Skip to main content

Full text of "Living bird"

See other formats 


ake 
rete Bs 


Fos BE orgs 
Siete Sag edie 


anes 


Pct 
ae Arter s Sa 
FE pe * Coat 
he oy 


Ford, 
o ap § 


aes - ale 


fru S. SSS. pt 
aed ee PP Pe 
Right 
ae ete 
ei ame et a4 
OF wt! dana eon 
Pageie gt Bath y irvie 
asa ip ees 4 Le art 
eee Pp Sac o> otf 5 wy ts 
Fe IT abe ; sg ~ 


ie Penis es 


ae wd. Pe 
Sos 

Feet ae 

TEAS tt 











CORNELL 
LAB of ORNITHOLOGY 





be ee 
LIBRARY 


at Sapsucker Woods 
a 


Illustration of Bank Swallow by Louis Agassiz Fuertes 








ORNITH 
(Gm 
G7 
L.7s\ 
y4-5S 

1985-86 





<n ceaaeaen 

















































































































eo ED 














W 


Winter 1985 
Volume 4. Number | 


THELIVING BIRD 





EDITORIAL STAFF 


Jill Crane, Editor 

Kathleen Dalton, Design Director 
Richard E. Bonney, Jr., Associate Editor 
Charles R. Smith, Technical Editor 
Steven C. Sibley, Editorial Assistant 
Maureene Stangle, Publications Assistant 


LABORATORY STAFF 


Charles Walcott, Executive Director 
Michele M. Barclay, Bookshop 
Gregory S. Butcher, Cooperative 
Research Program 

Tom J. Cade, Director, Raptor Research 
Jill Crane, The Living Bird Quarterly 
Lang Elliott, Photography 

James L. Gulledge, Library of 
Natural Sounds 

Diane Johnson, Administration 
Thomas S. Litwin, Seatuck Research 
Steven C. Sibley, Library 

Charles R. Smith, Public Education 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


Hamilton E Kean 

T. Spencer Knight 

John D. Leggett, Jr. 

G. Michael McHugh 
Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 
Charles E. Treman, Jr. 
Charles D. Webster 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


James W. Spencer, Chairman 
Morton S. Adams 
Robert Barker 
William G. Conway 
Alan Crawford, Jr. 
Robert G. Engel 
Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 
Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 
Thomas M. Hampson 
Imogene P. Johnson 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in January, 
April, July, and October by the Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell 
University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. 
Telephone: (607) 256-5056. The Living Bird Quarterly is free to members 
of the Laboratory. For information concerning back issues please write to 
our Membership Department. © 1985 Cornell 

University Laboratory of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

‘Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N.Y. 


FRONT COVER. Outside— White storks, Alsace, France. Protected by 
the superstition that they bring luck, white storks nest on roofs from 
Holland to the Balkans. Photograph by M. P. Kahl (Black Star). 
Inside—Black-capped chickadee by Lynn Rogers. 

BACK COVER. Outside—Common murtes. Photograph by Stephen J. 
Krasemann/DRK Photo. Inside— Northern cardinal by Robert Copple. 

















10 


14 


16 


22 


26 


Breath of Vulcan 
James L. Hayward 


When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, the effects 
were felt by wildlife over 200 miles away. James 
Hayward explains what happened to a Washington 
gull colony when the volcano blasted millions of 
tons of pulverized rock into the air. 


The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


Oh, Them Golden Slippers 
Steven C. Sibley 


Steven Sibley gives us some answers to the question— 
Why are there so many different kinds of bird feet? 


The Biggest Day 
Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


For the crack birding team from the Laboratory of 
Ornithology, last year’s laid-back approach to the 
New Jersey Audubon Society’s birdathon will be 
replaced by this year’s all-out birding assault. 


Binoculars for Birders 
Pete Dunne 


Inveterate birder Pete Dunne tells what to look for 
when purchasing binoculars for birding and gives us 
the results of his tests on the leading brands. 


Research & Review 


News & Notes 


Resplendent Quetzal 
Anne LaBastille 


Anne LaBastille describes her research into the biology 
and behavior of quetzals and her conservation efforts 
on behalf of this magnificent and imperiled bird. 








Mount St. Helens eruption had far-reaching effects. At right, ring-billed gull excavates its ash-covered nest in a colony 200 miles away. 


= Breath of Vulcan 


James L. Hayward 


JAMES MASON (BLACK STAR) 


HAT HAPPENS to a colony 

of gulls when a volcano erupts 

200 miles away, spreading a 

blanket of ash over nests and 
eggs? I was in the position to find out; 
I was studying a gull colony that day in 
1980 when Mount St. Helens blasted 
millions of tons of pulverized rock into 
the air. 

My research had taken me to Sprague 
Lake, near Spokane, Washington, 
where I was monitoring factors influ- 
encing breeding success in ring-billed 
gulls nesting alongside California gulls. 
I had just completed censusing the col- 
ony when I suddenly became a partic- 
ipant in a major geological event. 

May 18 had begun pleasantly enough. 
The sky was clear, the air inviting. A 
calm lake mirrored the azure canopy. 
But at 11:30 a.m. the tranquil mood 
was broken when a broad, dark cloud 
began closing in from the southwest. 
Inclement weather was not unusual; 
spring storms are common in the east- 
ern Washington scablands. The ap- 
proaching cloud looked like one from 
which a tornado had emerged the pre- 
vious week. But this was no ordinary 
cloud. Two hundred miles to the south- 
west Mount St. Helens was erupting 
and three hours later, when volcanic 
ash fell like plaster of Paris, I made a 
hasty retreat into my cabin. 

Experiencing a volcanic eruption was 
both exciting and frightening. Radio 
reports warned that driving in the ash 
spelled doom for automobile engines. 
Conflicting rumors on ash toxicity were 
issued hourly and breathing outdoors 


without inhaling the fine, siliciferous 
fallout was impossible. No one knew 
how long the mountain would fume 
and visions of carnage wrought by 
Mounts Vesuvius and Katmai played on 
my mind. After an afternoon of dark- 
ness | retired, unsure what the morning 
would bring. 

Soon after dawn I awoke relieved to 
see daylight. The air was dust laden, 
but the ashfall was over. No insects 
flew. No birds sang. Carp gasped for air 
at the surface of the turbid lake. 

I returned to the gull colony which 
now resembled a moonscape. A dusty 
gray pall draped the once green island. 
The colony had been buried beneath 
an inch and a quarter of ash. The gulls 
were on their territories, but a confused 
maze of tracks covering the area outside 
the colony indicated that it had been 
abandoned during the ashfall. Such a 
mass exodus was surprising because gulls 
usually remain on their nests even dur- 
ing the most severe weather. 

As I approached, the birds flew up, 
circled and landed in a silent panic 
flight. This group response typically is 
given when aerial or nocturnal preda- 
tors threaten, but was an unusual re- 
action to my presence in broad day- 


Winter/ 1985 


JAMES L. HAYWARD 





BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 





E. R. DEGGINGER (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 


DIGGING FOSSILS 


he living world is dynamic and 

ever-changing. Habitats shift, 

new species arise, others be- 

come extinct. Less than 1 per- 

cent of the species which have 
ever made a debut on our planet are 
alive today. To understand the history 
of life we must turn to the geologic 
record where an impressive, though 
fragmentary, pageant is preserved in 
fossil form. 

To the frustration of ornithologists, 
fragile bird bones and eggs disinte- 
grate and rarely fossilize. For want of 
fossil specimens, we understand less 
about ancient birds than any other 
vertebrate group. So when discov- 
ered, fossil birds and eggs fill signifi- 
cant gaps in our knowledge of avian 
ancestry. For example, some re- 
searchers have questioned whether the 
ancestors of ducks resembled shore- 
birds or grouse. Fossils from Wyoming 
show that there once lived a bird with 
a bill like a duck and legs like a shore- 
bird. This evidence suggests that duck 
forebears were similar to shorebirds. 
Also, the structure of fossil eggshells 





LT A ESL TR ORE IT ES RE RL EL 


may provide clues about the types of 
habitats used by extinct birds. 

Some of the world’s finest fossil beds 
consist of ancient volcanic ash deposits 
in which fossil birds’ eggs occasionally 
are found. James Hayward and 
Charles Amlaner felt that some of the 
nests and eggs buried at the Sprague 
Lake gull colony after Mount St. Hel- 
ens erupted in 1980 might have re- 
mained intact beneath the ash blan- 
ket. If so, the colony could serve as a 
model to further an understanding of 
factors influencing egg fossilization. 
Usually insights into this process are 
not achieved by direct observation but 
are inferred by examining the sur- 
rounding sediments—a less accurate 
approach. 

Equipped more like paleontologists 
than ornithologists, Hayward and Am- 
laner returned to the colony 14 months 
following the ashfall. After selecting a 
promising site, they began to dig for 
buried nests, eggs and associated ma- 
terials. 

They soon found what they were 
looking for. Several ash-buried nests 
contained complete clutches. In some 
nests preservation was almost perfect, 
though the eggs were hollow. All pre- 
served eggs and nests found were those 
of ring-billed gulls. The ash had eroded 
from higher regions of the colony 
where California gulls had nested, 
making preservation unlikely. Most 
preserved ring-billed gull nests were 
in lower areas where ash from higher 
terrain had settled. Future paleontol- 
ogists might interpret this record to 
mean no California gulls nested at this 
colony. This illustrates how inference 
can be misleading, and underscores 
the importance of using present-day 
models as aids in interpreting the past. 

In addition to eggs, Hayward and 
Amlaner found small rodent bones and 
teeth, the undigestible portions of the 
gulls’ prey. Bird bones, beetle shells 
and vegetation fragments also were 
unearthed. Clearly gulls and other 
predators serve as accumulators of 
biological material for potential fossil- 
ization. 

Hayward is continuing his probe into 
the egg fossilization process. He hopes 
his experiments will reveal what hap- 
pens to eggs when they are placed in 
flowing water, a common transporter 
of remains before they fossilize. Also, 
long-term experimental burial of eggs 
beneath various sediment types may 
clarify the physical and chemical 
changes that accompany fossilization. 

The eruption of Mount St. Helens, 
for all its devastation, may help re- 
searchers unearth valuable informa- 
tion about the poorly understood pro- 
cess of fossilization. 








6 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


light. The events of the previous 24 
hours apparently made these animals 
excitable. 

The birds appeared surprisingly 
healthy, except that more than half the 
California gulls showed signs of con- 
junctivitis: swollen eyelids, crusty 
feathers around the eyes, higher than 
normal rate of blinking. No ring-bills 
had this affliction and I assumed that 
something in each species’ behavior ac- 
counted for the difference. 

To my surprise, many of the gulls had 
uncovered their nests. Nest excavation 
continued for a few more days and on 
May 21 I determined that 70 percent 
of the California gull nests and 40 per- 
cent of the ring-billed gull nests had 
been uncovered. After that, no further 
excavation occurred. By June 27 nearly 
all of the nonexcavated ring-billed gull 
nests had been replaced by new nests, 
which apparently were built by gulls 
failing to excavate their nests. Some of 
the new nests were built directly over 
the buried nests, others were located 
outside the colony. Only a few of the 
nonexcavated California gull nests were 
replaced by new nests. 

The percentage of excavated ring- 
billed gull nests varied depending on 
the habitat. The largest number exca- 
vated were in a rocky beach area and 
in sparse vegetation. The ash had not 
altered the major topographic features 
in these habitats, so the birds found 
their nest sites easily. However, in tall 
rye grass and in low dense vegetation, 
ash-laden vegetation was forced over 
nests making them difficult to find and 
uncover. Virtually all of the California 
gulls nested in sparse vegetation, where 
nests were easy to find. This partially 
explains why nearly twice as many Cal- 
ifornia as ring-billed gulls excavated 
their nests. 

Burial did not seem to affect the 
hatchability of the eggs as long as they 
were completely excavated. The morn- 
ing after the ashfall I found three ring- 
billed and two California gull chicks, 
the first young of the season. The ash 
apparently had only minor impact on 
chicks. Had the eruption occurred one 
or two weeks later, chick mortality 
probably would have been very high. 

During the 1980 season I never saw 
gulls actually excavating. Therefore, 





Left: fossil bird from the Eocene epoch. 
Right: two years after eruption, new growth 
offsets the desolate, ash-covered landscape. 


ow 


Fhe te inecen, 


= 


ane Oe 


ai 
eked 
el oak eee 
az Sz “ “~ 











Ring-billed gull examines its ash-covered nest. 
Whether or not a gull excavated its nest 
depended primarily on habitat; buried nests in 
sparse vegetation were easier to find than 
nests built among tall or dense vegetation. 


the next year I wanted to discover how 
this process occurred. Despite my pes- 
simism, the ashfall did not discourage 
nesting at the colony during the 1981 
season. In fact, numbers of nests for 
both species were close to those of the 
previous year. 

When I returned to the site I se- 
lected 15 nests of each species, each 
with three eggs. To simulate the results 
of the previous year’s ashfall, I depos- 
ited one and a quarter inches of clean 
ash on each nest and recorded the gulls’ 
reactions from a blind some distance 
away. 

The ring-billed gulls responded to 
the disturbance in an agitated manner. 
Upon returning to the nest, they spent 
several minutes wandering around, fre- 
quently looking down as if searching 
for their eggs. The California gulls 
seemed less confused and proceeded to 
excavate more directly. Members of 
both species preened more than usual 
and arranged bits of vegetation as they 
do during nest building. These are the 
same activities the birds engage in when 
their eggs are removed experimentally 
from their nests. 

Members of both species had two 
methods of excavation. In one the bird 
used its breast as a fulcrum while kick- 
ing ash back and out of the nest with 
its feet. By turning, the gull was able 
to hollow out a bowl-shaped depression 
containing the eggs. This is the way 
gulls form depressions for their nests at 
the start of the breeding season. 

In the other, less common method 
the bird penetrated the ash with its 
beak and lifted the buried eggs up and 


8 The Living Bird Quarterly 


back out of the ash. This is the method 
gulls use to retrieve eggs that roll out 
of their nests. California gulls used bill 
digging more frequently than the ring- 
bills. As I watched from my blind, one 
California gull got ash in its eye while 
digging. In response it rubbed its eye 
on its wing and showed an increase in 
blinking. Perhaps bill digging was re- 
sponsible for the conjunctivitis among 
California gulls I noted after the 
eruption. 

Forty percent of the experimentally 
covered ring-billed and 80 percent of 
the California gull nests were exca- 
vated, percentages very close to those 
of the previous year. This gave me con- 
fidence that my experimental condi- 
tions resembled the real ones. 

The Sprague Lake gull colony was 
not the only one affected by the ashfall. 
Don Miller at Washington State Uni- 
versity, Pullman, visited two other col- 
onies and found that the degree of im- 
pact correlated with ash depth. A 
colony at Banks Lake which received 
only a quarter of an inch of ash was 
unaffected. By contrast, a colony at 
Potholes Reservoir blanketed by three 
inches of ash had only four ring-billed 
and 200 California chicks on July 4. 
Normally thousands of chicks of both 
species are present on this date. 

Virtually all organisms within the 
area were affected by the ashfall. G. S. 
Butcher reported that following the 
ashfall breeding northern orioles dis- 
appeared from the Yakima area, 80 miles 
northeast of the mountain. At Turn- 
bull National Wildlife Refuge, 230 


miles from the mountain, duckling 





production dropped 40 percent. The 
U.S. Forest Service reported that the 
entire population of spotted owls in an 
area just north of Mount St. Helens 
was wiped out. Certainly countless 
other birds were destroyed in the im- 
mediate blast area. 

Insects may have suffered dispropor- 
tionately compared with other orga- 
nisms because of their small size and 
susceptibility to drying up, and since 
insects are food for many animals, their 
declines probably influenced popula- 
tions of numerous other creatures. 

However, nature exhibited remark- 
able resilience in the face of its own 
destruction and it is doubtful that 
Washington’s wildlife will suffer per- 
manently from the 1980 eruption. Ex- 
cept for the blast area, evidence of the 
event was barely perceptible one year 
later. 

Volcanoes and other natural catas- 
trophes have punctuated the Earth’s 
history since the first dawn, but we are 
only beginning to understand how such 
events influence the biology of non- 
human organisms. @>~ 


FURTHER READING 


Findley, Rowe. “Mount St. Helens.” National 
Geographic. January, 1981. 

. “The Mountain That Was and Will 
Be.” National Geographic. December, 1981. 
Hayward, James L., Don E. Miller and Calvin 
R. Hill. “Mount St. Helens ash: its impact on 
breeding ring-billed and California gulls.” The 
Auk, vol. 99, pp. 623-631. 





THE AUTHOR 


James Hayward is an associate professor of biol- 
ogy at Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska. 


JAMES L. HAYWARD 





Warbler Record Album 
Available Now 





Warblers of Nk eaica The Crows Nest Bookshop 


A new recording by William Gunn and Donald Title On” ieee 
Borror, produced by the Laboratory of 
Ornithology’s Library of Natural Sounds. Contains 
281 examples of primary songs and major variants 
for the 57 North American species. Accompanying 
booklet discusses and identifies each song and is 
illustrated with sonagrams. A unique and 
indispensable recording for those interested in 
these fascinating songbirds. 

















Amount of order 





N.Y. State residents add 7% sales tax 
Postage and handling 275 
Total amount enclosed 


Form of payment: 0 Check O Money Order O VISA O | Manet 











3-record set (12”) or 2-cassette set. 
Records No. 1893/$34.95/$3 1.46 members Card # Expir. Date 
Cassettes No. 1894/$34.95/$31.46 members : . 








Signature 


Kirtland’s Warbler s 


The Natural History of an Endangered ae — 














LAWRENCE H. WALKINSHAW City State Zip 
Infor ee study on the biology and behavior of Make checks or money orders payable to The Crow’s Nest 
Kirtland s warbler dur ing its summer stay in Bookshop. Send to: The Crow’s Nest Bookshop, Laboratory 
Michigan. Includes life histories of individual birds — of Ornithology, Cornell University, Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, 
and a detailed examination of the effects of New York 14850. (607) 256-5057 


cowbird parasitism on the population. 


1983, paper, 207 pages No. 2310/$11.95/$10.76 members : 


Wood Warblers’ World 


HAL H. HARRISON 


Attractive book on the life histories of 53 species of 
North American wood warblers. Illustrated with 
color and black-and-white photographs of all 
species, with range maps and information on 
habitat, breeding range, nests and eggs, song, 
breeding and nest behavior and more. 


1984, cloth, 335 pages. No. 2335/$19.95/$17.96 members 


. 








OH, THEM 


GOLDEN SLIPPERS 


ONSIDER A BIRD’S FOOT: it 

may be long or short, stout or 

thin, yellow, green, black or pink. 

It may be small and weak or large 
and strong. It may have short, webbed 
toes, long, thin toes or sharp, curved 
talons. 

The diversity in the shapes, sizes, 
and colors of bird feet is no accident. 
Each type represents an adaptation for 
survival. Just as a finch’s strong, stubby 
bill is designed to open seeds and a 
falcon’s long, pointed wings help the 
bird overtake its prey, a bird’s feet have 
evolved to help it meet the challenges 
imposed by its particular way of life. 

In some ways all birds’ feet are alike; 
most have four toes and a similar skel- 
etal structure. Surprisingly, nearly all 
birds stand not on the bottoms of their 
feet, but on their toes. What looks like 
the lower leg is the upper part of the 
foot—corresponding to the human in- 
step—and what looks like a backwards 
knee is really the heel. On all except 
long-legged birds such as herons and 
shorebirds, the true leg is hidden by 
feathers. Birds’ foot bones are fused, as 
are many other bones in their skeleton, 
an adaptation that makes them lighter 
for flight. 

Modern birds don’t look like the 
scaly-skinned reptiles they descended 
from millions of years ago. Most of a 
bird’s skin surface is covered with feath- 


Steven C. Sibley 


ers, which are thought to have evolved 
from scales. However, scales and leath- 
ery, reptile-like skin still can be seen 
on birds’ feet. This tough surface en- 
ables birds to walk on rocks, sand, mud 
and vegetation. Another reptilian 
characteristic, claws, are specialized 
scales at the end of each toe. Claws 
grow continuously and are worn down 
during running, walking, scratching 
and perching. 

Scales, skin and claws, however, 
don’t protect the feet from temperature 
extremes. If you’ve ever seen a heron 
wading on a cold winter day or a duck 
standing on ice, you may have won- 
dered how they keep their feet warm. 
Foot warming is achieved through a 
system called counter-current ex- 
change: warm blood going to the toes 
flows past cold blood returning from 
the toes, warming the cold blood on its 


way back to the body. All birds have a 








counter-current heat exchange system, 
which not only keeps their feet from 
freezing, but prevents the body from 
being chilled. 

While birds’ feet show many simi- 
larities, it is the differences that are 
most apparent. Let’s look at some dif- 
ferent types of feet and consider how 
they are adapted for their owners’ 
survival. 

The most common type of bird foot 
is the perching (passerine) foot. Pas- 
serines include all songbirds and many 
other species, such as the common crow. 
This foot has three toes pointing for- 
ward and one backward. All are at the 
same level and move easily so the bird 
can grip a branch, twig, or grass stem. 
Such feet are well-adapted for passer- 
ines since they spend much of their 
time perched in vegetation. 

Other birds, including ground- 
dwellers such as pheasants and turkeys, 
have the fourth toe raised so it won’t 
get in the way when the bird walks, 
runs or scratches in the ground while 
searching for food. Still other birds, 
such as woodpeckers, have two toes 
pointing forward and two backward 
making it easier for them to cling to 
the surface of a tree trunk. 

Bird toes come in all sizes. Some are 
very short and weak, such as those of 
the chimney swift, which spends most 
of its time in the air. Others are quite 


Left: snowy egret. Photo by John Shaw. Above: purple gallinule. Photo by John Bova (Photo Researchers, Inc.) 





long. The purple gallinule has ex- 
tremely lengthy toes which act as 
snowshoes, distributing the bird’s 
weight over a large area. This allows a 
gallinule to walk across lily pads with- 
out sinking. Other marshbirds, such as 
herons and rails, also have elongated 
toes which keep the birds from sinking 
into the mud while they feed. 

Most swimming birds have webbed 
toes which help propel the birds through 
the water. The amount of webbing var- 
ies: pelicans have all four toes joined 
by webbing (totipalmate). Water- 
fowl—ducks, geese and swans—have 
three toes joined (palmate). Several 
shorebirds such as the willet have a 
small amount of webbing connecting 
three toes. This type of foot is known 
as semipalmate, hence the names semi- 
palmated plover and semipalmated 
sandpiper. Most shorebirds don’t swim, 
but it is possible that ancestral shore- 
birds did and that the webbing on mod- 
ern shorebird feet is vestigial. Another 
variation on webbing is the lobed toes 
of grebe and coot feet. 

Some feet are lethal weapons. The 
raptors—hawks, eagles, ospreys, fal- 
cons, and owls— must kill and eat other 
animals for sustenance, and their pow- 
erful feet and long, curved, needlelike 
talons are designed for this purpose. 
Ospreys have a special problem: they 
eat only fish, so their toes are equipped 
with spiny scales called spicules which 





American crow 


12 The Living Bird Quarterly 


help them grasp wet, slippery prey. Un- 
like most other raptors, most owls have 
feathers down to the toes instead of just 
the ankle. In cold regions, increased 
feathering aids in heat retention and 
allows the development of larger mus- 
cles and blood vessels in the foot. This 
is important for northern dwelling spe- 
cies such as the snowy owl, but the 
reason that southern owls have feath- 
ered feet is not known. 

Ptarmigan, too, have feathers on 
their feet. In this case the significance 
is clear: the feathers grow thickest dur- 
ing the winter and provide insulation 
and support needed for walking on deep 
snow. Ruffed grouse have a different 
adaptation for snow walking. In au- 
tumn a row of fringelike scales grows 
from the sides of each toe, creating a 
wide surface like that of a snowshoe. 
The scales fall off in spring. 

A few species including barn owls, 
nightjars, and several herons, have 
projections called pectinations grow- 
ing from the outside edges of their mid- 
dle claws. These projections are per- 
manent and may be useful for combing 
and cleaning the feathers and the bris- 
tles around the beak. There is much 
disagreement over their exact func- 
tion, and no one knows why only some 
species have them. 

Most birds’ feet are dully colored. 
However some, such as the mallard’s, 
are brightly colored while others, like 





Ostrich 


Right: Osprey 


the snowy egret’s, are two-toned. The 
mallard’s orange feet and the snowy 
egret’s golden slippers probably help the 
birds identify other members of their 
species. Bright feet also serve to attract 
birds of the opposite sex, and many 
birds’ feet change color during the 
breeding season because of changing 
hormone levels. 

The Earth’s plants and animals are 
constantly evolving in response to the 
world around them, and birds’ feet are 
no exception. Evolutionary trends 
which began millions of years ago are 
evident today and will continue to- 
morrow. Consider the ostrich, the fast- 
est running bird. As an adaptation for 
running this species has only two toes, 
fewer than any other bird. The other 
two toes were lost through evolution 
and one of the remaining toes is much 
smaller than the other. As evolution 
continues this toe also may disappear. 
No doubt changes are occurring in other 
species as well. Perhaps someday in the 
distant future birds’ feet will look en- 


tirely different than they do today. > 


FURTHER READING 


Storer, R. W. “Adaptive Radiation of Birds” in 
Avian Biology, Vol. 1. D. S. Farner and EAR 
King, eds. Academic Press, New York. 1971. 


THE AUTHOR 


Steven Sibley is assistant director of public 
education at the Laboratory of Ornithology. 





Wild turkey 





TIM FITZHARRIS 


THE BIGGEST 


NE MORNING LAST MARCH 

the mail brought a large white 

envelope emblazoned with an in- 

vitation: “The New Jersey Au- 
dubon Society challenges the best bird- 
ers in North America to the most 
outrageous 24 hours in the history of 
birding.” Curious, I opened it and found 
a letter from Pete Dunne, director of 
New Jersey Audubon’s Cape May Bird 
Observatory. 

“Have you heard about the Biggest 
Day? It’s going to be the world series of 
birding, the first birding competition. 
New Jersey Audubon is organizing it 
and I’m leader of the Cape May Guer- 
tilla team. We hope to break the old 
New Jersey record by seeing 200 spe- 
cies. Can you bring a team from the 
Laboratory of Ornithology?” 

Now I was really curious. According 
to Pete, the plan was simple: beginning 
at midnight, May 19, 1984—the height 
of spring migration in New Jersey— 
teams of birders would scour the state 
in an attempt to locate as many bird 
species as possible. Twenty-four hours 
later the teams would converge on.the 
lighthouse at Cape May Point, New 





14 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Jersey to compare totals. The team with 
the highest total would be declared 
winner and would claim the coveted 
Urner-Stone Cup, named after two 
eminent New Jersey ornithologists. Be- 
cause teams from outside New Jersey 
would be at a disadvantage—they 
wouldn’t be familiar with New Jersey’s 
birding hotspots and would have diffi- 
culty doing advance scouting—a sep- 
arate award would be given for the 
highest out-of-state total. This was the 
Ed Stearns Award, named after the man 
who held the New Jersey Big Day rec- 
ord for more than 30 years. 

I finished reading and sat musing. 
Big Days themselves were not a new 
concept; birders have been conducting 
them for years. Reports of big days across 
the country are published each year in 
Birding, the journal of the American 
Birding Association. In April 1983 a 
team of six birders set a new North 
American record of 235 species in one 
24-hour period in California, breaking 
the previous record of 234 that was set 
in Texas just one year before. Only one 
other state had ever broken the 200 
mark; a team of two birders saw 202 
species in Alabama in April 1983. 

But the Cape May Bird Observatory 
Guerrilla team had been creeping closer 
to the 200 mark each year. On May 16, 
1982 they counted 185 species, shat- 
tering the record of 171 that had stood 
since 1973. On May 14, 1983 they broke 
their own record with a staggering 194. 
Now in 1984, with two years of big day 
experience and one of the world’s 
greatest birders, Roger Tory Peterson, 
on their team, a 200-species day seemed 
within reach. 

It wouldn’t be easy. Even at the 


IRENE HINKE/SACILOTTO 





height of migration only about 260 spe- 
cies can be found throughout all of New 
Jersey. And many of these are ex- 
tremely rare or very secretive. Seeing 
200 in 24 hours would require a care- 
fully chosen route, strict adherence to 
a schedule, advance scouting, good 
weather, and a large measure of luck. 

And now the Guerrillas were invit- 
ing teams to compete against them, a 
new twist on the big day concept. Pre- 
vious big day teams had competed only 
against their own records. It sounded 
like fun, but I had some misgivings. I’m 
neither a bird lister nor a chaser. Would 
the competitive element ruin the fun 
of birding? 

I looked out the window into an early 
spring day. It had been a particularly 
long, cold winter in upstate New York, 
but finally the tree swallows were re- 
turning and I was getting birding fever. 
I thought about some of New Jersey’s 
great birding spots: Great Swamp Na- 
tional Wildlife Refuge, Brigantine Na- 
tional Wildlife Refuge, Cape May 
Point. Each alone was worth a trip to 
New Jersey. All three in one day? It 
didn’t take long to make up my mind. 


The evening of May 18 found me roll- 
ing toward New Jersey leading the Cor- 
nell Laboratory of Ornithology team. 

I had three teammates: Andy Das- 
inger, a Cornell undergraduate; Cricket 
Smith, an Ithaca schoolteacher and 
member of the local bird club, and Ed 
Neumuth, a friend from Washington, 
Massachusetts. All superb birders, each 
with complementary strengths. 

As we drove we reviewed the rules. 
Any bird seen or heard counted as long 
as it was alive and inside the New Jersey 
state limits. The team had to remain 
within voice contact at all times except 
during timeouts when no birds could 
be counted. We couldn’t ask anyone 
where to find specific birds. Tape-re- 
corded bird calls could not be used to 
lure birds. And 95 percent of the spe- 
cies counted had to be seen or heard 
by all team members. 

We also plotted our strategy—such 
as it was. We knew that finding 200 
species was impossible for us; our goal 
was 150. None of us was very familiar 
with New Jersey. We had a road map, 
a booklet that described New Jersey’s 
hotspots, and a vague itinerary. We’d 
begin in the Great Swamp, home of 
owls and numerous freshwater marsh- 
birds such as rails and bitterns. From 
there we’d go to the Scherman Wildlife 
Sanctuary in quest of woodland birds 
such as warblers and thrushes. Next 
we'd hit Princeton’s Institute Woods 
for more warblers and Assunpink Wild- 
life Management Area for grassland 
birds. Then we would visit New Jersey’s 
birding crown jewel, Brigantine Na- 
tional Wildlife Refuge, to see herons, 
egrets, gulls, terns, and shorebirds. Fi- 
nally, we would head toward Cape May 


STEPHEN J. KRASEMANN/DRK PHOTO 


The first annual world series of birding: 
Richard E. Bonney, Jr. leads the 
Laboratory of Ornithology team into the fray 


for more seabirds and shorebirds. 

By 1:30 a.m. we were in the Great 
Swamp. We had slept for two hours at 
a friend’s house in nearby Millington 
and left tired but excited. For the next 
19 hours we birded nonstop. Particu- 
larly memorable moments: 
= Traipsing through the Great Swamp 
in darkness and discovering four other 
teams. When | hooted a barred owl 
imitation we wondered how many other 
teams added the species to their lists. 
™ Finding 18 species of warblers in 30 
minutes at the Scherman Sanctuary. 
® Getting lost on our way to Prince- 
ton’s Institute Woods, then thinking 
we had found them, getting caught in 
a downpour, then discovering we were 
in the wrong place. 
™ Finding Institute Woods and being 
rewarded by a mourning warbler—a rare 
bird— throwing back his head and sing- 
ing while the sun burned away the rain 
clouds. 
™ Finding no grassland species at 
Assunpink. 
™ Finding eight species of herons and 
egrets at Brigantine. 
® Finding two red-throated loons, two 





horned grebes, a black scoter, a lesser 
scaup, two piping plovers and a flock 
of purple sandpipers at the Cape May 
breakwater just as it was getting dark. 
® Finishing the day with a total of 168 
species, far beyond our expectations. 

How did our 168 stack up? We came 
in ninth out of 13 teams. The Guerril- 
las found 201 species and carried off 
the Urner-Stone Cup. The lowest score 
was 131. The four teams we beat were 
all New Jersey teams, but we lost to the 
only other out-of-state team, Manomet 
Bird Observatory, which beat us by 
seven species and returned to Massa- 
chusetts with the Stearns Award. 

But, as they say in the big leagues, 
there’s always next year. The laid-back 
approach of 1984 will be replaced by 
an all-out birding assault. This May 
we'll bird all 24 hours of the Big Day 
and follow a carefully prescribed route. 

We're losing Ed Neumuth to a new 
Massachusetts team, but we’ll have 
some new talent, including the Labo- 
ratory of Ornithology’s assistant direc- 
tor of public education, Steve Sibley, 
a birder Pete Dunne describes as 
“awesome.” 

Our goals? First, to capture the 
Stearns Award. Second, to give the 
Guerrillas a scare. We probably can’t 
beat them, but we’re sure going to try. 
Watch for 185 species in ’85—weather 


permitting. 3 


THE AUTHOR 


Rick Bonney is associate editor of The Living Bird 


Quarterly. 


The American bittern (far left) eluded the big 
day team, but an equally rare horned grebe 
(upper left) and red-throated loon (immediate 
left) appeared at day's end at Cape May Point. 


Winter/1985 15 


BINOCULARS FOR 
DIRDERS 


Pete Dunne 


O ACTIVITY DEMANDS more 
from binoculars than birding. 
They are used on Lac qui Parle, 
Minnesota, in temperatures of 21 
below zero. They’re used at Elat, Israel, 
where the only shade comes from the 
million raptors migrating overhead. 
They’re used on pelagic trips where the 
sun throws laser blades into your eyes 
and salt coats the outside of lenses, and 
they’re used under the tropical canopy 
at the Asa Wright Nature Center, Trin- 
idad, where sunlight is just a rumor and 
fungus coats the inside of lenses. 

Since World War II, the variety of 
binoculars in the marketplace has pro- 
liferated dramatically. Bushnell, a di- 
vision of Bausch and Lomb, alone sells 
over four million binoculars a year and 
stocks over 60 different models, all 
geared to specific uses, some not at all 
suitable for birding. 

Consider Bushnell’s armored-fog- 
proof-waterproof glass for yachtsmen. 
It sheds water like a scotch-guarded 
scoter, may be drop-kicked against a 
bulkhead and probably could straighten 
a bent propeller. But its gargantuan size 
and shape and individual eyepiece fo- 
cusing make it as deft as a pipefitter’s 
wrench. Or take the Zeiss 10x 25 pocket 
mini-binoculars. Their light weight and 
small size make them ideal for back- 
packers or concert goers but the com- 
promises made to get them down to 
Lilliputian size lessen their value to 
birders. This is not to say that the 
Bausch and Lomb marine glasses and 


16 = The Living Bird Quarterly 


the Zeiss minis are not good binoculars; 
they’re just not right for birding. 

Several important factors must be 
considered when choosing a pair of bi- 
noculars for bird watching. Some con- 
siderations weigh more heavily than 
others and different individuals will as- 
sess the relative importance of each 
factor differently. 

Magnification, usually called “power,” 
is a measure of how close a bird will 
appear and what details will be seen. 
Binoculars can range in power from 
2x, for viewing the opera, to 80, for 
watching tanks from a safe distance. 
The power is etched on binoculars as 
the first part of a two-number formula: 
6x30, 7x35, etc. Binoculars most 
popular with birders range from 7X to 
10: a seven power binocular will make 
a perched loggerhead shrike appear 
seven times closer than it really is; a 10 
power binocular will make it appear 10 
times closer. 

In theory, the higher the magnifi- 
cation, the easier it is to identify dis- 
tant birds. This is the line of reasoning 
that prompts the neophyte to buy high- 
powered 15x or 20X binoculars. But 
higher powers don’t just magnify the 
image, they magnify hand tremor and 
distortion caused by heat waves rising 
from land or water. What is gained in 
magnification is lost to image vibra- 
tion. Increased magnification also re- 
duces field of view—the area visible 
through a pair of binoculars. 

Forty years ago, 7X binoculars were 


PHILIP JONES GRIFFITHS (MAGNUM) 





BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


WAYNE LANKINEN 


the standard in birding circles. The 
wisdom of the day held that higher 
powers were suited only for special forms 
of birding like hawk watching or shore- 
birding. Today, serious birders give the 
nod to 8x, 9x and particularly 10x 
binoculars. The move toward higher 
magnification is not because hands 
shake less now than they did 50 years 
ago. Rather, change has occurred in 
binoculars themselves. 

In the early ’60s, slim, light roof- 
prism binoculars began to appear in the 
hands of serious birders, replacing tra- 
ditional porro-prism binoculars. The 
popularity of the roof-prisms increased 
through the ’70s, until Leitz and Zeiss 
roof-prisms became standards against 
which other binoculars were measured. 
One of the big plusses of roof-prisms is 
that they can be held steadier than 
their porro-prism counterparts. Porro- 
prisms raise the elbows up and away 
from the body. Arms and shoulders tire 
quickly and begin to tremble, thus pro- 
ducing a shaky image. Most birders cra- 
dle roof-prism glasses by overlapping 
their hands. Elbows are held more firmly 
in front of the body which results in 
less fatigue. 

Birding also has changed. Field iden- 
tification has become more refined, a 
trend that has taken the concept of 
field marks from macro- (wing bars and 
tail spots) to micro-scale (feather edges 
and buffy fringe). In 1948 if a birder 





Quality binoculars are essential for identifying 
similar-appearing birds such as semipalmated 


sandpiper (below) and least sandpiper (right). 


18 The Living Bird Quarterly 





eee 
When a new pair of 
binoculars falls into 
my hands priority 
one becomes 
throwing away those 
ridiculous stoppers 


wanted to identify a dowitcher, his Pe- 
terson field guide tutored that the bird 
could be recognized by “the very long 
straight, snipe-like bill and white lower 
back, rump and tail.” In 1985 the same 
birder wishing to distinguish juvenile 
short-billed dowitcher from juvenile 
long-billed dowitcher would look for 
“back and scapular feathers [that] have 
reddish-buff edges; tertials [that] are 
similar with reddish-buff internal 
markings ... ” as the National Geo- 
graphic Society’s field guide points out. 
The new lighter weight binocular de- 
signs make higher magnification pos- 
sible and the trend to more detailed 
field marks makes it desirable. 
Brightness. An image must be bright 
as well as large. The amount of light 
that a binocular transmits depends to 
a large extent upon the size of the ob- 
jective lenses—the two lenses which 
are closer to the object being viewed— 
denoted by the second number in the 
two-number formula. The number re- 





fers to the diameter of the objective 
lens in millimeters—a pair of 7X50 bi- 
noculars has an objective lens 50 mil- 
limeters in diameter. Generally speak- 
ing, the larger the objective lens, the 
greater its light-gathering capacity. 

As with magnification, the concept 
of brightness often confuses the un- 
initiated because they assume that big- 
ger is better. This would be true if all 
birding consisted of looking for owls 
and nightjars. Most of the time, though, 
birders don’t need nearly as much light 
as binoculars with high brightness pro- 
vide. 

Besides the size of the objective lens, 
another factor influencing brightness is 
lens coating. Approximately 5 percent 
of the light traveling through a pair of 
binoculars is lost each time it strikes an 
uncoated lens surface. Since there are 
usually 12 surfaces, the loss adds up. 
Coated lenses, which lose only 1 per- 
cent or less of light to reflection, can 
increase the overall brightness of a pair 
of binoculars by 50 percent over those 
with untreated lenses. The better man- 
ufacturers coat all lens surfaces. Lenses 
with multiple coatings are superior to 
those which have only a single layer. 
Roof-prism lenses backed with silver 
coating outperform those that are 
aluminized. It is now possible to find 
8x30 binoculars that appear as bright 
as some 8X 40s. 

Sophisticated coatings have even 
closed the gap between the roof-prism 
and porro-prism glasses. The intricate 
optical path that makes the space sav- 
ing roof-prism design possible requires 
additional lenses and reflecting sur- 
faces, resulting in potentially greater 
loss of light. Were it not for the ad- 
vances in lens coating, there would be 
a lot fewer roof-prism binoculars in the 
hands of birders. 

Optical Quality. This is a tough char- 
acteristic to judge, since differences in 
the higher grades of binoculars are 
small. However, some binoculars that 
cost less than $50 are obviously in- 
ferior, showing rainbow rings of color 
at the edge of the field or distortions 
that make you think the world is melt- 
ing at the horizon. Too often, though, 
the defects are not obvious and eye 
fatigue will be the first indication to a 
new owner that his bargain binos 
weren’t such a bargain after all. If you 
find you are increasingly reluctant to 
use your binoculars as the day pro- 
gresses, it just might be because of bi- 


nocular-induced eye strain. 

The image you see in your binoculars 
should be clean, sharp and distortion- 
free. To test for image sharpness, focus 
your binoculars on a pattern of parallel 
lines—a brick wall, a chain-link fence. 
If the lines bend, blur or thicken irreg- 
ularly, your lenses are not up to snuff. 
Some modest distortion at the edge of 
the binocular field is permissible. An 
absolutely flat field is accomplished only 
at the expense of a sharp image at the 
center. Therefore many manufacturers, 
choosing not to compromise, will ac- 
cept a modest distortion at the edge. 

As far as high-quality optics go, there 
is a simple rule of thumb: you get what 
you pay for. If you buy binoculars listing 
in the $150—$200 range you can as- 
sume you'll get satisfactory optics. 

Field of view relates to the amount 
of area visible through a stationary glass. 
For birding purposes, an adequate field 
is a must. A large field makes it easier 
to find birds at close quarters in deep 
woods, and unusual or different species 
in an otherwise homogeneous flock. It 
is invaluable for the hawk watcher who 
spends hours scanning the sky and to 
the pelagic birder who must make quick 
pick ups ori fast-receding birds while 
the world moves underfoot. 

Field of view usually is expressed as 
the horizontal distance visible 1,000 
yards from the viewer. I wouldn’t rec- 
ommend a field that falls short of 300 
feet at 1,000 yards. Most models of- 
fered by the highly regarded manufac- 
turers surpass this minimum standard. 

It also pays to be leery of binoculars 
that claim to be super-wide angle. They 
may offer a grandiose vista at the price 
of a clear image. The binoculars that 
rated highest in this category had fields 
that ranged from 340 to 350 feet. 

Eye relief. Most binoculars are fitted 
with eyepieces that automatically place 
the user’s eye at the proper distance 
from the lens. But eyeglass wearers have 
a special problem since eyeglasses in- 
crease the distance between the eye 
and the ocular lens and cause a drastic 
reduction in the field of view. Some 
brands, such as the Leitz Trinovid, offer 
a good field for eyeglass wearers. 

Today almost all binoculars come 
with fold-down rubber eyecups that help 
to alleviate this difficulty. The eyecups 
may be folded back to bring the eye- 
glass wearer’s eyes closer to the ocular 
lens. Even if you don’t wear glasses, 
tubber eyecups are more comfortable 


Some old-time 
birders insist that 
proper birding can 
be accomplished only 
by wielding a hefty 
chunk of glass 


than metal or plastic, despite the fact 
that eventually they will wear out and 
need to be replaced. 

Close Focus. Among the activities 
that need binoculars, only birding re- 
quires that close objects be brought into 
focus. Birds often are obscured by heavy 
cover at close quarters or by bad light- 
ing that makes seeing field marks with 
the unaided eye impossible. Binoculars 
that cannot focus closer than 10 or 12 
feet lose points in the eyes of birders. 

Ease of handling. A birder’s binocular 
is like a frontiersman’s ax or a first base- 
man’s glove. It gains a familiarity that 
transcends thought or effort; it be- 
comes a part of you. What is suitable 
for one birder may not be suitable for 
another, but some considerations are 
universal. 

Large or bulky binoculars are unsuit- 
able for small hands. If you have to 
shift your grip to focus, then the glass 
is not for you. When your finger does 
not rest automatically on the focus 





knob, the binocular is too large or ill 
designed. If your fingers get tangled up 
or hang off the edge, or if handling the 
binoculars gives you the impression you 
are holding a Boehm miniature, then 
they are too small. If you nearly break 
your frontal bone every time you throw 
the glasses up to your eye, then the 
ocular lens is too large; the eyepiece 
should fit comfortably in the orbit of 
the eye. 

Weight. Some old-time birders insist 
that proper birding can be accom- 
plished only by wielding a hefty chunk 
of glass. This premise rests on the belief 
that a heavier glass can be held steadier 
than a light one, particularly in the 
wind. 

Actually, the opposite is true. Lighter 
binoculars can be held for longer peri- 
ods without the strain that sets the 
hands to trembling. Since birders usu- 
ally wear binoculars suspended from 
straps around their necks, lighter bi- 
noculars can be worn for longer periods 
and with greater comfort. 

Roof-prism glasses are half the weight 
of a comparable pair of porro-prisms. 
The optimal weight in the opinion of 
our testers was a pound to a pound and 
a half. 

Focusing. Binoculars suitable for 
birding should have center focus—a 
single focus wheel that controls both 
barrels. There also should be an indi- 
vidual eyepiece adjustment to compen- 
sate mechanically for the normal dif- 
ferences between an individual’s eyes. 

The amount of play (how much the 
focusing mechanism must be moved to 


Winter/1985 19 


WAYNE LANKINEN (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 






















































































Minimum Comfort, Quality 
Brand and Model cane oi ak Ee aac rene: fe bev sites sea Weight tet vA ee dvantages Disadvantages | Comments 
Zeiss Dialyte 10x40 B a $842 RP-A Ss u* a + gE gz a & 1 A,B max. focus distance = 208 ft.; 1 Ib. 10 oz. 
Nikon 8x30 WF | 388 PP 2 e we + is = | @ (2,11 C,D 1 Ib. 4 oz. 
Nikon 9x30 & 412 RP 2 ui a - a & a ® A,E 1 Ib. 
Bausch and Lomb 10x28 bd 334 PP * * + g ie Ba & 3 F max. focus distance = 206 ft.; min. focus distance = 6.6 ft.; 14 oz. 
Bausch and Lomb 8x24 ay 312 PP “ x Es + & cl ” x 4 min. focus distance = 5.1 ft.; 14 oz. 
Nikon 8x35 aw 187 PP & 2 a - & e a G5 G 1 Ib. 
Leitz Trinovid 8x40 BA ad 924 RP-A = a & + = & @ (6,11 H 1 Ib. 5 oz. 
Bausch and Lomb 9x35 z 370 Pe oo e ui va i a & me if I IIb. 8 oz. 
Leitz Trinovid 10x40 B Sw 897 RP | & 8 + & & te & max. focus distance = 200 ft.; min. focus distance = 18.7 ft.; 1 lb. 3 oz. 
Bausch and Lomb 7x24 S 312 PP-A = ® Se + & mm i Ri i min. focus distance = 5 ft.; 1 Ib. 
Bausch and Lomb 10x50 s 380 PP i % + * a am Bs 2 Ibs. 12 oz. 
Swift Trilyte 8x40 se 192 RP PS ze = es 8 Ee 4 = 8 8,9 min. focus distance = 15.8 ft.; 1 Ib. 4 oz. 
Swift Osprey 7.5x42 = 190 PP-A 2 x + & * a S 10 1 Ib. 12 oz. 
Swift Audubon 8.5x44 = 240 PP Po Es! & am | 4 = | ll min. focus distance = 7 ft.; 2 lbs. 3 oz. 
Bushnell Explorer II 8x40 a 196 PP x | = v x i * D 2 Ibs. 
Bushnell Explorer II 10x50 ae 202 PP s x © - & = = 2 Ibs. 4 oz. 
Nikon 7x50 ei 423 PP me & = ad = i x a 2 Ibs. 6 oz. 
Bausch and Lomb 7x50 Marine e 470 =PP-A = 2 e + = 2 * Se 1; 3 Ibs. 6 oz. 








“factory modified for close focus 


bring the subject into focus) appropri- 
ate for birding is debatable. Binoculars 
with a very critical focus, where the 
wheel barely needs to be turned, have 
the advantage of focusing quickly, but 
may sacrifice depth of field. They are 
quick to be in focus and quick to be 
out of focus. Binoculars that have a 
broad range of focus give terrific depth 
of field but sacrifice speed. Precious 
seconds are lost spinning a focus 
wheel—and warblers in deep woods 
tend to be an impatient lot. The bi- 
noculars that rated highest in the eyes 
of our testers took the middle ground, 
having a full focusing range within 
three quarters to one and a quarter spins 
of the wheel. 

How much a focus mechanism moves 
is only slightly more important than 
how well. It should move smoothly, 
cleanly, without jerks, skips, mushi- 
ness, or stiffness, and it should be re- 
sponsive no matter how hot or cold the 
conditions. 

Other considerations. The moment 
binoculars are taken out of the case, 
the outside is trying to get inside the 


20 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


A—armored 


mechanism. Ideally, a pair of binocu- 
lars should be waterproof, moisture- 
proof, and dustproof. A binocular that 
fogs up or retains water ceases to be an 
ally. 

When binoculars are focused, they 
act like a bellows, pulling in air, mois- 
ture, dust, and pollen. Good binocu- 
lars are sealed, some better than others. 
Leitz and Zeiss roof-prisms are famous 
for their weather-resistant qualities. 
Some pelagic birders have been known 
to hold their Zeiss armored binoculars 
under the tap to remove a day’s accu- 
mulation of salt. But time and hard use 
master even the best. My own pair of 
Leitz 8x 40 are prone to fogging now, 
after 10 years of hard use. Roof-prisms, 
with their internal focusing, tend to be 
more waterproof than the external- 
focusing porro-prisms. 

Pampering equipment is not some- 
thing that comes naturally to me. When 
a new pair of binoculars falls into my 
hands priority one becomes throwing 
away those ridiculous stoppers that plug 
up both ends of the barrels. The glasses 
will never see the inside of a case again. 


When not in use 10 hours a day at the 
hawk watch absorbing a prodigious 
amount of dinging and banging, they 
will be chucked under the front seat of 
a car with assorted small change and 
coffee cups or will share the back seat 
with an eclectic array of hardware. They 
will be dropped into sand, doused in 
salt-marsh creeks, and loaned to bird- 
ing friends who are unburdened by the 
responsibilities of ownership. 

Armored binoculars are not essen- 
tial, but some rubber armoring on the 
objective end should serve for all but 
the worst calamities. It is safe to say 
that the average roof-prism binocular 
will take more punishment than the 
average porro-prism because of the dif- 
ferences in the internal design. 

Another protective feature is desir- 
able—a recessed objective lens. Re- 
cessed lenses are less prone to being 
scratched. Another useful item is a rub- 
ber rain guard that fits over the ocular 
lenses. You’re from Arizona and aren’t 
concerned about rain? Rain guards also 
keep out dirt and blobs of mayonnaise 
that may accumulate on lenses. 


Binocular straps are taken for granted 
until that fateful day when they and 
the binoculars part company. Leather 
straps are supple and chic but the ef- 
fects of sweat and friction take their 
toll. Plastic straps seem to have a will 
of their own in low temperatures, con- 
torting into loops that end up in mouth 
or eye. Recently, straps made of braided 
synthetic fiber have become standard 
issue on many of the better brands in- 
cluding Bausch and Lomb, Nikon, and 
Leitz. They are durable, fray resistant 
and seem suited to hard field use. 

Some owners of heavy binoculars, 
hoping to spread the weight around, 
replace their stock neck strap with a 
wider camera strap. Be mindful of one 
thing: many of these straps use metal 
clips. The attachment points on binoc- 
ulars are made of metal and this contact 
creates friction that ultimately will wear 
out the clips. Gravity is a force to be 
reckoned with. 

