimes, Bill Haddad, Erik Haney, Al & Bev Hansen, Mitchell Harris, Randy Harrod, Vaughan Hedrick, Dale Henderson, Larry Hess, John Hintermister, Ric Hoover, Brian Hope, Pete Hosner, Mark Hughes, 198 FLORIDA FIELD NATURALIST Melissa James, Robin Johnsen, Tim Kalbach, Dave Kandz, Adam Kent, Gina Kent, Katrina Knight, Andy Kratter, Ed Kwater, David Laliberte, Graham Langley, Janet Leavens, Felicia Lee, Charlene Leonard, Bob Lessard, Tony Leukering, Sharon Levins, Heather Levy, Jack Lynch, Mary Lynch, Lome Male, Kathy Malone, Mike Manetz, Larry Manfredi, Jane Mann, Phyllis Mansfield, Paul Mason, Tom Mast, Brace Matasick, Larry McIntosh, Wendy Meehan, Deena Mickelson, Jeff Miller, Tina Mossbarger, Linda Most, John Murphy, Kris Nelson, Steve Nesbitt, Robert Norton, Jeff O'Connell, David O'Keefe, Dennis O'Neil, Matt O’Sullivan, Nancy Ogden, Roberta Overland, Vicky Parker, Warren Parker, Geoff Parks, Dennis Peacock, Eric Plage, Peter Plage, Donald Pridgen, Paul Pruitt, Chris Rasmussen, Bob Richter, Ron Robinson, Dave Roemer, Jean Rolke, Merilu Rose, Rex Rowan, Anne Ruben, Fran Rutkovsky, Arliss Ryan, Allison Salas, Santiago Salazar, Carlos Sanchez, Danny Sauvageau, David Schaffier, Rick Schofield, Debbie Segal, Karen Seward, Barbara Shea, Danny Shehee, Bob Sicolo, Scott Simmons, David Simpson, Marvin Smith, Ron Smith, Daniel Stangeland, Leann Streeper, Barbara Surman, John Swenfurth, Bryan Tarbox, Sue Tavaglione, Betsy Tetlow, Christine Thibodeau, Joe Thomasson, Larry Tilley, Dana Timmons, Tom Tompkins, David Tonnessen, David True, Michael Vasi, Dennis Volmar, Carly Wainwright, Barbara Walker, Don & Carol Ware, Chuck Weber, Doug Weidemann, Jim Wells, Debbie White, John Whitehead, Audrey Whitlock, Sharon Wilcox, Mike Williams, Stu Wilson, Keenan Yakota, Cecile & Morris Yarrow, CuneytYilmaz, Susan Young, Teri Zambon, Adam Zions, Report prepared by Kevin E» Dailey, state compiler (6661 Beatrix Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32226, ). Regional compilers are Bruce H, Anderson (2917 Scarlet Road, Winter Park, Florida 32792, ), Robin Diaz (200 Ocean Lane Drive #PB~1, Key Biscayne, Florida 33149, ), Bob and Lucy Duncan (614 Fairpoint Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561, ), Charlie Ewell (115 SW 51st Terrace, Cape Coral, Florida 33991, ), Bev Hansen (6573 Pine Meadows Drive, Spring Hill, Florida 34606, ), John Murphy (766 Alligator Drive, Alligator Point, Florida 32346, ), and Ron Smith (1500 85th Avenue North, St, Petersburg, Florida 33702, ). FLORroA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. TREASURER'S REPORT - 2014 Account balances as of December 31, 2014: Account Balance Fidelity Account $181,258.84 PayPal Account 1,602.06 Petty Cash 51.46 Total Assets $182,912.36 Sales Tax Liability (88.83) Net Assets $182,823.53 Fund balances as of December 31, 2014: Fund Balance General Operating Fund $53,121.34 Special Publications Fund 33,609.36 Cruickshank Fund 43,889.34 Robertson Fund 19,159.88 Endowment Fund 31,551.81 Friends of FFN 1,491.80 Total Assets $182,823.53 2014 Income and Expenses: Income Amount Expenses Amount Annual Membership Dues $9,554.04 FFN Printing $8,689.01 Life Membership Dues 1,000.00 FFN Color Printing — Interest/Asset Change in Value 11,675.04 Postage & Shipping 524.41 Page Charges 1,025.00 Operating Expenses 816.75 Meetings 2014 6,535.00 Meetings 2014 6,359.99 Special Publication Sales 1,356.25 Records Committee 1,009.92 Back Issue Sales Cruickshank Award 2,426.00 Operating Income