The Tests. We took a look at some 
of the more popular brands and models 
of binoculars to see how they stacked 
up to birder standards. Binoculars were 


borrowed from Bushnell (a division of 
Bausch and Lomb), E. Leitz, Inc., 
Nikon, Inc., Swift Instruments, Inc., 
and Zeiss, Inc. Why these brands? They 
seem to be the ones found in the hands 
of most birders and are those owned by 
most of the 29 birders who made up 
our test group. There are other fine 
binoculars we did not test, some of 
which may have done better than those 
tested. These omissions were not by 
design. 

As you:can see from the chart, 18 
pairs of binoculars were tested and 
evaluated. Each pair was subjected to 
quantitative tests: optical perform- 
ance, minimum focusing distance, field 
of view, and water resistance; and qual- 
itative evaluation: weight, comfort, 
feel, ease of handling, ease of focusing, 
overall sense of quality, workmanship, 
and ruggedness. 

The optical performance (maximum 
focusing) and minimum focusing tests 
used targets spaced at 10-foot intervals, 
each target bearing various combina- 
tions of the letter “E” facing up, down, 
left or right. Optical performance was 


Key to Advantages 

Repair turnover time excellent. 

. Rated as best buy. 

. Very light, very compact. 

. Much better field than 10x, 
brighter image. 

. Image brighter than 8x30. 

. Good for eyeglass wearers. 

. Very bright, sharp image. 

. Easy to hold and handle. 

. Repair turnover time excellent. 

10. Serviceable and moderately priced. 

ll. Field of view~ 350 ft. at 1,000 yds. 


mR wD 


= S&S OO 1S 


Key to Disadvantages 

Objective lens scratch prone. 
Image distortion at edge of field. 
Image darker than Zeiss 10x 40B. 
. Repair turnover time poor. 

Image very dark. 

Field of view very narrow. 

Poor depth of field. 

. Focus wheel stiff and requires too 
many revolutions. 

Focus wheel requires too many 
revolutions. 

Armor increases weight significantly. 
Focus mechanism very stiff. 

Not designed for birding. 


TOMO Ow > 


— 


+ no fogging 
partial fogging 


gg OPAS 


Excellent 
Very Good 
BM Good 

@ Fair 

@ Poor 


— severe fogging 


measured in terms of the most distant 
letters which could be read by the test 
group with each pair of binoculars; 
minimum focusing distance was mea- 
sured in terms of the closest which could 
be read. 

Water resistance was tested by plac- 
ing all 18 pairs of binoculars under a 
lawn sprinkler until soaked. They were 
shaken to remove excess water and the 
focus mechanism was worked vigor- 
ously. Following this, they were placed 
in a refrigerator for two hours so that 
any moisture that may have leaked in- 
side the barrels could condense and fog 
the lenses. 

The binoculars were then scored and 
rated against each other. The scores 
were translated into easy-to-read squares 
of dark red (excellent), light red (very 
good), dark blue (good), light blue 
(fair), or black (poor). For the overall 
rating, each category was regarded to 
be of equal importance. Ss 


THE AUTHOR 


Pete Dunne is director of New Jersey Audubon’s 
Cape May Bird Observatory, Cape May Point, 
New Jersey. 


Winter/1985 21 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


























LEAD Ys. STEEL SHOT gan instituting steel shot 
a Bee lead ae was ee 

During the past on years more os 100 

_ studies have been conducted on the subject o st 

of lead poisoning in waterfowl. Why so_ a ' 

many? Because the lead poisoning problem — ; Ir 

and attempted solutions | have become a up to twe 
eee controversial issue. 2 


a bottom of dani can le, 
or in open fields. Waterfowl. -especi: 
. dabbling ducks such as mallards and pin- | 
ae a. ee ck them for 























| a ie Sie t on ee 
| 7 2 are > tons of lead ee i 











WAYNE LANKINEN (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 


dation than dull-colored prey. After the 
breeding season, when the males acquired 
their drab, eclipse plumage, peeking rates 
of males and females were about 
the same. 

Very little is known about the mechanics 
of bird sleep, but most researchers believe 
that peeking rates are a measure of how 
deeply a bird is sleeping. This study shows 
that peeking rates of mallard ducks are not 
random. Therefore it seems likely that mal- 
lards, and probably other birds as well, can 
adjust their levels of sleep in response to 
changing danger levels. 


DIGGING WORMS 


If you’ve ever dug earthworms, you know 
how hard it can be to find them. They are 
not evenly distributed throughout the 
ground but are found only in soils having 
specific temperature ranges and moisture 
contents. 

This poses a challenge for the American 
woodcock, a species that feeds almost en- 
tirely on earthworms. The bird’s long bill 
allows it to probe easily, but how does it 
know where to dig? Dale Rabe, Harold 
Prince and Donald Beaver of Michigan State 
University have studied this question with 
six captive woodcocks (“Feeding-site selec- 
tion and foraging strategies of American 
woodcock,” The Auk, vol. 100, pp. 711— 
716). 

The researchers began their experiments 
by placing each bird in a cage containing 
trays filled with different soil types. Then 
they recorded the amount of time the birds 


spent probing in each tray. They found that 
the birds made 94 percent of their probes 
into loam and sandy loam, soils which, in 
nature, are rich in earthworms. The birds 
avoided sand and clay loam, soils which 
naturally contain few earthworms. It seemed 
like the birds could distinguish between soils 
and could determine which should be most 
rewarding. But how? 

Rabe, Prince and Beaver conducted sev- 
eral more experiments using trays filled with 
soils of differing moisture levels and tex- 
tures. They discovered that the birds used 
neither of these cues. Instead, they selected 
foraging sites on the basis of soil color, pre- 
ferring dark soils to light ones. This may 
seem surprising, however, the researchers 
note that wet soils, which usually contain 
numerous earthworms, tend to be dark in 
color. Also, dark soils contain a lot of or- 
ganic matter, an important food source for 
worms. Therefore, dark soil color could well 
be an indication of earthworm abundance. 

Yet reliance on color may cause birds to 
forage in unproductive areas: one re- 
searcher saw woodcocks probing in dried- 
up mud puddles where there was a dark layer 
of silt but no worms. Reliance on color also 
might cause birds to overlook light-colored 
areas that do contain worms. Wouldn’t soil 
temperature or moisture content be better 
indicators of earthworm abundance? 

They probably would. However, consid- 
ering that wild animals always try to con- 
serve energy, Rabe, Prince and Beaver spec- 
ulate why woodcocks have evolved to rely 
on color. First, by observing color, the birds 
need to monitor only one characteristic that 


Dabbling ducks such as mallards ingest lead shot while tipping up to feed in bottom mud. 





gives them fairly reliable information about 
a soil’s worm content. Second, the birds 
probably evaluate soil color quickly; their 
foraging endeavors would take much longer 
if they had to probe every new area to test 
soil texture and moisture. By using color, 
woodcocks may even be able to evaluate 
feeding sites from the air. 


NEW WARBLER BOOK 


Warbler watchers will be interested in a 
new book by Hal H. Harrison, Wood War- 
blers’ World (1984. Simon and Schuster, 
New York. 335 pages. $19.95, cloth). Har- 
rison has authored two guides to birds’ nests 
in the Peterson field guide series and has 
studied warblers and their nesting behavior 
for over 30 years. 

Wood Warblers’ World begins with a short 
introduction that discusses the biology and 
conservation of these tiny, colorful, often 
elusive birds. The rest of the book com- 
prises individual accounts of the 53 wood 
warblers that nest in the United States and 
Canada. The accounts contain information 
ona species’ behavior, breeding range, hab- 
itat preference, nesting biology and song. 
Most species are illustrated with color and 
black-and-white photographs, and addi- 
tional black-and-white photos illustrate the 
birds’ nests and nesting habitat. Range maps, 
which depict each species’ nesting distri- 
bution, are included. 

Unfortunately, the book is a disappoint- 
ment. The species accounts are too short 
and erratic: they concentrate on nesting 
biology, Harrison's specialty, but often ex- 
clude other information, such as feeding 
habits, population status, migration pat- 
terns and winter ecology. The introduction 
is particularly shallow; several important 
topics are introduced but poorly discussed, 
such as the effects of tropical deforestation 
on wood warbler populations. Much of the 
writing is anecdotal, but many of the anec- 
dotes are superfluous and rambling. Con- 
sequently, the book is neither a good ref- 
erence nor a natural history narrative. 

Contrary to the dust jacket claim, Wood 
Warblers’ World is not the most comprehen- 
sive book on the subject ever published. 
The Warblers of America, edited by Ludlow 
Griscom and Alexander Sprunt, Jr. in 1957, 
and revised and slightly updated by Edgar 
M. Reilly, Jr. in 1979 (Doubleday and Com- 
pany, New York), is at least as comprehen- 
sive and, except for its poor illustrations, a 
more useful book. However, it is out of 
print. 

Wood Warblers’ World is not a definitive 
work on the life histories of North Ameri- 
can wood warblers. However, it is the only 
book available and it does include some 
interesting information on warbler nesting 
biology. The photographs are very good and 
those of the birds’ nesting habitat are unique; 
the bibliography also is useful. 


Winter/1985 23 








LANG ELLIOTT _ 


| Support the 


Laboratory of Ornithology — 
Team on — 


Biggest Day ’85 


On May 18, during the peak of the spring migration, 
teams of crack birders will descend upon New Jersey 
in a marathon attempt to see as many bird species as 


possible in 24 hours. The event is being organized by 


the New Jersey Audubon Society, which will present 


two awards: the Urner-Stone Cup for the team with 
the highest total, and the Ed Stearns Award for the 


highest total by an out-of-state team. This year the 
Laboratory of oe a to a ve Ed 


: Stearns Award. 


You can participate. Here’s how: 


Name the team 


Our team needs a name. Several have been suggested, 


such as The Myopias. How about something more 
complimentary? Send your suggestion(s ) by February 


15, 1985. If yours is chosen you'll win a $25 _ cer- 


— tificate to The Crows Nest Bookshop. 


Support the team with a pledge 


Pledge 5¢, 10¢, 25¢ or $1 for each species the team 


oS Your Cone UiOne will not ony eae the 


‘The fear, left to right: Rick Bonney, Cricket Smith, Greg Butcher, Charlie Smith, Steve Sibley, Andy Dasinger. 








_ team but also help the Laboratory's more serious pro- 


grams of research and education. Supporters will re- 
ceive a report on the event and a list of species found 
by the team. 


_ Guess the number of species the 


team will find | 

We're shooting for 185 but must contend with weather, 
luck and traffic lights. If your guess is correct you may 
win our grand prize. 


Send your suggested team name on the coupon below 
or a separate paper and watch your mailbox for more 
details about the guessing contest and pledging infor- 
mation. 


Send to: Rick Bonney, Biggest Day Team Leader, 
Laboratory of Ornithology, Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, 
New York 14850. 


Here's my Se for a name for the [eooron, 
of Ornithology’s Biggest Day Birding Team: 


: Team Name 


Your Name 





Address 


City State Zip 





The name quetzal is derived from the god Quetzalcoatl, rain diety of the Toltecs. 








vied 








TOM BLAGDEN JR. 


Resplendent Quetzal 


Anne LaBastille 


AWN IN THE Guatemalan cloud 

forest—the first light filters 

through the dense canopy and 

down the 150-foot trees. Soon 
the bird choir begins: the cooing of 
doves, the chatter of emerald touca- 
nets, the low hoot of a motmot. Perched 
atop an amate tree a male quetzal pro- 
claims his territory in silvery chords. 
His head is held high, crest slightly 
raised, bill open, and ruby-red breast 
puffed out. Every eight to 10 minutes 
he gives a series of territorial whistles 
until shafts of sunlight brighten the 
gloom. Gradually, the songs of other 
birds quiet, until only the crackle of 
falling leaves and scamper of squirrels 
break the tranquillity. 

This scene takes place each March, 
quetzal breeding season. I first went to 
Guatemala in the late 1960s to report 
on this magnificent member of the Tro- 
gon family for National Geographic. 
With me was photographer David G. 
Allen, one of the few to capture the 
wily species on film. This was the start 
of my deep involvement with the re- 
splendent quetzal which would span 15 
years of field research, conservation ef- 
forts, and scientific papers. 

I am not the first to be captivated by 
this regal-looking creature. Centuries 
ago, both Aztec and Maya Indians of 
Mexico and Central America revered 
the emerald-colored, pigeon-sized bird. 
From the Aztecs we get its name, quet- 
zalli, meaning precious or beautiful. 

Apparently, these early people caught 
male quetzals temporarily in order to 
pluck their two-foot long iridescent 
green plumes once a year. They never 


harmed or destroyed the birds. In fact, 
a commoner who killed one faced death 
as punishment. The plumes were used 
as ornaments exclusively for high priests 
and chieftains and were considered as 
precious as gold or jade. When Spanish 
conquistador Hernan Cortes came to 
Mexico, the Aztec ruler Moctezuma 
presented his quetzal headdress com- 
posed of over 160 plumes as the finest 
of gifts. 

Awe and admiration for the quetzal 
has continued to modern times. In 
Guatemala it is a symbol of liberty and 
the national bird and is seen on the 
Guatemalan flag, emblem, coat of arms, 
stamps, artwork, crafts, and textiles. 
The country’s highest civil honor is The 
Order of the Quetzal. Its currency is 
the quetzal—one quetzal is equivalent 
to one dollar. 

In the mid-19th century, a naturalist 
brought the first quetzal specimens to 
Europe. Ornithologists were amazed by 
the gorgeous skins. A collecting craze 
began and for the next 25 years thou- 
sands of specimens poured into Euro- 
pean museums and markets. 

Until David Allen and I spent three 
months studying these birds, only three 
other persons in the 20th century had 
done similar field work. One was Vic- 
tor von Hagen, a German adventurer- 
naturalist who, in the early 1900s, was 
the first man to bring quetzals alive to 
Europe. Sir Julian Huxley wrote at the 
time that “This was the most outstand- 
ing zoological feat in two decades.” 
Later in the century ornithologist and 
author Alexander Skutch studied the 
quetzal, and in 1967 James Kern pho- 





Winter/1985 27 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


TOM BLAGDEN JR. 





tographed the bird on assignment for 
Audubon. 

Quetzals are found from southern 
Mexico to western Panama— 1,000 
miles along the Central American isth- 
mus. However, they are strictly con- 
fined to cloud forest habitat which oc- 
curs only high up on the narrow chain 
of volcanoes and broken mountains 
which spans the isthmus. 

Cloud forests are scarce and inacces- 
sible. They are composed of oaks, lau- 
rels, mulberry and wild fig trees, liquid- 
amber, and pines. Trees are laced with 
lianas and strewn with epiphytes. Such 
woodland occurs only at altitudes of 
5,000 to 10,000 feet in Central Amer- 
ica. Mists, fog, clouds, and storms of- 
ten gather over the slopes. Rainfall av- 
erages 100 to 150 inches a year. 


n the volcano where I worked, 
mornings were usually cool and 
clear. Toward midday, as the sun 
drew moisture from trees and 
heated the ground, clouds formed. By 
afternoon, it poured. One day we were 
deluged with four inches in four hours. 
The courtship and nesting period of 
quetzals is the only time they are vocal 
and vibrant. The usually shy and wary 
birds begin seeking mates and estab- 
lishing nest sites in January or February. 
Males often make giddy spiraling flights 
skyward with their tail feathers rippling 
behind. These displays resemble the 
woodcocks’ extravagant spring sallies, 
and are probably courtship acts. The 
males’ feathers and plumes are at their 
most provocative then. 
Once paired, quetzals seek nest sites 
in decayed tree trunks. They may use 
natural cavities or abandoned wood- 


28 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Montane rain and cloud forests, like 
Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa 
Rica, are indispensable to the quetzal. 

Right: when the male is sitting in the nest, 

he faces outward with the plumes bending 
over his body and projecting out the entrance. 
When seen next to ferns or bromeliad leaves, 
these feathers look like vegetation. 


pecker holes because their beaks and 
claws are not strong enough to exca- 
vate hard live wood. Some pairs use 
the same sites year after year; eventu- 
ally, these rotted stumps crash to earth 
because of earth tremors, saturation 
with rain, or old age. 

Male and female share the incuba- 
tion duties and care of young. The nor- 
mal clutch is two light-blue eggs which 
are incubated for about 18 days. After 
the chicks hatch, the adults change 
their schedule from long periods of in- 
activity to busy food-gathering and fre- 
quent visits to the nest. At first, they 
give the chicks foods high in protein— 
grubs, beetles, frogs, lizards, termites, 
spiders and moths. As the young grow, 
fruits are mixed into the diet. Adult 
quetzals are chiefly fruit eaters, snatch- 
ing or twisting off berries, avocados, 
and fruits of laurel trees. 

By the time quetzal youngsters hop 
out of their nest cavity, they look like 
calico cats—a mixture of buff, black, 
brown and white feathers—and a bit of 
green. After fledging, both juveniles 
and adults move higher into the forest 
canopy. They will partake of 30 or 40 
kinds of fruit, and will move up and 
down mountain slopes to take advan- 
tage of various plants in season. Thus, 
they practice altitudinal migration. 

Around 1972 my fascination with 
quetzals changed to concern over their 
survival. While in the highlands of 
Guatemala, I learned of illegal trapping 
and killing of birds for sale items. A 
young Indian poacher with a blowgun 
tried to sell me a quetzal skin for two 
dollars. Stuffed specimens are some- 
times offered to tourists as souvenirs. 
Laws to protect the national bird were 


written in 1895 and 1897, yet to this 
day enforcement and understanding 
scarcely exist in isolated rural areas. 

In Costa Rica, quetzals have been 
trapped and exported to zoos and pri- 
vate aviaries for years. Between 1956 
and 1966, an average of 100 pairs were 
shipped annually to distant countries. 
How many birds died en route will never 
be known. The going price then was 
$200 a pair. To some extent public 
awareness and environmental con- 
sciousness are growing and the drain 
on quetzals has slowed, yet just a few 
years ago, a colleague reported an air- 
line traveler smuggling out a souvenir 
bag from which glittered the plumes of 
a stuffed quetzal. 

As bad as illegal exportation is, a far 
worse killer is the reduction of cloud 
forest habitat all over Central Amer- 
ica. Thousands of acres of woodland 
are being cut and burned in Guatemala 
and Honduras to be used as farms. Of- 
ten the fires go wild and burn for weeks 
during the dry season, gobbling up large 
tracts of virgin cloud forest. The cen- 
tral plateau of Costa Rica and the 
mountain slopes of western Panama are 
coveted by timber companies and for- 
eign ranching concerns. Forests are 
being cut at a rate of 100,000 to 150,000 
acres a year. Such destruction wipes out 
quetzal habitat and threatens food 
sources which become more difficult to 
find as cloud forest tracts are frag- 
mented into isolated stands. 

The decline of quetzals was apparent 
to me in the early 1970s. In response, 
I organized a project to create a quetzal 
reserve in Guatemala on the same vol- 
cano where we had photographed the 
birds for National Geographic. The 





TOM BLAGDEN JR. 





owners of this cloud forest were inter- 
ested in conserving their birds and were 
willing to donate 1,000 acres for a pri- 
vate sanctuary. Thanks to them, the 
World Wildlife Fund, USA Appeal, 
and the Cleveland County Bird Club 
of Oklahoma, I was able to set up a 
refuge. Boundaries were marked, signs 
erected, nest boxes put up, and work- 
men trained as guards. The Volcano 
Atitlan Quetzal Cloud Forest Reserve 
became Guatemala’s first private refuge 
for its national bird. 

Two years later, the Panamanian 
government and the International Un- 
ion for Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (IUCN) asked me 
to survey its first proposed national park, 
Volcano Baru. Two critical concerns 
were to find out if quetzals occurred 
within the park borders and how the 
birds might act as a tourist attraction. 
I discovered the birds and prime cloud 
forest, but realized that sheep ranches 
and potato farms were encroaching into 
the park and destroying this habitat. 

During the late 1970s, other scien- 
tists began to worry that the quetzal 
might become endangered, even ex- 
tinct. Besides loss of habitat, certain 
characteristics make the species prone 
to annihilation. The birds are fussy in 
their food habits and choice of habitat. 
They normally maintain low popula- 
tion numbers and are poor long-dis- 
tance fliers. 

Thus several other sanctuaries were 
organized for these spectacular birds. 
In Guatemala, the late Mario Dary, a 
biologist and rector of the University 
of San Carlos, created a cloud forest 
preserve in Baja Verapaz as well as other 
refuges. In Costa Rica, the private 


30 The Living Bird Quarterly 


DAVID G. ALLEN 





Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve was 
established at the crest of the central 
mountain chain by the Tropical Sci- 
ence Center. Chirripo, the nation’s 
highest mountain, and two other 
mountains, were designated as na- 
tional parks by the government in 1975. 
Honduras established its La Tigra Na- 
tional Park with a handful of quetzals 
surviving at the summit of this moun- 
tain range. El Salvador initiated at- 
tempts to develop a refuge near the 
mountainous borders of Guatemala and 
Honduras, and Panama formalized Vol- 
cano Baru National Park. 

In spite of good intentions, tragedies 
continue to strike. Social and political 
unrest is destroying much of the con- 
servationists’ work, while deforestation 
and wildfires ruin countryside. In Gua- 
temala, my Volcano Atitlan refuge was 
infiltrated by guerrillas in the early 
1980s. The landowners wrote that birds 
probably were being shot for food and 
target practice. Mario Dary was gunned 
down in the streets of Guatemala City 
for unknown reasons. 

From the Panama Audubon Society 
came an urgent plea in 1983 for foreign 
scientists to intervene to save part of 
Volcano Baru National Park. Potato 
farmers were cutting a road across park- 
land through a wild area to shorten 
their route to market. El Salvador and 
Honduras are so involved in civil strife 
and military training that it is doubtful 
much attention is being given to cloud 
forest conservation. Only in Costa Rica 
is protection holding despite economic 
inflation which has cut into the Na- 
tional Park Service budget and person- 
nel. But most reserves are too small and 
may not provide the variety of food 


If a parent is disturbed outside the nest hole, 
it will sit upright on a branch and harshly cry 
“wec-wec-wec.” Right, quetzal eggs are 
vulnerable to predators such as toucanets, 
squirrels, kinkajous, weasels, and tayras. 


necessary for quetzals during a whole 
year. Unless expanded and linked with 
wild corridors, these sanctuaries will 
not prevent local extirpations. 


erhaps quetzals and rain forests 

seem frivolous in the face of in- 

flation, violence, and corporate 

profits. Not true—the birds and 
forests are important assets for Central 
America. The quetzal is a powerful 
tourist and scientific attraction which 
brings money into each country through 
rental cars, guides, gas, meals, hotels. 
Furthermore, the species is one of very 
few birds which disperses the seeds of 
tropical montane forests, the timber of 
which is a valuable part of the area’s 
economy. 

In addition, cloud forests function as 
part of natural irrigation and water sys- 
tems. Like giant sponges, they collect 
rain most of the year, hold moisture, 
and release it to lower elevations. Cloud 
forests filter and purify water, and guard 
against erosion. Humans, domestic 
stock, wild animals, and crops benefit 
as long as a mantle of cloud forest is 
kept intact above them. 

Does the quetzal have a chance? So 
far, only a handful of underbudgeted, 
undersized, underprotected sanctuaries 


offer it hope for survival. Ss 


FURTHER READING 


LaBastille, A. “The Quetzal, Fabulous Bird of 
Maya Land.” National Geographic, February, 1969. 
Skutch, A. “Resplendent Myth.” Audubon, Sep- 
tember, 1982. 

Von Hagen, Victor. Alla Ricerca del Sacro-Quetzal. 
Rizzoli, Milan, Italy. 1984. 


THE AUTHOR 


Anne LaBastille is a wildlife ecologist and author 
of Woodswoman and Women and Wilderness. 





























W 


Spring 1985 
Volume 4. Number 2 


LIVING BIRD 





EDITORIAL STAFF 


Jill Crane, Editor 

Kathleen Dalton, Design Director 
Richard E. Bonney, Jr., Associate Editor 
Charles R. Smith, Technical Editor 
Steven C. Sibley, Editorial Assistant 
Maureene Stangle, Publications Assistant 


LABORATORY STAFF 


Charles Walcott, Executive Director 
Michele M. Barclay, Bookshop 
Gregory S. Butcher, Cooperative 
Research Program 

Tom J. Cade, Director, Raptor Research 
Jill Crane, The Living Bird Quarterly 
Lang Elliott, Photography 

James L. Gulledge, Library of 
Natural Sounds 

Diane Johnson, Administration 
Thomas S. Litwin, Seatuck Research 
Steven C. Sibley, Library 

Charles R. Smith, Public Education 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


Hamilton E Kean 
T: Spencer Knight 


James W. Spencer, Chairman 
Morton S. Adams 


Robert Barker John D. Leggett, Jr. 
William G. Conway G. Michael McHugh 
Alan Crawford, Jr. Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 


Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 

Charles E. Treman, Jr. 
Charles D. Webster 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


Robert G. Engel 
Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 
Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 
Thomas M. Hampson 
Imogene P. Johnson 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in January, 
April, July, and October by the Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell 
University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. 
Telephone: (607) 256-5056. The Living Bird Quarterly is free to members 
of the Laboratory. For information concerning back issues please write to 
our Membership Department. © 1985 Cornell 

University Laboratory of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N.Y. 


Front Cover. Outside—Macaroni penguins. Named by sailors because the 
birds’ head plumes reminded them of the coiffure worn by London’s 18th- 
century Macaroni Club, whose foppish members ate strange Italian foods. 
Photograph by Art Wolfe. Inside—This reproduction of a ruffed grouse by 
L. A. Fuertes is a gift from the Laboratory for contributions of $250 or 
more. Write to our Membership Department for details. 


Back Cover. Outside—Great hornbill. Photograph by E.P1. Nancy 
Adams. Inside—Copper engraving of barn owl. From Storia Degli Uccelli: 
Ormnithologia. Petri Leopoldi. Florence, Italy. 1767. 











p. 10 





p. 14 





10 


14 


20 


24 


26 


27 


28 


Some Sticky Solutions 
Sally Hoyt Spofford 


After much experimentation, Sally Spofford has reached 
some controversial conclusions about feeding hummingbirds. 


Trouble with Loons 
Laurence L. Alexander 


Thousands of common loons died off the Gulf and Atlantic 
coasts of the United States in 1983. Laurence Alexander 
was a preserve manager on a barrier island off the Gulf 
coast of Florida when dead loons began to wash ashore. 


The Enormous Eggs 
Gilbert S. Grant 


How fast does an egg six times the size of a chicken 
egg lose water while it is incubating? To find out, 
Gilbert Grant traveled to Midway to study the large 
egg-laying seabirds of that mid-Pacific island. 


Where Have All the Songbirds Gone? 
David S. Wilcove 


Gone from Rock Creek Park are yellow-throated vireos, 
black-and-white warblers, hooded warblers, and Acadian 
flycatchers. And this Washington, D.C. park is just one 
place where forest-dwelling songbirds are in trouble. 


News & Notes 
Steven C. Sibley 


Research & Review 
Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


Hypothesis Game 
Thomas C. Grubb, Jr. 


You’ve seen all the birds in your area. If you go to 
Africa and treble your life list you'll deprive your 
children of a college education. What could add a new 
dimension to bird watching? Try the hypothesis game. 








BOB AND CLARA CALHOUN (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) OUR THANKS TO W. R. THURSTON FOR HIS GENEROUS GIFT. 


Black-chinned hummingbirds are among several western species that can be attracted with sugar-water feeders or hummingbird-adapted plants. 


SOME STICKY 
SOLUTIONS 


ally Hoyt Spofford 


T’S HARD TO BELIEVE that 

feeding hummingbirds could be 

controversial. But when you look 

into the subject, a surprising num- 
ber of questions arise. Since we moved 
to the southwest United States 14 years 
ago, I have confronted such sticky issues 
as what kinds of feeders to use, what 
type and strength solution is best, 
whether to tint the solution, where to 
place feeders, whether to leave them out 
all year, and what to do about bees and 
cleaning. 

There are about 16 species of hum- 
mingbirds north of the Mexican border. 
Of these only one—the Ruby- 
throated—is commonly found in the 
eastern states. Western United States is 
host to the remaining species. 

At our feeders in extreme southeast- 
ert, Arizona on the eastern slope of the 
Chiricahua Mountains, we have re- 
corded 13 species, eight of which we see 
each year. Among them are the Lucifer, 
Black-chinned, Anna’s, Broad-tailed, 
Rufous, Calliope, Magnificent (for- 
merly Rivoli’s), and Blue-throated. 

After years of observation and exper- 
imentation, I have reached some con- 
clusions on the subject of hummingbird 
feeding, be they right or wrong. 


FEEDERS 

Several types of feeders are available 
from mail-order firms, gift shops, and 
garden supply stores. Many are expen- 
sive, and while some have valuable fea- 
tures that are not easy to duplicate at 
home, it is possible to get along with 
substitutes such as guinea pig, hamster 
or poultry watering bottles. My first 
feeders were small pill vials painted red 
and taped to sticks which were placed in 
a flower bed or fastened to a windowsill. 
I also use open cups—glass jars about 


three inches wide and two-and-a-half 
inches deep, such as those pickled fish 
come in. I have found that wide- 
mouthed feeders are useful in feeding 
birds with injured bills or tongues. 

Of the commercial feeders, one 
shaped like a flying saucer with three 
Openings is very popular with our birds, 
and | usually have five hanging. Other 
good feeders are glass or plastic bottles 
which feed by gravity into a container 
with small feeding holes. Some types 
can be attached to the windowpane 
with suction cups, bringing the hum- 
mers in for close viewing. 

The busiest months are April and 
September, when we may have 40 to 50 
hummers at the feeders at one time. 
During these migration seasons | have 
over 20 feeders in operation and may use 
two gallons of sugar water a day. 


SOLUTIONS 

When | took up residence in Arizona, | 
was told that feeding solution should be 
no more concentrated than one part 
sugar to four or five parts water. Re- 
searchers have found that birds will 
come to a solution as diluted as one part 
sugar in ten of water, but no weaker. | 
imagine that if I diluted mine that much 
I soon would lose my hummers to neigh- 
bors who were more generous. 

Ina study by FE Gary Stiles (The Con- 
dor, vol. 78, pp. 10—26), sucrose was 
preferred to glucose or lactose when a 
choice was given, although all three 
sugars occur in most flower nectars. The 
fact that sucrose is the main ingredient 
in table sugar from which I make my so- 
lutions, helps to explain the rapid at- 
traction of birds to our feeders. And ac- 
cording to William A. Calder III of the 
University of Arizona, table sugar is 
closer than honey to the molecular 


Spring/ 1985 





BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 





Top, Broad-billed hummer remembers where 
favored feeder was placed last year. Above, 
Calliope hummer, another western species, 
may visit feeders when not attending its tiny, 
lichen-covered nest. Right, nectar-eating bats 
sip sugar water from a hummingbird feeder. 


6 The Living Bird Quarterly 


JEFF FOOTT 


ART WOLFE 


structure of nectar. Honey may be more 
nutritious than sugar, but it is more apt 
to develop a dangerous fungus that af- 
fects hummer tongues. 

Friends have suggested that addi- 
tional nutrients be used in the sugar wa- 
ter, especially in cold weather. I have ex- 
perimented with two additives. A 
chemist friend asked me to add molasses 
to the sugar solution. I saw no evidence 
of preference for this mixture, it spoiled 
more rapidly, and the feeders were diffi- 
cult to clean. Another friend, an api- 
culturist marketing dried pollen, asked 
me to add some to the sugar solution. 
His observations at his feeders indicated 
that the birds preferred solutions with 
pollen, but I measured little difference. 
However, it seems reasonable that pol- 
len would be nutritious and as such I en- 
courage its use. 


RED 

Many of us have had the experience of a 
hummingbird investigating red cloth- 
ing or lipstick, and researchers have 
shown that red seems to be the color 
hummers prefer. However, hummers 
will come to sugar feeders of any color. 
In fact, they can be trained to come to 
various colors by the reward system. Af- 
ter one sip they learn which color feeders 
contain sugar water and which contain 
plain water, and will shift preferences 
when the colors are reversed. Experi- 
ments by Tim Goldsmith of Yale Uni- 
versity, some of which were done at our 
feeders, have shown that the birds’ eyes 
can perceive minute color differences 
and intensities which may not be per- 
ceptible to the human eye. 

While red is not necessary, it does 
seem to bring hummers to a new feeding 
location sooner than other colors. How- 
ever, the adding of red coloring to the 
solution is one of the most controversial 
subjects in hummingbird feeding. A few 
years ago there appeared to be some ev- 
idence that red food coloring was car- 
cinogenic, at least in experimental ani- 
mals, and this was interpreted to mean 
it might harm hummingbirds. 

A chemical change was made in the 
red coloring and I know of no further in- 
dication of harm to any organism. 
Nevertheless, one still reads that it 
should not be used. I have never stopped 
using it. True, the hummers do not need 
it—they come to colorless fluid—but it 
makes the level of the liquid easy to see 
and when one has 25 feeders, it saves 
time in ascertaining which ones need 


filling and means fewer trips to the feed- 
ers and disturbances to the birds. My 
method is to make a color stock of a 
quart bottle of water with six to eight 
drops of red color. About an ounce of 
this stock is added to a half gallon of 
sugar solution. In this dilution, a one- 
ounce bottle of dye lasts a full year. 
Whether or not to use coloring should 
be an individual choice unless scientific 
evidence proves its use is dangerous. 


WINTER FEEDING 

Most of my neighbors take in their feed- 
ers for the winter. They say they don’t 
want to keep the birds past migration 
time. This is another controversial sub- 
ject. My argument is if the presence of 
an adequate food supply keeps a bird 
from migrating, then why don’t all 
hummingbirds remain? Day by day the 
numbers thin out, until late November 
when the two of us who keep our feeders 
supplied all year have only a handful of 
birds: Blue-throats, Magnificents, An- 
na’s, and perhaps a Rufous or two. The 
Rufous leaves by early December and the 
Anna’s by mid-December, along with 
some Blue-throats and Magnificents. 
My guess is that the birds which remain 
may not be in proper physical condition 
to migrate, but this is impossible to de- 
termine. I do think that those that stay 
would not survive without our feeders. 
So it does not seem likely that we are 
keeping any hummers here by feeding 
them—and we may be saving the few 
that cannot migrate south. 

In December 1978 southeastern Ari- 
zona experienced an extreme cold spell 
when the temperature did not rise above 
freezing for 92 hours, dipping almost to 
zero degrees Fahrenheit one night. We 
kept alive four or five of the six hummers 
still here by providing warmed sugar wa- 
ter from dawn until dusk. The birds 
were members of the two larger species, 
Blue-throated and Magnificent. They 
remained the rest of the winter. 


SAME SPOT 

Those who have fed hummingbirds for 
some years have noted that returning in- 
dividuals will go to the exact spot where 
their favorite feeder was placed the year 
before and hover there if the feeder has 
been moved or not yet hung for the sea- 
son. Even migrants, which had stopped 
only a short time the preceding season, 
“remember” former feeder positions. 
Among the earliest banders of hum- 
mingbirds were the James Selbys in On- 


tario. They verified this behavior by 
their banded birds returning, some up 
to four or five years. It seems advisable, 
therefore, to place feeders in the same 
spot each year. 


PERCHES 
We have a large live-oak tree in our yard 
and at the peak of the hummer season 
we may spot several dozen perched in it. 
The first time a male Lucifer (very rare 
north of the Mexican border) came to 
our feeders, he found such a perch and 
remained on it for an hour. In very cold 
or stormy weather, the hummers seem to 
seek perches close to the ground; in our 
case this means in mesquite bushes or 
pyracantha. We have seen a dozen 
Black-chinned Hummingbirds perched 
low in an early April snowstorm. 
Perches are not necessary on or beside 
feeders, but when available the Blue- 
throated and Magnificent use them. 
The two larger species need the perches 
farther away from the drinking tube 
than do the smaller hummers. Perches 
also make for better viewing or photog- 
raphy since the birds sit still briefly in- 
stead of darting back and forth to the 
feeding tube. 


SHELTER 

Some sort of shelter, a tree or shrub near 
the feeder, is also recommended. Hum- 
mingbirds do not have many enemies; 
they are the only birds not alarmed 
when a Cooper’s Hawk shows up in our 
yard. However, they can be caught by 
the larger flycatchers and by Greater 
Roadrunners. It would seem that they 
would be safe from the latter, except 
when feeding from low flowers or feed- 
ers, but | have photographed a Greater 
Roadrunner catching a Black-chinned 
Hummingbird in flight by leaping from 
our roof into the air near a feeder hung 
from the eaves. 


ODDITIES AND OTHERS 

Many species other than hummingbirds 
use our feeders, and my 20 or more feed- 
ers operating at the height of the season 
are of a variety of types to suit all needs 
and tongues. House Finches, three spe- 
cies of orioles, and two of tanagers like 
the open cups, which must not be too 
narrow or too deep or birds may fall in. 
A few years ago an albino hummingbird 
spent some time at a feeder near us. Few 
albino hummers have been noted in the 
wild. Hybrids can be spotted, such as 
one visiting feeders in our area in 1973. 


ERNEST FRANZGROTE 


At night our feeders are visited by 
mammals, including raccoons, foxes, 
coati-mundis and ringtails, so a few 
feeders are placed where they can be 
reached by four-footed visitors. In late 
summer and early fall, our feeders are 
used by two species of Mexican nectar- 
eating bats. That is one reason why 
some of our neighbors take in their feed- 
ers at night. We are fascinated by the 
bats and have photographed them, al- 
though the sugar consumption goes up 
considerably at this time. But our phi- 
losophy is that we feed whatever wildlife 
comes to us, even if it becomes a nuis- 
ance and added expense. However, we 
do not attempt to tame wildlife, or make 
it too dependent on our offerings. 


BEES 

Bees can be a serious problem when they 
monopolize all the feeders. There are 
wild “bee trees” in our area, and hives 
belonging to local apiculturists. I have 
found that commercial bee guards do 
not work very well. Even if the bees 
don’t reach the sugar water through the 
guards, bees will cluster on them and 
keep the hummers away. I have trapped 
bees with a jar into which a plastic fun- 
nel is inserted just above the level of the 
sugar water. The bees enter the jar 
through the funnel, but can’t seem to 
get out. However, since we do not want 
to interfere with our neighbors’ liveli- 
hood, we attempt to discourage, not 
kill, the bees. Although it has not 
worked well for us, John Dennis in A 
Complete Guide to Bird Feeding, recom- 
mends brushing salad oil onto exposed 





parts of feeders to reduce insect compe- 
tition. 


CLEANING 

It is essential for feeders to be cleaned at 
least once a week. Sugar water will 
spoil, especially in warm weather, and 
molds which can harm or kill hummers 
form even in cold weather. Use only hot 
water, not soap or detergent. Test-tube 
or small bottle brushes will help in 
scrubbing the inside, or one can place 
small pebbles or raw rice in the water, 
and shake vigorously. For very small 
tubes, I use a pipe cleaner. 

Alexander Skutch, who has done in- 
tensive studies of hummingbirds in 
Central America and whose book on 
them is a classic, has pointed out that 
the cutting of tropical forests has enor- 
mously affected birdlife and may lead to 
the extinction of some species. How- 
ever, he thinks that hummingbirds may 
adapt better than other birds to cut-over 
areas and flower gardens in suburban 
settings. While the United States has 
fewer resident hummingbirds, these 
probably are helped by the feeders we 
supply as well as by our planting of suit- 


able flowers and shrubs. > 


FURTHER READING 


Johnsgard, Paul A. The Hummingbirds of North 
America. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 
DCa1983) 

Skutch, Alexander I. The Life of the Hummingbird. 
Crown Publishers, New York. 1983. 


THE AUTHOR 


Sally Hoyt Spofford received her Ph.D. from Cor- 
nell in 1948 and retired from the staff of the Lab- 
oratory of Ornithology in 1969. 


Spring/ 1985 / 











“ete 











FLOWERS FOR HUMMERS 


NOTHER GOOD WAY to lure hummingbirds to 

your garden is with hummingbird-attracting flow- 

ers—large, red or reddish-yellow blossoms that grow 

singly or in loose clusters in a horizontal or pendant 
position. Usually trumpet shaped, they bloom by day and pro- 
duce abundant, concentrated nectar, the most important food 
in the birds’ diet. Such flowers have evolved to attract hummers 
because they serve as pollinators: while a hummer feeds at a 
flower it picks up pollen on its feathers, which it then transfers 
to the next flower it visits. The more attractive a flower, the 
more likely it is to have its pollen spread.. 

What flowers should you plant? In the northeast and midwest 
try cardinal flower, bee balm (Oswego tea), columbine, button- 
bush, autumn olive, honeysuckles, trumpet creeper, tuliptree 
and silk tree. In the southeast try painted cup, fire pink, car- 
dinal flower, red and flame buckeyes, Turk’s head (wax mal- 
low), trumpet creeper, trumpet honeysuckle, red horsechest- 


Facing page 





nut, and tuliptree. In the southwest try paintbrushes, 
penstemons, scarlet gilia, ocotilla, honeysuckles, chuparosa, 
coral bean, and eucalyptus. In the northwest try columbine, 
penstemons, red currant, manzanita, rhododendrons, orange 
honeysuckle, and madrone. A more comprehensive list of 
hummingbird-attracting flowers may be found in Johnsgard’s 
Hummingbirds of North America. 

When planting for hummingbirds keep these points in mind: 
choose tall plants that birds can reach by hovering, rather than 
plants that grow close to the ground; plant a variety of flowers 
that will bloom at different times throughout the growing sea- 
son; leave an open area around plants so the birds can watch for 
danger, and provide nearby perching sites, such as shrubs or 
clotheslines. Also, perennial flowers require less work than an- 
nuals, but if you use annuals, plant them in the same place each 
year since hummers remember the location of good feeding 
spots and return to them. 


bee balm (Oswego tea). Above, clockwise from top left—columbine, fire pink, scarlet gilia, cardinal flower. 


Many thousands of common 
loons died on their wintering 
srounds off the Gulf and 
Atlantic coasts of the United 
States during 1983. 
Laurence Alexander was 
preserve manager for The 
Nature Conservancy's Jeff 
Lewis Wilderness Preserve 
on Dog Island, a barrier 
island on the northern Gulf 
coast of Florida, when dead 
loons began to wash ashore. 


Common loons breed on beautiful wilderness 
lakes of northern United States and Canada. 


10‘ The Living Bird Quarterly 


TROUBLE 
TH LOONS 


Laurence L. Alexander 


Y HOME, DOG ISLAND, 

is one of three barrier islands 

which shelter Apalachicola 

Bay and St. George Sound 
on the northern Gulf coast of Florida. 
The waters of this large natural area pro- 
vide winter habitat for several kinds of 
migratory water birds, one being the 
common loon, a species belonging to 
the oldest living group of birds in North 
America. 

Common loons breed primarily in the 
northern United States and Canada, 
where their haunting yodels echo across 
wilderness lakes each summer. During 
winter they migrate to the Atlantic, Pa- 
cific, and Gulf coasts. The common 
loon also is known as the great northern 
diver because it can swim underwater 
for as long as 15 minutes while pursuing 
fish, its primary prey. 

Recently, ornithologists have worried 
that human development along wilder- 
ness lakeshores where loons breed is 
causing the species to decline in num- 
ber. Further concern resulted when peo- 
ple began finding dead loons along the 
coasts in winter. However, problems on 
the wintering grounds were poorly doc- 
umented—until 1983. 

On January 4, 1983 I found my first 
dead loon of the season; the last victim 
was picked up near St. George Island 
that August. During the intervening 
months, hundreds of weak, hungry 
loons found shelter on Dog Island, often 
crawling thousands of yards in search of 
calm waters. I gathered many of these 
birds and released them in protected in- 
tertidal marshes. Yet, all soon died, so 
weak and emaciated that they could not 


swim or lift their heads. Strangely, no 
other species of marine or aquatic bird 
was experiencing unusual mortality, not 
even other fish-eating birds such as 
grebes and cormorants. 

By February I was finding 10 to 20 
loons a day on Dog Island beaches, far 
more than previous years. On February 
2, I called Frances James, an ornitholo- 
gist at Florida State University, and 
asked her to visit the island as soon as 
possible. On February 20 she and several 
students arrived. We found 16 dead 
loons within one mile of their lodgings. 

Cursory examinations of these birds 
revealed empty stomachs and intestines 
and atrophy of the flight muscles. All 
birds had molted their flight feathers 
(normal for loons in winter) and were 
thus flightless. We agreed that the symp- 
toms suggested a serious nutritional 
problem and that the extent of the mor- 
tality was developing into a crisis. 

At that point I contacted the Na- 
tional Wildlife Health Laboratory 
(NWHL) in Madison, Wisconsin. Rob- 
ert E. Lange, Jr., a field diagnostician, 
said he was unaware of the die-off and 
was seriously concerned. We arranged 
for him to visit the island immediately. 
Meanwhile I shipped a few fresh car- 
casses to the NWHL facility for tests. 

On March 18, Lange arrived with 
Randy Davidson of the University of 
Georgia and Neal Eichholz of the Flor- 
ida Game and Fresh Water Fish Com- 
mission. Lange and Davidson examined 
dead and dying loons and found that all 
exhibited bleeding in the intestines, 
anemia, empty guts and stomachs, and 
extreme emaciation—they weighed less 























ee ee Cre ee ~ haste 


Stee, Rotter: Sates 


een ee ey 2 bea hee tent 
~~ ee 
oo ands. wamestites Sd ee we fate eee — we 
ee ee = 


FO Re ee ee 
oe ee ek ee 





on ee 

















ie Pe es see ie: 





ee ee me 


— 


~~ 





Se eee 
ee er ee Re ee 


eR ee ee 
sett cee watz at os taeatt eh 


Oe ee 











ed 





ee eee ee eee 





oe 
eel ee 


We he Si the cia me: 
ae ee ae 


ie aed 


ie ee nce ile ny ate 
aaa meh ores oath ncaa aan Be ie dias anh Gk BL) ae cade de ae ant ek tl ol alle abit ote ea 








GLENN FORREST 





Of the seven birds 
examined, four had 
mercury intoxication 

levels at or above 


the threshold thought to 


cause death 





than half their normal body weight. 

On March 29, Davidson released an 
interim report which confirmed the 
presence of the symptoms in all loons 
examined and estimated total mortality 
through March for the northern Gulf 
coast at 2,500 loons. But as reports ac- 
cumulated it became clear that the die- 
offs ranged along both the Gulf and At- 
lantic coasts, and that total mortality 
was much higher. 

My own survey of the shoreline and 
marshes of St. George Sound conducted 
through the summer suggested that as 
many as 7,500 loons died in the imme- 
diate area. At least as alarming was a re- 
port issued by Malcolm Simons’ 
Beached Bird Survey, a volunteer-based 
shoreline census. Besides substantiating 
the extent of mortality, the report stated 
that for a number of years far more dead 
loons had been found on eastern 
beaches than would be expected based 
on known population sizes. 

By April clinical findings were begin- 





ning to give us some idea what was hap- 
pening to the loons. In addition to con- 
firming the conditions we had noted on 
Dog Island, the tests indicated an ab- 
normally high presence of an intestinal 
parasite known as the microphallid 
fluke. Initially, researchers thought the 
parasites might be causing anemia 
which in turn weakened the birds to the 
point where they could no longer feed. 
However, toxicological studies per- 
formed at Patuxent Wildlife Research 
Center provided a more direct and dra- 
matic clue: of the seven birds exam- 
ined, four had mercury intoxication lev- 
els at or above the threshold thought to 
cause death; one bird had at least three 
times that level. 

A comprehensive summary issued by 
NWHL in December 1983 emphasized 
the role of mercury toxicity in the die- 
off. Further tests revealed that 19 of 22 
additional sample birds exhibited mer- 
cury levels high enough or nearly high 
enough to cause death. 

It is clear that the accumulation of 
mercury in loons has reached levels that 
probably are affecting the entire popu- 
lation. Loon counts around Dog Island 
in the winters of 1984 and 1985 were sig- 
nificantly depressed from previous years, 
and each year I continue to find ema- 
ciated, dead or dying loons. The rest of 
the grim facts will unfold in summers to 
come when we discover how mercury 
toxicity has affected reproductive 
success. 

There are many unknowns in the life 
history of the loon, particularly in its 


Dead loons such as those on the far left 
showed intestinal bleeding, anemia, empty 
stomachs and extreme emaciation. If death 
was caused by mercury contamination, even 
healthy-looking loons (left) may be in peril. 





winter distribution and ecology. For ex- 
ample, we don’t know how loons forage 
for food; are they opportunists or do 
they depend on specific foods? Do they 
maintain feeding territories as they do in 
the breeding range? Answers to these 
and other questions, such as where the 
mercury is coming from, and why only 
loons are being affected, can come only 
from patient, detailed research. Toward 
this end I believe specific steps must be 
taken. 

First, the Office of Endangered Spe- 
cies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- 
vice should determine the species’ sta- 
tus. In view of the events of 1983, the 
persistence of beached loons in excess of 
their relative abundance, an earlier 
unexplained die-off in 1973, and the de- 
struction of their wilderness breeding 
habitat in northern United States and 
Canada, the species may qualify as 
threatened under the Endangered Spe- 
cies Act. If the common loon acquired 
this status, a centrally coordinated re- 
search program could be initiated 
which would improve the quality and 
availability of data to researchers and 
would guarantee funds. 

Second, a broad base of public aware- 
ness of the problems facing loons must 
be created in the United States and 
Canada so that private and public sup- 
port of research can increase. If, as has 
been suggested, acid rain is responsible 
for the presence of mercury in loon food 
webs, this surely is an issue that should 
unite Canadian and American citizens 
in a call for action. Only with aware- 
ness, support, and swift, unified action 
can we stop the precipitous decline of 
this extraordinary species. > 


FURTHER READING 


Barlow, William. Voices of the Loon, a record al- 
bum. North American Loon Fund, Meredith, 
New Hampshire and the National Audubon So- 
ciety, New York. 1980. 

Graham, Frank Jr. “Mystery on Dog Island.” Au- 
dubon. March, 1984. 

Stroud, R. K. and R. E. Lange, Jr. Information 
Summary: Common Loon Die-Off, Winter and 
Spring of 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Na- 
tional Wildlife Health Laboratory. 1983. 


THE AUTHOR 


Laurence Alexander is working on a Ph.D. in 
zoology at the University of Florida. 


Spring/1985 13 


Laysan albatrosses lay huge eggs, six times the size of a chicken egg, which they incubate for 65 days before the young finally hatch (right). 


- En ormous Hg9s 


Gilbert S. Grant 


Photographs by Frans Lanting 


OR YEARS I DREAMED of 
traveling to a remote tropical is- 
land to study seabirds so tame 
they could be observed at close 
range, even touched. My dream came 
true when | was invited to join a team of 
scientists from the University of Hawaii 
and the State University of New York at 
Buffalo to travel to Midway Island. We 
went to Midway to study the nesting bi- 
ology of the black-footed albatross, Lay- 
san albatross, Bonin petrel, and white 
tern. All four species incubate their eggs 
for unusually long periods; we wanted to 
learn how this prolonged period affected 
the rate of water loss from the eggs. 
Midway is in the Pacific Ocean, 
1,100 miles northwest of Honolulu, near 
the end of the volcanic island chain 
which composes Hawaii. Midway’s 
mountain long ago subsided beneath 
the sea and all that remain are two tiny 
islands, Sand and Eastern Islands, with 
a combined area of two square miles. A 
coral atoll five miles in diameter sur- 
rounds the islands. The white coral 
sand beaches, green water, colorful trop- 
ical reef fish, and 500,000 birds make 
Midway a paradise for ornithologists. 
Our October 1979 arrival coincided 
with that of the Laysan and black- 
footed albatrosses. They had been at sea 
during the previous three months— 
some had gone to Japan, others to the 
Aleutians, still others to the coast of 
California— in search of squid. I fell in 
love with the island the minute | 
stepped off the plane and saw scores of 
these majestic birds soaring over the 
ironwood trees at the edge of the run- 
way. The Navy, which has a small base 
on Midway, provided us with a lab in an 
old schoolhouse and bicycles to get 
around the island. 
No native human population ever be- 


came established on Midway, presum- 
ably because of the lack of fresh water. 
However the military, which once was 
very active on Midway, altered the pris- 
tine islands by covering them with run- 
ways, buildings, and communication 
towers. In the late 1970s Eastern island 
was given back to the birds—the Navy 
bulldozed most of the buildings and all 
of the towers. Terns and albatrosses 
again are nesting on the runways. Sand 
Island, even with its extensive con- 
struction, supports half of Midway’s al- 
batrosses and all of its nesting Bonin pe- 
trels and white terns. Open fields, yards, 
and ironwood forests provide nesting 
sites for these seabirds. White terns nest 
high in the ironwoods and on buildings, 
albatrosses nest on the ground, and 
Bonin petrels excavate burrows. 

Laysan and black-footed albatrosses 
are Closely related tube-nosed seabirds, 
each having a six- to seven-foot wing- 
span. The Laysans nest side by side in 
the center of the islands while the less 
numerous black-footed albatrosses tend 
to nest around the periphery. Both ar- 
rive in October with the bulk of the 
black-footeds preceding the Laysans by 
two weeks. The birds establish new 
bonds and reaffirm old ones using a ri- 
tualized dance consisting of several 
steps, and vocalizations reminiscent of 
horses, cows, and chickens that are re- 


Spring/ 1985 15 





(VALAN PHOTOS) 


MARTIN KUHNIGK 


peated for hours on end, day and night. 

Egg laying by both species of albatross 
occurs in November and early Decem- 
ber and the large egg (equivalent to six 
chicken eggs) must be incubated for 65 
days (chicken eggs need about 21 days). 
A few days after the egg is laid the fe- 
male departs for the sea to replenish her 
energy supply. The male takes over for 
the next three weeks, never leaving the 
nest. 

We know very little about the court- 
ship rites of the Bonin petrel because it 
is nocturnal. Its enormous egg weighs 
22 percent of the female’s total weight 
and requires 49 days to hatch. The tern 
egg also experiences prolonged incuba- 
tion: 36 days are required to produce a 
down-covered chick with giant feet. 
White terns have no nest; they lay their 
eggs directly on a branch. 

All bird eggs come equipped with 
food and water for the developing em- 
bryo since these nutrients cannot be 
supplied once the egg is laid. Eggs have 
thousands of tiny pores to allow oxygen 
to enter and carbon dioxide to escape. 
These pathways also are traveled by wa- 
ter molecules escaping to the drier en- 
vironment of the nest and atmosphere. 

Because incubation of these four spe- 
cies is prolonged, we were interested to 
learn how their eggs are modified to en- 
sure appropriate rates of water ex- 
change. Amos Ar and Hermann Rahn 
have shown that most bird eggs, regard- 
less of size and incubation periods, lose 
about 15 percent of their initial weight 
as water vapor during incubation. Do 
albatross, petrel and white tern eggs lose 
only 15 percent of their initial weight 
even though their incubation periods 


16 The Living Bird Quarterly 


are nearly twice that of other birds? 

To document the rate of water loss, 
we marked hundreds of nests and 
checked them daily so we knew when 
egg laying occurred. Freshly laid eggs 
were numbered, weighed, and returned 
to the nest. The eggs were weighed pe- 
riodically throughout incubation. 

We discovered that eggs of all four 
species lost about 15 percent of their 
weight during the entire incubation pe- 
tiod. How could this be? After various 
experiments, we found that egg temper- 
ature, humidity, and porosity acted to- 
gether to keep the rate of water loss to 15 
percent. 

The next question was whether the 
reduced porosity in turn reduced oxy- 
gen consumption and growth rates 
within an egg. To investigate this, we 
removed albatross eggs from their nests 
and brought them into the laboratory. 
From earlier studies we knew albatrosses 
would incubate any object placed in 
their nests, including beer cans, bricks, 
and tennis balls. To keep the parents 
from missing their eggs, we replaced the 
real ones with pantyhose containers 
filled with dirt. We incubated the eggs 
in the lab in a modified human baby in- 
cubator and measured the amount of ox- 
ygen the embryos consumed. The me- 
tabolism of embryos was indeed reduced 
corresponding to the reduced porosity. 
This meant that the embryo took longer 
and used more energy to develop into 
a chick. 

Why do seabirds have prolonged in- 
cubation? The reason may relate to the 
birds’ food needs: the location and 
amount of fish and squid change from 
year to year causing seabirds’ food sup- 
plies to be especially unpredictable. Be- 
cause of this uncertainty, the birds may 
have evolved lowered metabolism and 
slow growth rates as well as delayed 
breeding and prolonged incubation. 


THE ENORMOUS SQUIDS 


any tons of squid are har- 
vested each year by commer- 
cial Japanese fisheries from 
the same area of the Pacific 
Ocean where the albatrosses of Midway 
feed. How much food do the birds need 
to carry out their daily activities, in- 
cluding the task of laying and hatching 
an egg equivalent to six chicken eggs? 
Are the birds in competition with the 
fisheries for the ocean’s resources? To 
answer these questions, we had to find 
out what and how much the birds ate. 


Left, the amount of squid changes yearly, contributing to prolonged incubation. Above, Laysans establish mating bonds with ritualized dances. 











We also needed to measure their meta- 
bolic rates so we could calculate how 
many pounds of food were required to 
support the seabirds. But how? 

We knew that albatrosses are strongly 
attached to their nest sites. We learned 
this when we helped the Midway public 
works department to move a dozen Lay- 
san albatross nests to make room for a 
freshwater pumping station. The nests 
had to be displaced about 20 feet; simply 
building a new nest and transferring the 
egg or chick to the new site failed. Al- 
batrosses remained on their old but 
empty nests in plain view of their ex- 
posed egg or chick. 

When we tried lifting the nest, egg or 
chick, and incubating parent as a unit 
and depositing them in a safer site, the 
albatrosses got off their egg or chick, 
ambled back and sat down in the hole 
that had been their former nest. 

So, instead of taking the birds to the 
metabolic chambers, we decided to take 
the chambers to the birds. To do this I 
first slid plywood platforms beneath the 
five nests closest to the lab. When I was 
ready to take some measurements on an 
incubating albatross, | gently lifted the 
platform and slid the entire assemblage 
into the chamber. Next I eased the 
chamber over the exact nest site. 

To measure the metabolism of non- 
incubating albatrosses I simply herded 
them into the chamber. They settled 


down quickly and did not appear 
stressed. We showed that it did not cost 
adult albatrosses any extra energy to in- 
cubate their eggs. 

In addition to albatrosses we wanted 
to measure the metabolic rate of white 
terns and Bonin petrels. The precarious 
tree-branch nest of the white tern did 
not lend itself to measurement, however 
we were able to test the Bonin petrel. As 
in the case of the albatross, we found 
that the petrel did not expend extra en- 
ergy to incubate its relatively large egg. 

Besides measuring metabolic rate, we 
wanted to answer the larger question of 
how much total energy flows through 
Midway’s bird population. This re- 
quired weighing chicks periodically and 
monitoring what parents fed to them. 

The food items we encountered most 
frequently were squid and fish. The size 
of some of the prey was startling. One 
discarded squid arm was 5 feet 10 inches 
long. Even more shocking was the quan- 
tity of plastics fed to albatross chicks by 
their parents. A sampling disclosed 
plastic bottle caps, perfume bottles and 
toys of every description—soldiers, In- 
dians, cowboys, alien monsters, mon- 
keys, rabbits, dinosaurs, elephants, 
camels, cats, and dogs. Where did these 
items come from and why were they 
picked up by the adults? 

Almost every bottle cap that was la- 
beled had been made in Japan. Since 





feo 


Left, a collection of plastics brought to albatross colony by adults feeding their young. Above, black-footed albatrosses. 


most albatrosses feed near Japan, this 
debris must have been floating on the 
birds’ foraging area. We suspect the 
birds were attracted to the plastics’ 
bright colors, or to fish eggs attached to 
the flotsam and jetsam. 

With the information we had gath- 
ered about egg incubation and energy 
consumption, we calculated that it 
takes millions of pounds of fish and 
squid per year to support the seabirds on 
Midway. We concluded that the seabirds 
were indeed competing with human 
fishermen for the ocean’s resources. 

Management of the harvest is neces- 
sary to ensure that sufficient food will be 
available to both humans and seabirds. 
Continued monitoring of seabird popu- 
lations can provide early indications of 
trouble in marine ecosystems that could 
harm both the Japanese fish industry 
and the half-million birds packed into 
the two square miles of Midway. Ss 


FURTHER READING 


Fisher, M. L. The Albatross of Midway Island: A 
Natural History of the Laysan Albatross. S. Illinois 
University Press, Carbondale, Illinois. 1970. 
Haley, Delphine, ed. Seabirds of Eastern North Pa- 
cific and Arctic Waters. Pacific Search Press, Seat- 
tle, Washington. 1984. 


THE AUTHOR 


Gilbert Grant teaches biology at Coastal Carolina 
Community College in Jacksonville, North Car- 
olina, and is continuing his field research on birds. 


Spring/ 1985 19 





ROBERT C. SIMPSON (VALAN PHOTOS) 








RE HAVE ALL 
THE SONGBIRDS 


OCK CREEK PARK—an is- 

land of forest in the midst of 

Washington, D.C. At one 

time this park of mature decid- 
uous oaks, beeches, hickories and 
tuliptrees harbored a rich community 
of breeding birds. A 1948 bird census 
recorded ovenbirds, red-eyed and yel- 
low-throated vireos, black-and-white 
warblers, hooded warblers, and Acadian 
flycatchers. Today, although the forest 
has not changed much, the birdlife has. 
Gone are the yellow-throated vireos, 
black-and-white warblers, hooded war- 
blers, and Acadian flycatchers. Oven- 
birds have declined by 94 percent, and 
red-eyed vireos by 79 percent. And 
Rock Creek Park is just one place where 
forest-dwelling songbirds are in serious 
trouble. 

Over the past decade scientists have 
realized that what is happening in Rock 
Creek Park is occurring throughout the 
eastern and central United States. 
Studies in Massachusetts, Connecticut, 
New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Mary- 
land, Illinois, and Wisconsin show that 
certain forest songbirds are absent or de- 
clining in urban parks and small frag- 
ments of once-larger woodlots. Curi- 
ously, the declines do not involve all 
forest-dwelling songbirds. Rather, one 
group—the neotropical migrants—is 
affected most dramatically. These birds, 
which include vireos, warblers, and fly- 
catchers, breed in North America, then 
migrate to Latin America or the Carib- 
bean where they spend the winter. 

If conservationists are to prevent fur- 
ther declines of these birds, two ques- 


ONE? 


David S. Wilcove 


tions must be addressed. First, why are 
small woodlots losing breeding popula- 
tions of songbirds, and second, why are 
the songbirds that migrate to the neo- 
tropics prone to local extirpation? An- 
swers are just beginning to surface. 

In the summer of 1983 I set out to de- 
termine if part of the problem was nest 
predation— the loss of eggs or nestlings 
to predators. Rats, dogs, and pigs have 
had a disastrous impact on the birds that 
dwell on oceanic islands. For example, 
on Lord Howe Island, Australia, rat pre- 
dation has caused five bird species to be- 
come extinct since 1918, when rats first 
arrived on a wrecked ship. Could a sim- 
ilar thing be happening to songbirds in 
our suburban woodlots, which are is- 
lands of forest in a sea of man-made hab- 
itat? Are more nest predators present in 
these fragments than in larger tracts? 

To test this hypothesis, | placed arti- 
ficial nests containing Japanese quail 
eggs in forests of different sizes in Mary- 
land and Tennessee. | put some nests on 
the ground and some in shrubs and sap- 
lings since I wanted to learn if the place- 
ment of a nest influences its chances 
of being preyed upon. After one week 
I checked for evidence of predation. 

My study sites included the Great 
Smoky Mountains National Park in 
eastern Tennessee and 10 woodlots in 
central Maryland. Great Smoky Moun- 
tains Park is the largest contiguous for- 
est in the eastern United States, encom- 
passing about 517,000 acres. It 
resembles the pre-Colonial forest that 
once stretched from the Atlantic Ocean 
to the Mississippi River. The Maryland 


sites included two large forest tracts and 
eight smaller fragments. The Smoky 
Mountains and large Maryland tracts 
still retain all their breeding neotropical 
migrants; the eight fragments are miss- 
ing many of the same species that have 
vanished from Rock Creek Park. 

The results of my experiments were 
astonishing. Nests placed in the Great 
Smoky Mountains National Park suf- 
fered a very low predation rate of 2 per- 
cent. The next lowest rate, 18 percent, 
came from the largest Maryland tract. 
Predation rates in the fragments ranged 
from 25 percent to 95 percent, the high- 
est rate being in areas surrounded by 
suburban housing developments. I con- 
cluded from these findings that preda- 
tion rates are indeed higher in small 
fragments, especially in suburban areas, 
and that not even the largest Maryland 
tract approached the very low predation 
rate | found in the Smoky Mountains. 

Several factors may account for the 
higher rates of nest predation in the 
small forest fragments. First, numbers of 
some nest predators have increased in 
recent years as a result of artificial 
changes in the landscape. Blue jays may 
be benefiting from the popularity of 
winter feeding stations, and crows have 
increased in response to grain and corn 
left in fields by mechanical harvesters. 
Second, forest fragments support few, if 
any, large animals like mountain lions, 
bobcats, large hawks and owls that may 
regulate populations of some nest pred- 
ators. Third, nest predators such as jays, 
crows, grackles and raccoons are more 
common along forest edges than in the 


Red-eyed vireos (left) are declining seriously in fragments of once-larger woodlots throughout the eastern and central United States. 








R. HAMILTON SMITH (FROZEN IMAGES) 


E.R I. NANCY ADAMS 








Nest predation and cowbird parasitism may be 
causing songbird declines. Cavity nests, top, 
are safer than open-cup nests. Parasitic 
cowbird chick crowds young warbler from its 
Open-cup nest, right. Fragments support 

few large animals such as bobcats, above, 

that help to regulate nest-predator numbers. 





interior. Since fragments have a higher 
edge-to-interior ratio than larger tracts, 
fragments also may have greater densi- 
ties of predators. In addition, woodlots 
near human dwellings may have more 
dogs, cats, jays, grackles, squirrels, and 
raccoons than do isolated rural wood- 
lots. 

My test results clearly point to nest 
predation as a factor in songbird popu- 
lation declines. But why should certain 
neotropical migrants be more vulnera- 
ble than other birds? As first noted by 
Robert Whitcomb, Chandler Robbins, 


James Lynch, and other researchers, 


22 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


many of these birds are sensitive to nest 
predation because of their breeding 
habits. Many neotropical migrants, 
such as ovenbirds, black-and-white 
warblers, worm-eating warblers, and 
hooded warblers, nest on or near the 
ground; many forest-dwelling nonmi- 
grants nest at least six feet above the 
ground. Indeed, my experiments bore 
out the fact that ground-dwellers are 


more vulnerable than above-ground: 


nesters. I found at two of my sites that 
experimental nests on the ground were 
preyed upon significantly more than 
those placed in the shrubs. 

Another point of vulnerability is the 
nests themselves. Most neotropical mi- 
grants construct open, cuplike nests, 
while many nonmigratory birds— 
woodpeckers and titmice, for exam- 
ple—nest in tree cavities. Cavity nests 
are thought to be less vulnerable to 
predators than the open-cup design. To 
test this idea I returned to one of my ex- 
perimental suburban fragments and 
built artificial cavity nests by drilling 
small holes in hollow tree trunks and de- 
positing fresh eggs. I also set out some 
open-cup nests with eggs. After a week 
virtually all of the open-cup nests, but 
none of the cavity nests, had been 
preyed upon. 

Still another problem for neotropical 
migrants is their tendency to have 
smaller clutches and fewer broods per 
year than nonmigrants. Thus, a single 
act of predation late in the breeding sea- 
son can wipe out a bird’s reproductive 
effort for an entire year, a bleak prospect 
for a small, short-lived songbird that 
undertakes a hazardous migration twice 
each year. 

Predators are not the only problem 
confronting songbirds in forest frag- 
ments. The birds also must contend 
with brown-headed cowbirds, brood 
parasites which lay their eggs in the 
nests of other birds at the expense of the 
host’s own eggs and offspring. Margaret 
Brittingham and Stanley Temple of the 
University of Wisconsin have docu- 
mented the phenomenal increase in 
cowbirds in the United States over the 
past 50 years. Agricultural practices 
that provide cowbirds with waste grain 
and rice during the winter have boosted 
their numbers. Brittingham and Temple 
have shown that parasitism by cowbirds 
is most intense along the forest edge, de- 
creasing farther into the forest. Since an 
increased proportion of edge to interior 
is an inevitable by-product of fragmen- 


tation, birds in small woodlots may suf- 
fer higher rates of cowbird parasitism 
than those in large tracts. And open- 
cup nests make easy targets. 

The problems of migrant songbirds 
are not confined to North America. 
They are also having trouble on their 
wintering grounds in Latin America, 
where tropical forests are being cleared 
at an ever-increasing rate for canefields 
and cattle pastures. Consequently, the 
wintering habitats of at least 55 migrant 
species are threatened. Censuses from a 
large forest tract in West Virginia have 
shown that breeding populations of 
some of these species, such as the Black- 
burnian and magnolia warbler, have de- 
clined. It is likely that if tropical defor- 
estation continues unchecked, the 
future for these and other neotropical 
migrants is grim. 

If we are to preserve forest-dwelling 
migratory songbirds we must attend to 
their needs on both their breeding and 
wintering grounds. In North America 
our first priority must be to preserve crit- 
ical large forest tracts before they are de- 
stroyed. Bird watchers can assist by 
identifying populations of area-sensitive 
woodland birds and pressing for their 
protection. We know surprisingly little 
about the behavior and distribution of 
migrants on their wintering grounds 
and more research there is needed. Fi- 
nally, any assistance we in the United 
States and Canada can provide for hab- 
itat protection in Latin America and 
the Caribbean will benefit not only 
tropical ecosystems, but some migratory 
songbirds as well. 

And if we fail to act? The loss of so 
many insect-eating birds may have long- 
term ecological consequences for our 
forests. As for aesthetics, a park like 
Rock Creek is still a fine place to spend 
a summer morning. But for those who 
consider the songbirds an important 
part of its appeal, Rock Creek Park will 
never be the same. ¥>-. 


FURTHER READING 
Brittingham, M. C. and S. A. Temple. “Have 


cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline?” 
BioScience, vol. 33, pp. 31-35. 

Wilcove, D. S. and R. E Whitcomb. “Gone with 
the Trees.” Natural History. September, 1983. 
Wilcove, D. S. “Nest predation in forest tracts 
and the decline of migratory songbirds.” Ecology, 
in press. 


THE AUTHOR 
David Wilcove is a Ph.D. candidate in biology at 


Princeton University. 








KENNETH W. FINK (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 





NEWS & NOTES 





Atlantic puffin 
NATIONAL AUDUBON Society’s puffin 


reintroduction project, under the direction 
of Laboratory of Ornithology Associate Ste- 
phen W. Kress, transplanted 200 puffin 
chicks to two Maine islands from Great Is- 
land, Newfoundland in 1984. This was the 
first attempt to reestablish puffin colonies on 
Western Egg Rock and Seal Island, where 
puffins have not bred since 1887. 

On Maine’s Eastern Egg Rock 14 pairs of 
Atlantic puffins bred last summer, equaling 
the largest number of breeding pairs there 
since reestablishment of the colony in 1981. 
Eleven of the 14 pairs fledged young. Last 
summer also marked the first return to East- 
ern Egg Rock of a native puffin fledged on 
the island by wild adults. 


THE LABORATORY of Ornithology’s 
Nest Record Program is being used to study 
eastern bluebirds. Robert Cerwonka, biology 
department chairman at the State Univer- 
sity of New York at Potsdam, is examining 
25,000 nest record cards, each correspond- 


Compiled by Steven C. Sibley 


ing to a nesting attempt by a pair of blue- 
birds. This information will reveal trends in 
bluebird clutch size, nesting success, and 
time of breeding. Some researchers believe 
that eastern bluebird populations have been 
declining in the northeastern United States. 

The Nest Record Program is the largest 
database on nesting behavior of North 
American birds. The Laboratory hopes to 
conduct many more projects using the rec- 
ords to monitor North American bird popu- 
lations. 

The Nest Record Program is more mean- 
ingful the more cards it has on each species. 
Anyone can participate. If you’d like to help, 
please write to: Nest Record Program, Lab- 


oratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, 
Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, New York 14850. 


NORTH CENTRAL PLASTICS, Inc., 
the nation’s largest manufacturer of electri- 
cal fencing supplies, has announced it will 
no longer produce red insulators. Humming- 
birds attracted to the color were electrocuted 
when they simultaneously touched the wire 
and metal post. Now the company manufac- 
tures only black insulators, which do not at- 
tract the birds and may be used to replace red 
ones already in place. Red insulators also 
may be painted black. 


THE EDITORS of The Living Bird Quar- 
terly invite you to write to us expressing your 
views on our content or other issues involv- 
ing birds and the environment. 

We reserve the right to edit your letters for 
style and to use your name unless otherwise 
requested. Our goal is to establish a forum 
for your ideas and to address the topics that 
concern us all. 


A NEW TECHNIQUE for marking thou- 
sands of birds at once has been developed by 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Denver 
Research Center. Fluorescent paint sus- 
pended in a water-based adhesive is sprayed 


on a flock of birds from an airplane or is 
spread on a pond where waterfowl will land. 
The paint shows up on birds’ feathers when 
held under ultraviolet light. The method re- 
quires that marked birds be captured and 
placed under the light before they molt or 
the paint wears off, a period of three to eight 
months. 

According to researchers at the center, 
the technique has been tested on blackbirds 
with great success. Sixty percent of a roost- 
ing flock of 13-million blackbirds sprayed in 
Missouri in the winter of 1982 were ade- 
quately marked. Blackbird studies the next 
summer produced recoveries from as far as 
Edmonton, Alberta, with a recovery rate of 
over 10 percent. Conventional banding tech- 
niques in comparable cases usually yield less 
than one percent. Although this method 
does not allow recognition of individual 
birds, it has tremendous potential for study- 
ing movements of flocks, especially ducks 
and geese. 


THE SIGNING OF the Wild Bird Bill by 
New York State Governor Mario Cuomo may 
be the beginning of a heated battle between 
conservationists and the pet industry. The 
bill, signed last August, prohibits the sale in 
New York State of any bird not bred in cap- 
tivity. Supporters of the bill hope to pass 
similar legislation throughout the United 
States with the goal of shutting down the 
import of wild birds into this country. 

For every wild bird sold in a pet shop, an 
estimated 10 to 100 die during capture, 
transport, and quarantine. Over 800,000 
wild birds were legally imported into the 
U.S. in 1982 alone; as many as 80-million 
were captured for the U.S. pet trade that 
year. 

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 
is fighting the legislation since many of these 
birds, such as cockatoos and macaws, are 
popular pets that are not bred in captivity in 





IT SAYS HERE THAT 
SOME BIRDS HAVE 
"MAGNETIC HEADS” 


"SOME BIRDS HAVE 
IRON OXIDE IN TISSUE 
BEHIND THEIR EYES THAT 




















24 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 





HELPS THEM TO NAVIGATE" 















I WONDER IF 
THAT'S YOU.. 






8- 24 





IT’S YOU 
ALL RIGHT 


“oul‘eyBojpuds enyBey perun ¥e6L © 














HUW 





© 1984 UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC. 


large numbers. New York State is the third 
largest market for wild birds in the U.S., af- 
ter California and Florida. The bill takes ef- 
fect November 1, 1985. 


ARE YOU INTERESTED in the birds of 
England? Mr. D. A. Lee of Lincolnshire is 
looking for someone to write to about En- 
glish birds and bird watching in exchange for 
information about this country. He has been 
a member of the Royal Society for the Pro- 
tection of Birds for 15 years, is a regular par- 
ticipant in bird surveys in his area, and is 
very knowledgeable about the history of his 
region. Anyone interested in communicat- 
ing with Mr. Lee may write to him at: 15 
Thames Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire, 
England. 


THE 19TH INTERNATIONAL Orni- 
thological Congress will be held in Ottawa, 
Canada, June 22 to 29, 1986. The program 
comprises lectures, symposia, papers, 
round-table discussions, special interest 
group meetings, and workshops. Pre- and 
post-congress excursions and workshops are 
planned, as well as early morning bird walks. 

Deadline for registration and submission 
of papers is January 1986. Additional infor- 
mation and registration forms are available 
from: Dr. Henri Ouellet, Secretary General, 
XIX Congressus Internationalis Ornitholog- 
icus, National Museum of Natural Sciences, 


Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A OM8. 


NATIONAL WILDLIFE Federation’s 
1984 mid-winter bald eagle survey found 
11,819 eagles in 42 states, compared with 
10,903 in 1983. Nesting surveys from the 
Great Lakes to Maine and south to Chesa- 
peake Bay show a slow but steady increase in 
nesting pairs of eagles for the past ten years. 


THE NUMBER OF endangered and 
threatened bird species found in the United 
States now stands at 76, according to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The wood 
stork was the only bird species added in 
1984. Least terns and piping plovers were 
proposed for the list, while the status of the 
Arctic peregrine falcon dropped from en- 
dangered to threatened, and the removal of 
the southeastern population of the brown 
pelican from the endangered list was pro- 
posed. 

Worldwide, 220 bird species are consid- 
ered threatened or endangered, as well as 
297 mammals, 99 reptiles, 85 plants, 62 
fish, 24 clams, 16 amphibians, 12 insects, 
nine snails, and four crustaceans. 


U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE Service has 
proposed that the piping plover be added to 
the list of threatened and endangered spe- 
cies. Piping plovers breed on Atlantic coast 
beaches from the Maritime Provinces to 
North Carolina, on some shores of the Great 
Lakes, and in suitable wetlands and rivers in 


the Canadian prairie provinces, Montana, 
Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. 

Human disturbance and development of 
beach areas are responsible for the species’ 
decline. Throughout their range the plovers 
usually are incubating eggs by Memorial Day 
weekend when interference from beach- 
combers, sunbathers, and dune buggies 
causes the failure of most nesting attempts. 
The Atlantic coast population now numbers 
fewer than 800 breeding pairs. Fewer than 
20 pairs remain in the Great Lakes, where 
the species is proposed for endangered sta- 
tus. 


FOR THE FIRST TIME in its 47-year 
history, Ducks Unlimited will be spending 
several million dollars annually to protect 
and restore waterfowl habitat in the United 
States. Until this year DU has directed its 
funding to projects in Canada, where 70 per- 
cent of all North American waterfowl breed. 
During that period DU restored or preserved 
more than three million acres of waterfowl 
habitat. DU also has appropriated funds to 
protect 50,000 acres in Mexico. 

The organization reports that only an es- 
timated 95-million acres of wetlands remain 
of the original 215-million wetland acres in 


the United States, and that wetland loss 
continues at a rate of 458,000 acres per year. 
Plans have begun on projects in North and 
South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, and 
Alaska, where 90 percent of all ducks 
hatched in the U.S. originate. 


THE LABORATORY has acquired a lim- 
ited number of complete sets (some imper- 
fect) of The Living Bird annual. Sets are 
available for $1,000. Nineteen volumes of 
The Living Bird annual were published by the 
Laboratory between 1962 and 1981, and 
contain a variety of significant research 
studies as well as handsome colorplates. Pro- 
ceeds will support the Library. Mail your re- 
quest and check or money order to Library, 
Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell Univer- 
sity, Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, New York 
14850. 


MEMBERS: thank you for your tremen- 
dous response to our year-end letter and your 
continued support of the Laboratory. We re- 
ceived more than 200 letters with donations 
totaling over $30,000. With Laboratory 
membership topping 10,000 and new pro- 
grams under way, 1984 was a very good year 
for the Laboratory. 





Dear Member: 


Warblers are challenging. They are hard to see, difficult to identify and, it turns 
out, a sound engineer’s nightmare. Four years ago we began a project with William 
Gunn, Donald Borror, and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists to produce a new, 
comprehensive recording of the songs and calls of all North American warblers. Now, 
after much agony, we finally can enjoy superb recordings available on both records 


and cassettes. What took four years? 


Of all birds, warblers are the hardest to record. Their songs are full of high 
frequencies and the notes have incredibly abrupt beginnings. Recording equipment is 
designed for human speech and music—even the most sophisticated systems cannot 
cope with a virtuoso performance by a half-ounce blackpoll warbler. The results can 


be horribly distorted sound reproduction. 


Fortunately, the original recordings made by Gunn and Borror in the field were 
skillfully made with excellent equipment. But copies made of the tapes were 
distorted, and the problem was amplified on a test record. The first edition of the 
warbler album, produced in 1959, sounded splendid by comparison. 

This was taken as a direct challenge by our sound engineer David Wickstrom, and 
by Robert Grotke at The Groove Shop. Grotke’s record-cutting studio is in an old 
firehouse in Clarence, New York, where we had worked with him on previous record 
projects. Together, he and David rebuilt and replaced the equipment, for example, 
recording amplifiers with a power capability of 100 watts per channel were replaced 
by ones capable of delivering 900 watts. But the increase in power could burn out 
delicate cutting heads, and new ones cost $14,200 each! 

Friends of David and Bob in the record business also tried to cut the warbler 
records, unsuccessfully. However, midnight forays to recording research facilities, 
examinations of test records with an electron microscope, and consultations with the 
engineering departments of phonograph parts manufacturers, did produce new ideas 


for David and Bob to try. 


Finally, success. The modifications eventually produced a recording that sounds 
like warblers, an extraordinary accomplishment. All of us who want to know more 
about warblers owe a great debt to the late Bill Gunn and to Don Borror who made 
the recordings, to Andrea Priori who edited the tapes, to Jim Gulledge who edited 
the booklet and to Steve Cobb who designed it, and especially to the extraordinary 
talents and persistence of Bob Grotke and Dave Wickstrom. The skillful blending of 
expert field recording with state-of-the-art engineering has produced a product of 


unprecedented quality and lasting value. 


Charles Walcott, Executive Director 





Spring/1985 25 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





NEW BOOKS 


PRAIRIE WINGS by Edgar M. Queeny. 
1983. Dover Publications, New York. 256 
pages. $12.50 (paper). 


If you are interested in waterfowl or bird 
flight you will enjoy this book, which ac- 
tually is not new, but a reprint of a 1947 clas- 
sic. Originally titled Prairie Wings: Pen and 
Camera Flight Studies, this volume was 
among the first to document photographi- 
cally the mechanics of bird flight. The au- 
thor, a naturalist and hunter, took the 270 
black-and-white photos while observing 
ducks on the Grand Prairie of Arkansas, one 
of the nation’s largest gathering places for 
migrating waterfowl. 

Many of the photos are stop-action se- 
quences showing ducks landing, taking off, 
flying, hovering, pitching and turning, 
crash landing, and more. In 1947 the photos 
were a technological breakthrough. By to- 
day’s standards many of them are fuzzy and 
lacking contrast, nevertheless, they are still 
interesting and useful for understanding how 
ducks fly. Some photos are accompanied by 
pen-and-ink sketches that explain what the 
birds are doing. 

Queeny’s explanations of the mechanics 
of flight are not always clear, but overall his 
writing is elegant and entertaining. Espe- 
cially enjoyable are introductory chapters 
that describe the natural history of the 
Grand Prairie, and concluding chapters 
about duck hunting and a beloved retriever 
named Grouse of Arden. 


THE JOY OF BIRDING by Chuck Bern- 
stein. 1984. Capra Press, Santa Barbara, 
California. 201 pages. $8.95 (paper). 


This book will be of interest primarily to se- 
rious birders. It is a hodge-podge, partly be- 
cause many of the chapters first appeared as 
articles in Bird Watcher's Digest. The chap- 
ters are of two types: anecdotal accounts of 
birding trips, and discussions intended to 
help the reader become a better birder. 
Many of the 13 anecdotal chapters are ad- 
venture stories that make enjoyable reading 
if you don’t mind a somewhat clichéd writ- 
ing style. The seven concept chapters are 
different: they contain information on topics 
such as prudent use of field guides; identify- 
ing immature birds; learning about bird dis- 
tribution, and the significance of subspecies. 
The information is useful although some- 


what disorganized. An additional chapter, . 


26 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


“taking a guided bird tour,’ should be helpful 
to persons planning their first tour. 


MATCHING MARTINS 


Male and female birds of many species do not 
look the same. Often the male is brightly 
colored and the female is drab. Male purple 
martins, for example, are glossy purplish 
black, while females have dull blue backs and 
gray underparts. Presumably the male’s 
bright color helps him to attract a mate and 
defend the nest against other martins; the fe- 
male’s dull color makes her less conspicuous 
as she tends the nest. 

Yet not every drab martin is a female. Im- 
mature purple martins, both male and fe- 
male, also have gray breasts. Why should 
young males resemble their mothers instead 
of their fathers? 

Charles R. Brown of Princeton University 
has a theory: immature males may resemble 
adult females so that youngsters can gain ac- 
cess to food, preferred perching sites, or 
other resources normally reserved for fe- 
males. His idea is based on behaviorist Susan 
M. Smith’s suggestion that adult females 
may dominate males during the breeding 
season to ensure that females obtain enough 
food to produce eggs and healthy young. If 
this is true, Brown reasons, young, non- 
breeding males may resemble adult females 
in an attempt to fool adult males into giving 
up resources. 

Brown formulated this theory while 
studying a roost of 1,500 purple martins 
perched along utility wires in Green Valley, 
Arizona (“Light-breasted purple martins 
dominate dark-breasted birds in a roost: im- 
plications for female mimicry.’ The Auk, vol. 
101, pp. 162—164). It was breeding season, 
the most likely time for females to dominate 
males. Brown noticed that gray-breasted 
martins frequently displaced adult males 
from perching sites along the top utility 
wires. However, adult males seldom dis- 
placed gray-breasted birds. Displaced males 
usually left the roost or settled upon the less- 
populated lower wires. 

Brown feels that some of the gray-breasted 
birds probably were immature males which 
had deceived adult males and gained access 
to the uppermost wire. Why should this wire 
be favored? Perhaps it affords a better view of 
passing prey and approaching predators. A 
higher perch also might allow a martin to 
launch into flight and gain altitude more 
quickly, an important advantage for avoiding 
predation. 


BIRD BRAINS 


A new discovery has startled scientists 
worldwide: large numbers of neurons (nerve 
cells) are formed each day in the forebrains 
of adult birds. This finding contradicts the 
long-held belief that no new neurons are ever 
formed after infancy except in certain fish 
and rodents. 

The discovery was made by Fernando 
Nottebohm and his colleagues at Rockefeller 
University (‘New neurons form in adult- 
hood; Science, vol. 224, pp. 1325-1326). 
Nottebohm has been studying canary brains 
for 15 years in an attempt to understand how 
birds learn songs. Early in his experiments 
he determined that a section of the forebrain 
called the HVc is an important part of the 
neural circuitry that controls singing. He 
also discovered that as young canaries 
learned to sing, or as adults added more 
songs to their repertoires, their HVc’s grew. 
This finding led to an interesting question: 
did the larger size result from the birth of 
new neurons or from the growth of old ones? 

By using a radioactive cell marker, Notte- 
bohm demonstrated that as the HVc grew in 
several test canaries, new neurons appeared 

















Generalized bird brain 


at a rate that would double their number in 
49 days. Nottebohm further discovered that 
several areas other than the forebrain also 
acquire new neurons; he estimates that ca- 
naries may form as many as 20,000 new neu- 
rons a day. To make room for these new brain 
cells an equal number die, so there is a con- 
stant turnover of cells. Nottebohm also has 
discovered new neurons in the brains of 
budgerigars and ringed turtle doves. 

The implications of these findings are in- 
triguing. Says Nottebohm: ‘“‘We ought to see 
if adult neurogenesis occurs in humans. And 
if not, why not? What is preventing it? Can 
it be induced?” Perhaps studies of bird brains 
will lead to techniques for inducing new 
brain cells to grow in humans who have suf- 
fered brain damage. 


Narrated by Robert J. Lurtsema # Re 


VOICES OF THE LOON 


od by William E 


w # Published by Nor 


vs he 

’ : a eg 
eae TAUB BN : 
Sr sGe OR RF 9h SS 


wore bX % 


‘Me : 
We 


ay 


Enclosed is a check or money order in U.S. funds, payable to The Crow’s Nest Bookshop. Our 
address—The Crow’s Nest Bookshop, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, Sap- 
sucker Woods, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. (607) 256-5057. 


Title Qty. Price 


Amount of order 

N.Y. State residents add 7% sales tax 
Postage and handling 

Total amount enclosed 


Form of payment: [|] Check [] Money Order [] VISA [] MasterCard 


Card # Expir. Date 
Signature 
Name 


Address 


City 





Bird Specialties from 
The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


Voices of the Loon 
North American Loon Fund and 
National Audubon Society. 


Collection of the common loon’s 
beautiful and eerie calls. Side one 
contains a narrated introduction and 
identifications of various loon calls; side 
two is an uninterrupted exploration of 
choruses, duets, wails, confrontations, 
and other calls. Available in 12” 3314 
rpm record or C45 cassette. 


Record No. 1815/$10.95/$9.86 members 
Cassette No. 1876/$12.95/$11.66 members 


The Hummingbirds of 


North America 
Paul A. Johnsgard 


Comprehensive summary of the biology 
and life history of all 23 North American 
hummingbird species. Colorplates 
superbly illustrate each species on the 
flower with which it is associated. 
Distribution maps, glossary, 
identification key, and a list of more than 
160 hummingbird-adapted North 
American plants are included. 


1983, cloth, 303 pages. 
I CMPAC CTA SEMA ed MeliBiiciilien 


The Puffin 
M. P. Harris 


Detailed account of the Atlantic puffin 
covering all aspects of this seabird’s life 
history, current situation and threats. 
Contents include the puffin’s 
morphology, distribution, breeding 
biology, feeding, colonies, young, 
predators, migration, and factors 
influencing its numbers. Over 40 maps 
and diagrams plus drawings and black- 
and-white photographs complete this 
readable book. 


1984, cloth, 224 pages. 
No. 2351/$32.50/$29.25 members 


28 The Living Bird Quarterly 








PHOTOS: PELICANS—CHARLES G. SUMMERS, JR. (BRUCE COLEMAW unc.), SWAN— WAYNE LANKINEN/DRK PHOTO 


Hypot 


hesis Game 


Thomas C. Grubb, Jr. 





HEN YOU RECEIVED 

your first field guide or at- 

tended your first bird- 

watching expedition you 
probably were a little bewildered. You 
never knew there were so many kinds of 
sparrows or realized robins were so big. 
Over the years, though, you’ve become 
acquainted with field marks and have 
sharpened your powers of observation. 
Sorting out ring-necked ducks from 
greater scaups is no longer difficult. You 
can distinguish between hairy and 
downy woodpeckers. Even small shore- 
birds and fall warblers are no longer mys- 
terious. 

Now what? You’ve seen all the birds 
in your area. If you go to Africa and tre- 
ble your life list you’ll deprive your chil- 
dren of a college education. What can 
you do to bring a new dimension to your 
bird watching? You could play the hy- 
pothesis game. 

Here’s how it works: formulate a hy- 
pothesis about a particular bird or group 
of birds and then, either by using a field 
guide or going into the field, test the hy- 
pothesis. Here are some hypotheses you 
can test by looking through a field guide: 
female birds are less colorful than males; 
forest birds are always brighter than 
open-country birds; juveniles always re- 
semble females in color, never males; the 


higher the latitude, the more seabird 
species and the fewer land bird species; 
more species have ranges ending in 
Kansas than anywhere else in North 
America; bills and legs of shorebirds are 
always the same length. 

A while back I spent a day with some 
friends watching water birds. After sat- 
isfying ourselves that the black-bellied 
whistling ducks we were looking for 
weren’t present, we sat in the sun on an 
old log eating our sandwiches, wonder- 
ing why so many wading birds have 
white feathers. Great egrets, snowy 
egrets, immature little blue herons, all 
have white plumage. One friend specu- 
lated that white feathers might help the 
birds catch fish if the feathers reflect the 
blue sky into the water, causing the 
white bird to match the background. 
Someone else chimed in that if white 
feathers evolved only to fool fish, then 
all white birds should be fish eaters. 

We leafed through our field guides, 
calling out the names of white-feath- 
ered species and what they eat. White- 
tailed tropicbirds eat fish. White peli- 
cans eat fish. Gannets eat fish. It looked 
good so far. Then we came to the swans. 
They’re white, but they are vegetarians. 
So much for our hypothesis. 

We theorized further: maybe white 
feathers are possessed by birds that eat 


any aquatic prey, not just fish. This 
would take care of the swan problem. 
Off we went through the field guides 
again, but not far. Snow geese are white 
yet graze on land. We concluded that we 
did not have a firm idea why some birds 
are white, but we were sure it is not 
solely because they eat aquatic food. 

What about hypotheses you can test 
in the field? One activity you are likely 
to observe a bird doing is eating. Over 
the past several decades, many ornithol- 
ogists have reported that different spe- 
cies living in the same place have varied 
foraging habits. Brown creepers search 
bark crevices for insects and insect eggs; 
woodpeckers drill deep into tree trunks; 
chickadees feed heavily from twigs, and 
warblers concentrate on leaf surfaces. In 
this fashion, the species divide food re- 
sources of their habitat and possibly re- 
duce competition so they can coexist. 

Current thinking suggests that even 
the two sexes of the same species may 
forage differently to promote coexis- 
tence in the same area. Can we test this 
idea? Let us formulate a hypothesis: 
male and female white-breasted nut- 
hatches look for food at different heights 
in the same woodland. That is a work- 
ing hypothesis which you can test with 
field observations. 

First you must be sure you can dis- 


Did white feathers evolve just to fool fish? No: white pelicans, left, are fish eaters, but trumpeter swans, above, are vegetarians. 


STEPHEN J. KRASEMANN/DRK PHOTO 


Different species that feed on similar prey 
may forage in different ways. Left, hairy 
woodpecker and, right, tufted titmouse, both 
feed on insects found in tree trunks, but the 
woodpecker probes below the bark while the 


titmouse gleans prey from surface cracks. 








criminate between male and female 
white-breasted nuthatches. After some 
practice with binoculars, you should be 
able to distinguish the shiny, coal-black 
feathers of the male’s cap from the duller 
gray crown of the female. The best con- 
ditions are bright sunny days. A male 
and female nuthatch usually forage to- 
gether as they move through the terri- 
tory defending against others of their 
species. This bit of natural history is 
useful. If you can sex one bird of the 
pair, you can assume the other bird is 
the opposite sex. 

Walk through the woods searching 
for nuthatches; you will find most pairs 
by listening for their calls. Be sure to lo- 
cate both male and female. When you 
have both sexes pinpointed, record the 
estimated height above the ground that 
they are foraging. You will want infor- 
mation on as many pairs as possible. To 
give statistical validity to your observa- 
tions, allow at least one minute between 
observations from a single pair, and do 
not take more than five observations in 
a row on the same pair. Exclude cases 
where either bird is resting or preening; 
both must be foraging. 

After about 50 observations, calcu- 


30. The Living Bird Quarterly 


sy) 


) 


L. WEST (BRUCE COLEMAN INC 


late the average foraging height for each 
sex. If there is a difference of several 
yards between the heights of each sex, 
you have supported the hypothesis that 
white-breasted nuthatches have sex- 
specific foraging behavior. If the two 
sexes differ by only a few inches, the dif- 
ference could be due to chance. 

Your results will be particularly inter- 
esting because the foraging of white- 
breasted nuthatches appears to vary de- 
pending upon region and habitat. For 
example, we know that in a ponderosa 
pine forest in Colorado, females foraged 
higher in trees than males, whereas in a 
deciduous woodland in Ohio, the two 
sexes used the same heights. More ob- 
servations from different parts of North 
America, and from deciduous and con- 
iferous forests, may confirm or refute 
these findings. 

This hypothesis has been concerned 
with foraging differences between the 
sexes of one species. The same approach 
can be used to compare the foraging of 
different species in the same area. Do 
downy woodpeckers forage higher than 
hairy woodpeckers? Are the branches 
inspected by chickadees of a smaller di- 
ameter than those used by tufted tit- 
mice? Are the branches used by kinglets 
even thinner? 

Besides looking at foraging locations, 
you can watch for differences in foraging 
techniques, which ornithologists spec- 
ulate also help birds to allocate re- 
sources. For example, in the White 





Mountains of New Hampshire, red-eyed 
vireos and rose-breasted grosbeaks for- 
age at about the same height, and on 
the same types of branches. However, 
vireos tend to capture prey by hovering 
against leaves, while the grosbeaks find 
prey by walking slowly along branches. 
Presumably, the varied foraging tech- 
niques allow the birds to capture differ- 
ent prey. 

With that in mind, here are more hy- 
potheses you might test: male and fe- 
male downy woodpeckers drill holes of 
similar depths; male white-breasted 
nuthatches move upward on trees as fre- 
quently as do females; black-capped 
chickadees and tufted titmice use simi- 
lar techniques when foraging on similar- 
sized branches. 

These are just a few ideas to get you 
started. As you begin formulating your 
own hypotheses you’ll think of new 
questions. You'll probably find that you 
don’t have to go to Africa to add enjoy- 
ment to your bird watching. And if you 
ever do go, you can play the hypothesis 


game there, too. 3 


FURTHER READING 

Stokes, Donald W. A Guide to Bird Behavior. Lit- 
tle, Brown and Co., Boston. 1979. 

Stokes, Donald W. and Lillian Q. Stokes. A Guide 
to Bird Behavior, Volume II. Little, Brown and Co., 
Boston. 1983. 


THE AUTHOR 


Thomas C. Grubb, Jr., a professor of zoology at 
Ohio State University, is currently a visiting sci- 
entist at the Edward Grey Institute of Field Orni- 
thology, University of Oxford, England. 


Le XS AT. 


é Mom COMMUTE ae ee a a 








AA , ba oe ga oe a : ron 5 yy @ 2 re oh eee 
Mu Sif ZZ Cristiaw | Gutlib WL ith Sry de Malic Chains, 
Zz Ms Vb ia ~ te OS ae Z We ites - 2 : Vs fo aC 

tl lntvere dt <ijnid, c aot alle pu augpiiae Aad aevdfiite df Ciurgpe. 





eae: 




















Tom McHugh (Photo Researchers, Inc.) 


New Technical Books from 





Philippine eagle 


International Council for Bird Preservation 


CONSERVATION OF 
ISLAND BIRDS 
P. J. Moors, editor 


Two hundred of the 217 species or 
races of birds known to have 
become extinct in the last four 
centuries were found on islands. 
This alarming trend continues: 
the majority of bird species 
approaching extinction today live 
on islands. Using a series of case 
studies, a wide range of 
international experts survey the 
problems associated with 
conservation of threatened island 


birds. 


THREATENED BIRDS OF 
AFRICA AND RELATED 
ISLANDS 

N. J. Collar and S. N. Stuart 


All over the world birds are 
threatened by loss of habitat from 
tropical forest destruction, wetland 
drainage, and pesticide poisoning. 
Threatened Birds of Africa and 
Related Islands takes a geographical 
approach to threatened species, 
describing in detail the status of 177 
species. 


STATUS AND 
CONSERVATION OF THE 
WORLD’S SEABIRDS 

J. P. Croxall, P. G. H. Evans, R. H. 
Schreiber, editors 


Experts from 18 countries have 
contributed 46 papers to this 800- 
page volume. Together they form 
the most complete and up-to-date 
survey ever published on the 
subject. 


For ordering information, please 
write to: International Council for 
Bird Preservation, 219c Huntingdon 
Road, Cambridge, 
CB3 ODL, England. 


Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell University is a member organization of the U.S. Section of 
the International Council for Bird Preservation. 





r 


Summer 1985 
Volume 4 Number 3 


LIVING BIRD 








EDITORIAL STAFF 


Jill Crane, Editor 

Kat Dalton, Design Director 

Richard E. Bonney, Jr., Associate Editor 
Charles R. Smith, Technical Editor 
Steven C. Sibley, Editorial Assistant 
Maureene Stangle, Publications Assistant 


LABORATORY STAFF 


Charles Walcott, Executive Director 
Michele M. Barclay, Bookshop 
Gregory S. Butcher, Cooperative Research 
Tom J. Cade, Raptor Research 

Jill Crane, The Living Bird Quarterly 
Lang Elliott, Photography 

James L. Gulledge, Library of 
Natural Sounds 

Diane Johnson, Administration 
Thomas S. Litwin, Seatuck 

Steven C. Sibley, Library 

Charles R. Smith, Public Education 
Scott A. Sutcliffe, Development 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


David L. Call, Chairman 
Morton S. Adams 
Albert E Appleton 


Hamilton FE Kean 
T. Spencer Knight 
John D. Leggett, Jr. 


Robert Barker Peter R. Marler 
Rex J. Bates G. Michael McHugh 
William G. Conway Edwin H. Morgens 
Alan Crawford, Jr. Eugene S. Morton 


John H. Dakin 
Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 
Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 
Thomas M. Hampson 
Frances C. James 
Imogene P. Johnson 


Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 

Charles E. Treman, Jr. 
Charles D. Webster 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in January, April, July, 
and October by the Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell University, 
159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. 

Telephone: (607) 256-5056. The Living Bird Quarterly is free 

to members of the Laboratory. For information concerning 

back issues please write to our Membership Department. 

© 1985 Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N. Y. 


Front Cover. White-tailed ptarmigan. 
Photograph by John Shaw. 


Back Cover. Outside— Burrowing owl in southern Florida. Most owls can 
turn their heads three-quarters of a full turn. 

Photograph by Joe and Carol McDonald. 

Inside—Stamps from the Laboratory collection. 








p. 30 


16 


20 


26 


28 


29 


30 


Parrots for Sale 
Donald Bruning 


Over 800,000 exotic pet birds legally entered the 
United States in 1982; another 50,000 to 100,000 are 
smuggled in annually. Many of these birds die before 
they reach the pet owner. Donald Bruning of the 
Bronx Zoo explains the situation and offers solutions. 


Anting Antics 
Eloise FE Potter 


Why do starlings cover themselves with live ants? 
Are they transporting food, grooming, or ridding 


_ themselves of mites and ticks? Using her house 


as a giant bird blind, author Potter tried to find out. 


An Adventure with a Turkey 


Vulture 
George Miksch Sutton 


On a warm Texas day long ago, Doc Sutton crawled 
through a hollow log and discovered the unexpected. 


Our 1985 Photo Contest Winners 


Research & Review 
Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


News & Notes 
Steven C. Sibley 


The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


Lesson III 
Geo. B. Wolfe III 


While the pros and lucky amateurs are taking beautiful 
bird photos, a student in the Laboratory’s home study 
photography course is struggling to attain mediocrity. 





eaters 





EARLY EVERY DAY some- 

one telephones the Bronx Zoo 

offering to donate a pet par- 

rot. Unfortunately, we must 
turn down most offers. The zoo does not 
have enough space to hold all the birds. 
Although we maintain over 1,300 birds 
and exchange another 300 to 500 an- 
nually, accepting even a fraction of the 
300-plus birds offered each year would 
put a severe strain on our facilities. 

Most large zoos across the United 
States have a similar problem. Why? 
Each year people are buying hundreds of 
thousands of parrots as pets and then, 
for one reason or another, discarding 
them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- 
vice (USFWS) recorded that over 
800,000 birds legally entered the U.S. 
in 1982 alone. Another 50,000 to 
100,000 are smuggled in annually in or- 
der to circumvent quarantine and regu- 
lations like the Endangered Species 
Act, the Lacey Act, and the interna- 
tional treaty called CITES (Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Fauna and Flora). 