Robertson Award Gifts General Operating Fund 1,162.50 Space Coast Festival- FOS table 180.00 Gifts Cruickshank Fund 309.50 Special Publication No. 8 4,307.76 Gifts Robertson Fund 234.50 Gifts Endowment Fund 142.00 Gifts Friends of FFN 952.00 Total $33,945.83 Total $24,313.84 Change in Net Assets: Totals Balance Net Assets December 31, 2013 $173,191.55 Total Income 2014 33,945.83 Total Expenses 2014 (24,313.84) Net Assets December 31, 2014 $182,823.54 Charles H. Fisher, Jr., Treasurer, 4806 West Beach Park Drive, Tampa, FL 33609 199 BE A FRIEND OF FFN Florida Field Naturalist is the journal of FOS, an important communication vehicle for the Florida scientific and birding community. Increasing costs need to be offset with a combination of member dues and contributions. Please consider a donation of $50, $100, $200 or more to FRIENDS OF FFN. Your gift will allow FFN to improve its artwork, including four- color photographs of rarities similar to the one of the state’s first Varied Bunting, published in the February 2006 issue, and other improvements in the content and appearance of our journal. Contributions to FRIENDS OF FFN will be added to a special endowment of FOS, the interest of which will be used to improve the journal. Please write a check payable to the Florida Ornithological Society and specify that the gift is for FOS Friends of FFN. Send your check to the Treasurer: Charles H. Fisher, Jr., c/o Reilly, Fisher & Solomon PA, 4950 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 610, Tampa, FL 33609. E-mail: chflshercpa@hotmail.com We thank the following generous donors for contributing to FRIENDS OF FFN: 2010 David Hartgrove Brian Ahern Robert Budliger 2011 David Hartgrove William Post R. Todd Engstrom Anthony White Robert Budliger John M. Murphy Vincent McGrath Michael Brothers Reed & M3rra Noss 2012 James E. Cavanagh, Jr, Silvio Crespo, Jr. Robin Diaz David Hartgrove Larry Hribar John M. Murphy Billi Wagner William Post Anthony White Robert Budliger Theodore H. Below 2013 Silvio Crespo, Jr. Larry Hribar Mary Landsman John Murphy Robin Diaz Andrew Kratter Robert & Lucy Duncan Michael Brothers James E. Cavanagh, Jr. Robert Budliger Tim Towles Nancy Prine 2014 Stephen Gross William Courser David Hartgrove John Murphy Robin Diaz Larry Hribar Wilfred Yusek Silvio Crespo, Jr. James E. Cavanagh, Jr. Kevin & Marie Dailey St Johns River WMD (In Memory of Judy Bryan) Richard L. West Billi Wagner William Post John L. Wuepper Michael Brothers Wade Nolan Ann Paul Anthony White Stuart R. Wilson James E. Cavanagh, Jr. Silvio Crespo, Jr. Kevin & Marie Dailey Robin Diaz Todd Engstrom David Hartgrove Larry Hribar Dennis Meritt William Post Nancy A. Prine 2015 James E. Cavanagh, Jr. Silvio Crespo, Jr. Kevin & Marie Dailey Robin Diaz Todd Engstrom David Hartgrove Larry Hribar Dennis Meritt William Post Nancy A. Prine 200 SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY M. C. Bowman. 1978. Species Index to Florida Bird Records itk Audubon Field Notes and American Birds, Volumes 1-30, 1947-1967. Florida Ornithological Society Special Publication No. 1. xii + 43 pages. $4. J. A. Cox. 1987. Status and Distribution of the Florida Scrub Jay. Florida Ornithological Society Special Publication No. 3. vii + 110 pag- es. $8. R. W. Loftin, G. E. Woolfenden, and J. A. Woolfenden. 1991. Florida Bird Records in American Birds Bxtd Audubon Field Notes (1947- 1989); Species Index and County Gazetteer. Florida Ornithological Society Special Publication No. 4. xiv + 99 pages. $8. R. W. Loftin. 