Why do people discard their pet par- 
rots? Some reasons were explained to 
me by a young man who applied for a job 
at the zoo. He had worked in a few pet 
shops, and said that in good conscience 
he no longer could tell customers that a 
particular parrot would make a marvel- 
ous pet when he knew the bird had been 
sold five times in less than two years. 
The parrot, he said, would first sell for 
several hundred dollars. When the pur- 
chaser found that the bird didn’t talk, or 
was noisy and messy, or that it bit people 
and destroyed furniture, he would re- 
turn it and get $40 or $50 back. The 
bird then would be resold for another 





The curator of 
birds at the Bronx 
Zoo discusses the 
often fatal path an 
exotic bird must 
take on its way to 
the pet shop. 


few hundred dollars. And this bird was 
one of the lucky ones. 

Many imported birds die before they 
reach the pet shop. In fact, from one to 
100 birds may die for each bird that ac- 
tually becomes a pet. The birds suc- 
cumb during capture in the wild, trans- 
port to this country, or in quarantine 
facilities. 

Capture and transport. In the late 
1970s Charles Cordier, a long-time ani- 
mal collector for zoos, described a trop- 
ical forest in South America where pet 
collectors had been operating as an “an- 
imal desert where one could walk for 
miles and not hear or see a single bird.” 

Cordier was appalled by pet dealers 
who would arrange for local people to 
capture every bird in sight, a method 
that was cheaper than hiring a knowl- 
edgeable collector to capture specific 
species. The locals would be paid a few 
cents for each bird they caught. The ex- 
porter would then jam as many birds as 
possible into crates and ship them off 
without regard for the welfare of the 
animals. These operations were geared 
to maximize volume and profits. 

This attitude greatly distressed Cor- 
dier, who pampered each animal he col- 
lected so it would arrive at the zoo 
healthy and well-fed. He also was care- 
ful what he collected so that his business 
would not have a significant impact on 
any wild population. 

Cordier was particularly concerned 
about the commonest method of col- 
lecting parrots, cutting down hollow 
trees where birds are nesting. Birds that 
survive the fall are taken to be hand-fed 
by local people, who neither know what 
to feed them nor have the proper foods. 
Mortality of chicks is very high, and 
even older birds often cannot survive 
the transition or diseases they are ex- 
posed to when dumped into cages with 
hundreds of other birds. 

From a long-term ecological perspec- 
tive, the loss of chicks may not be the 
worst problem. More detrimental to 
many species is the destruction of suit- 
able nest sites. Tree hollows take years to 
form, and species like the large macaws 
may spend many breeding seasons locat- 
ing an acceptable hollow; when one is 
cut down, it may take years of searching 
for a new hollow before breeding can 
resume. This has become a critical con- 
servation problem since populations of 
these birds are already threatened by hu- 


Parrots 


for Sale 


DONALD BRUNING 


At the April 1985 meeting of the party 

nations of CITES, two more species of macaw 
were elevated to endangered status. These 

are the scarlet and Buffon’s macaws, close 
relatives of the red-and-green macaw (left). 


Summer/1985 5 


ROBERT E. PELHAM (BRUCE COLEMA) E.P.1. NANCY ADAMS 











A cockatoo worth $30 
in Australia could be 
sold for $3,000 in the 


U.S. An Amazon 
parrot worth $10 in 


Mexico could be sold 
for $200 in Texas, 
$500 in New York. 


man encroachment, and the list of en- 
dangered species is constantly growing. 

Quarantine. Fifteen years ago it was 
not unusual for 50 percent of imported 
birds to die before they could be sold. At 
that time, birds were inexpensive and if 
one died, it could be replaced easily. It 
was common knowledge among import- 
ers, collectors and conservationists that 
between one and 100 birds died for each 
one that was captured successfully in 
the wild and eventually sold in a pet 
shop. Imports were approaching one 
million birds a year by 1971. This meant 
that millions of birds died to supply the 
pet market in the U.S. that year. 

Then, in 1972, disease caused a 
change in the pet bird industry. The 
spread of exotic Newcastle disease car- 
ried by imported birds threatened the 
domestic poultry industry, forcing the 
United States Department of Agricul- 
ture (USDA) to impose quarantine re- 
quirements on all birds entering the 
U.S. Few quarantine stations existed 
and in those that did, most birds died 
during the 30-day quarantine period. 
Young birds did not receive proper care, 
and parasites multiplied and spread rap- 
idly under the stress of transport and 
quarantine. 

Because of the substantial loss of life, 
the number of birds imported dropped 
dramatically, and the price of the survi- 
vors skyrocketed. An Amazon parrot 
that cost $25 in 1971 sold for $500 in 
1973. Meanwhile, birds continued to 
die in quarantine. Records from the 





Thousands of parrots are imported illegally 
each year because the monetary rewards are so 
tempting. These include, clockwise from left, e 
sulphur-crested cockatoo, blue-and-yellow 
macaw, red-lored Amazon, and scarlet macaw. 





ADRIAN WARREN (ARDEA PHOTOGRAPHICS) K. W. FINK (ARDEA PHOTOGRAPHICS) 


6 ~The Living Bird Quarterly Summer/1985 7 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


ie) 


-E COLEMAN INC 


a4 
Z 
B 
Z 
Z 


LANKINEN 


CAKE 4 
HONS 





KENNETH W. FINK (PHOTO RESEARCHERS, INC.) 


—_—. | a2 #, 


. 
‘1 


It was common 
knowledge among 
importers, collectors 
and conservationists 
that between one 
and 100 birds died 


for each one 
that eventually sold 
in a pet shop. 


USDA show that each year between 
1976 and 1979, over 100,000 birds died 
in quarantine; the death rate ranged 
from zero to 100 percent. 

Birds differ in their food and space re- 
quirements. Some species, such as tro- 
gons, hummingbirds and flycatchers, 
have difficulty surviving even under the 
best conditions. Other birds—certain 
finches, waterfowl and pheasants— 
have low mortality rates if given the 
proper care and space. Because of their 
ability to adapt to marginal care and 
their great appeal as pets, parrots have 
become the most popular imported 
bird. 

Country of origin. Parrots imported 
into the U.S. from Latin America 15 
years ago came mainly from Colombia, 
Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay and 
Peru. With the imposition of quaran- 
tine requirements in 1972, and the pas- 
sage of the Endangered Species Act and 
CITES in 1973, the pattern of impor- 
tation changed. One by one the Latin 
American countries signed CITES and 
either restricted or prohibited the ex- 
portation of all or some of their wildlife. 
By the mid- 1970s, Colombia had closed 
down most wildlife exports, especially 
parrots. By 1982, Bolivia had become 
the major parrot exporting country In 
Latin America, followed by Argentina, 
Peru, Guyana, Uruguay, Honduras and 
Ecuador. 

Why are these and other countries, 


Once taken from the wild, many waterfowl 
and pheasants are now successfully raised 

in captivity. These include Lady Amherst 
pheasant (left), golden pheasant (far left 
above), and mandarin duck (far left, below). 


Summer/ 1985 





I 


PETER B. KAPLAN ( 





-HOTO RESEARCHERS, INC.) 


ight palm cockatoos, among the 

most valuable birds in the 

world, departed for Indonesia 
from John F. Kennedy Airport in New 
York on March LI, 1985. This was one 
of the few times that illegally imported 
live wildlife has been returned to its 
native country. They will become part 
of captive breeding programs. 

The birds were among 103 palm 
cockatoos, valued at over a half-million 
dollars, that were forfeited by court 
order to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service after they were imported into 
this country in violation of Indonesian 
law and the U.S. Lacey Act. Entirely 
black except for red cheek patches, 
palms are the largest cockatoos, mea- 
suring up to 29 inches in length. 

They were accompanied to Indo- 
nesia by Donald Bruning and upon 
arrival were placed in a captive breed- 
ing facility. Because the cockatoos 
were removed from the nest at an 






early age, experts advised against at- 
tempting to return them to the wild. It 
is hoped this nucleus flock will become 


a self-sustaining captive population of 


the species in Indonesia. 

A formal breeding consortium has 
been established in the United States 
for the remaining cockatoos, following 
consultations among Indonesian and 
U.S. government officials, the Ameri- 
can Federation of Aviculture, and the 
American Association of Zoological 
Parks and Aquariums. The group 
agreed a consortium was the most ef- 
ficient way to establish a captive 
breeding flock of cockatoos in this 
country. 

They are a slow-breeding species 
that seldom reproduces in captivity. 
Because of export restrictions from 
their countries of origin, including 
Australia and Papua New Guinea, 
there are very few palm cockatoos in 
the United States. 








10 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


including some CITES signatories, still 
exporting birds? The monetary rewards 
are too tempting to be ignored. For ex- 
ample, a cockatoo worth $30 in Aus- 
tralia could be sold for $3,000 in the 
U.S. An Amazon parrot worth $10 in 
Mexico could be sold for $200 in Texas, 
$500 in New York. As long as the mar- 
ket remains lucrative, exporters will 
find loopholes to get around the laws or 
ways to smuggle birds out of the country. 

If a local government is concerned 
about its wildlife and has the ability to 
enforce its laws, trade may shut down 
temporarily. Typically, though, within a 
few years enforcement will relax or a 
new government will take over which 
has little concern for enforcing the wild- 
life laws of its predecessor. In the mean- 
time, trade will have moved on to an- 
other country until it is shut down 
there. In this way the trade moves from 
one country to the next and frequently 
is reestablished in a country every few 
years. Only a few Latin American na- 
tions are stable enough to maintain con- 
trol over a long period, and even then 
the laws are enforced sporadically. 

Hyacinth macaws. According to U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service records, 
nearly 160,000 parrots were legally im- 
ported to the U.S. from Latin America 
in 1982. USFWS agents admit that a 
similar number entered illegally across 
the border from Mexico and across the 
Caribbean into Florida and Louisiana. 
Of the 160,000 legally imported par- 
rots, over 13,000 were macaws, most of 
which came from Bolivia. 

Included in the 13,000 were over 
1,500 hyacinth macaws, which are of 
particular concern because their num- 
bers are declining precipitously in the 
wild and the species is considered 
threatened. Hyacinth macaws are found 
primarily in Brazil which prohibits all 
wildlife exports. Officials in Bolivia ad- 
mit that this species occurs in only one 
corner of their country and that the to- 
tal population there is less than one- 
third the number being exported to the 
U.S. Bolivian officials realize that birds 
are smuggled out of Brazil into Bolivia 
for export, but they are unable to stop 
this activity. 

The Bolivian government has made 
some progress, however. As of April 
1984, most wildlife exports have 
stopped, and thousands of birds have 
been seized. The Bolivians have re- 
quested assistance in caring for these 
animals prior to their release into the 


Hyacinth macaw (top) is threatened, yet about 
1,000 individuals were smuggled out of Brazil 
in 1982. Parakeets (below) are a better 

choice for a pet because they are bred in 
captivity and needn't be taken from the wild. 


wild. The New York Zoological Society, 
in conjunction with the Bolivian Wild- 
life Society, is providing funds for this 
purpose. Time will determine if the Bo- 
livian government can continue to en- 
force its wildlife laws. If so, we probably 
will see another shift in the origins of 
wildlife exports from South America. 
Now Argentina, Guyana and Paraguay 
are the major exporters. 

No exotic birds. Frequently people ask 
how dealers or pet shops acquire illegal 
animals. Once the animals have passed 
the entry point into the U.S., whether 
legally or not, they can be shipped and 
sold anywhere with little likelihood of 
anyone asking about their origin. The 
USFWS has only a few agents and sim- 
ply cannot police all the pet shops. Pe- 
riodically, however, agents are advised of 
questionable activities and may pursue 
individual cases. Some agents have 
made a significant impact. 

A key to the protection of exotic birds 
is curbing the demand for them. The 
huge profits ensure that trade will con- 
tinue until the American people insist 
that it be stopped and that our govern- 
ment enforce its wildlife laws. During 
the past few years the problem has wors- 
ened; enforcement by the Interior De- 
partment has declined because of lack 
of funds and a negative attitude toward 
upholding the laws. This trend is likely 
to continue unless pressure is brought to 
bear on U.S. officials. 

I believe many citizens would not pur- 
chase exotic birds if they realized the 
birds’ legal status was suspect and, more 
importantly, if they knew of the tremen- 
dous loss of animal life involved in cap- 
turing these birds. Potential pet owners 
in this country could save the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of birds if they 
bought captive-bred birds such as cock- 
atiels, lovebirds and parakeets, instead 
of exotic birds, and insisted that na- 
tional and international laws and trea- 


ties be enforced. s> 


Donald Bruning is curator of the Department of 
Ornithology, New York Zoological Society, 
Bronx, New York. 


Further Reading 


Nilsson, Greta. The Bird Business: A Study of the 
Commercial Cage Bird Trade. Animal Welfare In- 
stitute, Washington, D.C. 1981. 


Summer/ 1985 





I] 


E.P.1. NANCY ADAMS 


O 
z 
< 
R 
x 
z 

S 
= 

iS 
LQ 
=) 
> 
= 
2 

S 
- 








Science will never 
know how many 
times the bacon 
burned while 

I recorded data. 


ANTING ANTICS 


ELOISE E POTTER 


NE DAY IN MARCH of 

1964, I was standing in my 

kitchen in Zebulon, North 

Carolina clearing the table af- 
ter lunch. Glancing out the window 
into the backyard I saw five starlings 
standing on the ground beside an ant- 
hill. Each bird pecked the ground and 
with rapid, jerking movements, lifted 
one wing slightly, brought the tail for- 
ward, and tucked the head under the 
wing. The birds appeared to be in ec- 
stasy, ignoring nearby disturbances and 
taking flight only when I approached 
very Closely. 

Puzzled for a moment, I soon realized 
what the birds were doing. They were 
anting, an unusual behavior | had heard 
about, but never expected to see in my 
own yard. I was certain that this had 
been a once-in-a-lifetime experience for 
me, so imagine my surprise when six 
months later I saw more starlings anting 
on two consecutive days. 

Although I had no formal training in 
ornithology, I realized that I might be in 
a good position to examine the anting 


Besides applying ants to their feathers, 
birds groom in other ways. This greater 
roadrunner preens (right), and bathes in dust. 





12 The Living Bird Quarterly 


phenomenon. As a mother of four 
school-age children I could work the 
study of anting into the routine of pre- 
paring meals, doing the laundry, clean- 
ing house, and caring for the children. 
Being a housewife makes it easy to study 
bird behavior because the house acts as 
one big bird blind, and housework per- 
mits thousands of observations through- 
out the year. 

Not knowing where to begin, I wrote 
to the late B. Rhett Chamberlain, then 
an editor of The Chat, journal of the 
Carolina Bird Club. He encouraged me 
to try to discover why birds dress their 
plumage with ants, and suggested that 
the best method was to collect system- 
atically as many first-hand observations 
of the behavior as possible. In addition 
he sent me a list of references on anting 
from the scientific literature and ad- 
vised me to bone up. 

The readings offered many hy- 
potheses, but few facts. Explanations for 
anting included: transporting food dur- 
ing migration, providing sensual plea- 
sure or sexual stimulation, increasing 
the flow of saliva during preening, re- 
moving stale oils from feathers, and in- 
creasing resistance to feather wear. 

The most commonly held belief at the 
time stated that birds ant to rid them- 
selves of ectoparasites— mites and ticks 
that infest skin and feathers. However, 
much of the published data supporting 
this theory had been collected from cap- 
tive birds, where the researchers some- 
times provided cigarettes and orange 
peels for use in anting. Agreeing with 
the late biologist and author Waldo L. 
McAtee, I considered studies of captive 
birds unsuitable for determining why 
wild birds ant. 

Based on my reading I formulated 


pe 


ae 
ae 








Some birds ant so 
vigorously they turn 
somersaults. Other 
birds ant passively, 
flattening themselves 
on the ground at 

an anthill or in 

the path of a moving 
column of ants. 


specific questions I wanted to answer: 
(1) at what season of the year do wild 
birds ant most frequently, and (2) does 
the peak of anting activity correspond 
with the peak of ectoparasite infesta- 
tion? 

To gather data, I designated the yard 
as my study area. I noted the behavior of 
all birds within this plot at least once 
every two hours from six in the morning 
until dark almost daily for 29 months. A 
less formal study continued through 
1972. When I saw birds anting, I re- 
corded the number of birds, the species, 
age, sex, condition of plumage, time of 
day and duration of episode, tempera- 
ture, sky conditions, and precipitation. 
I also noted related activities such as 
bathing, sunning, and dusting. Science 
will never know how many times the ba- 
con burned while I recorded data. 

In those nine years, I saw 26 episodes 
of anting, and virtually every variation 
on the theme. An actively anting bird 
may pick up ants one at a time or gather 
a beakful. The bird may crush ants and 
rub them on the feathers or hold live 
ants while they spray a defensive acid se- 
cretion. After a treatment, the bird may 





14 The Living Bird Quarterly 


eat the ants or drop them on the ground, 
dead or alive. An episode may be one 
quick treatment or a bout lasting until 
the plumage is wet; most episodes last 
one to 10 minutes. Some birds ant so 
vigorously they turn somersaults. Other 
birds ant passively, flattening themselves 
on the ground at an anthill or in the 
path of a moving column of ants, allow- 
ing them to crawl into the plumage. 

Anting may be performed alone or in 
groups. Other birds of the same or dif- 
ferent species may watch an anting bird 
and, upon its departure, proceed to ant 
at the same site. Occasionally a specta- 
tor displaces the anting bird. Although 
it seems important to the birds that en- 
gage in it, anting does not appear to be 
essential to health. I believe that only a 
small portion of the avian population 
ants, which suggests that anting may be 
learned rather than instinctive. 

On one particularly memorable oc- 
casion I saw a molting juvenile Ameri- 
can robin sweep the ground with an oak 
twig that had several small leaves still 
attached. The bird held the twig in its 
beak and swept the ground by turning 
its head 180 degrees. After uncovering 
some ants in the leaf litter, the bird 
dropped the twig and anted. Then it 
picked up the same twig and went 
through the process several more times. 

Besides American robins and Euro- 
pean starlings, blue jays are among the 
species most frequently seen anting in 
North America, but other birds ant as 
well. They include thrushes, warblers, 
tanagers, finches, sparrows, blackbirds, 
and some nonpasserines, such as quail. 

From my observations, I began to find 
some patterns, the most significant 
being that anting occurs most fre- 
quently when mites and ticks are least 
numerous on wild birds. This idea was 
corroborated by the studies of two other 
North Carolina housewives, Doris C. 
Hauser of Fayetteville and Elizabeth 
Pullman of Chapel Hill. 

Mrs. Hauser was an authority on sun- 
bathing in wild birds. When she died in 
1972, her heirs gave me her notes and 
asked me to complete her unfinished 
manuscript on anting. Her records, 
combined with mine, provide a large 
body of data from a small geographic 
area: 73 anting episodes by 104 wild 
birds of 16 species. 

Mrs. Pullman banded more than 
10,000 birds as a cooperator in the study 
of ticks as disease agents. She provided 
local data on molts and ectoparasite in- 


festation. Together, the three of us have 
spent about 40 years studying grooming 
behaviors, molt cycles, and bird para- 
sites. 

Birds have been seen anting in North 
Carolina as early in the year as March 3 
and as late as December 17. Major ant- 
ing activity begins in mid-May and con- 
tinues sporadically through the first 
week of October, with a sharp increase 
from late July through September. 
Preening, scratching, sunning, dust- 
ing, and bathing show the same sea- 
sonal trend. 

Most birds that ant are passerines. 
What stage in their annual cycle corre- 
sponds with the period of mid-May 
through early fall? Checking the data, | 
noted that this is when many birds are 
molting. In North Carolina, postnup- 
tial molt for many nesting passerines be- 
gins about mid-May. By mid-July, juve- 
nile American robins have flocked and 
are in various stages of molt, as are many 
other young of the first brood. Also, I 
had observed that most anting birds 
showed signs of molting. The conclu- 
sion that birds ant mostly while molting 
was inescapable. 

Why, if birds molt continuously dur- 
ing the warmer months, did I observe 
anting only sporadically? My weather 
data indicated that anting occurs mostly 
within 72 hours following heavy or pro- 
longed rainfall, when birds in the pro- 
cess of molting experience a sudden loss 
of loose feathers. At such times | have 
often seen baldheaded or barefaced 
birds, ones with wide gaps in their wing 
feathers, and some with only two 
crooked tail feathers. These are the 
birds most likely to be anting. Appar- 
ently the ants secrete substances, such 
as formic acid, that are soothing to irri- 
tated feather tracts. 

Birds also seem more likely to sun- 
bathe during molting, although I have 
rarely seen an individual bird ant and 
sun in the same episode. Birds that are 





Anting may be a method for birds to reduce 
discomfort due to molting; sunning, dusting 
and bathing may serve the same purpose. At 
right, a summer tanager bathes (above) and a 
common pheasant basks in the sun (below). 


molting wing, tail, lower breast, and 
belly feathers usually ant. Those molt- 
ing head, neck, upper breast, and back 
feathers tend to sun. I do not have 
enough data to say at what stage of molt 
birds prefer to dust, but this activity 
usually takes place in sunny spots and 
frequently involves molting birds. 

Anting, sunning, and dusting appear 
to be three methods birds use to relieve 
skin irritation caused by the rapid loss of 
feathers. Sunning is used for the tracts 
that cannot be reached with the bill. 
Ants are applied to tracts not readily ex- 
posed to sunlight. Maybe dusting birds 
itch all over. 

Of course, my conclusions do not 
eliminate the possibility that anting 
serves other purposes as well, such as re- 
ducing ectoparasite infestation. How- 
ever, several more pieces of information 
seem to further refute this idea. 

First, other researchers have noted 
that feather mites are most numerous 
before and after the molt, least numer- 
ous during the molt and in winter. Sec- 
ond, ticks tend to attach themselves to 
the ear openings or around the eyes of 
the host bird, both being regions the 
bird cannot reach with a beak full of 
ants. Third, in North Carolina, ticks 
are most common on avian hosts from 
November through April when birds 
rarely ant, even though ants remain ac- 
tive except during periods of extreme 
cold. 

Relief from the discomfort of molting 
may be the answer to why birds ant. 
During the 14 years since this idea was 
first published, no one has offered con- 
trary evidence. However, the relation- 
ship between anting and molting has 
not been tested in controlled experi- 
ments. Until that is done, or until sim- 
ilar data have been obtained from other 
continents, even | must say the mystery 
of anting has not been fully solved. Ss 


Eloise Potter is director of publications at the 
North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, 
editor of The Chat, and principal author of Birds 
of the Carolinas (University of North Carolina 
Press. 1980). 


Further Reading 


Potter, E. E and D. C. Hauser. “Relationship of 
Anting and Sunbathing to Molting in Wild 
Birds.” The Auk, vol. 91, pp. 537-563. 


Summer/ 1985 








IS} 


JEFF FOOTT 


>. B. FRITH (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 


C 


16 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


: 
; 
. 





An Adventure with 
a lurkey Vulture 


TEXT AND ILLUSTRATIONS BY 
GEORGE MIKSCH SUTTON 


N TEXAS WE LIVED in a big 

white house that stood on a hill 

southwest of the city of Fort 

Worth. About us stretched the 
rolling prairies, gay in summer with red 
and yellow daisies and the tall spikes of 
blooming yucca, and studded with 
clumps of prickly pear cactus and feath- 
ery mesquite trees. 

Not far to the south of us the Trinity 
River slipped through a dense, low 
woodland. Here I spent much of my 
time, eager to watch, and capture if 
possible, the strange and interesting 
creatures which lived thereabouts. 
Flying squirrels built their globular nests 
of twigs high in the slender pecan trees. 
Chuck-will’s-widows fluttered up from 
the leaves like gigantic moths. Raccoons 
and opossums searched for food along 
the banks of the slow-moving streams, 
leaving their neat lacy track patterns in 
the mud. 

In the pale far sky drifted wide- 
winged, sable-coated turkey vultures, 
their pinions motionless for hours at a 
time as they ascended in slow spirals, 
breasted the wind, or swung low to the 
level of the treetops. I never ceased to 
marvel at their clean-cut outline, and 
the ease with which they handled them- 
selves in flight. I was all unconscious, in 
those days, of the probability that cen- 
turies, ages perhaps, had slipped by 
while the turkey vulture was learning to 
conquer the air. It did not occur to me 
then that thousands upon thousands of 
the gaunt creatures had perished in the 
eternal struggle for survival, that those 
dreamily swinging spots of ebony might 
enchant me for an hour! Drowsily, ma- 
jestically, unceasingly they drifted 


about, many just above the low-hung 
fluffy cloud masses, some gently moving 
amid the ribbed cirrus of the dizzy sky 
plains. Lying on the warm earth, | 
watched them. I could hardly think; | 
only dreamed myself a sky bird, a play- 
mate of the clouds. I was vaguely, sadly 
conscious, perhaps, that while my race 
had for ages been developing my brain 
into an organ of doubtful utility, it had 
at the same time been reducing the 
length of my forelimbs, solidifying my 
bones—in short, condemning me to 
fourscore years and ten as a terrestrial 
being without the slightest glimmer of 
hope that I should one day spread my 
black wings and, rustling like heavy 
silk, mount to the blue. Never, never 
could I be a vulture! 

I was roused from my reverie by the 
swish of dusky, stiff quills above me, as 
one of the vultures, made curious by my 
motionless, supine form, swung low. 
What a different creature! The naked 
head and pale bill were evil in appear- 
ance. There entered my mind the 


George Miksch Sutton 





Summer/1985 17 


STEVE SISNEY PHOTOGRAPHY 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 







thought that, had I been a corpse, that 
white beak would have sought with its 
hooked tip the innermost chambers of 
my heart! The plumage of the drab fowl 
was rusty and ragged; its wing tips 
spread out like slender, heavily nailed 
fingers! The vulture, close at hand, was 
a revolting creature. | shuddered be- 
cause the vile body and macabre pinions 
had cast their shadow across my face. 

Walking one day in the depths of the 
woodland, near a stagnant pool, I came 
upon a huge, partly decayed, hollowed 
log. Instinctively curious, I peered cau- 
tiously into the darkness, half expecting 
to discern the taut form of a wildcat 
crouched for a spring, or the lazy, pulpy 
coil of a water moccasin, white- 
mouthed and venomous. | could see 
nothing, though I strained my eyes. I 
went to the other end of the log, lay 
upon my side and peered through. From 
this position | could see light at the 
other end. The dim interior became 
more sharply defined. What was that 
strange shape? Was there a movement, 
just the slightest movement? Did | hear 
a noise? My back stiffened. 

Then it dawned upon me that | was 
gazing at the silhouette of a turkey vul- 
ture—a mother bird, probably, sitting 
upon her eggs. Eager, fairly breathless, | 
dragged two large stones to one end of 
the log, closing the opening there, and 
instantly sprang to the other end of the 
log, half expecting to be greeted by a 
rush of wings. Assured that the bird was 
still within, I sat down. For a moment | 
pondered. The log was almost twenty 
feet long; | could not make the bird 
come to me by punching it with a stick, 
and there was danger of breaking the 
eggs. I could not smoke it out because | 
had no matches and | doubted my abil- 
ity to start a fire by twirling a pointed 
stick against a piece of wood. My course 
was plain. I would have to go through 
the log. 

I entertained certain misgivings. 
Could I force my way through the dark, 
moist tunnel? What would | encounter 
there? Would the mother vulture 
try to pick out my eyes? 

Nevertheless I started, 

to find at once the aperture 
was not so large as it had 
” appeared to be. Arms 
we outstretched in front, hair 
and face scraping the musty wood, | 
inched forward, my toes digging 
doggedly into the earth. Within a short 
time the entire length of my body was 


18 The Living Bird Quarterly 


inside the log. My face pressed against 
the wet wood; my body ached with the 
strain of the unnatural position, but I 
could not bring my arms back because 
there was no room for such movement. 
Perhaps, after all, | should not at- 
tempt this strange tunneling! In a panic 
I tried to back out, only to find myself 
powerless. It appeared that in my toes, 
which could push me forward, was my 
only propellent power. | was doomed to 
stay, or to go ahead! | breathed hard, 
spent with exertion. There did not seem 


he naked 
head and pale bill 


were evil in 
appearance. There 
entered my mind the 
thought that, 
had I been a corpse, 
that white beak 
would have sought with 
its hooked tip the 
innermost chambers 
of my heart! 


to be enough air in the place. My ribs 
were crowded. But I must go ahead! 
Digging my fingers in the soft wood, 
shoving forward with all the force of my 
feet, | made slow progress. A flake of 
wood somehow got into my eye. I could 
do little more than shed tears over this 
unfortunate happening, for my arms 
were so long that | could not reach my 
face with my fingers. And my handker- 
chief was in my trousers pocket! 

I realized now, without question, that 
I should have not come into this log, 
that freedom of movement and plenty of 
fresh air were really all I had ever desired 
in the world. But I could not go back. 
Perhaps I remembered, in that dark mo- 
ment, certain lines of Joaquin Miller’s 
poem on Columbus. At any rate | 


squirmed on. I heard dull sounds as the 
buttons of my shirt gave way. My trou- 
sers stayed on only because of the 
strength of the leather belt, the straps of 
cloth which held it, and the endurance 
of my pelvic bones. The slipping down- 
ward of my shirt did not improve matters 
any. Wads of cloth seemed to be knotted 
all about my body. 

I found myself wondering how much 
more an imprisoned, half-suffocated, 
tortured boy, miles from home, could 
endure, when suddenly I realized that 
the mother vulture and I were not the 
only inhabitants of this hollow log. 

Tripping ever so daintily, his fine leg- 
threads just brushing the surface upon 
which he trod, came a grand-daddy 
longlegs, disturbed in his noonday 
sleep. A grand-daddy longlegs, consid- 
ered impersonally, is an interesting crea- 
ture. His legs are amazingly long and 
thin; his airy body is a strangely plump 
hub for those eight filamentous spokes 
which mince along so questioningly. | 
do not mind having a grand-daddy long- 
legs walk across my hand, in fact. 

But to have a grand-daddy longlegs, 
and perhaps four hundred of his com- 
panions, suddenly decide to wander all 
over my face, neck, and back is another 
story. The first tickle of the advance 
guard’s feet upon my nose drove me 
nearly frantic. | plunged my face into the 
wood, crushing my adversary. The odor 
of his body was unpleasant. Already his 
companions were bearing down upon 
me. I writhed and shuddered in exqui- 
site torture. By waiting a moment, then 
wiping my face deliberately across the 
damp wood, I could kill or disable whole 
squadrons at a time. The situation was 
not improved by the fact that I could see 
only imperfectly in the dim light and 
because of the bit of wood in my eye. 

Gradually the queer spiders learned 
that they were safer when they moved 
toward the light. I could see their danc- 
ing, trembling forms slowly withdraw 
from me. Nervous, full of reproach for 
my foolhardiness, | tried to relax, to 
think of something besides the vise in 
which I was fixed. 

Was this soft thing my hand felt a fluff 
of milkweed down? Was it a bit of silk, 
so oddly out of place in this nether ° 
world? It was the nest of a pair of white- 
footed mice—dainty, bright-eyed little 
creatures whose noses quivered with 
terror, whose bodies shook with dread, 
as they felt rude fingers upon their nest. 
Frantically they rushed forth. Instinc- 


tively they leaped for the darkest crevice 
they could find. Owing to the effective 
stoppage of my end of the log, those ha- 
vens of refuge were naturally near me. 
Trim, sharp-clawed feet raced over my 
back, under my shirt, about my neck. 
Can mice run nimbly? Can they use 
their toes in holding on? Do they learn 
of the unknown in the darkness through 
touching objects with their silken whis- 
kers? The answers to these questions, 
and to many more, I learned within our 
hollow log. I was half afraid the jewel- 
eyed gnomes would bite my face or that 
one of them would pounce into my 
‘mouth as I strove to get a deep breath of 
air. Could all this torture be actual? Was 
I having a nightmare? Would it never 
end? One of the mice crawled between 
my body and the wood. I gave my shoul- 
der a frantic shrug; there was a tiny 
squeak, and the sharp nails which had 
been digging into my skin instantly 
went limp. The other mouse lodged 
himself somewhere in the fold of my 
trousers. Poor little creatures! They had 
sought only the safety of darkness. They 
could have harmed hardly a living 
thing. But I am sure they wrecked a 
thousand nerve cells in my quivering 
body. 

Again shoving forward violently with 
my toes and digging my fingers into the 
soft structure of the tree, | pressed on- 
ward. The passageway became larger; | 
moved more freely. It was heavenly to be 
able to rest my weary body, and to 
breathe more deeply. 

But I was yet to meet my most amaz- 
ing, my most uncomfortable adventure! 
Suddenly the mother vulture stood up, 
hissed, coughed a little, and began 
vomiting decayed flesh she had eaten 
earlier in the day. I had somehow forgot- 
ten the vulture. I found myself wishing 
with all my heart that I had not sealed 
up the other end of the log. Summoning 
courage, and wriggling forward as rap- 
idly as I could, I struck the great bird an 
awkward blow. She hobbled off, hissing 
hoarsely and leaving a new object 
exposed. 

I could not see very well; but I had 
enough strength and interest in my 
strange expedition to permit me to re- 
alize that I was face to face with a lovely 
newborn creature—a baby vulture, no 
more than a few hours old. It was downy 
white, its legs and naked head were gray, 
its infant eyes had no expression. 
Breathing evenly, quietly, it rested be- 
side a large egg which was of soiled white 


splotched with blackish brown. 

The mother continued to cough and 
hiss, but she could not produce any 
more food. I was thankful that the 
digestive process in birds is so rapid that 
food does not, as a rule, stay long in the 
crop or gullet! 

Lifting the young vulture as well as | 
could, and rolling the big egg ahead of 
me, | wormed my way onward. The 
dusky parent retreated. At the end of 
the log I grasped her by the feet, pushed 
the obstructing stones away as well as I 


found myself 
wondering how much 
more an imprisoned, 
half-suffocated, 
tortured boy, miles from 
home, could 
endure, when suddenly 


I realized that the 
mother vulture and I 
were not the 


only inhabitants of this 
hollow log. 


could, and breathed the fresh air in deep 
gasps. Nearly worn out, I trembled from 
head to foot. Most of my shirt was some- 
where in the log; the underclothes 
which had covered my shoulders and 
chest were wound in tatters about my 
trousers. I was scratched up consider- 
ably, and bleeding in several spots. It 
must have taken me fifteen minutes to 
get out of the log, for the exit was small. 

When I finally reached the outer air I 
sank to the leaves, awkwardly tied the 
vulture to a sapling, using a shred of 
torn underclothing, and panted and 
trembled as I picked grand-daddy long- 
legs from my hair, eyes, and neck, and a 
dead mouse from my clothing. The belt 
had dug deep into the skin and had worn 
raw grooves all about my waist. But I 


was free! I could breathe the air, the 
cool, fresh air of heaven! 

I hobbled over to the pool. In the rus- 
tic mirror I could see that I was no lovely 
vision. | washed my face and hands, 
smoothed back my hair, and pinned my 
torn clothing together with a thorn or 
two. 

Then | returned to my captives. 
Somehow the little white baby seemed 
pitiably friendless in this bright world of 
the open. The eyes of the mother were 
hard and fierce and frightened. The egg 
was infertile. I could hear the liquid 
contents slopping about inside when | 
shook it. 

Had I been less weary or had my pred- 
atory instinct been more keen, | might 
have killed the mother vulture and 
tossed her aside; or I might have carried 
her home. But I couldn’t bring myself to 
take that woods baby away, or leave it 
there an orphan. | put it back in the 
damp shadow of the hollow log. I rolled 
aside the stones I had brought for sealing 
the opening. And then | put the mother 
back beside the cottony infant. The 
mother bird did not attempt to rush 
away. Mouth open, she eyed me imper- 
sonally. | moved off through the woods 
quietly, hoping that my retreat would 
not frighten her, or that if she did fly 
away she would return to her charge. 

I was famished and exhausted when I 
reached home. | mounted the stairs to 
my room with stiff and weary feet. 
When I took off my trousers a bright- 
eyed mouse whisked out of a pocket and 


scampered behind the bookcase. 3 








George Miksch Sutton was one of the world’s fore- 
most ornithologists and bird artists. He was born 
in Nebraska in 1898, and began to draw and to 
collect birds when he was about seven years old. 
At 18, he studied with renowned bird artist Louis 
Agassiz Fuertes. In 1932 Dr. Sutton received a 
doctorate at Cornell University, after which he 
served on the staff of the Carnegie Museum in 
Pittsburgh, taught ornithology at the University 
of Pittsburgh, was Pennsylvania State Ornitholo- 
gist, and Curator of Birds at Cornell. He joined 
the faculty of the University of Oklahoma in 1952, 
and later became its Curator Emeritus of Birds for 
the Stovall Museum and George Lynn Cross Re- 
search Professor Emeritus of Zoology. In his many 
years of research and painting he studied birds 
from the Arctic Circle to the jungles of Mexico, 


and authored 11 books. Dr. Sutton died in 1982. 


“An Adventure with a Turkey Vulture” was first 
published in the June 1929 issue of The Atlantic 
Monthly under the title “Birdnesting under Diffi- 
culties.’ Later it was reprinted in Birds in the Wil- 
derness, the Macmillan Company, New York. 
1936; and A Treasury of Birdlore, Doubleday & 
Company, Inc., Garden City, New York. 1962. 
Reprinted here by permission of the author. 


Summer/1985 19 





HOTOGRAPHY is different 
things to different people. Ar- 
thur A. Allen, co-founder and 
first director of the Cornell 
Laboratory of Ornithology, summed up 
his feelings on the subject in the 1963 
edition of The Living Bird: 

“To me photography has always been 
a means to an end. Of course, I thrill to 
the sport of capturing on film a flock of 
teal as it whizzes by—and I still get sat- 
isfaction out of being the first to photo- 
graph an Ivory-billed Woodpecker or a 
Bristle-thighed Curlew. But in my case 
the camera has always meant the possi- 
bility of portraying accurately every spe- 
cies of bird, in every plumage and in 





20 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Our 1985 Photo Contest Winners 


every species-typical activity.” 

Allen was among the earliest orni- 
thologists to use photography to verify 
the existence of rare species, and to doc- 
ument bird appearance and behavior. 
Through his photographs he was the 
first to determine that drumming grouse 
produce their reverberating sound by 
beating their wings in the air. Previously 
it was believed the birds either struck a 
log with their wings or beat upon their 
own breasts. Allen’s book, Stalking 
Birds with Color Camera published in 
1951 by the National Geographic Soci- 
ety, contains 331 color and 93 black- 
and-white photos of birds involved in 
virtually every known avian activity. 


The late Ansel Adams is renowned 
for his pictures of natural landscapes. In 
Portfolios of Ansel Adams (1981), he il- 
luminates a view of photography as an 
aesthetic and awakening experience: 

“Both the grand and intimate aspects 
of nature can be revealed in the expres- 
sive photograph. Both can stir enduring 
affirmations and discoveries and can 
help the spectator in his search for iden- 
tification with the vast world of natural 
beauty and wonder surrounding him— 
and help him comprehend man’s con- 
tinuing need for that world.” 

John Shaw, whose book, The Nature 
Photographer's Complete Guide to Profes- 
sional Field Techniques (1984), contains 





Wendy J. Shattil and Robert A. Rozinski, Denver, Colorado. Sandhill cranes in sunrise fog, southern Colorado, 
February 1984. Canon F 1, Canon 400mm lens, 1/500 at f8. ‘It’s difficult to approach these birds at that hour 

of morning because they're about to leave the night roost,’ said Ms. Shattil. ‘And it’s a challenge to get close enough to 
them at the same time the sun is coming through the fog. We were very lucky that year. At 20 degrees below zero, 
steam rose from the artesian pond, and the diffused sunlight transmitted through it produced the ethereal silhouettes.’ 


many exquisite nature photographs, ap- 
proaches his craft not just as a means to 
an end, but as an end in itself. In Wild- 
life Photography: The Art and Technique 
of Ten Masters (1982) by Ann Guilfoyle 
and Susan Rayfield, he says: 

“Working with a camera is entirely 
mechanical and rather ritualistic. I re- 
member that Hemingway, in the Nick 
Adams stories, described trout fishing in 
terms of ritual. Nick, coming back from 
World War I, had to order his world 
again, to give it meaning by the ritual of 
tying on a fly and casting it a certain 
way. 

“A ritual is also involved in setting up 
a tripod, mounting the lens on the cam- 


era, selecting the shutter speed, f-stop, 
and so on. There is a certain beauty to 
this, a Zen, if you will. I think that’s 
what I like most about the combination 
of natural history and photography. You 
must have both the mysticism and the 
technology, the Orient and the West, 
coming together to produce a good 
picture.” 

Today people the world over are using 
photography as a tool, an aesthetic pur- 
suit, anda salubrious ritual. These folks 
are producing many excellent photo- 
graphs, and the Laboratory of Ornithol- 
ogy’s 1985 photo contest was designed 
to bring some of their work to the pages 
of The Living Bird Quarterly. In so doing, 





we hope to continue in the footsteps of 
Doc Allen by promoting photography as 
an excellent means of encouraging the 
understanding and appreciation of 
birds. 

Special thanks to our judges, Les 
Line of Audubon and W. Allan Royce of 
National Geographic, and to you 400 
photographers whose 2,000-plus slides 
and prints helped to make the Quar- 
terly’s first photo contest a rousing suc- 
cess. You contributed a wide range of 
bird subjects, from the Marabou stork of 
Zaire to the cardinal perched in a back- 
yard tree. On the following pages, enjoy 
the work of the winners, and start pre- 
paring your entries for next time! 


Summer/1985 21 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 







































































JAN R. HUUSSEN, Rochester, New 
York. Red-tailed hawk trio, Seneca Falls, 
New York, spring 1981. Minolta XG7Z 
50mm lens plus electronic flash, 1/60 at 
about 3 feet. 


Aiinost every year my wife and I venture 
out during spring to look for nesting birds. 
At ad friend’s home in rural Seneca Falls 
we searched farmers’ fields for nesting 
birds and came upon the red-tailed hawk 
nest. For three consecutive Saturdays we 
traveled to Seneca Falls and each time I 
climbed 30 feet up the tree in order to 
obtain pictures of the nestlings during the 
various stages of their development.’ 


HAROLD E. WILSON, Anchorage, 
Alaska. Bald eagle, Adak Island, Alaska, 
July 1984. Canon F1, Canon 600mm 
lens, 1/125 at f5.6. 


I go fairly often to Adak Island in the 
Aleutians to take eagle pictures. There are 
no trees on the Aleutian Islands so the 
eagles have to nest on the ground; this one 
was sitting on a bluff near its nest. I took 
about 10 rolls of film over several days 
until all the elements came together. . . . 
My main profession is a bush pilot—I fly 
a small twin-engine mail plane around 
some of the Aleutian villages. My second 
job is wildlife photography. This summer I 
hope to take some pictures of the chicks.” 





PHILIPPE ROCA, Lexington, Kentucky. Great horned owl, Owensboro, Kentucky, 
January 1982. Olympus OM 1, 75-150mm lens, 1/60 at f4. 


A friend of mine told me he had an owl in his barn so I rushed over to check out the 
photographic possibilities. After waiting an hour or two the bird was finally in the right 
position. Originally I wanted to take a picture of it looking out of the knothole, but those 
shots didn’t work out as well as this one. 

“I’m a tennis instructor and have been taking pictures for fun for five or six years. 
Recently, though, I built a bird blind and hope to be doing a lot more photography.” 


Summer/1985 23 





24 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


ROBERT A. ROZINSKI AND 
WENDY J. SHATTIL, Denver, 
Colorado. Wigeon taking flight, Denver, 
August 1984. Canon F I, Canon 80- 
200mm lens, 1/1000 at f4.5. 


We spent almost a full day at a park in 
downtown Denver trying to get this 
picture right,’ said Ms. Shattil. ‘“‘We had 
been working on our technique for 
catching birds in flight when finally we and 
the wigeon did everything right. This 
hand-held shot froze the initial airborne 
motion of the bird in an unusual position. 
... We both have two full-time jobs: one 
is photography, the other is to make money 
so we can do the photography.’ 


CARL R. SAMS II, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan. Red-winged blackbird at 
sunrise, Ann Arbor, April 1984. Nikon 
F3, 300mm ED-If Nikkor lens with 
warm-up filter, 1/500 at 4.5. 


g ie was taken in a marsh near my 
house. The male had been displaying and 
was agitated by my presence, and since | 
was standing in his territory, it didn’t take 
long to get this picture in the morning light.”’ 


PRISCILLA H. CONNELL, Fayetteville, Ohio. Snowy egret, Everglades National 
Park, Florida, January 1985. Nikon F3, 300mm lens, 1/500 at f8. 


Wren we got to the Everglades this year, the place was alive with wildlife—I had never 
seen so many birds of all kinds at one time in one spot. Then, on the third day, a black 
panther appeared from out of the brush and grabbed a wood stork. Every bird took off 
and, except for a few ducks, not one came back for weeks. Fortunately, I had already 
taken this shot of the snowy egret as it stood in a pond at sunset.” 

A birder for many years, Ms. Connell came to photography later in life. ““Once my 
children were grown I had enough time to take a nature photography workshop with 
professional photographers John Shaw and Larry West. After that experience I decided I 
was going to be a photographer when I grew up and I’ve been doing it ever since.”’ 











KENNETH W. FINK (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 








Golden pheasant from China 


NEW PHOTOGRAPHY BOOK 


THE NATURE PHOTOGRAPHER’S 
COMPLETE GUIDE TO PROFES- 
SIONAL FIELD TECHNIQUES by 
John Shaw. 1984. Amphoto, New York. 144 
pages. $16.95 (paper). 


Hee is a beautiful new book written by an 
expert nature photographer. Shaw discusses 
many subjects of interest to bird photogra- 
phers: how to make correct exposures under 
difficult lighting conditions; how to control 
mood with exposure; how to select lenses; 
how and when to use special equipment such 
as tripods, filters and motor drives; how to 
compose photos and control perspective, 
and how to cope with the rigors of field pho- 
tography. 

The text is clear and informative. Some 
topics are treated a bit superficially, such as 
using blinds and stalking subjects; however, 
brevity of text is offset by the profusion of ex- 
cellent photographs. They are gorgeous — 
from crystal-clear close-ups to beautiful sce- 
nics to striking portraits of birds and other 
wildlife. They clearly illustrate the concepts 
and techniques discussed, and detailed cap- 
tions explain how the photographs were 
taken. Also, many comparative photos are 
included—two or more shots of the same 


26 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


subject taken from different positions, under 
different lighting conditions, or with differ- 
ent equipment. These comparisons illustrate 
commonly made mistakes as well as the pos- 
sibilities presented by each subject. 

The book will be particularly useful to be- 
ginners, although advanced photographers 
certainly will benefit from studying the 
photos. 


ASIAN FIELD GUIDES 
With the publication of two new books, 


visitors to Asia at last have English-language 
field guides that can help to identify the be- 
wildering array of birds found on that vast 
continent. 


A FIELD GUIDE TO BIRDS OF THE 
USSR by V. E. Flint, R. L. Boehme, Y. V. 
Kostin, and A. A. Kuznetsov. 1984. Prince- 
ton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 


353 pages. $65.00 (cloth). 


Biras of the USSR is not completely new, 
but an updated translation of a Russian work 
first published in 1968. It describes 728 of 
the nearly 750 species known to occur in the 
country, most of which are nicely illustrated 
on colorplates. Species accounts discuss field 
marks, habits, distribution and similar- 
looking species; range maps are also in- 
cluded. The introduction contains a short 
section on tips for birding in the USSR, a 
discussion of Soviet natural history, and 
concise descriptions of the country’s five 
most interesting birding regions. The book 
also covers much of Europe and India. 


THE BIRDS OF CHINA by Rodolphe 
Meyer de Schauensee. 1984. Smithsonian 
Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 602 
pages. $45.00 (cloth) $29.95 (paper). 


Birds of China is the first book to describe 
all 1,195 species of birds found in China. 
Nearly half the birds are illustrated on beau- 
tiful colorplates, and the text contains de- 
tailed descriptions of each species with key 
field marks italicized. Species’ ranges and 
habitats are also discussed. The introduc- 
tion includes a discussion of the country’s 
major geographic regions—mountains, ba- 
sins, rivers, and islands—and an interesting 
historical account which describes impor- 
tant Chinese ornithologists and their ex- 
peditions and writings from the 1860s to 
the 1970s. 


SEX DIFFERENCES 


Mate and female birds of the same species 
often feed in different ways. Male downy 
woodpeckers, for example, often forage on 
small branches while females usually feed on 
large branches and tree trunks. Many ecolo- 
gists believe that different foraging methods 
have evolved to minimize competition for 
food between the sexes. By hunting in differ- 
ent areas or using different techniques, birds 
avoid competing for the same prey. 

If this is true, an interesting question re- 
mains unanswered: are different foraging 
behaviors determined genetically, that is, are 
birds born with a specific behavior that 
never changes? Or is foraging behavior deter- 
mined by social dominance, where one sex 
forces the other to use certain techniques or 
to feed in certain areas? 

Wm. David Peters and Thomas C. 
Grubb, Jr. of Ohio State University have ex- 
amined this question in three Ohio woodlots 
where they studied the foraging behavior of 
downy woodpeckers during two consecutive 
winters (“An experimental analysis of sex- 
specific foraging in the downy woodpecker, 
Picoides pubescens.”” Ecology, vol. 64, pp. 
1437-1443). 

During the first winter the researchers ob- 
served the foraging behavior of both sexes in 
all three woodlots, and found that males fed 
primarily on small branches and twigs in the 
upper tree canopy, while females selected 
large branches and tree trunks closer to the 
ground. 

During the second winter Peters and 
Grubb removed all female downy woodpeck- 
ers from one woodlot. Result? The males’ 
foraging behavior did not change from that 
of the previous year. On the second woodlot 
the researchers removed all the males. Here 
the results were different: the females began 
foraging like males, selecting smaller 
branches and twigs higher in the trees. On 
the third woodlot the researchers removed 
no birds, and all continued to feed as they 
had the previous year. 

From these observations Peters and Grubb 
concluded that the foraging behavior of male 
and female downy woodpeckers is not genet- 
ically determined. Rather, males appear to 
be dominant over females; under normal 
conditions males displace females from fa- 
vored feeding locations. When males are ab- 
sent females apparently have no trouble al- 
tering their behavior and foraging in areas 





2) 
[4 
a 
< 
x 
E 
oh 
= 
S 





RESEARCH & REVIEW 





normally reserved for males. 

This study adds to a growing body of evi- 
dence that suggests that foraging behavior of 
many bird species is highly adaptable, de- 
pending on social or environmental condi- 
tions. Just as the feeding behavior of one sex 
may be affected by the other, so may the be- 
havior of one species be affected by another. 
Therefore, attempts to determine the “typi- 
cal” behavior of a given species, as many 
studies have recently done, may be fruitless. 


MORNING SONG 


Dining spring and summer in most parts of 
the country, morning brings a din of bird 
song. As the day wears on, though, the birds 
become quiet. By noon, only a few songs can 
be heard. 

Why do birds sing in the morning? Song 
is primarily a means of advertising and de- 
fending territorial boundaries; one explana- 
tion for the dawn chorus is that morning is a 
particularly good time for birds to ward off 
intruding neighbors. But why should morn- 
ing be better than afternoon or evening? 

Mark I. Avery and John R. Krebs of the 
Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology, 
Oxford, England, have a possible answer. 
They speculate that morning may be the 
best time for birds to sing because the early 
hours are too cold for efficient foraging, even 


Marsh wren 


though studies have shown that birds wake 
up hungry. 

Most songbirds feed primarily on insects, 
which become more active as temperatures 
rise. Therefore, Avery and Krebs reason, 
birds may defend territories early in the 
morning while their prey are inactive, and 
switch to feeding later in the day when 
warmer temperatures have prey on the move. 

But are active insects easier to capture 
than passive ones? To find out, Avery and 
Krebs designed an experiment using four 
great tits, relatives of North American 
chickadees. The researchers released the tits 
one at a time into cages of different temper- 
atures. Each cage contained two logs and 
several live spiders (‘“Temperature and for- 
aging success of great tits Parus major hunt- 
ing for spiders.” Ibis, vol. 126, pp. 33-38). 

Avery and Krebs observed the birds for- 
aging and discovered that they captured 
more spiders at higher temperatures, when 
the spiders were more active, than at colder 
temperatures, when the prey were motion- 
less or moved very little. The birds are prob- 
ably better able to see moving spiders than 
motionless ones, therefore, it seems likely 
that tit foraging success would be lower in 
the morning and higher in the afternoon. 

Like all animals, birds have evolved be- 
haviors that allow them to use their energy 
most efficiently. If afternoon is a good time 
for foraging, then morning may be better for 
singing and defending territories. 


WASTE DISPOSAL 


Nesting songbirds excrete their feces in 
mucous membranes known as fecal sacs 
which the parents remove from the nest. Or- 
nithologists have assumed that fecal sacs are 
produced and removed primarily as an aid to 
nest sanitation, a reasonable explanation 
considering that for several weeks songbird 
nests are home to an immobile clutch of def- 
ecating youngsters. However, parent birds 
often carry the sacs great distances from the 
nest. If the sacs are merely sanitary aids, why 
bother carrying them far away? 

Patrick Weatherhead of Carleton Univer- 
sity, Ontario, Canada, examined this ques- 
tion by studying 23 pairs of tree swallows 
breeding in nest boxes in eastern Ontario 
(“Fecal sac removal by tree swallows: the 
cost of cleanliness.” The Condor, vol. 86, pp. 
187-191). When adult swallows emerged 
from the boxes, Weatherhead noted whether 





Tree swallow 


they were carrying fecal sacs and the direc- 
tion from the nest in which they flew. If a 
bird was carrying a sac, he noted the dis- 
tance from the nest at which it was dropped. 

Weatherhead discovered that swallows 
carrying fecal sacs flew in random directions, 
while those without sacs usually headed for 
favored foraging areas. Also, most sacs were 
dropped far from the nest—as much as 75 
yards away. This indicated that sacs were 
being dispersed over a wide area, rather than 
concentrated in a small one. Weatherhead 
believes the swallows scatter the sacs in order 
to deter nest predation. If fecal sacs were al- 
lowed to build up in or near the nests, he sug- 
gests, then predators could locate nests sim- 
ply by searching for concentrations of the 
conspicuous white sacs. 

If Weatherhead is correct, it is possible 
that fecal sac production evolved primarily as 
a means for songbirds to dispose of telltale 
evidence of nesting, and that sanitation is 
only a secondary benefit. This idea is sup- 
ported by the fact that nestling birds of many 
species do not produce sacs. These include 
species which are not highly susceptible to 
predation, such as certain hole nesters 
whose feces are hidden from predators, and 
raptors, whose large, aggressive parents are 
effective predator deterrents. Many of the 
hole nesters simply wallow in their excre- 
ment, while raptors expel it over the side of 
the nest. 


Summer/1985 = 27 


ALBERT KUHNIGK (VALAN PHOTOS) 





NEWS & NOTES 





AFTER FIVE YEARS of field work and 
four years of compilation, The Atlas of Breed- 
ing Birds of Vermont is now available from the 
Vermont Institute of Natural Science. The 
atlas contains information gathered by vol- 
unteer bird watchers on the distribution of 
breeding birds throughout the state. Pat- 
terned after atlases done in Europe, more 
than 20 states are currently conducting 
breeding bird atlas projects. Vermont’s is the 
first state atlas project to be published. 

The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Vermont is 
available for $45 (shipping: $1.50, 25¢ each 
additional copy) from University Press of 
New England, 3 Lebanon Street, Hanover, 
New Hampshire 03755. 


SCOTT A. SUTCLIFFE has been se- 
lected the Laboratory’s new development of- 
ficer. Scott brings with him a broad back- 
ground of experience as former director of 
both the North American Loon Fund and 
New Hampshire’s Loon Preservation Com- 
mittee, and most recently as executive di- 
rector of the Long Island chapter of The Na- 
ture Conservancy. 


THE 17TH Arthur A. Allen Award will be 
presented to Robert S. Arbib, Jr. and Susan 
Roney Drennan at a dinner in Ithaca, New 
York on October 18, 1985. This award is 
given by the Laboratory of Ornithology in 
recognition of outstanding contributions to 
ornithology. Arbib and Drennan are being 
honored for their efforts in increasing the 
value of the journal American Birds for ama- 
teur and professional ornithologists. 
Invitations will be mailed in August to 
Laboratory members living in New England, 
New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. If 
you live elsewhere and would like to attend, 
please write Jane Wood at the Laboratory or 


telephone (607)256-3341. 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE board of the 


Laboratory welcomes seven new members: 
Albert E Appleton, Rex J. Bates, David L. 
Call, John H. Dakin, Frances C. James, 
Peter R. Marler, and Eugene S. Morton. 
Eugene Morton is a research zoologist at the 
Smithsonian Institution’s National Zoolog- 
ical Park and an adjunct professor at the 
University of Maryland, College Park. Peter 
Marler is a professor at Rockefeller Univer- 
sity, New York City. Frances James is profes- 
sor and curator of birds and mammals at 
Florida State University in Tallahassee. John 
Dakin is a financial consultant with Kahn 


28 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Compiled by Steven C. Sibley 


Harris Dakin Inc. in Mill Valley, California. 
David L. Call is a professor at Cornell Uni- 
versity and dean of its College of Agriculture 
and Life Sciences. Rex Bates is financial vice 
president of State Farm Insurance Company 
in Bloomington, Illinois. Albert Appleton is 
deputy attorney general for the State of New 
York and an adjunct assistant professor at St. 
John’s University in New York City. 

In addition, Edwin H. Morgens, William 
G. Conway, Alan Crawford, Jr. and Hamil- 
ton E Kean were reappointed to new terms 
on the board. David L. Call was selected to 
serve as chairman. All terms began July 1. 

The board bade farewell to departing 
members James W. Spencer, who stepped 
down as chairman, and Robert G. Engel. 
Charles E. Treman, Jr., whose term expired 
in June, has been named the third honorary 


life member of the board, joining T; Spencer 
Knight and Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 


BIRD BANDING EQUIPMENT, new or 
used, is needed by a licensed bird bander and 
teacher at St. Mary’s High School in St. 
Mary’s, Alaska. Brian McCaffery is estab- 
lishing a bird banding and wildlife manage- 


ment curriculum at the school and needs 
mist nets, banding pliers, pesola scales and 
other banding items. St. Mary’s is situated 
far out on the Yukon River Delta, an excel- 
lent place for banding activities. 

Please send donated equipment to Brian 
McCaffery at: Science Department, St. 
Mary’s High School, St. Mary’s, Alaska 
99658. 


THE SAPSUCKERS, the Laboratory of 
Ornithology’s biggest day birding team, tied 
the National Geographic Society team for 
the highest number of bird species found by 
an out-of-state team, in the second annual 
New Jersey World Series of Birding held last 
May. Both teams found 163 species, but the 
Ed Stearns Award went to the Geographic 
team because it found its last species one 
hour earlier than the Sapsuckers. Pouring 
rains and high winds in northern New Jersey 
kept all totals depressed, except for the win- 
ning in-state team, the Delaware Valley Or- 
nithological Club, whose concentrated ef- 
forts in the southern part of the state allowed 
it to find 182 species and capture the Urner- 
Stone Cup. 





Dear Member: 


With this issue, The Living Bird Quarterly begins its fourth year of publication. 
During the first three years we've tried to bring you interesting and exciting articles 
intended to help you understand and appreciate birds and the environment. We've 
published travelogues and book reviews as well as stories on bird biology, life history 
and conservation, bird art and literature, and finding, watching and feeding birds. 
And always we strive to accompany each article with the finest bird photography. 

Has the Quarterly been successful? When we published volume 1, number | in the 
summer of 1982, the Laboratory had fewer than 3,000 members. Today the magazine 
rolls off the presses into the hands of 11,000. We hope that some of these new 
members have joined the Lab in order to receive the Quarterly. 

Another measure of success: the Quarterly recently won its second award, a gold 
medal, for “special audience periodicals” from the Council for the Advancement and 
Support of Education (CASE), Washington, D.C. The judges cited the Quarterly as 
meeting “a particularly high standard of excellence and an example for others to 


follow.” 


But is it a success with you, our members and prime audience? Our editors 
carefully plan each issue to bring you a mix of articles on a wide variety of subjects, 
and they are constantly searching for new ideas. For example, beginning with next 
winter’s issue, we'll be presenting a series of articles on bird behavior by Donald and 
Lillian Stokes, authors of the excellent Guides to Bird Behavior. We are also trying to 
increase coverage of important environmental topics that affect the well-being of 


populations of wild birds. 


As we plan future issues of the Quarterly, we invite all of you to share your ideas 
about the magazine. What articles have you enjoyed? What would you like to see more 
of? Less of? Are there any authors you ve found especially informative or 
entertaining? Let us know what you think, and together we can make the Quarterly 


the best possible bird magazine. 


Charles Walcott, Executive Director 





OT aecn teen 
aoa AA NN es 
at 


CR 
$s beng 
en 
i 
i 

Y 





From A Field Guide to Birds of the USSR 


Enclosed is a check or money order in U.S. funds, payable to The Crow’s Nest Bookshop. Our 
address—The Crow’s Nest Bookshop, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, Sap- 
sucker Woods, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. (607) 256-5057. 





Catalogue No. Title Qty. Price 














Amount of order 








N.Y. State residents add 7% sales tax 


Postage and handling 2.75 





Total amount enclosed 


Form of payment: [] Check [] Money Order [] VISA [] MasterCard 




















Card # Expir. Date 
Signature 

Name 

Address 

City State Zip 





For Those Who Like to Watch— 
The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


A Guide to Bird Behavior 
Volume I & Volume II 
Donald W. Stokes, Lillian Q. Stokes 


Go beyond identification and explore a 
new way of looking at birds: behavior 
watching. These guides are for 
enthusiastic nature lovers who are 
curious about the habits of birds. Each 
guide covers 25 common species, and 
allows the reader to experience the whole 
life of the bird—from nesting to 
adulthood. Illustrations. 


Volume I— 1979, 336 pages. 

Cloth No. 2301/$14.95/$13.46 members 
Paper No. 2302/$8.95/$8.06 members 
Volume II— 1983, cloth, 334 pages. 

No. 2303/$14.95/$13.46 members 


A Field Guide to Birds of 


the USSR 
VE. Flint, R. L. Boehme, Y. V. Kostin, 
A. A. Kuznetsov 


Beautiful volume with 48 colorplates, 71 
line drawings and 303 maps describing 
728 species covering the USSR and much 
of Europe, East and Central Asia, and 
India. Also included are species 
identification, ranges, and translator’s 
advice to traveling bird watchers. 


1984, cloth, 353 pages. 
No. 2210/$65.00/$58.50 members 


The Birds of China 
R. M. de Schauensee 


Comprehensive volume covers 1,195 
species of birds belonging to 88 families 
with emphasis on diagnosis of field 
characteristics. Following each 
description is the bird’s range throughout 
China, with notes on outside ranges, 
ecology, and taxonomy. Seventy-seven 
colorplates show many of the species. 
Extensive history of ornithology in China 
and a section on the geography and 
physical features are included. Maps and 
checklist. 


1984, paper, 602 pages. 
No. 2331/$29.95/$26.96 members 


Lesson IIT 


Geo. B. Wolfe II, a student in the Laboratory’s correspondence course in 
bird photography, assesses his progress as part of the assignment in Lesson III. 


y bird photography to this 
M point: my best, and I’m being 

generous, is extremely average. 
The bird photos I see published in mag- 
azines and books are extremely sharp; 
few, if any, of mine reach this degree of 
crispness. Also the published photos 
show some degree of behavior. I seldom 
seem to catch that moment. 

I don’t believe I have any glaring 
(therefore easily correctable) technical 
weakness, rather it seems to be the cul- 
mination of several factors that I’m not 
doing well. 

I should be experienced enough in 
photography (if not bird photography) 
to get what I want, but I can’t. For one 
thing, the birds won’t hold still and 
seem to come closest when the light is 
worst. I’ve come to the conclusion that 
either Mother Nature doesn’t love wild- 
life photographers, or camera, film, and 
lens manufacturers are in cahoots to 
drive us crazy. 

If the sun were just two or three times 
as bright, or if animals moved around 
during the middle of a bright day, or 
weren’t so bashful about having their 
photos taken, everything would be so 
much easier. 

And why can’t they make an ASA 
16,000 film that is grainless? Or a 
400mm lens that can take a picture after 
sundown? And who invented the rule 
that says close-ups have so little depth of 
field? Got to be a conspiracy! 

Getting close to birds: | get birds 
within my minimum focusing distance 
at my feeder; however, they usually look 
like what they are—common birds at a 
feeder. Stalking is useless if the goal is to 
fill the frame with the image of a bird. 


30 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 





Show me a man who can stalk within 
30 feet of a turkey or red-tailed hawk 
and I’ll show you a ghost. Using a blind 
in the proper position must be the an- 
swer. I’m going to try to do better in this 
area. 

Knowledge of birds: There are thou- 
sands of books written on the subject of 
what | don’t know about birds. Even 
with a guide in hand, I can’t identify 
some of the birds I see. | took a dozen 
pictures of a great crested flycatcher and 
thought it was some kind of warbler! 
What more can I| say about my igno- 
rance? If, through a miracle, you can 
help me learn enough to sell some bird 
photos, I promise that the first payment 
will go toward my enrollment in the 
Laboratory’s bird biology course. 

Improving my weak points: 

#1. I’m going to buy a steady tripod; 
the one I now have shakes when the dog 
snores. I don’t care what it weighs, but 
I would like one which will help me take 
eye-level shots without my having to 
give up breathing for three minutes. 

#2. I’m going to get another flash 
unit and use it. The rechargeable bat- 
teries on my old flash died awhile back 
and the replacement cost made me act 
mulish. Maybe then I won’t have to wait 
for the birds to hold still and pose. 

#3. Sooner or later (more likely the 
latter) I’m going to buy a lens I can be 
proud of. I’m going to be the world’s best 
nature photographer if I just win the 
Reader’s Digest Sweepstakes! 

Yes, I know I can’t buy my way into 
becoming a great photographer but, if I 
can’t blame my equipment, I must 
blame the person behind the equip- 
ment. And that’s me. > 


BUCORVUS CAFER 


COFROFCOVEHIRO A 0g 


ae 


e 
nee PUES 
EDERLAND 


N 


UNION OF BURMA ¢ “ 


80P ECUADOR 


30) 


Mi 
CORREOS 
DIA DEL SELLO COLONIAL 1952 


ENMY 


DELARUE 


Sriw: 


ISRAEL bolo! 


MA _POSTAGE 
M OF LIBYA 


AIR MAIL "NK “XT 











a 


Y hp Hi i a 
Yyf] iy A, } } / ; YY 
yt } Ch 


Y 


OX / 7, fmf 





Sq] 


AY }} 

} 
WA Wie 
A KO y, yy Ya 
\ Yj 


| 


‘\ 
¥ y/, | 7 \ 
1 
i 
/ f \ MH 
4) Y NK i 


~ 4 
ANI TY Re 


SA RAINS RA 


TS Wy 
SSA 
Nn 


og er 
wee WW 
AY 
bd 


N WE 
. WRENS 


— Tt = 2 YX 
SSXSG 
us . 
~ LS A 
- Ss 
\ 
SS 





) 


WV 




































































CORNELL LABORATORY OF ORNITHOLOGY 





SONGS AND CALLS OF OVER 200 SPECIES RECORDED IN THE FIELD, ARRANGED TO ACCOMPANY 
THE FOURTH EDITION OF ROGER TORY PETERSON’S A FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS 





A: PETERSON FIELD GUIDE TO 
BIRD SONGS (Eastern) 


The completely new edition of a classic. 











&VOICES 











E: VOICES OF THE 
NIGHT 
Revised to include 
all frogs and toads 
east of the Rocky 
Mountains. 








F: VOICES OF THE 


VOICES 
OF THE 
PERUVIAN 
RAINFOREST 


PHEODORK A) PARKE RAL 


PERUVIAN 
RAINFOREST 
Captures the 
rainforest in brilliant 
sonic splendor. 











Sil 
+41 | 
o 
23 
= 








S Sy 
The Crow’s Nest Bookshop and The Library of Natural Sounds = 
present a collection of outstanding recordings of bird and other sounds. 

“THE PETERSON FIELD GUIDE SERIES = Se 
ee ee ae pa Sounds 
A FIELD GUIDE TO imei © Nervow Groce 

: DE TO 
BIRD SONGS on 
OF EASTERN AND CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA io ilk the Nason 





Autumn 1985 
Volume 4. Number 4 


Luartely 


NING BIRD 





EDITORIAL STAFF 


Jill Crane, Editor 

Kat Dalton, Design Director 

Richard E. Bonney, Jr., Associate Editor 
Charles R. Smith, Technical Editor 
Steven C. Sibley, Editorial Assistant 
Maureene Stangle, Publications Assistant 


LABORATORY STAFF 


Charles Walcott, Executive Director 

Michele M. Barclay, Bookshop 

Gregory S. Butcher, Cooperative Research 
Tom J. Cade, Raptor Research 

Jill Crane, The Living Bird Quarterly 

Lang Elliott, Photography 

James L. Gulledge, Library of Natural Sounds 


Diane Johnson, Administration 
Thomas S. Litwin, Seatuck 

Steven C. Sibley, Library 

Charles R. Smith, Public Education 
Scott A. Sutcliffe, Development 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


David L. Call, Chairman 

Morton S. Adams 

Albert E Appleton 

Robert Barker 

Rex J. Bates 

William G. Conway 

Alan Crawford, Jr. 

John H. Dakin 

Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 

Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 

Thomas M. Hampson 

Frances C. James Charles E. Treman, Jr. 

Imogene P. Johnson Charles D. Webster 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


Hamilton FE Kean 

T. Spencer Knight 
John D. Leggett, Jr. 
Peter R. Marler 
Barnabas McHenry 
G. Michael McHugh 
Edwin H. Morgens 
Eugene S. Morton 
Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in January, April, july, 
and October by the Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell University, 

159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. 

Telephone: (607) 256-5056. The Living Bird Quarterly is free 

to members of the Laboratory. For information concerning 

back issues please write to our Membership Department. 

© 1985 Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N.Y. 


Front Cover. Tail feathers of a superb lyrebird of Australia. 

Back Cover. Wing feathers of a nicobar pigeon of the Solomon Islands. 
Photographs by D. Cavagnaro/DRK Photo. Feathers, unique to birds, 

are functional as well as beautiful. They provide insulation and protection 
from rain, snow and sunlight, and are often used in courtship. The male 
lyrebird spreads his elegant tail over his back and head during elaborate 
courtship dances. 








12 


20 


21 


22 


29 


26 


Whither Two Warblers? 

Frank B. Gill 

Golden-winged warblers are disappearing as a breeding 
species from the northeastern United States. What are the 
reasons behind the waning of the species? What role is 
played by its close relative, the blue-winged warbler? 


A Propensity to Mob 

Douglas H. Shedd 

Among other “altruistic” behaviors, birds will attack 
potential predators and try to drive them away. Are 
mobbing birds endangering their lives or increasing 
the chance of survival for themselves and their young? 


Sharing the Shore 

Wade Wander 

Long legs, short legs, long bills, short bills, picking, 
probing and turning stones. Migrating shorebirds 
feeding on the same narrow band of beach compensate 
for their similarities with some striking differences. 


The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


Window Pains 
Daniel Klem, Jr. 
You may have had the unhappy experience of finding 


a dead bird beneath your window. A few simple 
precautions may prevent the needless death of many birds. 


Research & Review 
Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


News & Notes 
Steven C. Sibley 


Audubon’s Intentions 
Marc Breslav 


Six newly reissued prints from The Birds of 
America attempt to capture the subtlety and 
splendor Audubon would have wanted had he the 
time and money to supervise a second edition. 





= 


ba ig ht 


es 





S (PHOTO RESEARCHERS, INC.) 


HELEN WILLIAM 


Decisions to split or 
lump species 

are not made by 

a committee 

of elite ornithologists 
determined to 

confuse bird watchers. 


All birds do not conform neatly to the concept 
of species. The red-shafted flicker (below) 

and yellow-shafted flicker (left) were once 
considered separate species. They were lumped 
into one species, the northern flicker, because 
they often interbreed where their ranges meet. 





WHITHER 
TWO WARBLERS? 


FRANK B. GILL 


hat is a species? At first the 

answer seems as simple as a 

textbook definition: a group 

of physically similar and in- 

timately related plants or animals that 

does not breed with any other group to 

produce fertile offspring. While various 

species may compete for food or space, 

they are generally different enough in 

their ecology or behavior so that rarely 

does one force another to the point of 
extinction. 

Most species readily fit this defini- 

tion—cardinals look like other cardi- 

nals, mate only with cardinals to pro- 


duce more cardinals. They may . 


compete with other birds that inhabit 
woodland edges, but usually do not 
cause competing populations to decline 
seriously. The same is true for most spe- 
cies, be they mountain lions, spring 
peepers or hemlock trees. 

All birds do not neatly conform to the 
concept of species. Consider the north- 
ern oriole: it was classified as two sepa- 
rate species, the Baltimore oriole and 
Bullock’s oriole, until 1973 when orni- 
thologists decided to lump them to- 
gether because the two interbreed ex- 
tensively in the midwestern United 
States where their ranges meet. What 
about the alder flycatcher and the wil- 
low flycatcher? These two species look 
so similar that the only reliable way to 
distinguish them is by their slightly dif- 
ferent songs. They were considered a 
single species—Traill’s flycatcher— 
until 1973 when ornithologists split 
them into two separate species because 
they did not seem to interbreed. 

Decisions to split one species into two 
or lump two into one are not made ar- 
bitrarily by a committee of elite orni- 


thologists determined to confuse bird 
watchers. When assigning birds to spe- 
cies, scientists examine many factors in- 
cluding size and color, song, courtship 
and nesting behavior, habitat, and 
whether the birds interbreed with other 
species. The judgments that result from 
these examinations attempt to reflect 
the realities of speciation—the evolu- 
tionary process by which species are 
formed. But the difficulty of the task is 
compounded by the fact that species are 
not fixed or static. With the passing of 
time and the changing of environmen- 
tal conditions, species may expand or 
contract their ranges, interbreed and 
merge with other species, or become 
extinge: 

Furthering the understanding of spe- 
ciation has always been a high priority 
in ornithology. Rarely, however, have we 
been in the right place at the right time 
to monitor carefully over a long period of 
time the interactions between two spe- 
cies, testing their compatibility and po- 
tential for coexistence as distinct enti- 
ties. One opportunity is before us now; 
ornithologists are witnessing a confron- 
tation between two closely related spe- 
cies, the blue-winged warbler and the 
golden-winged warbler. 

While there are many similarities in 
their appearance, blue-wings and 
golden-wings are readily distinguish- 
able, the most telling feature being the 
colors of their feathers. Blue-wings 
breed from central Iowa, southern Min- 
nesota and Wisconsin, southern On- 
tario and central New England south 
through east-central and Atlantic coast 
states to South Carolina. They winter 
from Mexico to Panama. Golden-wings 
breed further north—from Minnesota 


Autumn/1985 5 


JOHN GERLACH/DRK PHOTO 












“Brewster's Warbler’’ 


“Tawrence’s Warbler’ 


Golden-winged Warbler 


Blue-winged/Golden-winged 
Hybrids 














How many species are shown in this picture? At present only the blue-winged and golden-winged 
warblers are considered true species; the Brewster's and Lawrence’s are classified as hybrids — 
the young formed by the mating of two separate species. Hybrids are also quite common among 
waterfowl. The duck above is a cross between a mallard and a black duck, while the one on the 
facing page is a mallard-pintail hybrid. Plate by H. Douglas Pratt, reprinted with permission, 
from National Geographic Society Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 


6 — The Living Bird Quarterly 


and New Hampshire south to Illinois 
and New Jersey, and in the mountains to 
Georgia; they winter from southern 
Mexico to northern South America. 
Both species prefer to nest in abandoned 
agricultural fields and pastures, so it is 
not unusual for them to spend the 
breeding season in the same place. 

What is unusual is that, although the 
two have long been considered separate 
species, they possess one characteristic 
which seems to violate the textbook def- 
inition of a species—sometimes they 
interbreed and produce fertile offspring. 
In addition, one species, the blue-wing, 
is replacing the golden-wing wherever 
the species’ ranges overlap. In fact, the 
two are in conflict along the boundary of 
their ranges, from Maine to Minnesota. 

Fertile offspring. Interbreeding blue- 
winged and golden-winged warblers can 
produce a variety of young; the two most 
familiar of these are called Brewster’s 
warbler and Lawrence’s warbler. Typi- 
cally, the Brewster’s is like the blue-wing 
with whitish underparts. Some have 
white wing bars, others yellow; some are 
tinged with yellow below. They may sing 
like either parent. Lawrence’s is the 
rarer form, with yellow below like the 
blue-wing, but with the black head pat- 
tern of the golden-wing. Lawrence’s too 
may sing like either parent. 

At present the checklist committee 
of the American Ornithologists’ Union, 
the official body which determines clas- 
sifications for North American birds, 
considers the blue-wing and golden- 
wing to be separate species. Brewster’s 
and Lawrence’s are known to be hy- 
brids—the young that result from the 
mating of two separate species. How- 
ever, the status of these hybrids was de- 
bated for nearly 40 years beginning in 
1874, when William Brewster described 
and named the first Brewster’s warbler, 
and Herold Herrick described the first: 
Lawrence’s. Through the years the -war- 
blers were postulated to be: distinct spe- 
cies that interbred occasionally with 
blue-wings and golden-wings; color 
phases— Brewster’s a white phase of the 
blue-wing, and Lawrence’s a yellow 
phase of the golden-wing, and age vari- 
ations—Brewster’s possibly a first-year 
plumage of the golden-wing. 

In 1913 Walter Faxon of Lexington, 
Massachussetts finally demonstrated 
that the birds were hybrids, through 
careful observation of mixed pairings 
and their offspring, and application of 
Mendel’s law of heredity, whose princi- 


ples have proved to be conclusive. 
Faxon’s findings were confirmed and ex- 
tended 10 years later by T; Donald 
Carter of the American Museum of Nat- 
ural History. Then in 1951, Kenneth 
Parkes of Cornell University wrote the 
definitive paper on the genetic control 
of plumage characteristics in blue- 
~ winged and golden-winged warblers and 
their hybrids. 

Now, over a century since the hybrids 
were discovered, blue-winged and 
golden-winged warblers rank as one of 
the most intensively studied pairs of hy- 
bridizing bird species in North Amer- 
ica. In the 1960s and 70s Millicent and 
Robert Ficken, Wesley Lanyon, Bert 
Murray and I undertook extensive field 
studies of color-marked blue-winged 
and golden-winged warblers and their 
hybrids. We found that the hybrids may 
have a slightly harder time obtaining 
mates than do the pure blue-wings and 
golden-wings, but the hybrids are fully 
fertile and do not appear to be at a seri- 
ous disadvantage. The low frequency of 
hybridization (5 to 10 percent) is not so 
great as to threaten the integrity of ei- 
ther species, and thus lumping the two 
species does not seem warranted. 

Blue-wing replacement. Our interest 
in the hybrids, however, drew our atten- 
tion away from the real action. Recently 
we realized that blue-winged warblers 
are extending their range in the north- 
eastern United States, and replacing 
golden-wings wherever they come into 
contact. In the late 1950s, for example, 
blue-wings spread up the Kanawha 
River from the Ohio River valley to 
Charleston, West Virginia. Charleston 
birder Ann Shreve monitored the dis- 
appearance of golden-wings and the 
increase in relative abundance of blue- 
wings from 5 percent in 1960 to 100 per- 
cent in 1978. 

Pioneering blue-wings are now nest- 
ing in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Michigan, and New York State, and 
their numbers are rapidly increasing. 
For example, blue-wings reached Ithaca, 
New York around 1947 and made up 60 
percent of the blue-wing-golden-wing 
population by 1958. In 1981, a census by 
John Confer and Kristine Knapp of Ith- 
aca College indicated an increase to 84 
percent. Further south, the process is 
proceeding inexorably. In southern 
Connecticut, where golden-wings were 
once seen routinely by bird watchers, 
they have disappeared as a breeding spe- 
cies. If the current trend continues, the 


golden-winged warbler may be replaced 
by the blue-winged in less than 100 
years. 

Why is this replacement happening? 
We do not have enough information to 
answer this question decisively, nor do 
we understand all the reasons for the 
golden-wing’s decline. However, when 
two closely related species are found in 
the same area they may compete for food 
and nesting space. If the competition is 
especially fierce, one species may re- 
place another or cause it to decline in 
number. 

Both species of warbler nest on the 
edges of old fields or in small clearings, 
but the Confer-Knapp study of the ecol- 
ogy of the species near Ithaca indicated 
that the golden-wing uses only fields 
with a few shrubs or small trees, whereas 
the blue-wing uses a broader range of 
habitats, including those preferred by 
golden-wings. This means that golden- 
wing habitat depends on a continuous 
abandonment of cultivated land which 
may develop into old fields and shrub- 
lands, while blue-wings can use fields for 
a longer period of time—until they have 
become densely overgrown with large 
trees. Since few fields are now being 
cleared for farming and many old fields 
are growing into forests through much 
of the species’ ranges, golden-wings may 
be disappearing as a result of the chang- 
ing ways in which humans use the land. 
And hybridization doubtless siphons off 
some fraction of the pure golden-wing 
population each year. 

Regardless of the answers, the future 
of the golden-winged warbler remains in 





question. Only if blue-wings prove un- 
able to nest successfully at the northern 
fringes of the golden-wing’s range or at 
high elevations in the Appalachians, or 
if golden-wings achieve some ecological 
advantage, and refuse to take blue- 
wings or hybrids as mates, will golden- 
wings have a chance of surviving. 


ow will it end? Will the golden- 

wing become extinct? Will it 

become an even rarer species 
existing only on the fringes of the blue- 
wing’s range? Will it be absorbed into 
blue-wing populations so that the two 
species become one? Or can it hold its 
own or even gain the upper hand? 

What we need are long-term studies 
on the frontiers of the birds’ ranges. The 
pace and pattern of disappearance of 
golden-wings, the frequency of hybrid- 
ization, and the changes in genetic com- 
position of successful blue-wing popu- 
lations should be documented 
throughout the northeast. 

Birders can help to monitor the situ- 
ation by recording data about the birds 
wherever they are seen nesting or on 
their wintering grounds in Central and 
South America. A rare opportunity to 
watch the evolution of a species is before 
us, and one in which both amateurs and 
professionals can participate. 3 


Frank Gil! is curator of ornithology at the Acad- 
emy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- 
vania. 

Further Reading 

Pasquier, Roger E Watching Birds: An Introduction 
to Ornithology. Houghton Mifflin Company, Bos- 


~ ton. 1977. 


Autumn/1985 7 


TOM MANGELSEN 


Why should an 
animal approach 
a potential 
predator and 
make itself 

as conspicuous 
as possible? 


J. C. CARTON (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


A PROPENSITY 





TO MOB 


DOUGLAS H. SHEDD 


black-capped chickadee for- 

aging among the trees is star- 

tled by a roosting screech- 

owl. Instead of fleeing from 
the owl, it produces a call-to-arms, the 
familiar ‘‘chick-a-dee-dee-dee.” It 
moves closer to the owl while flicking its 
wings and tail, and continues to call 
loudly. Within minutes 20 other birds of 
several species have joined the chicka- 
dee and are darting around the owl. If it 
does not try to escape, its tormentors 
gradually will lose interest and return to 
their other activities. If the owl flies 
away, it will be closely pursued. 

The behavior stimulated by the 
screech-owl in this aggregation of birds 
is called mobbing. This episode illus- 
trates a common form of mobbing, 
where a predator is approached and har- 
assed by its potential prey. 

The list of birds that mob predators is 
a long one. In my 10 years of studying 
the subject, I have recorded mobbing by 
60 species of songbirds, five species of 





Despite the apparent danger, a blacksmith plover 
besieges an eagle in Kenya. The great 

horned owl, right, another efficient predator, 

is also commonly assaulted by smaller birds. 





woodpeckers, two species of hawks, and 
one species of hummingbird. Mobbing 
is also a common response to predators 
among gulls, terns, and other seabirds 
that nest in colonies. 

Mobbing is not confined to birds. It 
also has been observed among mam- 
mals: axis deer and baboons mob leop- 
ards, and ground squirrels mob snakes. 
That mobbing is so widespread, despite 
the fact that it requires a good deal of 
energy, suggests it must have an impor- 
tant function. What this function is, 
however, has long been a mystery to sci- 
entists. Why should an animal ap- 
proach a potential predator and make it- 
self as conspicuous as possible? It would 
seem that mobbing a predator would be 
much more dangerous than fleeing. 
Why do so many animals take the risk? 

The questions raised by mobbing are 
part of a larger issue concerning the 
function and evolution of “altruistic” or 
“self-sacrificing” behavior in animals. 
In behaviors such as mobbing, an ani- 
mal places itself in jeopardy; others may 
benefit from its actions, but what about 
the animal performing the behavior? 

The concept of natural selection pre- 
dicts that behaviors should evolve in or- 
der to increase the likelihood of an in- 
dividual’s survival and reproduction. At 
first glance, however, it is difficult to ex- 
plain mobbing in this way. If mobbing is 
as risky as it seems, how could it have 
evolved by natural selection? Wouldn’t 
animals with a tendency to mob be 
killed or injured while nonmobbers that 
flee or avoid a predator survive and re- 
produce? Do behaviors such as mobbing 
challenge natural selection as the driv- 
ing force behind evolution? 

There has been much research re- 
cently on mobbing and several possible 
functions have emerged, all consistent 











Do behaviors such 
as mobbing 
challenge natural 
selection as the 
driving force 


behind evolution? 


with an interpretation based on natural 
selection. Much of this research has 
been summarized by Eberhard Curio of 
Ruhr University in West Germany, who 
has been studying avian mobbing be- 
havior in Europe for over two decades. 
Based on his work and that of others, he 
has developed various hypotheses to ex- 
plain mobbing. They include: to defend 
a nest, to serve as a distraction display, 
or to drive predators away (the “move 
on” hypothesis). Each hypothesis at- 
tempts to explain how the benefits of 
mobbing outweigh the apparent risks. 

Although these hypotheses are diffi- 
cult to sort out and study in the field, I 
attempted to test one, namely, that 
mobbing serves as a form of nest de- 
fense. As my starting point I relied on 
research that showed that mobbing was 
most common and intense during the 
breeding season—suggesting that it 
might be most worthwhile for a bird to 
mob when the activity would benefit the 
young. The increase in the frequency 
and intensity of mobbing during spring 
and summer had been reported as long 
ago as 1890 and was documented further 
in 1956 by Stuart Altmann of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago. 

In my research I used a stuffed eastern 
screech-owl to stimulate mobbing. | 
chose this species because it is often vig- 
orously mobbed by small birds, and no 
wonder. During the breeding season 
over 60 percent of the animals caught by 
a screech-owl may be birds. I soon real- 
ized, though, that using the stuffed owl 
alone doomed me to hours of waiting for 
it to be discovered and mobbed. To over- 
come this problem I added a taped 
screech-owl call, and together the two 


Mobbing occurs all over the world. In North 
America, the red-tailed hawk is a frequent 
victim of attack; in Australia (far right) a 
willie wagtail harasses a laughing kookaburra. 


10. The Living Bird Quarterly 


nearly always produced a rapid mobbing 
response. 

Several months of gathering data in 
the Ithaca, New York area confirmed 
that many kinds of birds displayed sea- 
sonal variations in mobbing intensity. 
This was especially evident in species 
that were summer residents of my study 
area. These birds stopped mobbing en- 
tirely at the close of the breeding sea- 
son. Permanent residents displayed a 
somewhat different pattern: they 
showed an increase in mobbing during 


the breeding season, but continued to 
mob at a reduced rate after the breeding 
season was over. It appeared that for all 
species the occurrence of mobbing 
peaked when the young were present, 
but being a permanent resident also 
contributed to a propensity to mob. 
Eventually I narrowed my work to two 
representative species—the American 
robin, a summer resident, and the 
black-capped chickadee, a permanent 
resident. I chose these two chiefly be- 
cause of their abundance in my study 


area. My findings with the two species 
reinforced my preliminary results. Mob- 
bing by chickadees showed peak inten- 
sity during the breeding season, but the 
birds continued to mob during the fall 
and winter. They mobbed even on one 
snowy January day when the tempera- 
ture was 25 degrees below zero, a time 
when it-is hard to imagine mobbing as 
an advantage, considering the addi- 
tional energy it requires. The migratory 
robins mobbed only during the breeding 
season. In the fall they gathered into 


CHRISTOPHER CROWLEY 





large seminomadic flocks, and occasion- 
ally approached the mounted owl, but 
did not mob. Tests on wintering robins 
in Florida produced similar results. 
These findings seem to support one of 
the theories behind the function of 
mobbing, if not in all species, at least in 
robins and chickadees. First proposed 
by Curio, it is called the “move on” hy- 
pothesis, and maintains that mobbing 
evolved to force a predator from an area 
where it is hunting. This would be im- 
portant to chickadees because they live 





continuously on the same home range; 
they would mob to protect the young 
during the breeding season, but they 
also would want a predator to move on 
at other times since they cannot relo- 
cate to avoid it. In the less sedentary 
robin, mobbing after the young have 
fledged would not be worthwhile be- 
cause the robins could easily move away 
from the owl. 

If mobbing really benefits the mobber 
or its close relatives, then it probably 
evolved through the familiar pattern of 
natural selection. The sacrifice in mob- 
bing may be more apparent than real 
since birds that mob leave behind more 
offspring and are more likely to survive 
themselves as a result of causing preda- 
tors to “move on.” 

New elements of mobbing behavior 
are being discovered all the time. In 
1978 Curio and his associates Ulrich 
Ernst and Willy Vieth at Ruhr Univer- 
sity demonstrated that inexperienced 
birds can learn to recognize a predator 
by watching the mobbing activities of 
an experienced bird. This remarkable 
finding indicates that learning may play 
a much greater role in predator recog- 
nition and mobbing than previously had 
been realized. 

We are still years away from a compre- 
hensive understanding of mobbing. It 
seems certain, however, that it will 
prove to have an important function. In 
addition, studies of mobbing will con- 
tinue to shed light on the evolution and 
function of other “self-sacrificing” be- 
haviors in animals. 3 


Douglas Shedd is an associate professor of biology 
at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, Lynch- 
burg, Virginia. 

Further Reading 

Wilson, Edward O. Sociobiology: The New Synthe- 
sis. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1975. 


Autumn/ 1985 1] 


JEN & DES BARTLETT (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 


SHARING THE 
SHORE 


WADE WANDER 





FRANS LANTING 


Right, red knots, short-billed dowitchers and sanderlings search 
for food in a mudflat pool. Above, a ragged line of holes marks 
the passage of a sanderling hunting for food buried in a sandy beach. 


orth American shorebirds 

spend much of their lives on 

lengthy migrations. During 

fall and spring, hundreds of 
thousands of shorebirds of 25 or more 
species gather in feeding areas along tra- 
ditional routes. Here, enormous num- 
bers of birds must confine their feeding 
to narrow stretches of tidal wetlands. 

Unlike a forest, where birds can find 
food at various levels from the ground to 
the treetops, all the food in wetland 
habitats is present at ground level or just 
below the surface. How can such a sim- 
ple environment support so many differ- 
ent kinds of birds? 

Tidal wetlands are actually highly 
complex and encompass a wide variety 
of habitats. Each supports a community 
of invertebrates upon which particular 
species of shorebirds feed. Thus, pec- 


12 The Living Bird Quarterly 


toral sandpipers forage mainly among 
saltmarsh grass, semipalmated sand- 
pipers on mudflats, and stilt sandpipers 
in brackish pools. 

Within each of these habitats, shore- 
birds further subdivide the feeding area. 
As the tide begins to recede, birds arrive 
along the water’s edge. At first they must 
feed together, but as the tide ebbs and 
more subhabitats are exposed, the var- 
ious species gradually move to their pre- 
ferred areas. An expanse of mudflat at 
low tide might have short-billed dow- 
itchers and greater yellowlegs feeding in 
shallow water, dunlins and red knots 
foraging on wet bare mud, and least 
sandpipers on algae-covered mud. 

When species share the same feeding 
area they usually display differences in 
feeding behavior. Although they often 
feed side by side, dowitchers and yellow- 


legs seek their prey in markedly different 
ways. Dowitchers probe into the mud 
vertically with their long, straight bills 
in an action like that of a sewing ma- 
chine needle, whereas yellowlegs pick 
organisms off the water surface and 
swing their bills from side to side under 
water in search of small fish. 

Along sandy beaches, sanderlings for- 
age in “typical” sandpiper fashion by 
pecking and shallow probing, while 
ruddy turnstones use their bills to flip 
stones and other objects in their hunt for 
prey, methodically working the debris 
deposited along the high-tide line. 

Such finely tuned ecological differ- 
ences are reflected in the tremendous 
diversity of bill and leg lengths that has 
evolved among shorebird species. Bills 
vary from the 9-inch sickle with which 
the long-billed curlew probes deeply for 





large worms and crayfish, to the half- 
inch stub of the semipalmated plover, 
which picks up small prey from the 
ground. With barely a couple of inches 
of leg to stand on, the least sandpiper 
can scamper about only on the mud- 
flats, whereas the aptly named black- 
necked stilt may easily venture into deep 
water on its 10-inch legs. 

Shorebird species also share habitats 
through differences in the timing of 
their migrations. Although migration 
schedules overlap—on an early Sep- 
tember day a single stopover point on 
the east coast may harbor 25 or more 
species—peaks of abundance of the 
various species are short and seldom co- 
incide. In western North America, 
semipalmated and least sandpipers, 
nearly identical in form, feeding habitat 
and behavior, migrate at different times. 





On the east coast the semipalmated 
sandpiper migrates at the same time as 
the least sandpiper, but the two frequent 
different habitats. 

While the various species may occupy 
different habitats, feed differently, or 
migrate at different times, shorebirds 
still face competition from members of 
their own species. The critical period is 
during fall migration, when both adults 
and the young of that year must occupy 
the same habitat. In most species, how- 
ever, adults move south well before the 
young. In fact, females often leave their 
nesting grounds before the eggs hatch. 
The males take over parental duties, but 
depart while the young are still learning 
to fly. By leaving early, the adults arrive 
at migration stopovers when food is at 
peak abundance. The young, physically 
unable to migrate until several weeks 


later, are thus one step behind the adults 
throughout the migration. 

The exhilarating panorama of shore- 
bird migration is more than a mere pa- 
rade of species. Shorebirds’ varied forms 
and fascinating patterns of activity 
along the narrow tidal bands, illustrate a 
dynamic biological drama vital to the 
survival of the dozens of species 
involved. 

On the following pages, a small part 
of the parade. 





Wade Wander is an environmental consultant, co- 
editor of North American Bird Bander, and a 
research associate of the New Jersey Audubon 
Society. 

Further Reading : 
Matthiessen, P. The Wind Birds. The Viking 
Press, New York. 1973. 

Stout, G. D., ed. The Shorebirds of North America. 
The Viking Press, New York. 1967. 


Autumn/1985 13 


HARRY N. DARROW 


14 


TIM FITZHARRIS 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


Z 
x 
oe 
rs 
Zi 
z 
4 
< 
ae 


Ti. simple-appearing tidal wetland is 
actually highly complex and encompasses a 
wide variety of habitats, which are 
exploited by different types of shorebirds. 
Black-bellied plovers (above, top) forage 
mainly on sandy beaches or mudflats. 
Long-billed dowitchers (left) and stilt 
sandpipers (above, bottom) usually feed 
in water, sometimes wading up to their 
bellies. However, the dowitcher’s longer 
bill enables it to probe deeper into the 
bottom, allowing the bird to reach food not 
available to the shorter-billed stilt sandpiper. 





Autumn/1985 15 


a 
a 
A 
a4 
co 
Z, 
eZ 
O 
n 
a 
> 
a 


B esides feeding in different subhabitats, 
migrating shorebirds may avoid competition 
for food by using a variety of foraging 
techniques. Greater yellowlegs (right) 

tend to feed in shallow water where they 
pick and snatch at aquatic insects and 
small fish. Dunlins (above, top) forage 
more deliberately, usually probing their way 
along mudflats in search of insects, 
mollusks and crustaceans. Sanderlings 
(above, bottom) frequently feed at the 
water’s edge, chasing waves to and fro and 
probing vigorously into the sand in search 
of minute crustaceans such as shrimp. 


16 The Living Bird Quarterly 


TIM FITZHARRIS 


Autumn/ 1985 


17 





18 


ENTHEOS 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


a 
Zz 
DB 
— 
DN 
2 
wA 
a4 
<= 
2 


A merican oystercatchers (left) and 
ruddy turnstones (above) are among the 
more unusual North American shorebirds. 
The oystercatcher’s long, knifelike bill 
enables the bird to pry shellfish from rocks 
and other objects, while the chisel tip of the 
bill is used to open shellfish by cutting the 
muscles that hold the shells together. 
Ruddy turnstones use their bills to flip 
stones and other objects, methodically 
working the debris deposited along the 
high-tide line. Sometimes turnstones dig 
deep into the sand in their search for food. 





Autumn/ 1985 19 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


Celebrate Audubon’s 
200th Birthday 
at The Crow’s 
Nest Bookshop 


JOHN JAMES AUDUBON PRINTS 
“Folio One”’ 


First set in a projected series of 100 magnificent 
Audubon prints reproduced on heavy museum- 
quality, acid-free paper. Unequaled reproduc- 
tions directly from original Havell prints; full- 
size—264%" X 39 4". Limited edition of 
1,500 numbered prints, each embossed with 
Princeton Audubon seal denoting authenticity. 
Purchase individually or as a set. 


Members 

Snowy Owl $100.00/$90.00 
Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird $75.00/$67.50 
Pileated Woodpecker $75.00/$67.50 
Baltimore Oriole $75.00/$67.50 
American Goldfinch $50.00/$45.00 
Painted Bunting $50.00/$45.00 
Black and Yellow Warbler 

(Magnolia Warbler) $50.00/$45.00 
Field Sparrow $40.00/$36.00 
Vigors’ Warbler 

(Pine Warbler) $40.00/$36.00 
Purple Gallinule $40.00/$36.00 


Complete Set $535.00 (includes 10 percent 
discount ) 
$481.50 special discount for members 


The Birds of America. John James Audubon. A 
memorable collection of bird paintings, with 
435 color illustrations. Range, habitat, voice, 
and plumage of each species are identified. 
1985, cloth, unpaged. 

No. 2370/$39.95/$35.95 members 





Snowy Owl 


Enclosed is a check or money order in U.S. funds, payable to The Crow’s Nest Bookshop. Our 
address— The Crow’s Nest Bookshop, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, Sap- 


sucker Woods, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. (607) 256-5057. 












































Catalogue No. Title Qty. Price 
Amount of order 
N.Y. State residents add 7% sales tax 
Postage and handling 2.75 
Total amount enclosed 
Form of payment: [] Check [] Money Order [] VISA [(] MasterCard 
Card # Expir. Date 
Signature 
Name 
Address 
City State Zip 





AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 


Window Pains 


indows can hold fatal con- 

sequences for birds. Un- 

aware of their presence, an 

estimated 80-million birds 
crash into these surfaces each year. Not 
all of a bird’s encounters with windows 
lead to injury or death. During spring 
and summer, male birds sometimes 
thrash against reflective surfaces as they 
attempt to defend their territories 
against their mirror image. These at- 
tacks are usually harmless. However, 
you may have had the unhappy experi- 
ence of finding a dead bird lying beneath 
a window. While eliminating window- 
strike casualties may not be possible at 
every location, a few precautions can re- 
duce the number of victims. 

Move attractants. Feeders, bird baths, 
and berry-producing shrubs often bring 
birds near windows. While this is enjoy- 
able to the viewer, these attractants can 
be deathtraps for birds. A simple 
method for preventing collisions may be 
to move attractants to a new location, 
out of harm’s way. Another alternative 
is to place them very close to windows. 
Feeding birds may fly into windows after 
being frightened by real or imagined 
danger. If attractants are within a foot of 
the surface, birds won’t have enough 
momentum to hurt themselves if they do 
hit the window. 

Alter window appearance. If moving 
attractants is impossible or impractical, 
you may need to change the appearance 
of dangerous windows so that birds will 
avoid them. Problems arise when win- 
dows are transparent—providing a 
seemingly unobstructed flight path, or 
reflective—providing a mirror image of 
the vista they face. By examining win- 
dows around your home or office, you 
may be able to determine how these sur- 
faces are deceiving passing birds. 

If your problem windows are transpar- 
ent, try making them appear less so by 
changing the light inside the house. 
Pull a shade, close the curtains, or open 
or close a door. Also, try to place indoor 
attractants, such as house plants and 
Christmas trees, away from windows so 


DANIEL KLEM, JR. 


they won’t confuse passing birds. Vic- 
tims of nighttime strikes seem to be at- 
tracted by light. Turning off lights or 
drawing drapes or shades will prevent 
these collisions. 

You can also render transparent win- 
dows more visible by uniformly covering 
the glass surface, either inside or out, 
with objects separated by 4 inches or 
less. Almost anything may be used — 
sheets of paper, strips of cloth or card- 
board. Owl decals or hawk silhouettes 
work, not necessarily because they look 
like predators, but because they make 
the clear surface visible. 

Building designers and persons re- 
modeling their homes should consider 
installing windows at an oblique angle 
rather than the conventional vertical 
position. Angle windows so that they 
reflect the ground instead of the facing 
habitat and sky. Birds are less likely to fly 
into an illusion of the ground than into 
one of sky or trees. 

Reflective surfaces. Windows that mir- 
ror the habitat in front of them must be 
altered from the outside. As a tempo- 
rary measure, you can paint the window 
with soap or wax, or try affixing strips of 
paper or cardboard. Also effective are 
ribbons, colored strings, or mobiles 
hung in front of the window. These ob- 
jects are most effective when they cover 
the window and are about 4 inches 





apart. Anything you can do to uni- 
formly disrupt the window’s mirrorlike 
quality will help to prevent accidents. A 
word of caution: consult the manufac- 
turer before attaching objects to ther- 
mopane windows. 

Another solution is to place nylon, 
dacron or gauze screens or netting over 
the window. These do not obstruct the 
view, and birds may continue to fly into 
the window, but they will bounce off the 
screen unharmed. 

Administer first aid. Birds don’t al- 
ways die when they hit windows. Some- 
times they fly away immediately; other 
times they fall stunned to the ground. If 
you find a stunned bird, place it on the 
window ledge where you can oversee its 
recovery, or take it inside where it will 
be safe from predators. Place it in a 
closed box or paper bag where it can rest 
quietly in the darkness until it revives. 
Release it as soon as it appears awake 
and alert. 

Routinely check under windows. You 
may not know you have a problem win- 
dow, so periodically check outside. By 
moving a feeder or changing the appear- 
ance of your windows, you may prevent 


untold numbers of needless deaths. 3 


Daniel Klem, Jr. is an assistant professor of biology 
at Muhlenburg College, Allentown, Pennsylva- 
nia, and has studied window-bird collisions for al- 
most a decade. 


Autumn/1985 21 


DANIEL KLEM, JR. 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





DDT IN THE 1980s 
You may be using it in your yard 


D DT is probably the best known insecti- 
cide ever used in the United States. For 
three decades the highly toxic chemical was 
sprayed far and wide to control pest insects, 
especially mosquitoes. But the chemical had 
a serious flaw: it worked too well. 