1991. West Indian Bird Records in American Birds and Audubon Field Notes (1947-1990); Species Index by Islands. Flor- ida Ornithological Society Special Publication No. 5. ix + 90 pages. $8. W. B. Robertson, Jr. and G. E. Woolfenden. 1992. Florida Bird Species; An Annotated List. Florida Ornithological Society Special Publication No. 6. ix + 260 pages. FOS members: $15 soft cover, $20 hard cover; Non-members: $18 soft cover, $23 hard cover. G. E. Woolfenden, W. B. Robertson, Jr., and J. Cox. 2006. The Breeding Birds of Florida. Florida Ornithological Society Special Publication No. 7. ii + 142 pages. $12. J. S. Greenlaw, B. Pranty, and R. Bowman. 2014. The Robertson and Woolfenden Florida Bird Species; An Annotated List. Florida Or- nithological Society Special Publication No. 8. viii + 435 pages. $24. To order Special Publications: Please send a check payable to the Florida Ornithological Society to the Treasurer: Charles H. Fisher, Jr. c/o Reilly, Fisher & Solomon PA 4950 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 610 Tampa, FL 33609 E-mail; chflshercpa@hotmail.com For Special Publication Number 8 only, there is a flat price of $24, which includes tax and shipping. For all other Special Publications, your check should include the price given in the list above plus tax and shipping as determined here: Shipping: Add $2 shipping for 1-5 copies; $4 for 6-10 copies. Sales Tax: Florida residents add the sales tax for the county in which the Special Publications will be delivered. Calculate the sales tax based on the total cost of the special publications plus shipping. 201 . ■•.■;!rf:>!")HaA5TCK» J.^>tl'H/i5lO .'• ‘ ^ - ~.5' : ' . -f. ;"r.r ,.(> fj, -iV^Ovtil ■rtfir'i,. U '^^.v V-iifiW ->v.r^h-.r. Sisrf^ .■■-•* ' u); ,1,. iVk^rKii- ;*» . ■ > .<*!.<> rv: ■ -t '.srAI ■/• tf, gohllrtAt' .'i 1l;..;L!!^^; ■' ' ' ■ -••'■ •‘^*’- l/'V,-^?. ■ .'.f V ..f .i; .rrU .51 • V r.^ i V ir *^d§|NH 'C4>^r' ■ ‘1 ^ X- -'I ' tl|l|dOll .Tjvtxj ^M. n'iifi:t'iMk>il «ii V ;;i. v-, s-.n, . '■-*-»•• 1. ioiifa a"®;.,'* '" .-*• y •, ■ " . X ■i'tif srt» Vvft3*l tVMlItaii- i<^4 Wrn* , ^»a sa*.<*CWv®.ift . - _ i«S .^rMi DPNt4iT^«j;t|Crr.y:r^, „ ' ‘ ' •■' . .- » t. ^ ,*»■ 0 .Tn .r.fjfS^Tkf^ Id / . Mi ' ■’* ' ,s ,if t ^ ij . , -'.-.'•jO ,(f ^dt^^swD ^ .t M n'-.r!<\H fT^TOiHli^W" > r. I i. ‘Ul ♦ WJ T”ir»PW'^ f* • * i '■I ■ . • ' ' r ‘ i ii >\ J\ 1 AtMSIolDiiiit^^ ’* -' ' '"^' ~ i ^ ^UfixMki i > Vi )!:r - '•> I'i Miiwl' i > ;i!Hni-li .>1 i.''?.f ».V5 ] • i ‘W"'i .^n ; W-’ ' V ‘ ’ , t/* ■'*’'■■: ','44.. • ^ ? fl'Ji l‘.r , ' ! Mi,P )r'f} t^ W *^E''Tvii>r3‘^ :';>(ti<’y^^frf.H 5^}?. I ' V, ; yjn j HT J 4>rlj. »v», i-‘ ^ fOUiMR *hi -iSP> ?v ./A Prtu^ Florida Field Naturalist ISSN 0738^999X PUBLISHED BY THE FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY Editor; Scott Robinson, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, P.O» Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800. E-mail: srobmson@flmnh.ufl.edu Managing/Copy Editor; Tom Webber, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800. E-mail: twebber@flmnh.ufl.edu Associate Editor (for bird distribution); Bruce Anderson, 2917 Scarlet Road, Winter Park, FL 32792. E-mail: scizortail@aol.com Editor of the FOS newsletter, Snail Kite; Selena Kiser, 1740 Augustine Place, Tallahassee, FL 32301. E-mail: beenebat@netscape.net Editor of Special Publications; Jerome A. Jackson, Florida Gulf Coast University, 10501 FGCU Blvd. South, Ft. Myers, FL 33965. E-mail: jjackson@fgcu,edu Web Page Editor; Eugene Stoccardo, 331 Roswell Ave., Orlando, FL 36803. E-mail: Garberia@hotmaiLcom INFORAIATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS Florida Field Naturalist is a refereed journal emphasizing biological field studies and observations of vertebrates, especially birds, in or near Florida and the nearby West Indies. We welcome submission of original manuscripts containing new information from these areas. We encourage electronic submission of manuscripts. Please consult recent issues of the journal and the FOS website (http://www.fosbirds.org/content/ffn- article-submission-guidelines) for style, noting especially that manuscripts should: (1) be double-spaced throughout, including tables and figure captions; (2) include the scientific name at the first mention of each species; (3) include capitalized standard English names for all birds, but lower case for English names of other organisms; (4) use metric units for all measurements; (5) use the form “7 June 2003” for all dates; (6) use the 24-hour clock for all indications of time (e.g., 0800, 1400); (7) use the following abbreviations: s (second), min (minute), h (hour); (8) use active voice where at all possible. Submit manuscripts, and books for review, to the Editor, Scott Robinson, Monograph- length manuscripts may be submitted for consideration to Jerome A. Jackson, Editor of Special Publications. Field observations should be sent to the compiler of the Field Observations Committee, Brian Ahern (barredantshrike@gmaiLcom; see Field Observations, this issue). Reports of birds for which the FOS Records Committee requires documentation (see http://fosbirds.org/content/records-committee) should be sent to the Secretary of the Committee, Jon S. Greenlaw, 10503 Mistflower Lane, Tampa, FL 33647- 3544; E-mail: jgreenlaw@earthlink.net SMITHSONIAN LIBRARIES 3 9088 01865 8930 Florida Field Naturalist PUBLISHED BY THE FLORIDA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY VoL. 43, No. 4 November 2015 Pages 139-201 CONTENTS ARTICLES Accuracy assessment of a Jay Watch post-reproductive survey of Florida Scrub- Jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Karl E. Miller, Craig A, Faulhaher, and Jay O. Garcia. ............... 139-147 A temporal analysis of a single live oak tree’s bird community in central Florida during autumn warbler migration Michael C. Hughes, Jessica L. Logue, and Sheila Prabhakar .......... 148-159 Status and distribution of the Pin-tailed Whydah {Vidua macroura) in Florida Bill Pranty and Valeri Ponzo 160-166 Recent trends in House Sparrow {Passer domesticus) distribution and abundance in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida Jessica L. Burnett and Michael P Moulton 167-172 Oregon Junco {Junco hyemalis oreganus group) in Pasco County: First Florida record, and first summer record of any junco in Florida Bill Pranty, David Gagne, and Gail A. Deterra ...................... 173-178 Roosting sites of a Florida bonneted bat {Eumops floridanus) Jeffery A. Gore, Mark S. Robson, Ricardo Zambrano, and Nancy J. Douglass 179-184 Second record of a natural Florida bonneted bat {Eumops floridanus) roost in a longleaf pine {Pinus palustris) Emily N. Angell and Greg Thompson ............................. 185-188 FIELD OBSERVATIONS Spring Report: March-May 2015 Kevin Dailey. TREASURER’S REPORT;Vr'i>' ■ Charles H. Fisher, Jr. ANNOUNCEMENTS ’ Friends of FFN. ; . FOS Special Publications 189-198 ... 199 ... 200 ... 201