Not only did DDT kill mosquitoes and 
other pest insects, it also killed beneficial in- 
sects and other invertebrates, such as worms. 
It killed birds, such as song sparrows and 
robins, that ate the poisoned insects and 
worms. And as the deadly chemical contin- 
ued to infiltrate food webs, it became con- 
centrated in the fatty tissues of many ani- 
mals, including humans. 

In 1962 Rachel Carson woke the country 
to the dangers of DDT in her famous book 
Silent Spring, and a decade later the United 
States government prohibited virtually all 
uses of DDT after studies showed it was caus- 
ing reproductive failure in several endan- 
gered species, including the osprey, bald ea- 
gle, peregrine falcon and brown pelican. 
After another decade the effects of the ban 
have become noticeable; in many areas, en- 
vironmental levels of DDT are finally low 
enough so that ospreys and other species, 
though greatly diminished in numbers, are 





Cl 
DDT 
Cl 
vi 
H-C-C-Cl 
~ 
Cl 
Cl 
Cl 
Cl 
fe 
HO-C-C—C 
DICOFOL Cl 
Cl 











22 ‘The Living Bird Quarterly 


Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


again breeding successfully. 

But DDT has not disappeared. In some 
parts of the country its concentration has 
not dropped at all, and in other areas it has 
increased. In San Francisco, for example, a 
market basket survey conducted by the Nat- 
ural Resources Defense Council in 1984 
found that DDT was the most common pes- 
ticide residue detected on local produce. In 
Texas in 1983 state health officials found 
that fish in a river called the Arroyo Colo- 
rado are so heavily contaminated with DDT 
that they are unsafe to eat. And a nation- 
wide study conducted by the National Cen- 
ter for Disease Control in 1983 found detect- 
able amounts of DDT in all subjects tested, 
including humans. Where is the DDT com- 
ing from? 

Some of it could be residual, a legacy of 30 
years of legal use in America. Some could be 
from farmers or ranchers who buy it on the 
black market. But even worse, DDT is still 
being used legally in this country as an in- 
gredient in another insecticide —dicofol— 
which is probably sold in your local garden 
store. 


HISTORY 


Fist approved for use in the United States 
in 1957, dicofol is an ingredient in nearly 200 
federally registered pesticide products de- 
signed for a variety of commercial and home 
uses. Dicofol is manufactured from DDT, 
and because the manufacturing process is 
imperfect, not all of the DDT is converted to 
dicofol. Therefore, dicofol contains measur- 
able amounts of DDT and DDT-related by- 
products. One of these byproducts is DDE, 
which is highly toxic to wildlife and is re- 
sponsible for past reproductive failures in os- 
preys, bald eagles, peregrine falcons and 
other birds. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) banned the use of DDT on June 14, 
1972, citing the chemical as an “unaccept- 
able risk to man and his environment.’ At 
that time, dozens of pesticides containing 
DDT were taken off the market. Dicofol was 
not, apparently because DDT wasn’t listed 
as an active ingredient. EPA, in fact, ap- 
proved the registration of dozens of new di- 
cofol products after the 1972 DDT ban. 
These included Kelthane, a widely used in- 
secticide that contains from 7 to 15 percent 
DDT and DDT-related compounds. EPA of- 
ficials have stated that the agency did not re- 


alize that these products contained DDT 
until 1979 when the ingredients of dicofol 
were examined in a routine review. 


USE 


Dicofot is used primarily to kill mites— 
tiny, spiderlike creatures that feed on plants, 
causing brown or reddish splotches and re- 
ducing a plant’s ability to make food. Mites 
usually are washed away by heavy rains, but 
during dry periods they can reproduce very 
rapidly, causing a great deal of damage to 
crops and ornamental plantings. 

Nowhere is mite damage greater than in 
California cotton fields and Florida citrus 
groves, which receive more than half of the 
2.5 million pounds of dicofol sprayed in the 
U.S. each year. It is easy to understand why 
growers use the chemical: serious mite infes- 
tations greatly reduce crop yields. An out- 
break of the citrus rust mite can do so much 
damage to orange or grapefruit skins that the 
grower is forced to sell the fruit for concen- 
trate rather than on the more lucrative 
whole-fruit market. Dicofol also is used on 
Maine apples, Virginia grapes, South Car- 
olina peanuts, and Washington alfalfa. In 
total, about one million acres of cropland are 
sprayed with the chemical each year. 

Dicofol also is sold to nursery growers and 
homeowners. ChemLawn, an Ohio-based 
company that provides residential tree and 
shrub care, estimates that between 1979 and 
1984 it made 854,600 applications of dicofol 
throughout the U.S. and Canada, and di- 
cofol is an ingredient in dozens of retail pes- 
ticides intended for use on home vegetable 
gardens and ornamental plantings. 


DICOFOL AND DDT 


Be about seven years following the DDT 
ban, studies indicated that concentrations of 
the pesticide were declining in nearly all 
species. Then, in 1979, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) annual moni- 
toring program showed that concentrations 
were stabilizing in migratory birds tested in 
New Mexico and western Texas. Further 
tests, completed in early 1984, showed that 
DDT levels were increasing in some fish and 
migratory birds. 

In the Arroyo Colorado in Texas, where 
DDT levels should have declined to one or 
two parts per million (ppm), the USFWS 
found levels as high as 40 and 50 ppm in 








RESEARCH & REVIEW 


some fish. In California, heavy concentra- 
tions of the pesticide have been found in fish 
and mussels in the Salinas River Valley, 
south of San Francisco. And in Arizona and 
New Mexico, tests have shown that concen- 
trations of DDT are increasing in the tissues 
of starlings. 

Is the DDT coming from dicofol? Some 
say no. Officials at Rohm and Haas, the 
company which manufactures more than 
two-thirds of the dicofol used in this coun- 
try, suggest that the DDT found today may 
be coming from river sediments where the 
chemical was deposited before the ban, or 
from DDT-contaminated dust blown in from 
Mexico. As support for these ideas they 
point to areas of New Mexico where high 
levels of DDT have been found recently, but 
little or no dicofol is used, and to parts 
of Florida where dicofol is used heavily yet 
little or no DDT contamination has been 
reported. 

Another possible source is the black mar- 
ket. The USFWS believes that some U.S. 
farmers obtain DDT from Mexico where it is 
still manufactured legally. USFWS also feels 
that migratory birds ingest DDT on their 
wintering grounds in South or Central 
America. 

The EPA, however, believes that dicofol is 
an important source of rising DDT levels. 
The agency has pointed out that many re- 
gions with high levels of DDT are areas 
where dicofol is heavily used. Some dicofol 
products contain up to 15 percent DDT- 
related material, more than was present in 
some DDT-based pesticides banned in 1972. 
The EPA estimates that the 2.5 million 
pounds of dicofol used each year release 
about 250,000 pounds of DDT and related 
compounds into the environment. While 
this is a small amount compared with the 12 
million pounds of DDT used each year in the 
early 1970s, the effect still could be signifi- 
cant. The EPA believes, for example, that 
dicofol alone may account for about half of 
the DDT compounds found in the contami- 
nated fish of the Arroyo Colorado, which 
runs through the heart of the Texas citrus 


belt. 
THE CONTROVERSY 


Wry didn’t the EPA ban dicofol in 1979 
when its DDT content was discovered? Ap- 
parently there was some disagreement 
within the agency. Clayton Bushong, then 


chief of EPA’s hazard evaluation branch, felt 
that the 1972 DDT ban covered all products 
containing DDT, but his superiors dis- 
agreed. They stated that the ban did not ap- 
ply to pesticide ingredients classified as by- 
products. Therefore, no immediate action 
was taken against dicofol. 


By early 1984 the EPA had become more 
concerned about the pesticide. Some studies 
had been completed indicating that high - 
levels of DDT were still present in the envi- 
ronment, and the agency began a special re- 
view of dicofol. In October 1984 the EPA 
stated that use of dicofol, together with ex- 





SOME PESTICIDES THAT CONTAIN DICOFOL 


Clean Crop Dicofol 4EC........ 42.0% 
OPE) NPS: RE pea eer eee 42.0 
Helena Dicolel4b..< oie... ee. 42.0 
Lanco Dice! 46CG., ... eas. us 42.0 
Diedighth@ coiieew ee Ske 41.1 
Kelthane 4F Flowable .......... 41.0 
Weiage 40 oa ce. 35.0 
Acme Kelthane Red Spider & Mite 
BRAY 62 eos rh es 3 A he 18.5 
Clean Crop Dicofol 1.6-EC ..... 18.5 
Pratt Mite Spray Containing 
ROMO eA ie eek 18.5 
Rigo Red Spider Mite Spray .... 18.5 
Kelthane GC) 3. isto haves bc 18.5 
Science Kelthane EC ........... 18:5 
SA-50 Kelthane EC............. 18.5 
Kelthane EC Miticide .......... 18.5 


Security Kelthane EC Miticide.. 18.5 
Black Leaf Kelthane Mite 


Killer ee 18.5 
Menhunes G0. eh 18.5 
Dexol Relthane... i 258 «0. <a. he 3: SS 
Dexol Red Spider & Mite 

SONG usa chi ces tes es 18.5 
Grotone Kelthane EC .......... 18.5 
Vigoro Kelthane EC... 20... .. 18.5 
Lanco Dicofel 1.6-EC.. ...... <2. 15.5 
TANGO TRON FS in ss cease a 18.5 
AUC TG Ai 4 ode wines ve on 18.5 
Dicofol 1.6-EC Agricultural 

MIGCING 6645 oboe os 18.4 
Formula GH-S! .¢ 020.000.3004... 12.0 
Ferti-Lome Mite Spray ......... 10.3 
Ferti-Lome Red Spider Mite 

EOS sca 65s oa aces 10.3 
Hi-Yield Kelthane Spray........ 10.0 
Formula GCH-2) 6 64505 o.55 on ots 10.0 


Flora-Fog Kelthane Greenhouse 


Fogging Miticide............. 10.0% 
Florida Citrus Spray Wettable .. 6.8 
Ferti-Lome Citrus Spray........ 4.1 
Florida. Gitrus Spray....2..5..«.. 4.0 
HOSE SUUAYs 056 05 ows 6s os en 4.0 
Acme Bagworm Spray .......... 3.6 
Rose Spray (Garden of South)... 3.6 
Florida Garden Spray .......... 32 
Science Fruit, Nut & Garden 

MPA? 55 is SN es died. : ove 3.2 
Kelthane Emulsifiable .......... 3.0 
Ortho Isotox Insect Killer ....... 3.0 
Ortho Orthenex Insect & Disease 

CORO. Tit. hncse ee ae cee 3.0 
Ortho Isotox Insect Spray....... 2.0 
Vigoro Multi-Purpose Insect 

COPA iis ede te: 2.0 
Acme Kelthane All Round 

Os oct es te el ee 2.0 
Superiors Extra Value 2% 

Gl Ane DG «ove nnads sas. 2.0 
Security Home Fruit Spray or 

DDUSE ee ee os 2.0 
Pratt Rose & Flower Dust or 

BOs ata op ceeds hiss L.5 
Science Rose & Floral Dust..... 1.5 
Tomato & Vegetable Dust in 

Squecze Duster. . 2. es <6 5k iS 
Kimo Pfeil Soray...... <6 555: 1.5 
MGSO PSs ns oe ce 2 eas oy 1.5 
Ortho Rose & Flora Dust ....... LS 
Ortho Rose & Flower Jet 

Dusters ooo. es, tee bee TS | ey 


Rose Dust in Squeeze Duster ... 1.0 
Security Rose & Flower Dust... 1.0 
Science Systemic Spray......... 0.9 





REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION OF THE MIAMI HERALD 


Autumn/1985 = 23 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





isting levels of residual DDT compounds, 
posed “a significant threat to wildlife, espe- 
cially certain endangered species.’ The 
agency also stated that neither phasing out 
use of the pesticide nor reducing the amount 
of DDT contamination in the pesticide to 
one-half of its present level would adequately 
mitigate the risks to the environment. Fi- 
nally, the agency said that the economic im- 
pact resulting from banning dicofol would 
not outweigh the environmental risk. 
Therefore, EPA began formal proceedings to 
ban dicofol. 

The process was never completed. In a 
hearing on April 17, 1985, dicofol manufac- 
turers argued that a ban on the pesticide 
would hurt the farmers who depend on it as 
a cheap and effective means of mite control, 
and that other miticides are not as effective. 
The manufacturers also announced that 
they had a “novel technology” which would 
reduce the DDT contamination in dicofol to 
less than 0.1 percent. This was surprising 
since the manufacturers had stated earlier 
that they could not decrease the level to less 
than 5 percent. Nevertheless, after consid- 
ering these arguments, the EPA agreed to 
continue dicofol’s registration as long as the 
manufacturers reduced the DDT contami- 


nation level to less than 2.5 percent by January 
1986 and to less than 0.1 percent by July 1987. 


THE REAL QUESTION 


Dis 0.1 percent DDT contamination in 
dicofol pose a threat to the environment? 
Possibly: the reproduction of certain species 
has been inhibited by tiny concentrations of 
DDT. The EPA has stated that it cannot de-. 
‘termine whether the cleaned-up dicofol will 
have adverse environmental effects. The 
agency’s rationale for continuing dicofol’s 
registration, according to spokesman Bruce 
Kapner, is that the amount of DDT contrib- 
uted to the environment by the cleaned-up 
dicofol will not significantly increase the 
amount of DDT already in the environment. 
However, this rationale ignores a larger, 
more important question: what are the en- 
vironmental effects of pure dicofol? This 
question has been very poorly studied, but 
the EPA does know that the pesticide is 
highly toxic to aquatic organisms and is ca- 
pable of causing reproductive impairment in 
some fish and birds. Furthermore, one study 


24 The Living Bird Quarterly 


LAURA RILEY (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 





Pesticides seeping into waterways from farms 
and absorbed by fish, ospreys’ primary food, 
had a devastating effect on the population. 


Recently, however, numbers have increased. 


has suggested that dicofol, with or without 
DDT, may break down into DDE, the same 
deadly byproduct into which DDT breaks 
down. If this is true, then spraying dicofol 
could have much the same effect as spraying 
DDI 

Unfortunately the EPA doesn’t know 
whether or not dicofol breaks down into 
DDE. Studies to identify and evaluate the 
breakdown products of dicofol are presently 
being conducted by the chemical’s manufac- 
turers, but tests will not be completed until 
December 1986. Yet dicofol will remain in 
use while its effects are studied. 

Dicofol is just one of hundreds of legal pes- 
ticides which the EPA is supposed to regu- 
late. How many of these are undiscovered 
environmental threats? At present, the EPA 
relies on manufacturers’ tests to determine 
whether pesticides are safe. Short on staff 
and funding, the EPA does virtually none of 
its own testing and must work with the 
premise that all pesticides are safe until 
proven dangerous. Until EPA receives the 
staff, funding and political support it needs 
to doa proper job of studying and monitoring 
pesticides, the DDT saga will be repeated 
again and again—only with different play- 
ers and new victims. 


BOOK REVIEW 


ORNITHOLOGY IN LABORATORY 
AND FIELD by Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Fifth edition, 1985. Academic Press, Inc. 
403 pages. $32.40 (cloth). 


- his is the newest edition of a classic in or- 
nithological literature. First published in 


1939, the book is intended for use at the col- 
lege or university level, but can be under- 
stood by anyone with a basic knowledge of 
biology and an interest in birds. It is packed 
with valuable information, tersely written, 
and well indexed, so specific information 
about most aspects of birds’ lives and habits 
can be found quickly. 

Nearly half the book is devoted to avian 
form, structure and physiology. Early chap- 
ters concern parts of the bird, flight, feather 
structure and function, anatomy and physi- 
ology, and plumages. The text is written to 
augment examination and dissection of bird 
specimens. 

The middle portion of the book deals with 
classification of birds into their various 
groups—orders, families, genera, and spe- 
cies—and identification of birds in the lab- 
oratory and field. This section includes an 
excellent technical key to the orders and 
families of birds in North America which 
helps the student to understand some of the 
structural characteristics ornithologists have 
used to define these groups. 

Pettingill’s final chapters discuss behavior, 
migration, territory, song, mating, nesting, 
rearing of young, and evolution, and include 
suggestions for studying these topics which 
can be used readily by amateurs. For persons 
interested in censusing birds, directions are 
given for determining density and abun- 
dance. 

The fifth edition differs from the fourth in 
several ways. It includes a new chapter on 
flight, and two chapters have been rewritten 
by guest authors—‘‘Behavior” by Jack P. 
Hailman and “Migration” by Sidney A. 
Gauthreaux, Jr. The chapter on song has 
been reorganized and expanded, those on 
feathers and taxonomy have been signifi- 
cantly revised, and the section on the mus- 
cular system has been updated. Also, the 
synopses of North American orders and fam- 
ilies of birds and the identification keys have 
been reconstructed in accordance with the 
sixth (1983) edition of the A.O. U. Checklist 
of North American Birds. Other parts of the 
book also were revised and updated. 

Ornithology in Laboratory and Field is not 
for the casual bird watcher. However, anyone 
with a serious interest in birds will find it a 
cornucopia of knowledge, much of which is 
not well summarized elsewhere. For orni- 
thology students, the book is indispensable. 


NEWS & NOTES 





EIGHTY-THREE reels of bird-song re- 
cordings recently were added to the Labora- 
tory’s Library of Natural Sounds. After three 
weeks in the rain forests of Peru, recordist 
Ted Parker from Louisiana State University 
and Laboratory staff member Greg Budney 
returned with, among others, the sounds of 
the nocturnal curassow, a species which has 
been seen by fewer than a dozen persons. 
The sounds have been added to LNS’s excel- 
lent collection of recordings of South Amer- 
ican birds. 

One of the least represented areas in the 
collection, Southeast Asian sounds, has 
been bolstered by the addition of 833 record- 
ings made in tropical Southeast Asia by 
Arnoud B. van den Berg. Van den Berg is a 
Laboratory of Ornithology Associate and an 
editor of the Netherlands journal Dutch 
Birding. 


AN INTERNATIONAL symposium, 
“Economic and Social Values of the Wildlife 
Resource,’ will be held January 28 to 30, 
1986 in Syracuse, New York. Sponsored by 
the New York Chapter of the Wildlife Soci- 
ety, the purpose of the symposium is to pro- 
vide a forum where wildlife professionals in 
administration, extension, education, re- 
search, and management can meet and ex- 
change ideas. In addition to formal presen- 
tations, several workshops on management 
techniques are planned. Cooperating 
organizations include the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, the Wildlife Management Institute, 
and the International Association of Fish 
and Wildlife Agencies. More information 
may be obtained from Dr. William Porter, 
Arrangements Chairman, Illick Hall, 
SUNY-CESE Syracuse, New York 13210. 
(315) 470-6798. 


MUCH PUBLICITY has been given to a 
bill introduced into the Connecticut legis- 
lature last spring which would ban instant 
rice at weddings. Supporters of the bill claim 
that instant rice kills birds that have eaten it 
by absorbing moisture and swelling in their 
stomachs. In fact, instant rice does not kill 
birds because it absorbs moisture and swells 
only when placed in boiling water. So next 
time you’re at a wedding, toss away! 


Compiled by Steven C. Sibley 


PEREGRINE FALCON populations 
made more gains this past summer. The 
Peregrine Fund released 125 young pere- 
grines in the eastern United States and an- 
other 135 in the West. In the East at least 38 
pairs were on territory, and at least 16 of 
these fledged young, including three pairs 
which nested on bridges in New York City. 
Only 27 pairs were on territory in 1984, and 
there were none as recently as 1979. Since 
1975, 752 peregrines have been released in 
the East by the Peregrine Fund. As many as 


400 pairs once bred in the East, but eggshell 
thinning resulting from the use of DDT, 
along with increased human disturbance, 
caused that number to drop to zero by 1961. 
The California condor, however, has not 
done well over the past year. The wild popu- 
lation is now believed to be eight individuals 
because of the death of several adults over 
the past year and the capture of one adult to 
add to the captive breeding program. Cap- 
ture of the remaining wild birds is now under 
consideration as an emergency measure. 





Dear Member: 


Since its earliest days in the mid-1950s, the Laboratory has managed a giftshop for 
visitors to Sapsucker Woods. Sally Hoyt Spofford, the Laboratory’s first executive 
secretary and receptionist, remembers the shop this way: 

“Initially the university was hesitant about the possibility of our competing with 
local bookstores, but soon realized that our shop would be more specialized, and that 
the more we sold, the better the chance the Laboratory would move into the black. 

“At first we had not even a cash register. Along with being host for visitors, handling 
Laboratory accounts, answering mail about bird identification and other bird 
problems, conducting tours of the building, I handled the sales. I had envelopes— 
one for book sales, one for record sales, one for slides, one miscellaneous, and money 
received was placed in the appropriate envelope.” 

As the number of Laboratory members grew, we began sending out a mail order 
catalogue at Christmas. The volume of orders increased, but was still small enough to 
be handled by the receptionist in her spare time. Then, in 1982, the shop began to 
grow in earnest, and was given its own name, The Crow's Nest. Its full-color 
catalogue reflected the significant expansion in the amount of merchandise it carried, 
and sales that year rose dramatically. Now we have three full-time employees 
managing the shop, and processing, filling and shipping orders. Sally’s envelopes have 
been retired, and the whole bookkeeping system and inventory of over 400 different 
items are computerized. This year we are planning three catalogues, two in the fall 


and one in the spring. 


We view The Crow’s Nest Bookshop as an important part of the Laboratory’s 
operations. The profit we make on sales directly supports our research and education 
programs such as the Library of Natural Sounds and Cooperative Research. We also 
hope that the bookshop provides a useful source of bird-related items for you, our 
members. We try to stock a large assortment of bird books, especially field guides, as 
well as a selection of records and gift items. All these are available at a discount to our 
members. We also stock unusual products that are not easily found elsewhere, for 
example, the photographic blind. In the future we plan to offer others, such as a 
relatively inexpensive tape recorder, parabolic microphone and earphone set for 


recording bird songs in the field. 


Our aim is to make The Crow’s Nest a source for all your birding needs. In addition 
to variety and the unusual, we try to offer friendly, efficient service and prompt 
delivery. We welcome any suggestions you may have about our service or stock. Are 
there other things you would like us to carry? Send me your ideas and I will pass 


them along. 


We hope you are among our customers this Christmas. As business grows, 
increased revenues will help us to expand our programs and services to our members. 


We are grateful for your help. 


Charles Walcott, Executive Director 





Autumn/1985 = 25 


Audubon’s Intentions 


dmirers of John James Audu- 
bon have been celebrating the 
200th anniversary of his birth 
for much of the past year. 
Across the country there have been fes- 
tivals, exhibitions and special publica- 
tions in his honor. But among the hul- 
labaloo, a birthday present the artist 
would have truly appreciated is being 
created, a realization of part of 


MARC BRESLAV 


29%" x 39%", the largest format of pa- 
per then available. 

Unable to find backers or a suitable 
printer in America, Audubon set sail for 
England in search of both during the 
spring of 1826. Though he found no 
investors, he sold subscriptions to fi- 
nance his publication, and contracted 
an Edinburgh engraver, William Lizars. 


Wild Turkey, male are much more heav- 
ily colored than others, and fetch a cor- 
respondingly lower price. 

In 1839, with the plates completed, 
Audubon shipped them to America 
where he planned to create a second 
edition to raise additional funds. He in- 
sured the plates for $5,000, a large sum 
for the time. According to one unsub- 

stantiated account, the ship 





his own irrepressible dream: carrying the plates sank just be- 
the American Museum of Nat- Bubds 5] Geeres — deans Quduterr fore arriving in New York, and 
; : bi Acesuwe Cawee S 

a et and Alecto ee i ay ah, SB ee on several months passed before a 
ical Editions are reissuing six 0 er Gs a De Ape tones tty cd salvage operation was under- 
Audubon’s original copperplate her Se les Ghvins fed nko cacioss taken. It is known, however, 
engravings for The Birds of © ase + Q07 chy Bes, Ora that Audubon consigned the 
America. = * en a oo dee os oes oy plates to a “Mr. Hall’s store” for 

The Birds of America, com- Ghe above wilt he ea... | «Storage, where many of them 
pleted in 1838, is one of the Maa Ps a ee Sage oo were damaged in a fire in 1845. 
most famous and valuable Adnrakin, You SE one ayes iS deter: Aubudon died in 1851, be- 
books created in the New for tan isl ox ea qa a “atte fore attaining his goal of pro- 
World. It was a monumental ducing the second edition. His 











project, created by an artist and 
naturalist whose perseverance has fi- 
nally won out over early misfortunes. 

Naturalist-broadcaster David Atten- 
borough, writing in the London Ob- 
server, called the plates from The Birds of 
America “arguably the most remarkable 
and certainly the biggest engravings of 
birds ever produced.... The reissued en- 
gravings,’ continued Attenborough, 
“could well be judged to be an even finer 
representation of [Audubon’s] original 
intentions than any produced during his 
life-time.” 

What were Audubon’s intentions? 
Faced with bankruptcy in 1819 from 
poor business fortunes, he conceived of 
the Birds of America project that was to 
occupy him for the next 20 years—to 
seek out every bird species in America, 
prepare a catalogue of them, and illus- 
trate every one from sketches made in 
the field. Once painted, the portraits 
were to be engraved and printed in color 
on a scale known as double elephant, 


Beginning with the plate Wild Turkey, 
male, Lizars engraved and printed the 
first 10 plates. A labor strike soon forced 
him to halt work. Apparently unfazed, 
Audubon moved the project to London, 
where Robert Havell and his son re- 
worked the Lizars plates and completed 
the remaining 425. 

Havell used a technique common at 
the time. He engraved the birds and 
their backgrounds on large copper- 
plates, many bigger than two by three 
feet, using Audubon’s paintings as a ref- 
erence. The plates were then printed in 
black ink and colored by hand with wa- 
tercolors. Although Audubon was 
pleased with Havell’s engravings, he fre- 
quently complained about the quality of 
the coloring. Because of time and 
money limitations, the colorists some- 
times cut corners. Indeed, modern-day 
comparisons of two prints from the same 
plate often show marked variation in 
color. For example, some prints of the 


widow, Lucy, attempted to sell 
or give the plates to various national in- 
stitutions to no avail. Facing financial 
difficulties in 1871, she attempted to 
auction the plates as art, succeeding 
only in selling most of them as scrap 
metal. 

“There is something almost sad}” re- 
ported The New York Times in March of 
that year, “that the original plates of 
that magnificent work, Audubon’s 
‘Birds of America} were recently sold in 
this city for their value as old copper, af- 
ter having vainly sought a purchaser 
upon their artistic merits.” 

Fortunately some of the plates were 
snatched at the last moment from the 
furnaces of the Ansonia Brass and Cop- 
per Company in Connecticut. Accord- 
ing to some accounts, the person re- 
sponsible for rescuing the plates was 
William Dodge, president of the com- 
pany. Dodge is thought to have given 
nine of the salvaged plates to the Amer- 
ican Museum of Natural History, of 


Two documents attest to Audubon’s reported bad luck—a letter of 1865 to Ezra Cornell from one E M. Finch mentions the fire which destroyed many 
Audubon plates. Right, a Japanese illustration shows Audubon opening a box of his sketches to find that rats have used them as nesting material. 


(ALIO XYOK ANAN ALAIOOS TVOIYOLSIH AYOA-AMAN FHL) NIIOP 497 



































ae do 


\4 ARE 








COURTESY OF THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, NEW YORK CITY 


RAL HISTORY 


I 


AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATL 


which he is a founder. He also gave two 
to Audubon’s granddaughters, and kept 
one or two for himself. Sometime in the 
1880s the granddaughters donated theirs 
to the museum, and in 1979 Dodge’s 
grandson gave Wild Turkey, male to the 
museum, bringing its holdings to 12. 
Only about 75 of the original 435 plates 
are known to still exist; the others are 
presumed to be lost or destroyed. 

A few years later, British publisher 
Joseph G. Studholme entered the pic- 
ture. He was at the American Museum 
to make arrangements for an exhibition 
of Joseph Bank’s Florilegium, a series of 
over 700 copper engravings from the 


28 The Living Bird Quarterly 


18th century, which illustrates botanical 
specimens discovered on Captain 
Cook’s voyage to Australia. The engrav- 
ings had been discovered in a storeroom 
of the British Museum (Natural His- 
tory), and Studholme’s firm, Alecto 
Historical Editions, had begun the task 
of printing them for the first time. 

Through a fortunate circumstance, 
Studholme met Douglas J. Preston, the 
museum’s publications manager and in- 
stigator of many of its recent publishing 
ventures. 

“The museum had been looking for a 
long time into the possibility of reprint- 
ing even one Audubon plate;” said Pres- 


ton. “But it seemed to be too big a proj- 
ect—there was no press large enough to 
accommodate the plates, and no one 
we felt we could trust with these na- 
tional heirlooms. Then we learned of 
Alecto, whose Florilegium project was 
on an even larger scale, and whose let- 
ters of recommendation were absolutely 
glowing.” A co-publishing arrangement 
was born under the sharp eye and direc- 
tion of L. Thomas Kelly, publisher of the 
museum’s Natural History magazine. 
The six finest plates in the museum 
collection were selected. They are Wild 
Turkey, male, Snowy Owl, Canada 
Goose, Wild Turkey, female and young, 





Mallard Duck, and Great White Heron. 

Audubon had always wanted to reis- 
sue his prints. ““We’re trying to duplicate 
Audubon’s intentions?’ said Preston. 
“No amount of time or money is being 
spared—we made a decision to do 
whatever was necessary to do it right— 
as Audubon would have wanted.” 

The expenditure of time and money 
was also justifiable as good business. 
The edition is limited to 125 sets, 
printed in the same near life-size 
dimensions as the original double- 
elephant folio. The portfolios are being 
sold by Alecto for $30,000, reasonable 


considering the market price for original 





Audubon prints. Original prints of the 
same six plates fetched $145,200 at an 
auction two years ago, and earlier this 
year one of the 132 complete Birds of 
America sold for $1.54 million. 
Royalties from the sale of the portto- 
lio will be used to endow a fund for nat- 
ural history at the museum in Audu- 
bon’s name. When the tabs are in, the 
reissue project may well have generated 
more income than any other discrete 
project in the museum’s recent history. 
The potential of financial rewards, 
however, would not exist without the 
hard work of a team of people. A myriad 
of details regarding insurance, trans- 


AMNH/ALECTO HISTORICAL EDITIONS © AMNH 1985 


Compare Audubon’s Great White Heron. 
Top left is his original watercolor, and 

below is a print from the first edition of 

The Birds of America. Above is the new 
reissue. The colors in the reissue are intended 
to closely resemble the original watercolor. 


port and proper care of the plates had to 
be ironed out before the painstaking 
plate restoration and printing could 
begin. 

“The insurance details were horren- 
dous,” said Preston. “Joe Studholme 
could have no more than two plates in a 
car or plane at one time. He flew back 
and forth between London and New 
York several times, on each occasion 


Autumn/1985 29 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


ALECTO HISTORICAL EDITIONS (2) 





At Egarton-Williams Studio, London, a test 
proof of the reissue of Wild Turkey, male, 
comes off the press. More than a month of 
proofing is usually needed for best results. 
Right, a reissued print of Wild Turkey, male. 


making special arrangements with air- 


line personnel to bring the huge plates 
with him in the cabin.” 

At the Egarton-Williams studio in 
London where the printing is being 
done, no more than three plates can be 
in the studio at one time. The other 
three must be stored in a vault at a sep- 
arate location. 

The plates were in poor condition 
when they were donated to the museum, 
not surprising given their checkered his- 
tory. There were scratches, dried ink in 
the engraved lines, blemishes caused by 
exposure to atmospheric acid and a fac- 
ing of nickel which had been applied by 


30. The Living Bird Quarterly 





Havell to protect the soft copper once it 
had been engraved. 

Upon arriving in London about two 
years ago, the plates were first printed 
unrestored for historical record. Then 
the facing was removed. The ink was 
cleaned out using a special chemical sol- 
vent. Usually the ink is carefully gouged 
out, but a condition of publication was 
that no mechanical alterations be made 
on the engraved portions of the plate. 
“We didn’t want to do anything that 
would impinge on Havell’s workman- 
ship,” said Preston. 

Scratches and their accompanying 
burrs—tiny mounds of copper created 
by the scratch—were burnished, but 
only in non-engraved areas, such as be- 
tween blades of grass or along a border. 
The restoration process, said Stud- 
holme, ‘‘took much longer than we 
thought it would.” 

Canada Goose was the worst. “The 
restorer spent more than 400 hours just 
working over the copperplate,” said 
Studholme. Among the problems he en- 
countered was a splash of tin, which 
Studholme said was “fortunately not 
over an engraved area. . .. We wanted to 
make sure all the areas on the plate 
which print white are smooth and carry 
no ink,” 

Then came what Preston termed the 
“incredibly long process of getting the 
right reference print” for each plate. 
“We've gone back to Audubon’s original 
watercolors at the New-York Historical 
Society,’ he said, in a painstaking effort 
to match as exactly as possible Audu- 
bon’s own intentions. Studholme added 
that 22 or 23 colors were used on the 
Wild Turkey, male. Ornithologists from 
the museum worked closely with 
Alecto, checking details of accuracy as 
precise as the proper color of the inside 
of a mallard’s open bill. 

The actual printing technique used 
by the Egarton-Williams studio is 
slightly different, but superior to that 
used by Lizars and Havell. Whereas the 
latter two struck the print in black ink 
and then colored the print, the current 
edition is being printed using a 17th- 
century technique known as dla poupée. 
A fine rag dabber smeared with hand- 
mixed colored ink is used to work most 
of the broad areas of color into the 
plate’s incisions. Thus, when the plate is 
struck, most of the color is already 
down, resulting in almost no color var- 
iation. 

The a la poupée technique is the key 


to why many experts are judging the 
new edition to be superior to Havell’s 
original prints. Indeed, Audubon fre- 
quently complained to Havell about the 
quality of the coloring. ‘“That’s not 
meant to criticize Havell’s studio, which 
was one of the best in the 19th century,’ 
said Studholme, “‘but he was printing 
435 plates and under tremendous pres- 
sures of time and money. His approach 
was within the conventions of the time 
and as practical and professional as pos- 
sible. The technique which we’re using 
is actually much older. It must have been 
known to Audubon and Havell, and we 
assume they would have used it if the 
time and money had been available. We 
were able to do it because instead of 
making 435, we’re making only six.” 


n original print and the new 
strike can be compared side by 
side in a captivating exhibition, 
“John James Audubon: Science into 
Art,’ which opened at the American 
Museum and will be traveling through- 
out the United States and Canada over 
the next three years. Besides gaining a 
perspective on his art, one can learn 
some intriguing details about Audubon 
himself. For instance, he wrote an obit- 
uary for his long locks when he cut them 
to better “sell himself and his book.’ 
There is also a Japanese illustration of 
Audubon discovering a nest of rats in a 
box of his stored paintings. Given Au- 
dubon’s adverse fortunes, the nest was 
made of chewed-up bits of his work. The 
caption explains that at the time he de- 
spaired over the loss, but years later 
looked back and recognized the replace- 
ment paintings he created were far su- 
perior to those destroyed. The story cir- 
culated widely, as evidenced by the 
illustration, which was published in Ja- 
pan in the 1870s, as part of a set de- 
signed to inspire perseverance. 
Audubon’s art has endured death and 
the test of time. Today, after more than 
150 years, his coppers are back in a Lon- 
don studio within walking distance of 
where Havell first engraved them. Fi- 
nally, if only in part, his vision of a reis- 


sue is being fulfilled. > 





Marc Breslav is a public relations consultant to 
natural history and environmental organizations. 


All 433 original watercolors for The Birds of Amer- 
ica are owned by and housed at the New- York His- 
torical Society, 170 Central Park West, New York 
City. To commemorate the bicentennial of Audu- 
bon’s birth, the entire collection was exhibited in 
taxonomic order. 





S861 HNWV © SNOILIGA TVOIMOLSIH OLOATV/HNWV 





{ 


rO, 


LOPA 


AGKRIS 


YY 








meron 


SS 

















CORNELL UNIVERSITY 





EPABORAT Ui] 
OF 
ORNITHOLOG® 


ANNUAL REPORT 1984/85 

















ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


DAVID L. CALL, Chairman 
Dean, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, 
Cornell University 


MORTON S. ADAMS 

Physician 

ALBERT F. APPLETON 

Deputy Attorney General, State of New York 


ROBERT BARKER 


Provost, Cornell University 

REX J. BATES 

Financial Vice President, State Farm Insurance 
Company 

WILLIAM G. CONWAY 

General Director, New York Zoological Society 


ALAN CRAWFORD, JR. 
Brown Brothers Harriman & Company, 


Philadelphia 

JOHN H. DAKIN 

Kahn Harris Dakin, Inc., San Francisco 
CLIFTON C. GARVIN, JR. 

Chief Executive Officer, Exxon Corporation 
MRS. HARVEY GAYLORD 

Long-time friend of the Laboratory 
THOMAS M. HAMPSON 


Harris, Beach, Wilcox, Rubin and Levey, 
Rochester, New York 


FRANCES C. JAMES 
Professor, Curator of Birds and Mammals, 
Florida State University 


IMOGENE P. JOHNSON 
Trustee, Wisconsin Chapter, The Nature Conservancy; 
Founder, The Prairie School 


HAMILTON F. KEAN 
Attorney, New York City 


T. SPENCER KNIGHT 


Retired executive 


JOHN D. LEGGETT, JR. 


Retired executive 
PETER R. MARLER 
Professor, The Rockefeller University 


BARNABAS McHENRY 
General Counsel and Director, The Reader's 
Digest Association, Inc. 


G. MICHAEL McHUGH 
McHugh Ornithology Tours 


EDWIN H. MORGENS 
Morgens, Waterfall and Company, Inc. 


EUGENE S. MORTON 
National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution 


OLIN SEWALL PETTINGILL, JR. 
Retired, Laboratory of Ornithology 


CHANDLER S. ROBBINS 
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland 


JOSEPH R. SIPHRON 
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and McCloy, New York City 


CHARLES E. TREMAN, JR. 


Retired executive 


CHARLES D. WEBSTER 


Retired executive 


CHARLES WALCOTT, Ex Officio 
Executive Director, Laboratory of Ornithology 





Dear Member: 


o much has happened at the 

Laboratory over the past year 

that it is difficult to know what to 
include in a relatively brief annual 
report. In the last two reports we have 
emphasized the Laboratory’s programs 
and staff, but we have made little 
mention of our administrative board. 
However, the board is so crucial to the 
Laboratory that I would like to take this 
opportunity to describe some of its 
functions and to tell you a little about 
each member. 

First, some background: the 
Laboratory of Ornithology is organized 
as a separate department of Cornell 
University. The management, control 
and operation of the Laboratory is 
entrusted to an administrative board of 
26 members, four of whom are selected 
by the university and 22 by the board 
itself. In making appointments, the 
board and university try hard to 
appoint members with a diversity of 
talents. We need professional 
ornithologists to contribute to the 
substance of our scientific programs, 
amateur participants to make sure our 
programs address the needs and 
interests of birders, and business 
experts to direct our operations. 

Scanning their biographies, one is 
impressed with the board members’ 
achievements, but hard pressed to find 
the common denominator, except for 
their interest and concern for the 
Laboratory. The list reads like a Who’s 
Who and includes corporate executives, 
biologists, lawyers, university 
administrators, a carbohydrate chemist, 
a pediatrician and at least one part- 
time poet. 

It’s not even safe to say they all watch 
birds; Morton S. Adams, for example, 
is more interested in bugs, his passion 
being butterflies and moths. He’s a 
pediatrician, but he could have been 
a professional biologist. His 
understanding of biology from an 
amateur’s standpoint has been very 
helpful in guiding our education and 
information program which strives to 
bring together the experiences of the 
birder and the knowledge of the 
ornithologist. 

Sam is a visiting scientist in the 


entomology department at Cornell and 
has worked with taxonomists at the U.S. 
National Museum of the Smithsonian 
Institution. His interest in entomology 
has taken him to such exotic places as 
French Guiana and the cloud forests 

of Trinidad. 

Naturally, the board has a few avid 
bird watchers. Ann Gaylord, who 
describes herself as “a nut on the 
subject of conservation,” has been 
birding virtually all her life. She started 
looking at birds at the age of six when 
her uncle gave her a book by Thornton 
Burgess. Burgess even signed her first 
checklist. 

Ann lives in Niantic, Connecticut and 
has been instrumental in the 
reintroduction of osprey to the 
Pataguanset Marsh. She has trained 
families who live around the marsh to 
monitor nests, and is particularly 
involved in the Lab’s education and 
information projects. In addition, her 
concern for conservation has helped us 
to focus our programs on a broad range 
of issues. 

Rex Bates has a long-standing 
interest in birding and has participated 
in Christmas Bird Counts and other 
cooperative research ventures. His first 
memories of bird watching are as a Boy 
Scout in the Pacific Northwest during 
the Depression. 

“We couldn’t afford binoculars so we 
sat in the bushes and attracted birds by 
whistling,” he told me. “After the war, 
my interest was rekindled when | joined 
the investment firm of Stein, Roe, and 
Farnham. Farnham discovered the 
Michigan nesting place of the rare 
Kirtland’s warbler. We went birding 
regularly and spent time around 
Lake Calumet, which is now all 
industrialized.” 

Rex is a financial analyst and 
financial vice president for the 
State Farm Insurance Company in 
Bloomington, Illinois, and one of the 
board’s recent appointees. He brings 
with him a wealth of expertise as a 
birder combined with an understanding 
of financial management. We look 





forward to his advice as we seek long- 
term support for cooperative research. 

Among the board’s most avid birders 
is Alan Crawford, Jr., who also serves 
on the board of the Hawk Mountain 
Sanctuary in Pennsylvania. The Lab 
benefits from his strong interest in 
raptors and his link to Hawk Mountain, 
one of the most active raptor 
observatories in the country. Alan is a 
partner at Brown Brothers Harriman & 
Company in Philadelphia, and an 
investment trustee of the Academy of 
Natural Sciences and the Wilson 
Ornithological Society. 

Another avid birder is Joseph 
Siphron, who also serves on the board 
of directors of the National Audubon 
Society. Joe is a partner at the law firm 
of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and McCloy 
and belongs to the American and 
International Bar Associations. He has 
been instrumental in helping the Lab to 
forge a closer relationship with the 
National Audubon Society. 


ecordings from the Lab’s Library of 

Natural Sounds stimulated Clifton 
Garvin’s interest in birding, and as 
chief executive officer of the Exxon 
Corporation, he has been responsible 
for grants to the Lab that have been 
crucial to our continued success. Not 
only does he have a deep commitment 
to birds, but he shares with us 
his business acumen. He has been 
especially generous with his time in 
helping to formulate a five-year plan for 
the Laboratory’s future. His comments 
have been invaluable. 

For many board members, bird 
watching is just one of many interests. 
Imogene Johnson is one such 
member. She devotes time to astronomy, 
rock collecting, horticulture, fishing, 
and camping. An engineering 
mathematician before she married, 
Gene now serves as the director of the 
Cable Natural History Museum in 
Racine, Wisconsin, and chairman of the 
board at the Prairie School, founded by 
Gene and her husband. As a member of 
the Laboratory’s education and 





SNOWY OWL 


1975 BY CHURCH & DWIGHT CO. INC. ©1975 BY CHURCH & DIIGHT CO. INC 


GOSHAWK 





Gpatsie Guth 


#1978 BY CHURCH & DWIGHT CO. INC. 


SWALLOW-TAILED KITE 














*1G7S BY CHURCH 5 DWIGHT CO. mC. 





BALD EAGLE OSPREY 


©1975 BY CHURCH & OWIGHT CO. INC. 











Mbuet yciien GaP 


#1978 BY CHURCH & OWEGHT CO. INE 








RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 














WHITE GYRFALCON 




















ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK 


©1978 BY CHURCH & OWIGHT CO. INC 








© 1975 Church & Dwight Co., Ince 


Arm & Hammer Birds of Prey Series 





information committee, she brings the 
concerns of a person active in 
instruction and conservation. 

Thomas Hampson combines an 
interest in birds with a love of music. An 
attorney with Harris, Beach, Wilcox, 
Rubin and Levey in Rochester, New 
York, Tom is also host of weekly radio 
broadcasts devoted to jazz, writes a 
music column for City, a weekly 
newspaper, is founder and director of 
the Genesee Valley chapter of the 
American Civil Liberties Union, and for 
30 years has been a member of the 
Genesee Ornithological Society. As a 
member of the board’s Library of 
Natural Sounds committee, he offers 
the point of view of a birder, musician, 
record critic, and all-around Lab 
enthusiast. 

Publishing executive Barnabas 
McHenry brings to the board not only 
an interest in publications and 
conservation, but in art, music, and 
ballet. In addition to his role as general 
counsel and director of the Reader’s 
Digest Association, Inc., he has served 
as a trustee of the New York Zoological 
Society, American Museum of Natural 
History, and Metropolitan Museum of 
Art. I hope his extensive experience 
on the boards of other nonprofit 
institutions will help us to plan for 
the future. 


A s an English major at Cornell in the 
early 1960s, Edwin Morgens took 
his books to Sapsucker Woods so he 
could study to the sound of birds 
chirping. Ned has been fascinated by 
birds since he was a member of the 
Junior Audubon Society, but is at a loss 
to explain how an English major with a 
minor in creative writing ended up as 
the head of Morgens, Waterfall and 
Company, Inc., an investment firm. 
“Fiction was my thing,” he told me, “but 
now I| just write poems occasionally. It’s 
a form of recreation.” 

As amember of the board, Ned has 
strengthened the Lab by challenging 
Cornell to provide a three-year 
matching grant to pay my salary and by 
serving as chairman of the development 
committee. His experience in the 
magazine business and involvement in 
organizations like the American 


Museum of Natural History and Ducks 
Unlimited, have helped put our business 
operations on a stronger foundation. 

The board also has its share of 
professional biologists who lend expert 
advice to our programs. For example, 
Chandler Robbins, senior author of 
Birds of North America, is probably 
familiar to every birder in the country. 
Chan is a wildlife research biologist at 
the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 
Laurel, Maryland, director of the Bleitz 
Wildlife Foundation and the Maryland 
Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, 
and co-author of Birds of Maryland 
and the District of Columbia. He is 
most interested in the distribution, 
migration, and habitat requirements of 
North American birds, so his knowledge 
is particularly valuable to our 
cooperative research program. 

An expert in bird population 
research, Frances James has 
impeccable academic credentials and is 
valued highly for her professional point 
of view. She is a professor and curator of 
birds and mammals at Florida State 
University’s department of biological 
sciences, president of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, and a member of 
the board of directors for the World 
Wildlife Fund. A new board member, her 
expertise is expected to strengthen our 
cooperative research program. 

Another newly appointed board 
member, Albert Appleton will be 
active in the Lab’s education and 
research programs. He is deputy 
attorney general for the state of New 
York and an adjunct assistant professor 
at St. John’s University where he 
teaches environmental conservation. 
As past president and current 
conservation chairman of the New York 
City Audubon Society, Al has been 
involved in creating a number of new 
wildlife refuges in New York City. 

A pioneer in the study of bird song, 
Peter Marler serves as chairman of the 


board’s committee for the Library of 
Natural Sounds. He is a professor at The 
Rockefeller University and a member 

of the Smithsonian Council. He is 
regarded as one of the world’s foremost 
authorities on bioacoustics, and will aid 
us in developing a bioacoustics center at 
the Lab. 

Another researcher in the field of 
avian communications, Eugene S. 
Morton is a research zoologist for 
the National Zoological Park at the 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 
D.C., and an adjunct professor at the 
University of Maryland. In addition 
to communication, his work has 
encompassed the behavioral ecology of 
neotropical birds. We look forward to 
Gene’s counsel, particularly in the area 
of bird vocalizations. 


A s an ornithologist with sterling 
credentials and a director of the 
Laboratory for 18 years, Olin Sewall 
Pettingill, Jr. brings to the board a 
unique point of view. He is author of a 
widely used college text, innumerable 
scholarly papers, several guides to bird 
finding, and a book about penguins. He 
began making educational films about 
birds in the 1930s and filmed in Iceland, 
New Zealand, the Falklands and 
Antarctica. 

“When I got a decent motion picture 
camera in the 1930s, one of the first 
birds I filmed was the Atlantic puffin,” 
he told me. “I began showing the film 
to the public and was amazed at the 
enthusiastic reaction of the audience. | 
thought, ‘My word, if that’s the reaction 
to puffins, imagine what a film about 
penguins would do!’ ” 

With that in mind, Sewall set the 
Falkland Islands as his goal, but, as he 
put it, “World War II broke up our plans 
and we went ahead with other projects. 
After the war, he took his films around 
the country, “carrying the message of 
the Audubon Society.” His films caught 
the attention of Walt Disney, who was 
then producing a “True Life Adventure 
Series” shown in theaters as short films 
to accompany the features. 

“Walt was quite taken with our films,” 


” 





Sewall said, “and I made it a special 
point to have lunch with him. | said, ‘If 
you want to have penguins in your 
series, you have to go to the Falklands. 

So Walt Disney Productions sent 
Sewall and his crew to the Falklands for 
six months, and the footage taken there 
was used in a film called “Islands in the 
Sea” and on Disney television programs. 

Like Sewall, board member T. Spencer 
Knight has had an association with the 
Lab that is so vital and long-standing, 
he’s nearly a legend. A vigorous man in 
his 80s, Spence is an ardent bird 
watcher and photographer. Two of his 
greatest contributions to the board have 
been his perspective on Laboratory 
traditions and his positive attitude. He’s 
got a youthful outlook and a twinkle in 
his eye and has been enormously 
helpful in encouraging everyone to do a 
good job. To Spence Knight, the glass is 
always half full. 


Dia: 


wo of the board’s academic 

members serve as a pipeline to the 
university, providing the Laboratory 
with help from Cornell at critical 
junctures. David Call, chairman of the 
board, is dean of the College of 
Agricultural and Life Sciences. As such 
he helps to smooth the way with the 
university and aids in integrating the 
Lab’s plans with the university’s 
priorities. When Robert Barker, a 
carbohydrate biochemist, began his 
tenure on the board he was director of 
the division of biological sciences, was 
later promoted to vice president for 
research and advanced studies, and is 
now provost of the university. As 
chairman of the board’s committee on 
cooperative research, Bob has been 
extremely supportive in securing the 
assistance of the university whenever 
possible. 

The board also has a pipeline to the 
local community in Charles E. 
Treman, Jr. Charlie lives in Ithaca and 
is the retired president and chairman of 
the board of the Tompkins County 
Trust Company and trustee emeritus of 
the university. In 1981 he was appointed 
Presidential Councillor, the highest 
honor the university can bestow. In 
1972, the Tompkins County Trust 


Company established the Charles E. 
Treman, Jr. Fund in his honor to benefit 
the Laboratory. In October 1984, he was 
appointed an honorary member of the 
administrative board, a distinction 
bestowed upon only three individuals. 

While Charlie provides local input, 
John Dakin furnishes a West Coast 
perspective. John is a principal of Kahn 
Harris Dakin, Inc. of San Francisco and 
serves as chairman of the Point Reyes 
Bird Observatory’s board of directors. A 
new board member, he will help to 
coordinate the Lab’s activities with 
Point Reyes. He is also treasurer of the 
San Francisco Bay Chapter of The 
Oceanic Society. 


ome of the beautiful paintings by 

Louis Agassiz Fuertes that now 
belong to the Laboratory were once the 
property of the Arm and Hammer 
baking soda company, and it was board 
member John D. Leggett who 
acquired these paintings for the Lab. 
Jack is the retired president of Church 
and Dwight Company, Inc., the parent 
company of Arm and Hammer, which 
distributed “bird cards”— 
reproductions of Fuertes paintings— 
with every box of baking soda sold in 
the 1930s. The cards looked like 
baseball cards, and on the back of every 
one was a description of the bird 
illustrated. Jack found the originals in 
the company vaults. Most had never 
been published because they showed 
birds of prey doing something the 
company thought improper at that 
time— eating prey. 

Jack serves on the board of the New 
Canaan Audubon Society and has 
watched birds in Alaska, Hawaii, 
Indonesia, New Zealand, Africa and 
Scotland. 

While not an academic, Charles 
Webster is known as “Dean Webster” to 
the biology students who work at the 
Lab’s Seatuck research program on 
Long Island. Chuck’s vision, leadership 


and financial support started the 
Seatuck program. His home is in the 
middle of the sanctuary, and he has 
special state and federal licenses to 
maintain a waterfowl collection for 
propagation. Retired from the Air 
Reduction Company of New York, Chuck 
also raises exotic pigeons. 

G. Michael McHugh came to the 
board as director of Cornell’s Adult 
University and as such originated the 
Lab’s summer courses and supervised 
seminars in conjunction with CAU. 
Through a generous endowment, Mike 
has provided the Lab with an income 
base to help support its education and 
information programs. Today, he is 
owner of McHugh Ornithology Tours 
which specializes in international bird 
and nature tours. 


ll of the Lab’s board members are 

conservationists, but Hamilton 
Kean has the distinction of being a 
founder of the Natural Resources 
Defense Council. An attorney in New 
York City, he served as the council’s 
treasurer from 1973 to 1976 and is 
involved in a wide variety of civic and 
legal organizations. 

Another conservationist and writer 
as Well, William Conway, general 
director of the New York Zoological 
Society, expresses feelings about the 
Lab that all the other board members 
seem to share: 

“T see the Lab as a link between the 
professional ornithologist and amateur, 
a point of contact where the 
professional can make information 
available to the amateur in a compelling 
way, and a place where the amateur can 
contribute to the profession. I see it as a 
seed which is sprouting.” 


he board consists of a diversity of 

people with many talents, all united 
in their concern for making the Lab a 
vital organization for the study of living 
birds. They are generous with their 
advice, criticism and support. All of us 
associated with the Lab owe them our 
thanks for their many contributions. 


Charles Walcott 


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 





THE YEAR IN REVIEW 


here the administrative board 

leaves off with advice and 
guidance, the Laboratory’s hardworking 
staff picks up with a determined will 
and energetic know-how to bring 
projects from paper plans to tangible 
results. 


Vea wo LE RS 





LIBRARY OF NATURAL SOUNDS 


= Completed the two-record set of 
“Songs of the Warblers of North 
America,’ the definitive guide to warbler 
songs. 


@ Added over 3,000 recordings to its 
collection, including over 1,000 new 
recordings of birds from Sulawesi 
(Indonesia) and 1,000 new recordings 
from China. 


= Completed “Voices of the Peruvian 
Rainforest,’ a cassette recording of 
Peruvian birds and other rainforest 
sounds. 


@ With the help of a special board 
committee, set a goal to establish a 
bioacoustics center devoted to the 
study of animal sounds. 


COOPERATIVE RESEARCH 
PROGRAM 


@ Entered into two agreements with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
determine the status of North American 
black duck and least tern populations. 


@ Added 10,000 records to the Nest 
Record Program, bringing the total to 
over 280,000 observations of more than 
500 species. 


™ Added more than 2,000 records to 
the Colonial Bird Register databank to 
bring the total to more than 13,000 
records of 72 bird species. 


@ Added 10,000 bluebird nest records 
to the computer databank and 
continued efforts with an affiliate 
scientist to determine the status of 
bluebird populations and to better 
understand the bird’s life cycle. 


SEATUCK RESEARCH PROGRAM 


= Completed a comprehensive survey 
of all eastern species of terns and 
piping plovers on more than 40 Long 
Island nesting sites. 


# Completed a study about the 
movements and productivity of least 
terns on Long Island. 


@ In cooperation with the New York 
City Audubon Society and the National 
Park Service, completed a bird habitat 
management study at the Jamaica Bay 
Refuge. 


= Completed a bird breeding habitat 
study to look at how different land uses 
in a suburban environment affect 
breeding bird distributions and 
abundance. 


= Completed a nest predation study to 
determine predator/prey relationships 
within various habitat types. 





TIEIVING BIRD 


Suammen lI 


yy r Dy 
meUMA UE ly 





EDUCATION & INFORMATION 
SERVICES 


@ Wona gold medal from the Council 
for Advancement and Support of 
Education for The Living Bird 
Quarterly. 


@ Graduated 264 students from 

and enrolled 493 more in its 
correspondence course in bird biology, 
and enrolled 144 students in its 
correspondence course in bird 
photography. 


# Completed two one-week workshops 
in field ornithology and bird 
photography. 


@ Sponsored the Sapsuckers, the 
Laboratory’s big day birding team, in 
the second annual New Jersey World 
Series of Birding. The Sapsuckers tied 
the National Geographic Society team 
for the highest number of bird species 
found by an out-of-state team. 


PIGEON NAVIGATION PROJECT 


m@ Played host to visiting researchers 
from Germany, Italy, and Canada. 


® Continued investigating magnetic 
fields and olfactory cues used by 
pigeons to find their way home. 


OPERATIONAL SERVICES 


m™ Enhanced services to our expanding 
membership with the new IBM System 
36. 


@ Maintained the Lab sanctuary and 
trails in a better fashion than ever 
before thanks to a generous grant. 


™ Produced three eye-catching 
catalogues from The Crow’s Nest 
Bookshop which featured a greatly 
expanded line of merchandise. Along 
with over-the-counter sales, our shop 
generated nearly $300,000 in income, a 
20 percent increase over last year. 


THE PEREGRINE FUND 


@ Hatched 127 peregrine falcons for 
release to the wild. 


@ Identified 38 to 40 pairs of peregrines 
in the wild, including several long- 
abandoned nest sites in use again. 


ARTHUR A. ALLEN AWARD 1985 


he 17th Arthur A. Allen Award was 

presented in 1985 to Robert S. 
Arbib, Jr. and Susan Roney Drennan for 
their corroboration in producing the 
National Audubon Society’s American 
Birds. The award is given by the 
administrative board of the Laboratory 
of Ornithology in recognition of 
outstanding contributions to 
ornithology. 

Since 1967 the Allen Award has been 
bestowed upon ornithologists whose 
achievements have set them apart in 
their field as well as advanced our 
knowledge and understanding of birds. 
Bob Arbib, as editor, and Susan 
Drennan, as associate editor, of 





American Birds have made 
outstanding contributions to the 
written interpretation of ornithological 
endeavors. American Birds brings 
ornithological literature to thousands of 
amateurs and professionals in a highly 
readable and enjoyable form. 

In the words of the awards 
committee, “We honor Robert and 
Susan for the important part they have 
played in bringing amateurs and 
professionals closer together.” 


ARTHUR A. ALLEN MEDALISTS 


1967 
1968 
1969 
19:70 
to (8 
1972 
1973 


Roger Tory Peterson 
James Fisher 

George Miksch Sutton 
Alexander Wetmore 
Peter Scott 

Allan D. Cruickshank 
Oliver L. Austin, Jr. and 
Elizabeth S. Austin 
Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Walter J. Breckenridge 
Joseph J. Hickey 

Jean T. Delacour 

Karl H. Maslowski 
Chandler S. Robbins 
William W. H. Gunn 
Alexander F Skutch 

S. Dillon Ripley 

Robert S. Arbib, Jr. and 
Susan Roney Drennan 


1974 
1975 
1976 
1O¢/ 
1978 
1979 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 





FUNDING & FINANCES 1984/1985 


F rom July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985, 
over 10,000 members and 55 
corporations and foundations 


supported the Laboratory’s operations. 


In addition, the Lab received generous 
funding from many major donors, 
including 24 benefactors ($1,000/year), 
18 sponsors ($500/year ), 111 patrons 
($250/year ), and 328 guardians ($100/ 
year ). Additional support was received 
from IBM, which helped to equip our 
cooperative research program with 
computer facilities, from Cornell 
University, which facilitated our 
computer-based programs and 
underwrote a portion of the Lab’s 
operations, and from the National 
Science Foundation, which provided 
support for our Library of Natural 
Sounds and our research on bird 
navigation. 

Our thanks to all members, donors, 
and supporters, and to the following 
foundations and corporations for their 
leadership in funding Cornell’s 
Laboratory of Ornithology. 


FOUNDATION & CORPORATION 
SUPPORT 1984/1985 


Agway Corporation 

American Home Products Corporation (MG )* 

Atlantic Richfield Foundation (MG) 

AT & T Corporation (MG) 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (MG) 

Bristol-Myers Fund, Inc. 

Brodock Press, Inc. 

Bushnell Division of Bausch & Lomb Optics 

Cabot-Saltonstall Charitable Trust 

Campbell Soup Company (MG ) 

Cardinal Investments, Inc. (MG) 

Carrier Foundation (MG) 

Chase Manhattan Foundation (MG ) 

Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc. (MG) 

Chicago Tribune Foundation (MG) 

Bill Cooke Cadillac Oldsmobile Toyota, Inc. 

Corning Glass Works Foundation (MG) 

Dewitt Wallace Foundation 

Digital Equipment Foundation (MG) 

Dun & Bradstreet Foundation, Inc. (MG) 

Exxon Corporation 

Exxon Educational Foundation (MG) 

Exxon Education Foundation 

Ferro Corporation (MG) 

Hartford Insurance Foundation, Inc. (MG) 

Hartley Corporation 

Hewlett-Packard Corporation (MG) 

IBM Corporation (MG) 

Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (MG) 

International Minerals & Chemicals 
Corporation (MG) 

Johnson Foundation 

Johnson & Johnson (MG) 

Kaiser Foundation 

K-Mart Corporation (MG) 

Metropolitan Life Foundation (MG ) 

McDonnell Douglas Foundation (MG) 

McGraw Hill Foundation (MG) 

Minolta Corporation 

Mobil Oil Foundation (MG) 

Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. (MG) 

Morton Thiokol, Inc. (MG) 

National Audubon Society 

Olympus Corporation 

Ortenberg Foundation 

Partners Composition 

Natalie Peters Trust 

Polaroid Corporation (MG ) 

Sandoz-Wander, Inc. (MG) 

Sherwin-Williams Foundation 

Stone & Webster, Inc. (MG) 

Stuart Foundation 


Tandy Corporation (MG) 


Travelers Insurance Co. (MG) 
US. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (MG) 
Vivitar Corporation 


*(MG )— corporate & foundation gifts through 
a matching gift program. 


=) 





YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT 1984/1985 


INCOME 
Unrestricted and Designated: 
Mere ei Sk pee tine SA tas cide as ea as ee $ 289,184 
ROE POR Na 99 SS, Psa A eo 25s Sas Ss oes oe oe ee 81,509 
PAVUTC AU NE ig RS oc oi Baits ee >. a abn ds CE Se ee 16,600 
(SORIA tyes ai cee 5 isin at ee ee ee 115,758 
Bookshop: 

Gross Sales $293,050 

Cost of Goods Sold 164,800 

ek ple iacsss: splat ale 2 a ae ca ee ee 128,250 
TO Ug ae Nor ile ee ee ety ys 5 oe se ae eee 29,672 
AIA MN sehen ee pi Re a erg, he Sen ay Senet 72,454 
RISC CIN cerca a ee as Rec Ws os el oa ee ee 185,988 

919,415 
Restricted: 
Per eae MENGE OUNOS oe Ret ee es Cg 78,628 
CeO rar ING MOSCRPGi se ORY cass Lee Oe Oh Lm cee 70,891 
SCHELIGe- ee tECE EMRE 3S os aa ects saa ood Pe ee. 140,030 
BducabonndG TMOrmhmtiOn SOIMiCOs.. on... Pa eee ees 36,424 
SIS eS). aang De MO a Se Nene eR a a TNE Oc gare ts hee Mae 28,940 
TNs ee ee og eek, 0 Oe . Ses ee 162,475 
PigCR Ui SOIR gk ok Pee ds. Sp ee ee 70,486 
587,874 

er eet. eo ee ee $1,507,289 
EXPENSES 
Ware ei... we er wea 146,120 
Corte ee ee. See 70,891 
Bedi e a eSenE CRE POMEaI Se SS. a ba eee See 140,030 
Eaticationt: Intonation Services... Get es eee. Vee es 348,501 
CCE aEIORIS ge ag 2 ee ene 389,537 
Pe oa a as se eg Ot 162,475 
PeecOn ReSCArG 2's a ee eee 70,486 
Pie emen!. oc Nieleaie te... ou... ee ee 198,029 
Re en 5 ee es a ss ee Se $1,526,069 
OO NOG no ae hg a ee es ae a eee (18,780) 
PR Oe) 1) OS ye is in Sohn RE eR 68,134 


Fes ees Se On ee re ee ee $ 49,354 





CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
LABORATORY OF ORNITHOLOGY 
159 SAPSUCKER WOODS ROAD 
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 


> 





secre niece 














The Crow’s Nest Bookshop Presents 


The Audubon Society Guide 
to Attracting Birds 


By National Audubon Society staff biologist and Cor- 
nell University Laboratory of Ornithology Associate 
Stephen W. Kress 


ichly researched, comprehensive and up to date, The 

Audubon Society Guide to Attracting Birds offers tested 
plans that will encourage birds to nest, feed, and seek shel- 
ter on your property. Features 


Tables of recommended trees, shrubs, and flowering 

plants for every region in North America. 

Plans for gardens, pools, ponds, feeding stations, and 

other backyard projects. 

Diagrams for bird houses designed to attract specific 

species. 

Hints from birders around the country. 
“The environmentally oriented gardener can enjoy not only 
red, orange, yellow, and blue flowers, but also red, orange, 
yellow, and blue birds such as cardinals, orioles, gold- 
finches, and jays.” — Roger ‘Tory Peterson, from the foreword. 


Order from the Crow’s Nest Bookshop today! Special mem- 
ber discount. Ordering information inside. 








THELIVING BIRD 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


Editor: Jill Crane 

Design Director: Kat Dalton 

Associate Editor: Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 
Technical Editor: Charles R. Smith 
Editorial Assistant: Steven C. Sibley 
Publications Assistant: Maureene Stangle 





LABORATORY STAFF 


Executive Director: Charles Walcott 
Bookshop: Michele M. Barclay 
Cooperative Research: Gregory S. Butcher 
Raptor Research: Tom J. Cade 

The Living Bird Quarterly: Jill Crane 
Photography: Lang Elliott 

Library of Natural Sounds: James L. Gulledge 
Administration: Diane Johnson 

Seatuck: Thomas S. Litwin 

Library: Steven C. Sibley 

Education and Information Services: 
Charles R. Smith 

Public Affairs: Scott A. Sutcliffe 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


David L. Call, Chairman 
Morton S. Adams 
Albert E Appleton 
Robert Barker 

Rex J. Bates 

William G. Conway 
Alan Crawford, Jr. 

John H. Dakin 

Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 
Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 
Thomas M. Hampson 
Frances C. James 
Imogene P. Johnson 
Hamilton E Kean 

T. Spencer Knight 

John D. Leggett, Jr. 

Peter R. Marler 
Barnabas McHenry 

G. Michael McHugh 
Edwin H. Morgens 
Eugene S. Morton 

Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 
Charles E. Treman, Jr. 
Charles D. Webster 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in 
January, April, July, and October by the Laboratory of 
Ornithology at Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, 
Ithaca, New York 14850. Telephone: (607) 256-5056. The Living 
Bird Quarterly is free to members of the Laboratory. For 
information concerning back issues please write to our 
Membership Department. © 1986 Cornell University Laboratory 
of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N.Y. 


ss 


Winter 1986 — Volume 5/Number 1 





12 


a4 
18 


20 


26 


28 


30 


LANDSCAPING FOR BIRDS by Stephen W Kress 


Birds can’t live on the sterile lawns and pavement of suburbia nor on 
fragmented wild habitat alone. Homeowners can assist birds by 
supplementing feeders with food and cover flowers, shrubs and trees. 


COOL SPOTS IN HOT DEBATE by Cameron Barrows 


Dubbed “the winged snail darter,’ the spotted owl is the focus of a 
controversy that pits conservationists against the harvesters of valuable 
old-growth forest habitat in the Pacific Northwest timber region. 


THE CROW’S NEST BOOKSHOP 
THE STRANGE HEART by Jill Crane 


Throughout the centuries the ancient Greek myth of Leda and the swan 
has captured the imaginations of artists, poets and playwrights. 


ON THE BEHAVIOR WATCH by Donald and Lillian Stokes 


A duck bobs its head, a catbird sings a softer version of its song. 
Behavior-watching can infuse a simple bird walk with discovery as 
you try to interpret the movements and sounds of individual birds. 


RESEARCH & REVIEW by Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


NEWS & NOTES by StevenC. Sibley 
SPOTLIGHT ON THE KAKAPO by Mark J. Rauzon 


With fewer than 50 birds separating the species from extinction 
the New Zealand Wildlife Service is attempting to head off the 
disappearance of this flightless, ground-dwelling, nocturnal parrot. 





p. 20 Booming behavior 





Front Cover: Outside—While many birds build 
distinctive nests, most songbirds construct the standard 
open cup variety. Twigs and grasses are woven to form 
the cup which often is attached above a fork in a 
branch. This nest was found in Michigan. Photograph 
by John Gerlach/DRK Photo. Inside—Cedar waxwings 
with apple. Photograph by Gregory K. Scott (Photo 
Researchers, Inc.). Back Cover: Outside—Adélie 
penguin. Photograph by Art Wolfe. Inside—Barred owl 
sunning by Jean-Luc Grondin. 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


Landscaping for Birds 


STEPHEN W. KRESS 


OU can assist wild bird pop- 

ulations by improving the 

quality of your backyard for 

wildlife. By planting food and 
cover vegetation, you can create bird 
habitats vital to wildlife facing a fright- 
ening loss of natural habitat. 

The 1980 data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau reveal that 74-million acres in 
the United States are covered by urban 
areas, highways, airports, and parking 
lots. This area has more than doubled in 
the past 25 years and now occupies more 
land than New York, Pennsylvania, Ver- 
mont and New Hampshire combined. 

Even lands not lost to pavement and 
suburbia are becoming less attractive to 
birds. Large farms with few property 
lines have replaced brushy fencerows, 
farm woodlots, and wetlands. Such var- 
ied habitats are essential to maintaining 
abundant and diverse bird populations. 
Trackless horizons of single crop plant- 
ings result in a monotony of birdlife. 
Similarly, in suburban areas natural 
habitats are often replaced with sterile 
lawns and pavement. Since most bird 
species have minimum territory require- 
ments, the remaining woodlands may 
be too small for nesting. 

While the trend toward a monoto- 
nous landscape has already claimed sev- 
eral species of North American birds, 
the toll on plants is even greater. In 1978 
the Smithsonian Institution listed close 
to 10 percent of the 22,200 plant species 
native to the continental United States 
as endangered or threatened. According 
to Peter H. Raven, director of the Mis- 
souri Botanical Garden, a disappearing 
plant can take with it as many as 30 de- 
pendent species of insects, higher ani- 
mals and even other plants. Clearly, 
protection and management of plant 


communities are essential if we are to 
enjoy varied birdlife. 

By understanding a few simple con- 
cepts, you can turn your yard into a 
thriving habitat for birds. 

Limiting factors. The number of ani- 
mals that can survive within a piece of 
habitat is determined by restrictions 
known as limiting factors. These in- 
clude food, cover, water, and nesting 
sites, as well as parasites, predators, dis- 
play areas, and singing posts. The chal- 
lenge for anyone who wants to aid bird 
populations is to strive for a combina- 
tion of these factors that benefits an in- 
creased number and variety of birds. 

Limiting factors change from one sea- 
son to the next. Food may limit num- 
bers in winter, but not in summer. Cover 
may be sufficient in summer, but not in 


Some plants please both people and birds. 
Flowering dogwood (left) is one of the most 
important wildlife trees in the eastern U.S., 
and boxelder seeds are consumed by many 
types of birds, including evening grosbeaks. 


fe 


JAN L. WASSINK 


Winter/1986 5 





VINNIE FISH (PHOTO RESEARCHERS, INC.) 


Yards landscaped for birds can be beautiful as 
well as functional. Baths and pools may attract 
birds that seldom visit feeders, such as warblers 
and vireos. Brush piles should be more than 
piles of brush; place branches over a log, rock, 
or tile foundation to create a labyrinth. 


winter. More nesting cover and food 
may be useless if the supply of fresh wa- 
ter or suitable nest sites is not adequate. 
When one limiting factor is identified 
and remedied, another comes into play. 
If this too is removed, the population 
may increase until something else limits 
growth. Social factors, such as territory 
size, may limit bird numbers, but even 
that is not a fixed constraint. Most birds 
can occupy smaller territories in quality 
habitat. 

The best way to increase wild bird 
populations is to identify the limiting 
factors and work to modify them. Al- 
though improving backyard habitat 


6 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


through landscaping may be less re- 
warding at first than attracting birds 
with a feeder, in the long run it will 
benefit birds far more. Following are 
some ideas that provide food, cover and 
nest sites for birds. 

Food plants. Plantings that supply 
food and cover throughout the year are 
the most advantageous to backyard 
birds, yet even properties with abundant 
plants may offer poor bird habitat. Al- 
though lilac and forsythia produce 
beautiful flowers, for example, their 


fruits have little wildlife value. Rather 
than planting just decorative trees and 
shrubs, encourage plants that are both 
decorative and useful for attracting 
birds. Mountain-ash, flowering dog- 
wood, American holly, and winterberry 
are a few of the many choices that are 
pleasing to both people and birds. 

Vegetation levels. Even within the 
same habitat, different birds show pref- 
erences for specific heights at which to 
nest and feed. This is most apparent in 
forests, where some species eat from the 
ground while others feed high in the 
trees. Still other birds move among lev- 
els. Tanagers and grosbeaks sing and 
feed in the canopy, but nest in the sub- 
canopy. Chipping sparrows feed on the 
ground, nest in shrubs and sing from the 
highest trees. Such movements suggest 
that backyard plantings should be 
multileveled. 


This principle is helpful in a variety of 
situations. In woodlots, new levels can 
be created by planting shade-tolerant 
shrubs and vines at the bases of large 
trees. The same principle should be 
considered when selecting border plant- 
ings for yards. 

Where space permits, you can maxi- 
mize vegetation levels while providing 
the most effective visual screening from 
neighboring properties. First plant tall 
trees such as pines and spruce. In front 
of these, plant clusters of smaller trees 
such as dogwood or serviceberry, fol- 
lowed by tall shrubs such as snowberry, 
sumac or elderberry. More levels can be 
made with climbing vines, small 
shrubs, and ground cover. 

Tall conifers such as Norway spruce 
are best located on the northern border 
of your property so they can provide 
maximum shelter from winter winds 


without excessively shading other plant- 
ings. Deciduous trees such as ash and 
black cherry planted on the south side 
provide summer shade; in winter, the 
leafless trees permit sunlight to reach 
buildings. 

Ground cover. A small patch of well- 
cropped lawn is a useful focal point for 
viewing birds, but lawn itself, especially 
rolling fields of it, is one of the most im- 
poverished bird habitats on Earth. 

While some birds such as robins feed 
on earthworms and insects in grassy 


. HARRISON (GRANT HEILMAN PHOTOGRAPHY 


“= 
X 


lawns, others such as towhees, fox spar- 
rows, and white-throated sparrows, pre- 
fer feeding among fallen leaves where 
they can scratch and look for hidden in- 
sects. Such habitats are missing from 
manicured suburban lawns. A good 
place to create leaf litter is under shrubs 
and trees where grasses have difficulty 
growing. Avoid raking these areas, even 
extend them several feet in front of the 
shrubs. For color, plant bird-attracting 
flowers and add a border of flagstone or 
bricks so that this area looks tidy. Enrich 
your leaf litter each fall by adding leaves. 
By spring they will have decomposed 
into rich soil with an abundance of 
earthworms and insects for ground- 
feeding spring migrants. 

Further ground cover can be achieved 
by planting borders and patches of low 
growing perennial plants such as bear- 
berry, crowberry, and creeping coto- 


Winter/1986 7 





MQ 
S 
= 
O 
= 
< 





neasters. These plants are more useful to 
birds than other ground covers such as 
Boston ivy, pachysandra and periwin- 
kle, which provide little food for wild 
birds. 

Changes in slope. Ground-feeding 
birds such as sparrows, towhees, and 
wrens are attracted to abrupt changes in 
slope. In natural habitats, birds fre- 
quently forage along stream banks, rock 
outcroppings and tree roots since these 
have a myriad of tiny crevices and cran- 
nies in which to probe for insects, 
worms, and other small animal life. 

Artificial changes in slope can be 
created by building a gently sloping soil 
mound with a steep rock face, or by cre- 
ating rock gardens or stone walls. In 
northern climates, the steep surface of 
an artificial slope should face south so 
that the first spring thaw will reveal for- 
aging places previously hidden by snow. 

Optimizing edge. Bird variety is usu- 
ally greater where two or more plant 
communities come together. This is ap- 
parent at woodland borders where 
thicket-producing shrubs provide an 
abundance of fruit. Insects are also 
plentiful here. Many thicket plants, 
such as mesquite, juniper, hawthorn, 
raspberries and roses, have spines and 
thorns which help to create excellent, 
predator-safe nesting places. 

Shrubby edges (hedgerows) are espe- 
cially important to wild birds because 
they provide shelter from weather, pro- 
tection from predators, nesting places, 
and fruits throughout the year. 

Backyard landscapers can replicate 
the edge effect by planting evergreen 


hedgerows such as hemlock, juniper or 


holly along with fruiting shrubs such as 
red-osier dogwood and chokecherry. 
The evergreens provide good year-round 
cover and the fruiting shrubs offer abun- 
dant food. Property borders are often a 
good place to establish hedgerows. 

When planting shrubby borders, mix 
several shrub species to vary height, 
shape, and density for a greater selection 
of nest sites. Also select hedge shrubs 

that fruit at different times of the year to 
provide an ample food supply through- 
out the seasons. 

Dust bathing. Many kinds of birds in- 
cluding quail, pheasants, birds of prey, 
kinglets, and sparrows enjoy dust baths. 
Bathing movements in dust are remark- 
ably similar to those in water, as birds 
fluff themselves up and flutter in the 
dust with their wings. The function of 
dusting is little understood, but it may 


help to rid the body of parasites such as 
feather lice. 

A dusting area may attract birds into 
the open for good viewing. Even small 
backyards can accommodate a dusting 
area since it can be as small as a foot 
square. To create a dust bath, excavate 
soil about 6 inches deep and line the 
edge with brick or rocks. Create a suit- 
able dust mix by combining one-third 
each of sand, loam, and sifted ash. 





Gardeners should incorporate fruiting plants in 
landscaping plans. Good choices are (left) 
blackberries, and crabapples, which attract 


many birds, like this Bohemian waxwing. 





Food patches. Wild plants such as rag- 
weed, lambsquarter, amaranth, bristle- 
grass, and panicgrass are among the 
most important wild bird foods. Such 
weeds usually will establish themselves 
as soon as the ground is opened by till- 
ing. An excellent way to grow these 
plants is to establish a wild food patch. 
Depending on space, this can be a 100 
to 2,000 square-foot patch of tilled soil 
or, if space permits, it can be three strips 
tilled in rotation so that each strip is 
used once every three years. Long, 
narrow patches are preferred over a 
single large patch because they offer 
more edge. 

Cultivated crops, such as millet and 
sunflower, can provide concentrated 
food supplies for wild birds. The sim- 
plest way to establish a food patch is to 
till the soil and broadcast a mixed bag of 
millet and sunflower seed over the soil. 
Just 15 pounds of the mixture is enough 


WAYNE LANKINEN 


to seed a half-acre plot. 

Food patches should be used to sup- 
plement natural food supplies from na- 
tive meadows, thickets and forests. Like 
bird feeders, patches are expensive in- 
vestments. The best long-term way to 
provide dependable, sustained food sup- 
plies is by maintaining food-rich plant 
communities. 

Flowers for songbirds. The seeds of 
many garden flowers are useful additions 
to wild bird diets. When selecting flow- 
ers for your garden, keep birds in mind 
and choose some of their favorites. Most 
of the garden flowers listed will grow 
in moist, summer gardens throughout 
North America. Many belong to the 
sunflower family which explains their 
attractiveness to songbirds such as gold- 
finches and native sparrows. Most re- 
quire an open, sunlit area. Fertilize 
once a month with | to 2 pounds of gen- 
eral purpose fertilizer per 100 square 
feet. Water, but don’t soak, and use 
mulch to retain soil moisture and to 
minimize competing weeds. Be sure to 
let flower heads go to seed for fall and 
winter food. 

Snags. Old forests have a high propor- 
tion of dead or dying trees known as 
snags. Snags provide nesting and roost- 
ing sites for cavity-nesting birds ranging 
in size from prothonotary warblers to 
turkey vultures. 

One way to encourage tree cavities 
and thus improve young forests for cav- 
ity-nesting birds is to drill 2-inch di- 
ameter holes 7 inches into the center of 
dead or dying trees on your property. 
This will create an excellent beginning 
for a cavity excavator such as a chicka- 
dee, especially if the tree interior is al- 
ready rotten. Drill entrance holes about 
3 inches below stout limbs on leaning 
trees so that openings point downward. 
This position provides some protection 
from rain and may be less conspicuous to 
predators. 

Another way to start tree cavities is to 
select a limb at least 3 inches in diame- 
ter and cut it off about 6 inches from the 
trunk. As the cut limb rots, the tree will 
heal around the edges, but it probably 
will not close over the hole. 

Brush piles. Brush piles should be 
more than piles of brush. A useful foun- 
dation will greatly improve the value of 
the brush pile for both birds and mam- 
mals. Several approaches are commonly 
used to build brush pile foundations, but 
all rest on the need for animals to have 
a labyrinth of tunnels in which to hide 


Winter/1986 9 


ARDEA PHOTOGRAPHICS 








from predators and gain shelter from 
weather. You can create such tunnels by 
placing four 6-foot long logs (4 to 8 
inches in diameter) directly on the 
ground and then placing another four 
logs of similar length and diameter per- 
pendicular to the first set. With branch 
stems pointing toward the ground, pile 
cut shrubs and pruned branches atop 
the log foundation to make a peaked 
mound. 

Another approach to building a foun- 
dation is to make three rock piles in a V 
formation, or to construct a brush pile 
over ceramic drainage tiles. Mound 
large branches first and add smaller 
branches to the top of the pile. 

Living shelters can be constructed 
from a conifer such as spruce or pine 
with well-formed lower branches. Con- 
struct a tepee shelter by slicing the un- 
derside of lower branches so that the 


10 The Living Bird Quarterly 


TIM FITZHARRIS 


branches fall to the ground, surround- 
ing the tree trunk. Such shelters provide 
excellent cover for game birds such as 
grouse and quail. In winter they may 
serve as useful places to install supple- 
mental grain feeding stations. If suffi- 
cient connecting bark is left intact, the 
branches may live in their new position 
for several years. 

Birds brighten our lives with their 
song, color and grace, but their pres- 
ence cannot be assumed. If we are to 
leave a rich wildlife heritage for future 
generations, we must pursue an active 
and responsible approach to conserva- 
tion. O 


Stephen Kress is a staff biologist for the National 
Audubon Society and an Associate at the Labo- 
ratory of Ornithology. This article was adapted 
from his new book The Audubon Society Guide to 
Attracting Birds, published by Charles Scribner’s 
Sons, © 1985 Stephen W. Kress. 





DENIS ROY (VALAN PHOTOS) 








FLOWERS FOR WILD BIRDS 


Asters (Aster spp. ) 

Bachelor’s buttons (Centaurea hirta) 

Basketflower (Centaurea americana) * 

Blessed thistle (Carduus benedictus) 

Calendula (Calendula officinalis) 

California poppy (Eschscholzia 
californica), choice seed for doves 


Campanula (bluebells) (Campanula spp. ) 


China aster (Callistephus chinensis) 

Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum 
spp.) 

Coneflowers (Rudbeckia spp.) includes 
black-eyed Susan 

Coreopsis (Coreopsis spp.) * 

Cornflower (Centaurea cyanus) 

Cosmos (Cosmos spp. ) 

Dayflowers (Commelina spp. ) * 

Dusty miller (Centaurea cineraria) 

Love-lies-breeding (Amaranthus 


caudatus) 


BOB GIBBONS (ARDEA PHOTOGRAPHICS) 


Marigolds (Tagetes spp. ) 

Phlox (Phlox spp.) especially 
P drummondi 

Portulaca (Portulaca spp.) especially 
moss rose (P. grandiflora) 

Prince’s feather (Celosia cristata) 

Prince’s plumes (Celosia plumosa) 

Rock purslane (Calandrinia spp. ) 

Royal sweet sultan (Centaurea 
imperialis) * 

Silene (Silene spp.) 

Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) seeds 
eaten by at least 42 bird species 

Sweet scabious (Scabiosa atropurpurea) 

Tarweed (Madin elegans) 

Verbena (Verbena hybrida) 


Zinnia (Zinnia elegans) 
* Tolerates shade 


Spp. = several species are available 


Shown here, clockwise from top left: marigold, 
sunflower, coreopsis, black-eyed Susan. 


Winter/ 1986 ll 








CAMERON BARROWS 


Cool Spots in Hot Debate 


WL COULD HOLD THE 

KEY, TO $f BILLION IN 

TIMBER, read the headline 

of a 1981 edition of Seattle’s 
Post-Intelligencer. Across a photo of a 
spotted owl was the caption THIS OWL 
MAY COST $9 MILLION. The accom- 
panying article quoted United States as- 
sistant secretary of agriculture for natu- 
ral resources and environment John B. 
Crowell, Jr. as asking, “how many owls 
can we afford to protect?” 

This question reflects one of the more 
controversial conservation questions of 
the 1980s—at what price do we save the 
spotted owl? Dubbed “the winged snail 
darter” because of its potential to 
impede economic growth, the spotted 
owl is the focus of an issue that pits the 
harvesting of timber against protection 
of this threatened owl. For each parcel 
of forest that is preserved as spotted owl 
habitat, a substantial number of trees 
become unavailable for timber. That 
translates into millions of dollars of lost 
revenue for each owl that is protected. 


CAMERON BARROWS 


What is special about the spotted owl 
and why has it stirred biological and po- 
litical debate in the northwestern 
United States? 

Before the 1970s, spotted owls were 
known only as rare denizens of mature 
forests of the Pacific Northwest. Con- 
cern over the status of spotted owls arose 
with the realization that those forests 
were rapidly disappearing in the wake of 
timber production. Predictions that vir- 
tually all old-growth forests would be 
cut by the turn of the century brought 
the concern to a head. In 1973, Gordon 
Gould of the California Department of 
Fish and Game took the first inventories 
of the owl in order to determine how 
rare it was in California. At about the 
same time, Eric Forsman in Oregon be- 
gan his investigations into the owl’s nat- 
ural history. 

Two facts resulted from these inquir- 
ies. First, Gould, Forsman, and others 
discovered that more spotted owls in- 
habited the woods than anyone had sus- 
pected. Rather than a few hundred, 


three to four thousand birds were found 
in California’s coniferous forests as well 
as in southern British Columbia, Wash- 
ington, and Oregon. That meant some 
breathing room for those charged with 
protecting the spotted owl population. 
Second, the owls appeared to have a 
strong, if not exclusive, need for old- 
growth or virgin forests. These forests 
harbor trees 200 years old and more. In 
the Pacific Northwest, such forests are 
dominated by huge Douglas-fir, western 
hemlock, and redwood trees. Given the 
high economic value of these forests — 
virtually all houses in the West are 
framed with Douglas-fir—the stage was 
set for conflict between the habitat 
needs of spotted owls and the desires of 
lumber interests. 

Concern for the future of spotted owls 
has become increasingly intense among 
environmental groups. In 1985 the Na- 
tional Wildlife Federation won an in- 
junction to prohibit timber sales in one 
of Oregon’s national forest districts un- 
til an environmental impact statement 


Predictions that all old-growth Douglas-fir and redwood trees in the Pacific Northwest (right) would be cut by the turn of the century 
have raised concerns about the future of the spotted owl, above, which depends on these forests for its survival. 


12. The Living Bird Quarterly 


Stee sla’, ists peat “wh 





wa RS 


aa 
‘ 
S 





Ss 
lip epting 
v 


ities, 


7) 


wie 
Ce 
itd 5 

een? 


oe... 
ind series, ere 


9 ea 


A her, 
W iigerer ANE S @ pe 
ie iape 





is completed which will describe the ef- 
fects of continued logging on the owl. 
The National Audubon Society is nam- 
ing a task force to review the entire spot- 
ted owl issue. In addition, the federal 
government has stepped in with sub- 
stantial support for research aimed at 
understanding the needs of the owl. 
Forest managers, lumber interests, 
government bureaucrats and conserva- 
tionists all wish the owls were not 
threatened by the continued logging of 
old-growth forests. Such hopes, how- 
ever, have not been realized. In fact, Dr. 
Russell Lande of the University of Chi- 
cago suggested at a June 1985 meeting 
called by the National Wildlife Federa- 
tion in Portland that the spotted owl al- 
ready may be on the road to extinction. 


began my research on spotted owls 
in 1977 with the premise that the 
birds select certain microhabitats 
within old-growth forests. I wanted to 
identify those microhabitats and to un- 
derstand why the owls sought them out. 
Observing the owls on their daytime 
roosts, I noticed a pattern in their be- 
havior; as summer temperatures 
climbed to 85 degrees and above the 
owls showed signs of heat stress. This 
included exposing their toes and legs to 
permit rapid heat loss. The birds’ toes 
are unfeathered and lose heat more 
readily than other parts of their body. 
While exposing their toes the owls re- 
lease the grasp on their perch. I’ve had 
more than one chuckle while watching 
an owl seemingly forget its lack of foot- 
ing and nearly fall off its perch. If tem- 
peratures exceed 90 degrees spotted owls 
become severely stressed: they droop 
their wings and engage in behavior called 
gular flutter, similar to panting. 
Old-growth forests, especially 
densely wooded ravines where the owls 
roost, are as much as 10 to 15 degrees 
cooler than the more open forests that 
result after logging. During summer, 
open forest temperatures may reach 100 
degrees throughout the spotted owls’ 
range, so the older habitat provides an 
essential margin of comfort for the owls. 
The spotted owl’s sensitivity to warm 
temperatures is in part due to its dense 
plumage. It is this plumage, however, 
that enables the bird to withstand the 
cold, wet winters of the Pacific North- 
west. 
Other researchers, including Eric 
Forsman in Oregon, and Stephen Lay- 
mon, David Solis, Chuck Sisco, and 


R. J. Gutiérrez in California, have also 
studied spotted owls’ habitat prefer- 
ences. They too found that the birds al- 
most always selected old-growth forests. 
Besides being cool, these venerable 
woods harbor a high density of food 
items for the owls, and the large, wide- 
ly spaced trees allow ample flying space 
beneath the thick canopy. Younger, 
second-growth forests have fewer snags, 
which provide nest sites, fewer downed 
logs, which provide homes for prey, and 
more young trees, which make flying 
beneath the treetops hazardous. 

Bill LeHaye from Humboldt State 
University in northern California is 
presently examining nest site selection 
in spotted owls. His preliminary find- 
ings again point to the owls’ need for old 
growth. They often choose the largest 
and oldest trees in the forest for nesting. 
The longer a tree lives, the more oppor- 
tunity there is for lightning, heavy 
winds, or disease to create a suitable 
nest cavity. Since the owls don’t exca- 
vate their own holes, they depend upon 
existing holes for nest sites. 

There is little doubt that spotted owls 
prefer old-growth forest habitat. Only 
rarely are the birds found elsewhere. 
The owls’ special requirements are most 
pronounced from British Columbia to 
northwestern California, the prime 
timber area of western North America. 
One spotted owl pair uses an average of 
1,000 acres of old-growth forest; that’s 
$18-million worth of wood paneling and 
2” x 4" studs. 

Can we have timber and owls too? 
Yes, but in order to meet the needs of all 





Old-growth forests are extremely valuable for 
lumber (left). The densely feathered spotted 
owl (below) seems to prefer these woods 
because they are cooler than young forests. 








concerned, a balance must be struck. 
How much old-growth forest can we cut 
and still maintain a healthy owl popu- 
lation? Wildlife managers at the U.S. 
Forest Service are grappling with this 
question. 

They are trying to determine the 
minimum amount of old-growth forest 
that must be retained if the owl popu- 
lation is to stay healthy. In a somber be- 
ginning, resource managers recently de- 
veloped a management plan for spotted 
owls in southern Washington. Then 
Mount St. Helens erupted, killing 
scores of spotted owls. Had the plan 
been in place, the gamble for southern 
Washington would have been lost. Such 
unexpected events, including cata- 
strophic wildfire and disease, are among 
the hazards of maintaining only a mini- 
mum amount of forest. 


Ithough the spotted owls’ future 

is in jeopardy, Dr. Lande’s pre- 

diction of imminent extinction 
may be premature. However, a critical 
question remains unanswered—how 
healthy is the present population? 
While several thousand owls sounds like 
a lot, the population could be no more 
than a remnant of what it once was, 
considering the millions of acres of old 
forests that have been cut over the past 
century. What effect has this fragmen- 
tation had on the health of spotted owl 
populations? 


Winter/1986 15 


C. ALLAN MORGAN 


WAYNE LANKINEN/DRK PHOTO 





tudies by R. J. Gutiérrez in Cali- 
fornia, and Charles Meslow and 
Gary Miller in Oregon have ex- 
amined survival of juvenile spotted owls 
which have left their parents’ care. By 
attaching radio transmitters to the owl- 
ets, the researchers were able to follow 
the young birds in their quest for their 
own territories. Survival through the 
first year of life is low in all bird species, 
but in spotted owls it seemed especially 
low. In some years none of the radio- 
equipped owls survived their first win- 
ter; in other years less than 10 percent 
survived. Next to starvation, the most 
common cause of mortality was preda- 
tion from great horned owls, a species 
that does well in forests fragmented by 
logging. 
Many biologists have noted that spot- 
ted owls don’t breed every year or even 





The nocturnal spotted owl regurgitates pellets 
which can be dissected to show indigestible 
fur and bones of a variety of small mammal 
prey, including the northern flying squirrel. 


16 The Living Bird Quarterly 


every other year. In my research I found 
some owl pairs bred consistently year af- 
ter year; other owls bred only once in 
seven years. In 1985, as in most years, 
some spotted owls within my northern 
California study area bred successfully, 
many did not. One pair produced their 
first young in four years. | felt like pass- 
ing out cigars when | saw the two fuzzy, 
gnomelike hatchlings. 

High juvenile mortality and low 
breeding success may be symptoms of 
the spotted owls’ decline. Careful con- 
sideration of the breeding status and 
history of each spotted owl pair should 
be part of the management planning 
process. If, as resource managers decide 
which owls will receive protection and 
which won't, they select birds which 
rarely breed, the success of the owl pop- 
ulation would be doubtful. Several bi- 
ologists have noted that spotted owls liv- 
ing at high elevation are poor breeders. 
Unfortunately, since high elevations 
harbor lower grade timber, these owls 
are the easiest to protect. 


WAYNE LANKINEN 


MARTY CORDANO 





Those who argue for protection of 
old-growth forests and spotted owls have 
their work cut out for them. On one 
side, lumber interests want to cut as 
much valuable old timber as they can. 
On the other side, conservationists 
want to protect as many owls as possible. 
Understandably, economic concerns 
will receive their due hearing. However, 
at issue is not just an owl, but all organ- 
isms of the old-growth forests. The con- 
tinued presence of spotted owls in these 
woods is one measure of a healthy com- 
munity. 0 





Cameron Barrows is a preserve manager at the 
Northern California Coast Range Preserve of The 
Nature Conservancy in Branscomb. 

Further Reading 

Barrows, C. “Cool Owls of the Old Forests.” Pa- 
cific Discovery. April, 1985. 

Barrows, C. “Roost Selection by Spotted Owls: 
An Adaptation to Heat Stress:’ The Condor, vol. 
83, pp. 302—309 (1981). 

Forsman, Eric D., E. Charles Meslow and Howard 
M. Wight. “Distribution and Biology of the Spot- 
ted Owl in Oregon.” Wildlife Monographs No. 87 
(1984). 


puctanaLATiRy 


oni 


wii a 
Bees: ee mtr 


5 aeatte i 
einetesasntrnattst? uit 
eeasaate 1 
a 


erate heres 


eet 
a oan 
Ht 


7 Te 
iit 
Hess sasbenaa 
tet 
settee 
Bt 


Hareesenseartestagrnis 


RUM renin 


Ht eeisneneaneentaneeceentan 
enisee 


mrsgepsnetecty: 
aratyrestreeerecetes 


Pit ts 1 
i Pree Set 
¢ eceeeant tee 


cree 
Chetbeeaae 


t 
Senet 
Cerner 
es canee eigen 
aerated 
i 
ee 
eres 
pegeedaa ise 
ess teceed : 
‘alam 
Preeti 
ee Bre ore: 
a 


1 
puuuisssccuuuuuatereseggttay rr 
Essitdsesssster it 


sittgeagates ces 
HE pyetestaanss: 


prtieseeneesctti ttt 
ath Ee 
Aagass eee 


fogvatagananantagan 
esse 


yeabantaniiaaeanaats eittataasteay H ee 


el 
Hea 
Mdhitssiissrrecsnsteatenssanes 
ie aabbstess esate 
it iaticrsecttesseantascesst 
i i Tintisseasttaasessgsis 
sit ait: i ieiuaaiit asea hades 
Ht veHHatetdasttages 
ue HEHE Tr setts sitesi eaaesscata pias 
Massenisatiantsgesis cosey Hee 
Hitt t i EET edasasesasaaes 
teractnsaen ee 
eee saute 4 
i area 
a Bett 
be 
He 


Sesettascins 

patie ae 

appeased seek 

ue if 
antes 


seeeranase Shee 
Hasttssiit! Hy 38 

th etennea i pit HEE 
eetcareateagegy i 
Pitter 





THE CROW’S NEST BOOKSHOP 
LIVE ON TAPE 


Audubon Society’s Video Guide to the Birds 
of North America: I 


INTRODUCTION BY ROGER TORY PETERSON 


First video cassette in a series of four two-hour tapes 
which will cover all birds that normally breed in North 
America. This video features loons, grebes, pelicans, 
waterfowl, hawks, and chickenlike birds. Viewers may 
watch birds flying, diving, feeding, and playing under 
water. A segment for each bird shows still and/or mo- 
tion picture footage, authentic bird calls provided by 
the Laboratory of Ornithology’s Library of Natural 
Sounds, verbal descriptions, and animated range maps 
depicting migration routes. 


Available in VHS and Beta format; running time 96 
minutes; 116 species. 


VHS No. 1897/$74.95/$67.46 members 
Beta No. 1898/$74.95/$67.46 members 


A 
HehtttetL 
tt 


britney 
eaneeeetarge 


“ a 
aie ut si 3 


nasnin 
ae Wang 


i 
"| 
Hanh 
wean 
ii iii a 

Perera tars 


Honus i 


eB He 
nee iui 


SE } 


HS; it 

Petit site 

cia ii ee 
satseepentacstts! 


it Aa ae 
rt 


i 
teat 
a att i 


reestiet estes 


niet HE 


i tataeats 
ease 


Bini 
reer 
stents corti 
‘ a Hc ihe 
teteheee Hay 1 aceadauanansaeaseeersa 
ae seustuaaessaaeeae tases + avers Ha settee 


tetnadieyetiggye 
Ha 


See 
stteateastessasee 
sesssecaniteritsaty 
aetiaceeneey 


renee aged HHH 
aneanessissceee 


eee eecceciie 
esseceazeonnaaanaes Ht 
esate en eis ett 
rH 
pareee 


+ 
Biiieerecss 
Sisrtisttertce 
oh: t 
peers 
tigre 
i . 


ganasnateaness Saat 
a8 cece ene 
teseeeten rar 


segtanrnstanesecsseg Ht 

asavegneataaeagveaneag 

eatasvsossaasasssnsanes eR 
it Tar 


faeresseennee 
sees He 
fabeessscanneagasseete 

enna renee 


sageeen 
Uitte 


is 
ideerseecase 
Sree ree 

enuteeeeenen 


Creer iirn 

sengeeneres 
seentatten.: 
eeaeeeanntaiise: 
prea 
sareeaennate 


Serres ss ceemenaee 
" $ seceaneteanaasaess 

iiss: 
a 





see perorteeesresstet 
‘ he coe ee 
sito stasis He 
He abbas srnsueseetaee 
Sep PRH TES: eilaninisteiitta 
saneesnessatbennentete 
‘Seaesecrsentboryen eeetees 
ee ssreeetatseranresneennten 


be th eee 
austria srreecneeteettee tiesisevete btegrecaase 4 


eageeseesateayecatts 
aaethas |e 


aguas gantease seateeth 


‘i 
ce ste atihatstststantee 
Setearrassasarten Ha nated 


aattedenrscssiciese teaeieaty 
pieneee te 


PE 


aban ea 
sepresasaeess 


tit 
iit 


Hutte 
Bate 


eaten ° 


ALSO AVAILABLE — 


The Audubon Society Guide to Attracting Birds 


STEPHEN W. KRESS 


A guide to encouraging birds to nest, feed, and seek 
shelter in your backyard. More information on inside 
front cover. 


No. 2380/$24.95/$22.46 members 








Enclosed is a check or money order in U.S. funds, payable to The Crow’s Nest Bookshop. Ou 
address— The Crow’s Nest Bookshop, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, Sap: 
sucker Woods, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. (607) 256-5057. 





Title Price 





Catalogue No Qty. 














Amount of order 


N.Y. State residents add 7% sales tax 





Form of payment: 

[-] Check [] Money Order 
[] VISA  [] MasterCard 
Card # 


Signature 


2/5 





Postage and handling 


Total amount enclosed 











Expir. Date 





Name 
Address 
City 








State Zip 











THE STRANGE 
HEART 


JILL CRANE 


MUSEE DU LOUVRE 


... The tale telleth that my mother Leda flew 

Zeus, who had stoln the likeness of a swan, 

And, fleeing from a chasing eagle, wrought 

By guile his pleasure, —if the tale be true. 

—from the play Helen by Euripides, Athens, 412 B.C. 


RUE or not, the Greek myth of Leda and the 

swan caught the imaginations of artists and au- 

thors of international rank throughout the cen- 
turies. During the 16th century, for example, Italian 
artists Leonardo da Vinci and Paolo Veronese produced 
paintings based on what may be the best known swan 
myth. Around 1816 French artist Théodore Géricault 
again portrayed the scene (right). 

The story holds that on a warm summer day in Sparta 
the beautiful Leda bathed on the banks of the Eurotas 
River. While being pursued by an eagle, the mighty 
Zeus, supreme god of the Greek pantheon, spied her 
and dropped down for a closer look. As soon as he 
touched the water he transformed himself into a majes- 
tic swan. In this disguise he achieved his amorous pur- 
pose, and nine months later Leda laid one, perhaps 
two, enormous eggs out of which emerged Clytemnes- 
tra and Helen (of Troy fame), and Castor and Pollux, 
who Zeus later turned into the constellation Gemini. 

In 1923 Irish poet William Butler Yeats used the 
Greek myth as the theme for his famous poem Leda and 
the Swan. 


A sudden blow: the great wings beating still 
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed 
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill, 
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast. 


How can those terrified vague fingers push 
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs? 
And how can body, laid in that white rush, 
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies? 


A shudder in the loins engenders there 

The broken wall, the burning roof and tower 

And Agamemnon dead. 

Being so caught up, 

So mastered by the brute blood of the air, 

Did she put on his knowledge with his power : Me aS ay tO ae Bega ay Nie at : 

Before the indifferent beak could let her drop? Ce ee ig esas eG | (SAND AUR OS eA NR ae sie amtcuke rey we ‘i Bisiga wees) 
From Collected Poems of W: B. Yeats, The MacMillan Company, New oo a i 
York. 1960. With permission Anne Yeats and Michael Yeats. 


ORO osc meamaaihmiie Rs sat 
Poy Tyg he eit! ~ Be: 


Winter/1986 19 
18 The Living Bird Quarterly 





BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


jaa 
' S 








JEFF FOOTT (3) 


On the Behavior Watch 


MAGINE that you could under- 

stand the language of birds—that 

by seeing two male red-winged 

blackbirds perched together with 
their bills pointing up, you know they 
are competing over a territorial border. 
That by seeing a male and female mal- 
lard floating close to each other, bob- 
bing their heads, you know they soon 
will mate. That by hearing a drawn out, 
rasping call in a nearby field, you know 
a male and female northern mocking- 
bird are in the early stages of courtship. 
That by hearing a short version of a 
mourning dove’s coo, you know the 
bird’s nest will be nearby. 

But you don’t need to imagine what 
this would be like. You can interpret the 
behavior of birds. You don’t need any 
fancy equipment, expert identification 
skills, or hours of watching in cramped 
positions. All you need is a moment of 
time, some curiosity, and information to 
help you understand what you see and 
hear. 

We call this activity behavior-watch- 
ing and once you start, we think you'll 


DONALD AND LILLIAN STOKES 


find it challenging, addictive and fun. It 
can transform a bird walk where you see 
only a few common species into a world 
of discovery as you become involved in 
the interactions among birds and begin 
to follow the lives of individuals. 

The two most important ingredients 
of behavior-watching are time and cur- 
iosity. The time can be as brief as a min- 
ute or two and the curiosity as simple as 
the question “What is this bird doing 
and why?” If even a fraction of the time 
that is spent identifying birds in the field 
was spent on watching their behavior, 
we would know much more about birds’ 
lives. 

To help you get started we would like 
to offer several tips which we hope will 
increase your enjoyment of. behavior- 
watching. One is to use binoculars so 
you can get close to birds without dis- 
turbing their normal behavior patterns. 
Another is to follow one bird for at least 
a couple of minutes, trying to avoid dis- 
tractions posed by other birds. This in- 
volves anticipating the movement of the 
bird, keeping it in view, and moving 


quickly to stay with it. It helps if you 
pick an open area where you can see for 
long distances and move about easily. 

Another tip is to listen for all the 
sounds, or auditory displays, a bird 
makes. Try to remember them and dis- 
tinguish among them. This can be done 
by jotting down a description of the call, 
noting if it is high or low, repeated or 
single, melodious or harsh, fast or slow. 
You also may want to write a word that 
sounds like the call, such as “ank, ank” 
or “werwerwerwer.’ Through this you 
can begin to learn the repertoire of a 
given species. 

This is important since each sound 
probably has a different function. Dis- 
tinguishing among calls and watching 
the actions that occur when they are 
given is your start toward learning their 
function or meaning for the bird. After 
hearing the same call many times in 
similar circumstances you will associate 
it with the situation; ultimately, just by 
hearing the call, you may be able to 
guess what the bird is doing. 

The same is true for visual displays— 


Behavior-watching can turn an ordinary bird walk into an adventure as you attempt to understand the language of birds. 
Left, a male ruffed grouse drums to attract a female; above, sage grouse engages in courtship display. 


Winter/1986 21 


JAN L. WASSINK (2) 





unusual body or feather positions—or 
movements that may highlight a bird’s 
markings, such as a male red-winged 
blackbird exposing its red epaulets, a 
common grackle ruffling the iridescent 
feathers around the neck, or a rufous- 
sided towhee spreading and exposing 
the white spots on its tail. 

While behavior-watching keep writ- 
ten notes. These will not only help you 
to remember what the bird did, you also 
may be seeing something nobody else 
has ever seen. An astounding feature of 
our understanding of birds is how little 
is known about the behavior of many 
common species. Behavior-watching is 
an area of science where an interested 
observer can add a great deal to our 
knowledge. 

When describing behavior many peo- 
ple are subject to two common pitfalls. 
If you can avoid them, the results of your 
behavior-watching will be infinitely 
more valuable. 

The first pitfall is calling a bird “he” 
or “she” before you know its sex. We 


22 The Living Bird Quarterly 


have found that most people automati- 
cally call all birds he. This means that 
about half the time they are wrong. At 
other times they assume the bird is a she 
because it is sitting on a nest or feeding 
young. Knowing the sex of a bird can 
add useful information to your observa- 
tions, for interactions are different de- 
pending on whether they are between a 
male and a female, two males, or two fe- 
males. Therefore, use “it” when you’re 
not sure of the bird’s sex. Check your 
field guides to see if the sexes can be dis- 
tinguished by plumage. If male and fe- 
male have identical plumage, as in blue 
jays or titmice, then use our behavior 
guides for ways to distinguish the sexes 
through behavior. 

The other pitfall is more subtle— it is 
mixing observations with assumptions. 
An observation is a description of what 
took place; an assumption is a conjec- 
ture as to why it took place. 

Suppose two people see an interac- 
tion between gray catbirds. The first 
person describes it like this: ““A male 





catbird was sitting on his territory and 
singing when another male intruded. 
The territorial bird saw the intruder and 
chased him, stopping once in a while to 
sing a more insistent song. The intruder 
was undaunted and kept flying around 
in circles.” 

The second person describes it like 
this: “One catbird was singing in a tree 
and another catbird approached. The 
singing bird chased the other bird, stop- 
ping every so often and giving a higher, 
quieter version of its song. The chased 
bird kept circling in a small area.” 

The first person gave a description in 
which assumptions are stated as if they 
were facts. The statement assumes both 
birds are male, that the first bird was on 
its territory, that the second bird was an 
intruder, that the second version of the 
song was more insistent, and that one of 
the birds was undaunted. 

The second person gave a factual de- 
scription of what happened. From these 
facts we can suggest theories about what 
took place. Facts are like a clear spring 





Satie little is known about the behavior of common birds. We do know, however, that the Canada goose, 
left, is chasing an intruder, the red-winged blackbird, above, is exposing its epaulets to intimidate birds with smaller, less 
colorful ones, and the great-tailed grackle, below, is ruffling its feathers to look large and threatening. 


JOE & CAROL McDONALD 





Winter/ 1986 


23 


MARTY CORDANO/DRK PHOTO 


24 





dates more carefully you look at birds, the more ‘you'll want to know what they are doing. Barn owl, below, 
is defending its nest with a threat posture. Great blue heron above is fishing—the shadow created by its wings reduces 
glare on the water, enabling the bird to see its prey better. Roadrunner, right, is sunbathing. 





JOHN HENDRICKSON 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


C. ALLAN MORGAN 





from which endless buckets of assump- 
tions can be drawn. Thus, there is noth- 
ing wrong with assumptions or theories, 
but they should remain distinct from 
facts. 

Research has shown that what was 
happening between the catbirds was 
probably courtship. Male catbirds chase 
females when they enter the territory, 
and during the chase, males occasion- 
ally stop and sing a higher, softer version 
of their song. An intruding male catbird 
would flee from the territory when being 
chased by the resident male; the female 
remains on the territory, flying in short 
circles. 

Once you have observed bird behav- 
ior you are going to want to know what 
it means. Here is where you will need 
help interpreting what you’ve seen. 
Most information on bird language and 
behavior comes from the work of orni- 
thologists over the past 50 years. Their 
discoveries are in professional journals 
such as The Auk, The Wilson Bulletin, 
and The Condor, but wading through 


them can be a laborious process for the 
average behavior-watcher. That is why 
we wrote a series of books A Guide to 
Bird Behavior. The first two volumes or- 
ganize and condense the most recent re- 
search on the language and behavior of 
50 species of common birds, enabling 
you to interpret what you see and hear in 
the field. 

Another source of information on 
bird behavior is a series of books com- 
piled by Arthur Cleveland Bent be- 
tween 1919 and 1968 called Life Histo- 
ries of North American Birds, often 
referred to as the Bent series. Their ad- 
vantage is that they treat most North 
American species; their disadvantage is 
that they do not include the voluminous 
material of the last 30 years and they are 
often anthropomorphic in their descrip- 
tions. Still, the Bent series is a good 
source of information. 

Other books that contain informa- 
tion on behavior include: A Guide to 
North American Waterfowl; Plovers, 


Sandpipers, and Snipes of the World, and 


North American Game Birds of Upland 
and Shoreline by Paul Johnsgard; and 
Crows of the World, and Pigeons and 
Doves of the World by Derek Goodwin. 
These books include information on so- 
cial behavior and lists of references. 
Other good books devoted to the life of 
a single species are available in libraries 
and bookstores. 

One final tip before you go out to 
watch behavior: don’t be in a hurry to 
answer why a particular behavior oc- 
curred. It is better not to rush in with as- 
sumptions that close your mind to a 
given behavior. Instead, leave the facts 
open and question them. In this way 
your questions will lead to more obser- 
vations which in turn will produce more 
facts. All this eventually will bring you 
closer to understanding the nature of 
birds’ lives. O 





Donald and Lillian Stokes are authors of the 
Stokes nature guides which include A Guide to 
Bird Behavior, Vols. I and II. Watch for the 
Stokeses’ new series WATCHING beginning in 
the next issue of The Living Bird Quarterly. 


Winter/1986 25 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





SAFETY IN COLORS 


Te a checkerspot butterfly, it’s danger- 
ous to be female. And for males, it’s haz- 
ardous to have too little red coloration 
on the wings. Both females and dully 
colored males are more likely to be at- 
tacked and eaten by birds, according to 
M. Deane Bowers, Irene L. Brown, and 
Darryl Wheye of Harvard and Stanford 
Universities (“Bird predation as a selec- 
tive agent in a butterfly population,” Ev- 
olution, vol. 39, pp. 93-103). 

Bowers, Brown and Wheye studied 
predation on the checkerspot butterfly 
(Euphydryas chalcedona) at a Stanford 
University biological preserve near San 
Jose, California, where they discovered 
several hundred detached butterfly 
wings over a period of a few weeks. The 
wings showed beak marks and triangu- 
lar tears, indicating that birds had at- 
tacked and removed the wings before 
eating the bodies. 

Checkerspot butterflies differ greatly 
in appearance. This particular popula- 
tion had wings checkered with black, 
cream and variable amounts of red. 
Wings of females had little or no red, 
while males’ wings ranged from some- 
what red to very red. 

By examining the detached wings 
and comparing them with wings col- 
lected in a random sampling of the local 
checkerspot butterfly population, Bow- 
ers, Brown and Wheye determined that 
birds had eaten more females than 
males. Furthermore, among males, 
birds had eaten those butterflies with 
the dullest wings. The researchers con- 
cluded from these observations that 
birds attack the least-red segment of the 
butterfly population. 

Why do hunting birds avoid the red- 
dest checkerspot butterflies? The re- 
searchers suggest two reasons. First, 
some studies have shown that red serves 
as a warning color, and that many birds 
routinely avoid brightly colored prey. 
Second, birds may select the least red 
butterflies because they are more likely 
to be females, which are more desirable 


26 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


since they are larger and more succulent 
than males. 

If birds avoid the reddest checkerspot 
butterflies, then why hasn’t the evolu- 
tionary process caused the population to 
become more red? Perhaps it has. Or 
maybe being dull has its advantages, for 
example, dull butterflies may retain heat 
better than brightly colored ones. 
Therefore, wing colors of checkerspot 
butterflies could represent a compromise 
between the risk of being eaten and the 
risk of being cold. 


SAFETY IN NUMBERS 


While walking through the winter 
woods, you may have noticed flocks of 
birds of several different species. In east- 
ern North America, one of the most 
common mixed flocks consists of black- 
capped chickadees, tufted titmice, 
white-breasted nuthatches, and hairy 
and downy woodpeckers. Why do these 
birds flock together? 

Ornithologists have proposed several 
reasons, two of which involve avoiding 
predation and finding food. First, flock- 
ing may protect against predation be- 
cause approaching predators are more 
likely to be detected by birds in a group 
than by solitary birds. Second, flocking 
birds may eat better than solitary birds 
because individuals in flocks can spend 
less time watching for predators and 
more time searching for food. A recent 
study by Kimberly A. Sullivan of Rut- 
gers University provides support for 
both ideas (‘“The advantages of social 
foraging in downy woodpeckers,’ Ani- 
mal Behaviour, vol. 32, pp. 16-22). 

Sullivan conducted her study during 
two winters at the Great Swamp Na- 
tional Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, 
where she observed the behavior of 20 
individually marked downy woodpeck- 
ers. The birds spent most of their time 
foraging, either alone, in mixed flocks, 
or in the company of one or two flock 
members. 

While foraging, the birds occasion- 
ally cocked their heads and looked from 


side to side. Sullivan believes this be- 
havior is in response to danger because 
they cocked their heads far more often 
when in the presence of potential pred- 
ators than when not. But not all birds 
were equally vigilant; downy wood- 
peckers foraging alone cocked their 
heads about 20 times per minute. Those 
feeding with one or two flock members 
cocked their heads about 13 times per 
minute, and those in flocks of three or 
more birds cocked their heads only 
about six times per minute. 

Sullivan also found that the least vig- 
ilant birds—those in flocks—captured 
nearly three times as many food items 
per minute than birds feeding alone. 
She concludes that one reason downy 
woodpeckers may join flocks in winter is 
to take advantage of their flockmates’ 
extra eyes and ears. 

Why join mixed-species flocks in- 
stead of flocks composed only of downy 
woodpeckers? In addition to avoiding 
predators and having more time to 
search for food, Sullivan speculates that 
birds feeding in mixed flocks may avoid 
competing for food since different spe- 
cies generally eat different types of food 
or forage in different locations. 


BOOK REVIEWS: Ocean Birds 


Birds of the ocean can be very hard to 
see. While a few ocean birds such as 
gulls and terns are found near shore all 
year, many others, such as albatrosses, 
storm-petrels and jaegers, spend most of 
their lives over the open ocean, visiting 
land only to breed. And even then these 
birds are usually far from the sight of 
most bird watchers—perhaps on re- 
mote, rocky islands, or on the frozen 
arctic tundra. 

Nevertheless, a surprising amount is 
known about the lives of many seabirds. 
Ornithologists and bird watchers from 
all over the world have spent countless 
hours observing them from the decks of 
lurching ships and studying their behav- 
ior on often inhospitable breeding 
grounds. Much of the knowledge of 





a sence 


C. ALLAN MORGAN 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 








ocean-dwelling birds has been included 
in two recently published books: Sea- 
birds of Eastern North Pacific and Arctic 
Waters edited by Delphine Haley. 1984. 
Pacific Search Press, Seattle, Washing- 
ton. 214 pages. $39.95 (cloth) and 
Ocean Birds by Lars Lofgren. 1984. 
Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 240 pages. 
$27.50 (cloth). 

Seabirds is an attractive and well- 
written book that should appeal to any- 
one interested in ocean birds, from nov- 
ice to professional ornithologist. The 
bulk of the book comprises accounts of 
the more than 100 seabirds found in the 
vast region from the Bering Sea and the 
Gulf of Alaska south to the Hawaiian 
Islands and Baja California, one of the 
Earth’s most fertile feeding grounds. 
The accounts were written by 13 au- 
thors—mostly professional ornitholo- 
gists with first-hand knowledge of their 
subjects—and are easy to read but not 
watered down. They discuss seabird dis- 
tribution, breeding biology, feeding be- 
havior and movement patterns, and 
contain some information not published 
elsewhere. 

Editor Haley has done an excellent 
job maintaining consistency of style and 


format from author to author, and also 
has provided two excellent introductory 
chapters that discuss the marine envi- 
ronment, seabird groups, interactions 
between seabirds and humans, and gen- 
eral seabird biology. The book also in- 
cludes numerous beautiful color photos, 
detailed range maps which show the dis- 
tribution and major breeding areas of 
each species, and several line drawings 
which illustrate various behaviors. It is 
too bad this excellent book does not 
cover a wider geographic range. 

Ocean Birds also is a fine book, but 
less suited to a general audience. It is not 
difficult to read, but is quite detailed, 
and includes a great deal of technical in- 
formation on evolution, speciation, 
classification, physiology, migration, 
ecology, behavior, and reproduction. 
Because the book describes the world’s 
seabird groups in one chapter, accounts 
are given only by genus and are very 
short. The book is well illustrated with 
color photographs and drawings, black- 
and-white drawings, maps, graphs and 
charts, and will appeal primarily to or- 
nithology students and birders with a se- 
rious interest in birds of the oceans. 


FIGHTING FOR FRUIT 


Ae mistle thrush, a European relative 
of the American robin, is a fruit-eating 
bird with an unusual behavior. Unlike 
nearly all other fruit-eating birds, mistle 
thrushes defend their food throughout 
most of the winter. 

This little-known fact was recently 
documented by Barbara K. Snow and 
D. W. Snow of the Zoological Museum, 
Hertfordshire, England, who studied 
mistle thrushes during three consecu- 
tive winters in the Hertfordshire area 
(“Long-term defence of fruit by Mistle 
Thrushes Turdus viscivorus,” Ibis, vol. 
126, pp. 39-49). 

The Snows found that in October 
and November, after fruits began to 
ripen, mistle thrushes chose a fruit- 
laden plant or clump of plants—usually 
holly or mistletoe—and began defend- 


FRANS LANTING 





Magnificent frigatebirds (left and above) are 
discussed in two new books about seabirds. 





2& 





ing it by attacking intruders and driving 
them away. Defense was selective: other 
fruit-eating birds which approached the 
plant were driven away quickly, while 
species that seldom eat fruits, such as 
blue tits, were allowed to remain in the 
vicinity. However, mistle thrushes 
avoided eating the defended berries until 
late winter. Instead, they fed mostly 
upon berries from other nearby sources, 
saving the defended fruits until other 
berries were exhausted. In this way the 
thrushes provided themselves with a 
constant food source throughout the 
lean winter months. 

Why don’t more birds defend winter 
fruits? Two reasons are likely. First, only 
fruits which remain edible for many 
months after ripening and grow on a dis- 
crete plant or clump of plants are worth 
defending, and few of these exist. Sec- 
ond, only large and aggressive birds, 
such as the mistle thrush, can intimi- 
date other birds and afford the energy to 
do so. The only American species known 
to defend fruit, the northern mocking- 
bird, also is large and aggressive. 


Winter/1986 27 


NEWS & NOTES 





LABORATORY SUMMER COURSES 


Join us in June for two exciting Labora- 
tory-sponsored field courses. Our class- 
room will be Cornell’s 4,000-acre Ar- 
not Forest near Ithaca, New York, 
summer home for nearly 80 species of 
birds including ravens, red-shouldered 
hawks and barred owls. 

Field Ornithology, offered June 1—7, 
1986. Coordinated by Charles R. 
Smith, the Laboratory’s director of Ed- 
ucation and Information Services, field 
ornithology will hone your skills of bird 
observation and identification through 
the integration of field marks, song, and 
habitat cues. Lectures and discussions 
led by Laboratory staff will emphasize 
principles of animal behavior and ecol- 
ogy which can be applied to bird study 
anywhere in the world. 

Nature Photography, offered June 
8— 14. Course coordinator and principal 
instructor will be Lang Elliott, manager 
of the Laboratory’s home study course in 
bird photography. Noted natural history 
photographer Tim Fitzharris, whose 
photographs regularly adorn The Living 
Bird Quarterly, will be guest instructor 
for two days during the course. Many as- 
pects of natural history photography 
will be discussed, from photographing 
birds at nests to taking close-ups of flow- 
ers and insects. Students will be encour- 
aged to complete various photographic 
assignments, and the results will be 
viewed and critiqued during evening 
sessions. 

Each course is $325, which includes 
all food, lodging, class materials, and 
instruction fees from Sunday evening 
through Saturday morning. Course en- 
rollment is limited with spaces available 
on a first-come, first-served basis. See 
insert in this issue for information about 
course fees, registration, and enroll- 
ment application. 


THE SECTION OF Ecology and Sys- 
tematics at Cornell University will offer 
a summer ornithology course between 
June 30 and August 12, 1986. The 
course is open to the public and no prior 
coursework in biology is required. All 


28 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Reprinted by permission of Chronicle Features, San Francisco 


Compiled by Steven C. Sibley 


areas of avian biology will be discussed 
including anatomy, physiology, behavior 
and ecology. Laboratory and field ses- 
sions will cover field and identification 
techniques, morphology, molts and plu- 
mages, nests and eggs, and social be- 
havior. There will be three lectures and 
one field trip or laboratory each week, 
depending on the weather. Also one 
weekend field trip is planned. The 
course yields four university credits; 
tuition and fees total $945 (housing not 
included). 

The instructor will be David Wink- 
ler, an ornithologist with a variety of re- 
search experience in North America 
and Europe. For further information, 
contact Dr. Winkler at the Section of 
Ecology and Systematics, Corson Hall, 
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 
14853. 


NATIONAL WILDLIFE Federation 
(NWF) won a lawsuit in August filed 
against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- 
vice (USFWS) and the Department of 
the Interior prohibiting waterfowl hunt- 
ing during the 1985-86 season in 22 
counties of five states, unless the states 
require the use of nontoxic (steel) shot 
in those areas. The ruling is designed to 
protect bald eagles from lead poisoning. 


NWE research showed that 89 bald ea- 


THE FAR SIDE By GARY LARSON 





27. Pawn 


© Chronicle Features, 1984 














When imprinting studies go awry 





gles died of lead poisoning in the U.S. 
between 1966 and 1984. The eagles in- 
gest lead when they eat ducks and geese 
that have swallowed spent lead shot pel- 
lets while consuming seeds and grit. 

With approval of each state, USFWS 
had already established nontoxic shot 
zones in eight counties in lowa, Kansas 
and South Dakota to protect bald ea- 
gles, and in portions of 30 states, to 
lessen lead poisoning in waterfowl. 
USFWS had proposed nontoxic shot 
zones in the 22 counties in California, 
Oregon, Illinois, Missouri and Okla- 
homa but, by law, required each state’s 
approval to establish the zones. USFWS 
was going to close the counties to all 
hunting during the 1986—87 season had 
the states not approved the zones, but 
NWF officials “considered the threat to 
eagles so grave that immediate and sub- 
stantial action was needed.” Following 
the lawsuit, all five states approved the 
nontoxic shot zones. 


SEEING FEWER DUCKS this win- 
ter? U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sur- 
veys showed duck numbers down to 
their lowest level since surveys began 30 
years ago. An estimated 62-million 
ducks, 22 percent fewer than in 1984, 
headed south last fall. All duck species, 
except green-winged teal, were down in 
numbers although geese and swans 
fared better, with numbers generally the 
same as last year. Shortened hunting 
seasons and reduced bag limits were es- 
tablished last fall in the hopes of restor- 
ing duck breeding populations. Drought 
and loss of wetland habitat over the past 
few years, especially in midcontinent 
states and provinces, are blamed for the 
decline. 


ELEVEN ENDANGERED Kirtland’s 
warblers were found on their wintering 
grounds in the Caribbean last winter. 
Surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service to determine the war- 
bler’s status and winter range located 
five in the Bahamas, five in the Turks 
and Caicos, and one in Hispaniola. 
Travelers to these or other Caribbean is- 


NEWS & NOTES 





lands are urged to watch for Kirtland’s 
warblers in dry, desertlike habitats. Re- 
port sightings to Craig Faanes, 
USFWS, School of Forest Resources, 
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 
30602. 





bf 1 T ERS 


Too Close for Comfort 

I am disturbed by one of the winning 
photographs in your photo contest pub- 
lished in the summer 1985 issue of The 
Living Bird Quarterly: the three imma- 
ture red-tailed hawks on the nest. The 
photographer stated that the picture was 
taken with a 50mm lens which means 
that he must have been very close to the 
birds. 

Getting too close to young birds can 
be distressing to them and may even 
cause them to abandon their nest. It 
would have been far better to photo- 
graph these birds with a blind and a tele- 
photo lens. Photographers should take 
every precaution to ensure the safety of 
their subjects. I urge you and the judges 
to consider carefully the ethics of pho- 
tographs entered in future contests. 


Carol R. Speegle 
San Francisco 


Loon Gloom 

I read with great interest the article, 
“Trouble with Loons” by Laurence L. 
Alexander in the spring 1985 issue of 
The Living Bird Quarterly. What made it 
doubly interesting was that I had just re- 
turned from a visit to Kiawah Island, 
near Charleston, South Carolina where 
I had witnessed the largest migration of 
common loons I have seen in more than 
55 years of intensive birding. 

On March 7, 1985 I was birding at the 
south end of Kiawah Island. Between 7 
and 10 a.m. we watched a tremendous 
movement of loons moving in a north- 
erly direction along the coast. At least 
4,500 loons passed our observation 
point and were still going by when we 
left. One of my companions said that he 
had witnessed a similar flight in late 


December 1984 while doing the 
McClellanville, South Carolina Christ- 
mas bird count. 

Alexander’s article indicated that 
common loon numbers were signifi- 
cantly depressed in the winters of 1984 
and 1985 near his home on the northern 
Gulf Coast of Florida where a massive 
loon die-off occurred in the winter of 
1983. Our observations indicate that 
there may be a large common loon win- 
tering population off the southeast At- 
lantic coast which is not affected by the 
intestinal parasite and mercury contam- 
ination apparently prevalent in north- 
ern Gulf Coast waters. 


Jackson M. Abbott 
Member, Board of Directors 
Virginia Society of Ornithology 


Editors’ reply: 

While your observations are encour- 
aging, counts made during migration 
are of limited use in determining the 
true health of bird populations. Like all 


migratory birds, common loons prefer to 
migrate under specific wind and 
weather conditions. Your observation 
may reflect a concentrated movement 
due to favorable weather rather than a 
healthy loon population. For example, a 
clear March day with southerly winds 
following many days of northerly winds 
will spur loons along the southern At- 
lantic coast to migrate northward. The 
only way to be certain whether more 
loons passed Kiawah Island this past 
year would be to compare counts from a 
single observation post from February 
through April with counts taken from 
the same place over the past several 
years. And even that would provide only 
the roughest measure of abundance. 

The best way to measure bird popu- 
lations accurately is to conduct censuses 
on the breeding or wintering grounds. 
Laurence Alexander has also alerted us 
of the possibility that all loons may be 
carrying sublethal accumulations of 
mercury, making the health of these mi- 
grating loons questionable. 





Dear Member: 


When Bill Keeton founded the Cornell pigeon project to unravel the mystery of bird 
navigation years ago, one of his central ideas was to have a large operation—many 
pigeons, many people and lots of visiting investigators. In this way there could be 
many experiments and the broadest possible discussion of their results. Since Bill’s 
death in 1980 I’ve tried to continue this tradition. With help from Irene Brown, Tony 
Lednor, Jerry Waldvogel and a host of students and assistants, we have kept as many 
as 1,500 pigeons at the lofts on Turkey Hill here in Ithaca and have played host to 


researchers from all over the world. 


Last summer, for instance, guests from Canada, Germany, Italy, and the United 
States gathered for a day-long discussion at the Lab. While no solution to the question 
of how pigeons find their way home came out of our talks, one interesting possibility 
emerged. Floriano Papi and his colleagues in Italy have found that olfactory informa- 
tion plays a critical role in pigeon navigation. Pigeons that cannot smell neither orient 
nor home. But at Cornell such pigeons do home, although less accurately, while some 
German pigeons seem totally unaffected by olfactory deprivation. Pigeons from my old 
loft in Lincoln, Massachusetts released where the Earth’s magnetic field is disturbed 
are disoriented. Yet pigeons from the Cornell lofts released at the same places orient 


and home without difficulty. 


These results give rise to speculation: could pigeons from different genetic stocks, 
reared in different environments, favor different cues for navigation? It is an attrac- 
tive idea—if true it would explain the varying results of the investigations in different 


countries. 


If it were true for pigeons, could it be true for migratory birds as well? We hope to 
find out. If this idea turns out to be correct, it will be a tribute to Bill Keeton’s vision 
and ability to provide a place for collaborative experiments and the free exchange 


of views. 


CHARLES WALCOTT, Executive Director 





Winter/1986 29 


Spotlight on the Kakapo 


s the parrot that booms a creation 

of Lewis Carroll’s imagination? 

Hardly. It’s a kakapo—a noctur- 

nal, flightless owllike parrot that is 
very real and very endangered. As few as 
50 remain in the wilderness of New Zea- 
land, and if plans of the New Zealand 
Wildlife Service are not successful, the 
species could pass into oblivion. 

To understand why the kakapo is en- 
dangered, one must look to the biogeo- 
graphic history of Australasia. About 
80-million years ago, New Zealand split 
off from the Australian landmass. Iso- 
lated in the vast South Pacific, the 
newly formed islands were inaccessible 
to terrestrial mammals. Without pred- 
ators, the flightless native birds, such as 
moas, kiwis, rails, and kakapos, foraged 
unmolested until the arrival of the 
Maori around 900 A.D. The coloniza- 
tion of New Zealand forever changed the 
environment. Grasslands and forests 
were torched to provide agricultural 
lands. Predatory rats and dogs were 
brought to the islands on boats, and the 
flightless birds were hunted for food and 
feathers. 

By 1769, when Captain Cook arrived 
in New Zealand, the kakapo was already 
limited to isolated populations on North 
and South Islands. Europeans acceler- 
ated the demise of the kakapo and other 
birds by introducing over 200 species of 
animals, 76 of which became estab- 
lished. In the 1880s, the death knell was 
sounded. Mustelids (weasels, stoats and 
ferrets) were released to control rampag- 
ing European rabbits. In addition to 
hunting rabbits, the mustelids eradi- 
cated North Island kakapos and invaded 
their last strongholds in the mountains 
of Fiordland on South Island. 

By 1975, only 15 male kakapos could 
be found. An attempt to establish four 
kakapos on Maud Island was frustrated 


30 = The Living Bird Quarterly 


MARK J. RAUZON 





A parrot that booms 
by the light of the moon 
An owl that eats grass 


and cries like a loon 
A flightless green what-not 
that waddles around, 
Luffing and loafing 


in a hole underground. 


when mustelids swam there from the 
mainland. The future looked bleak until 
1977 when a population of 40 kakapos 
was discovered in the remote bush coun- 
try of southeast Stewart Island. With 
the aid of muzzled hunting dogs, the first 
female kakapo seen this century was lo- 
cated there in 1980. Optimism dimmed 
when New Zealand Wildlife Service 
and World Wildlife Fund biologists dis- 
covered the remains of kakapos in fecal 
pellets of feral cats. Survival of the 


G. J. H. MOON/E L. (BRUCE COLEMAN, INC.) 


species could be guaranteed only in a 
predator-free environment. 

But where? One place fit the require- 
ments: Little Barrier Island. The island 
had been spared most Maori burnings 
and European logging in spite of its 
proximity to Auckland, New Zealand’s 
largest city. However, one problem stood 
in the way of its becoming a sanctuary 
for the dwindling kakapo—a large pop- 
ulation of feral cats. But through the 
ceaseless efforts of Richard Veitch and 
the New Zealand Wildlife Service, the 
cats were removed. Over 120 people la- 
bored 4,000 hours between 1976 and 
1980 in steep, dense terrain to eliminate 
the cats. Once free of predators, endan- 
gered populations of stitchbirds and 
black petrels began to flourish on this 
modern-day ark. The hope of Richard 
Veitch was that the kakapo would do 
the same. 

In 1982, 24 of the 40 kakapos on 
Stewart Island were transported to the 
rocky shores of Little Barrier Island for 
release into the more friendly environ- 
ment. To monitor the health of the new 
colonists, each bird was weighed, mea- 
sured and fitted with a radio transmitter 
harnessed over the short wings. 

It is now nesting season on Little Bar- 
rier Island. Wildlife researchers follow- 
ing the kakapo hope to hear the male’s 
grouselike “booming” from the mating 
leks. They also hope the females will 
reach breeding condition and will start 
laying one or two eggs every two to four 
years. It is a slow process, but the long- 
lived kakapo may at least begin to re- 
cover its numbers. With help from the 
New Zealand Wildlife Service, the ka- 
kapo may be rescued from extinc- 
tions 





Mark J. Rauzon is a marine ornithologist whose 
research interests deal with the effects and eradi- 
cation of feral animals from islands. 

















PLANNING FOR YOUR FUTURE? 
THINK BIRDS AND THE 
LABORATORY OF ORNITHOLOGY 


oday the Laboratory of Ornithology 

is vital to our understanding of 

birds. Tomorrow it will be even more 
important in a world filled with people and 
much less space for birds. 

Opportunities abound for you to enhance 
your support of the Laboratory outside of 
regular membership dues by giving gifts 
that can be planned today but presented in 
the future. These include gifts of bequests, 
personal property, real estate, securities, 
and life insurance. 

Let us help you plan a gift for the Lab. 
By tailoring a gift to your wishes and cir- 
cumstances you can substantially reduce 
your tax liability, so your gift can cost you 
less. A little planning now may be the best 


thing you can do for yourself, your family, 


the Laboratory, and the birds. 

For more information, please contact 
Scott Sutcliffe, Office of Public Affairs, 
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 
Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, New York 
14850. (607) 255-4288. 





THE LIVING BIRD 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


Editor: Jill Crane 

Design Director: Kat Dalton 

Associate Editor: Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 
Technical Editor: Charles R. Smith 
Editorial Assistant: Steven C. Sibley 
Publications Assistant: Maureene Stangle 





LABORATORY STAFF 


Executive Director: Charles Walcott 
Bookshop: Michele M. Barclay 
Cooperative Research: Gregory S. Butcher 
Raptor Research: Tom J. Cade 
The Living Bird Quarterly: Jill Crane 
Photography: Lang Elliott 
Library of Natural Sounds: James L. Gulledge 
Administration: Diane Johnson 
Seatuck: Thomas S. Litwin 
Library: Steven C. Sibley 
Education and Information Services: 
Charles R. Smith 
Public Affairs: Scott A. Sutcliffe 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


David L. Call, Chairman 
Morton S. Adams 
Albert E Appleton 
Robert Barker 

Rex J. Bates 

William G. Conway 
Alan Crawford, Jr. 

John H. Dakin 

Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 
Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 
Thomas M. Hampson 
Frances C. James 
Imogene P. Johnson 
Hamilton F Kean 

T. Spencer Knight 

John D. Leggett, Jr. 

Peter R. Marler 
Barnabas McHenry 

G. Michael McHugh 
Edwin H. Morgens 
Eugene S. Morton 

Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 
Charles E. Treman, Jr. 
Charles D. Webster 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in 
January, April, July, and October by the Laboratory of 
Ornithology at Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, 
Ithaca, New York 14850. Telephone: (607) 255-5056. The Living 
Bird Quarterly is free to members of the Laboratory. For 
information concerning back issues please write to our 
Membership Department. © 1986 Cornell University Laboratory 
of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N.Y. 


> 


Spring 1986 Volume 5 Number 2 





12 


1% 
18 


20 
23 
24 


28 


TRAVELS WITH YOSSI by Pete Dunne 


On an exhausting but exhilarating six-day tour, Pete Dunne witnesses 
spring migration in Israel when millions of birds traverse the boundless 
deserts on their way to their nesting grounds in Europe and Asia. 


THE SPICE OF BIRD SONG by Donald E. Kroodsma 


Why does it take thousands of songs to impress a female brown thrasher 
while a sparrow is satisfied with one? Researcher Donald Kroodsma 
peers through a pinhole at the great world of bird communication. 


THE CROW’S NEST BOOKSHOP 


WATCHING: WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCHES 
by Donald and Lillian Stokes 


Winter cracks with cold, but the Stokeses are out bushwhacking 
through the woods in search of white-breasted nuthatch behaviors. 


RESEARCH & REVIEW by Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 
NEWS & NOTES by Steven. Sibley 
IBISES IN PERIL by David E. Manry 


Near remote villages of China, on cliffs overlooking the Euphrates, in 
Africa, Madagascar, and Vietnam, these colorful, long-billed birds 
are falling prey to a lethal assortment of human-induced ills. 


GEM OF THE ORIENT by Zhang Zhi-yen 


Climbing mountains and wading across rivers, eating in the wind and 
sleeping in the dew, surveying more than 12,500 miles of Chinese 
wilderness, Dr. Liu Yinzeng pursues the rare white crested ibis. 





Front Cover: Outside—Anhinga preening in Everglades 
National Park, Florida. The anhinga is a large, fish- 
eating water bird also known as snakebird because it 
often swims with only its head and long, snakelike neck 
above water. Its feathers are not waterproof, so it must 
dry them by spreading its wings in the sun. Photograph 
by Arthur Morris/VIREO. Inside—Rainbow lorikeets. 
Stephen J. Krasemann/DRK Photo photographed these 
members of the parrot family in their native Australia. 
Back Cover: Outside—Pygmy kingfisher. Photograph 
by E.P.I. Nancy Adams. Inside—On the Garden Wall: 
Chaffinch and Nasturtiums. °1985 Robert Bateman. 


JEAN-PAUL FERRERO (ARDEA PHOTOGRAPHICS) 


| TRAVELS 
~ Yossi 


PETE DUNNE 


HE door closed behind me with 

a muffled click. Instinct told me 

to wait until my eyes adjusted to 
the night before venturing outside my 
sleeping quarters. So I waited. The path 
that threads through the Har HaNegev 
Field Study Center was plain to see, but 
I kept to the shadows, moving like a 
hunted thing. Maybe a tawny owl could 
have crossed the grounds quietly enough 
to have gone unnoticed, but nothing 
that walks or crawls can move and not 
be heard in the stillness of the Negev 
Desert. 

A dog barked. I stopped, not know- 
ing how to respond. Then came another 
bark, this one more pointed, more de- 
manding. It was answered by a long 
howl from the other side of camp, fol- 
lowed by a chorus of every yip, yap, yelp, 
and bark in the canid repertoire. 

So much for not waking anybody. 

I fled to my lookout point, pursued by 
a trail of barking dogs. One by one they 
lost interest and fell behind until only 
one Bedouin mongrel was still in tow. 
We walked to the edge of the escarp- 
ment overlooking the desert. The few 
scattered lights from the compound 
were far behind us, and the thread that 
attached me to civilization was broken. 
Below us was only the desert. 

Thus began my last morning in Is- 
rael, the final day of an intensive, pro- 
motional tour organized by the Society 
for the Protection of Nature in Israel 
(SPNI) to acquaint representatives of 
key birding groups with a well-kept se- 
cret—the incredible bird migrations 
that pass through Israel. Our ranks were 
drawn from 14 countries and repre- 
sented 31 ornithological, conservation, 
and birding organizations. 


Israel’s inhospitable and beautiful Negev Desert 
suffers only those creatures clever enough to 
mold their lives along the rim of existence. 


4 The Living Bird Quarterly 





Spring 1986 





Green crowns of 
vegetation could be 
seen on remote 


hilltops. The rest of 


the land is stark 
and cluttered with 


the debris of 


cast-off civilizations. 


Leading the tour was Yossi Leshem, 
director of SPNI’s Raptor Information 
Center, a tireless organizer and irrepres- 
sible defender of Israel’s natural wealth. 
At his side, quietly and efficiently mak- 
ing sure that everything went according 
to schedule, was the director of the Eilat 
Bird Observatory, Edna Gorney. To- 
gether they had concocted an elaborate 
publicity scheme and persevered until 
they had convinced the Ministry of 
Tourism, the kibbutz system hierarchy, 
and El Al Airlines to foot the bill for the 
tour. Yossi and Edna mapped out an ex- 
haustive five-week itinerary, com- 
pressed it into six days, sent out invita- 
tions, and prepared by sleeping 72 hours 
straight prior to our arrival in Tel Aviv 


on March 11, 1985. 


e flew to Tel Aviv nonstop from 

New York on an El Al 747. You 
can thumb a copy of Birds of Britain and 
Europe only so long, so I pulled out the 
airline magazine to while away the 
hours. On the cover was a booted eagle, 
under it the legend: “The cover story, as 
a hearty welcome to participants in the 
Israel Bird Watching Seminar, is on the 
birds of Israel... . ” 

Yossi hadn’t pulled any punches. The 
story, “Israel, a Haven for Birds and Bird 
Watchers,” was written by Edna! I read 
avidly. 

“The migration of millions of birds, 
resulting in their redistribution twice 
each year over the world’s surface, is one 
of the most spectacular phenomena of 
nature. 

“Israel stands out as one of the best 
places in the world to watch the migra- 
tion of birds, especially birds of prey. Is- 
rael is one of the busiest aviation high- 
ways, as far as birds are concerned, and 
one of the reasons is the country’s loca- 
tion between three continents: Europe 


6 — The Living Bird Quarterly 


and Asia to the north and Africa to the 
south. In addition to its own indigenous 
avian population, Africa serves as win- 
tering grounds for an amazing number of 
birds. Some of these fly through Israel 
on their way to Africa in the autumn 
and back in the spring. 

“The best place in Israel to watch 
bird migrations is Eilat, and the best 
time of year is spring. On peak days 
thousands of raptors are seen every- 
where: over the densely built city and 
busy shopping centers, over the moun- 
tains to the west, over the hotels. They 
have a bird’s eye view of tourists 
sunbathing around swimming pools as 
they cross the glittering blue Gulf of Ei- 
lat (Gulf of Aqaba), flying northeast 
into Jordan.” 

Edna went on to say that over 30 rap- 
tor species can be observed in Eilat each 
spring including the steppe eagle, 
steppe buzzard, Levant sparrowhawk, 
honey buzzard, black kite, and other 
harriers, falcons, and eagles. 


I was so excited I couldn’t sleep during 
the whole 18-hour flight. When we 
landed we were met at the airport by 
Yossi who ran interference as we strug- 
gled to extricate ourselves from baggage 
claim. The concept of a “line” is hazy in 
Israel. The popular interpretation seems 
to be that the shortest distance between 
you and the place you want to go lies di- 
rectly in front of the person ahead of 
you. 

Our bus was waiting out front. Bird- 
ing commenced immediately, taking 
precedence over introductions between 
earlier arrivals and the American con- 
tingent. At first we saw only the every- 
day endemics of the region and the sea- 
son—hooded crows, white wagtails, 
laughing doves, hoopoes, and common 
bulbuls, but an afternoon side trip to the 
harbor produced birds that turned heads 
everywhere—elegant — slender-billed 
gulls, dainty little gulls, Arctic skuas, 
and a peregrine falcon cruising up the 
beach. 

That night we were treated to a taste 
of Middle East hospitality. The conge- 
niality of our hosts, bolstered by the free 
flow of ideas and liquid refreshments, 
prompted many to sacrifice a few hours 
of sleep for the sake of new friendships. 

The next morning Yossi’s wakeup call 
came at 6 a.m. Feigning wakefulness, 
we stumbled down to a hearty endemic 
breakfast of cheese, fruit, cheese, green 
peppers, cheese, yogurt, cheese, and 
several varieties of cheese. Then, mak- 
ing full use of his speed and organiza- 


tion, Yossi herded us onto our bus to be- 
gin our first day of tour. It ended 17 hours 
later at the Ramat-Rachel Guest House. 


TT: Aviv is a study in poured con- 
crete and the city’s birdlife is ap- 
propriately urban, mostly pigeons and 
house sparrows. Were it not for the bul- 
buls that fill the mockingbird’s televi- 
sion antenna niche, the Coca Cola 
signs in Arabic, and notices in store- 
fronts advertising price cuts for U.N. 
Forces, Tel Aviv could pass for any west- 
ern City. 

The road to Jerusalem is strewn with 
human history. Tooled stones lie every- 


where. Where a tilled field lies today, a 
house or settlement stood before it. 
Green crowns of vegetation could be 
seen only on the remote hilltops. The 
rest of the land is stark and cluttered 
with the debris of cast-off civilizations. 

I realized this land is not a desert 
solely because of the climate. It is this 
way because every square foot has been 
tilled, quarried, excavated, built upon, 
trod upon, or otherwise subjugated by 
the hand of man. The starkness of the 
landscape is not due to any stinginess of 
nature; it is caused by overpopulation 
and centuries of uninterrupted use. 

In the afternoon we stood at the edge 


of the Judean Desert, which is nothing- 
ness folded into hills and hollows in or- 
der to give it substance. Then I saw the 
eagle. 

It came up from beneath us, straight 
as a shaft of light. It perched on the arm 
of a crucifix erected by pilgrims. “A Bo- 
nelli’s eagle;’ Yossi explained. “Its nest is 
below. Tell no one the location.” Within 
the stern warning was an unmistakable 
undertone; this was one of the breeding 
raptors in Yossi’s personal care. 

Soon our eyes became skilled at 
seeing through the desert’s disguise. 
There is life here. As we made our way 
toward the Monastery of the Tempta- 





Tristram’s grackles whistle from the rooftops 
and sand partridges move among the shadows of 
the 10th-century Monastery of the Temptation. 


tion, we picked out desert larks, mourn- 
ing wheatears, pale crag martins. 


he monastery is all you want it to 

be: buildings cut deep into the face 
of the cliff, limestone steps worn and 
polished by countless worshiping feet. 
The only indication that this isn’t the 
10th century are the signs written in 
four languages that admonish: No Graf- 
fiti. Tristram’s grackles wolf-whistled 
from the rooftops. Fan-tailed and 


Spring 1986 7 


JACK A. BAILEY (ARDEA PHOTOGRAPHICS) 


LD (ARDEA PHOTOGRAPHICS) 


R. M. BLOOMEF 


Soon our eyes 
became skilled at 
seeing through 


the desert’s disguise. 
There is life here. 


Israel is an excellent place to watch birds 
because it lies in the migration corridor 
between Europe and Asia, and Africa. Israeli 
birds include the hoopoe (above) and Egyptian 
vulture (below), both migrants, and the 
Tristram’s grackle, a year-round resident. 


YOSSI ESHBOL/SPNI 


Spring 1986 9 


The Living Bird Quarterly 





M. PR KAHL (PHOTO RESEARCHERS, INC.) 





The laughing dove or palm dove is commonly 
seen in Israeli towns, villages, and oases. 





brown-necked ravens rode the heat 


waves overhead, a sand partridge moved 
among the shadows. Coursing back and 
forth were delicate lesser kestrels. 

After a driving tour of Jerusalem, 
checking into the guest house, dinner, 
and a movie, survivors were treated to a 
comprehensive tour around the old 
walled city. At midnight Yossi finally re- 
lented and sent us to bed. 

That night I don’t think we slept at 
all. I know Yossi didn’t. He was up long 
before sunrise, pounding on our door 


10 The Living Bird Quarterly 





shouting “Ho Kay, everybody up, break- 
fast is ready,” 

Breakfast was a solemn affair, but we 
couldn’t help admiring the superhuman 
antics of our host, bustling from table to 
table, stacking luggage, touching base 
with Edna and her clipboard. 

This was not a day to miss. We clam- 
bered aboard desert vehicles and took a 
twisting road that led into the Judean 
Desert toward the cliffs of Ras-Nakeb- 
Hmar. The SPNI had established a 
hawkwatch point on the rim overlook- 
ing the Dead Sea. 

Steppe buzzards, drawn aloft by the 
first thermals of the day, moved silently 


overhead. The local Barbary falcon, a 
pale, cut-down peregrine with a rufous 
nape, stooped at careless martins. 

“Look, look,’ a dozen voices shouted 
in as many languages. Overhead, a flock 
of black storks caught the wind and con- 
tinued north. 

Our route took us from the desolate 
Judean to Ein Gedi and Nahal David — 
David’s Spring. We walked the path 
along a gorge, under the gaze of rock hy- 
rax and the solemn eyes of Nubian ibex. 
Two thousand years ago the springs be- 
longed to the king and spice the value of 
gold was cultivated along its banks. To- 
day the wealth of the place is not mea- 


sured in spice or gold, but in the cur- 
rency of all living things— water. 


ye the end of the gorge, a sheet of wa- 
ter cascades 60 feet into a pristine 
pool. Water droplets sparkle like cham- 
pagne against the dark backdrop of 
moss. The humidity enveloped me. | 
could feel my parched skin stretch as it 
drank up the moisture. The vegetation, 
the sound of falling water, the very cli- 
mate of the place is at odds with the 
land. 

After encounters with Cretzschmar’s 
bunting, chiffchaff, Arabian warbler, 
bluethroat, Smyrna kingfisher, black- 


starts, and redstarts on the grounds of 
the Ein Gedi Guest House, we enjoyed 
a leisurely 15-minute dinner, were 
herded into desert vehicles, and driven 
to a nocturnal stakeout for glimpses of 
foxes, hyenas, and wolves. Then we 
drove to an inn where Yossi let us retire, 
urging us to turn in quickly because we 
had to get “‘an early start” the next day. 
We wondered just what constitutes an 
early start to the likes of Yossi Leshem. 

Early to Yossi means 4 a.m. After 
rousing us out of bed, hurrying us down 
to the breakfast hall, and loading us 
onto the bus, he wished us a hearty good 
morning and proceeded to outline our 
itinerary which consisted of 80 or 90 
events, including the much-heralded 
Eilat. 

Eilat is a seashore resort planted right 
at the bottleneck of Old World migra- 
tion. If likened to the bulbs of an hour- 
glass with Europe and Asia above and 
Africa below, Eilat lies at the neck 
through which millions of birds must 
pass. From March through May passer- 
ines and shorebirds swarm over the ag- 
ricultural fields and salt pans that lie on 
the north edge of town. Raptors, 
hundreds of thousands of them, lift 
off the desert floor each morning and 
pass over the heads of beachgoers and 
birders. 

If Yossi knocked on our doors at the 
hotel that first morning in Eilat, we 
never heard him. Dawn found us outside 
watching the short-toed and bimacu- 
lated larks, wagtails, bluethroats, and 
redstarts. Southwest of town we drove 
to an SPNI hawkwatch point to see 
hundreds of steppe eagles, accompanied 
by black kites, steppe buzzards, and an 
Egyptian vulture, ride the heat-warped 
air currents aloft. The official counters 
apologized. They had hoped for a good 
day; this, they claimed, was merely av- 
erage. 

In salt pools, shorebirds worked the 
edges, gulls and waterfowl crowded the 
center. Black-winged stilts, avocets, cur- 
lew sandpipers, little stints, spotted red- 
shanks, greenshanks, ruffs, slender-billed, 
lesser black-backed, and an adult great 
black-headed gull made up the roster. 


QO n the fields north of town, several 
sociable plovers showed up, and a 
flock of Caspian plovers made even the 
European members of our troop buzz 
with excitement. That evening, Yossi 
staked out a pumphouse and we 
watched a group of Lichtenstein’s 
sandgrouse come down to drink. In 
short, the birding was spectacular. 





‘Today the wealth of 
the place is not 
measured in spice or 
gold, but in the 
currency of all living 
things— water. 


The penultimate day of the tour 
found us driving north toward the Ne- 
gev Desert, probably among the most 
inhospitable places on Earth and one of 
the most beautiful. Black and tans, 
ocher and chalk are the colors of the Ne- 
gev. Baked under a yellow sun by day, 
cooled by the blue light of stars at night, 
the Negev suffers only those creatures 
clever enough to mold their lives along 
the rim of existence. It is a place that I 
have wanted to see for years, a place to 
fulfill a lifelong ambition—to experi- 
ence a desert sunrise. 

And there I was that final morning, 
waiting with a mongrel dog for some- 
thing to happen. Then, far down along 
the slope, something moved. I brought 
my binoculars up and trained them on 
the spot. Nothing. I waited, trusting my 
instincts instead of my eyes. Past the 
point of comfort, but before my arms be- 
gan to tremble with fatigue, one of the 
gray rocks stepped away from the rest. A 
chukar partridge. 

It moved in a slow, even walk that 
avoided spurts or breaks in rhythm that 
could catch a hunting eye. | became 
aware by degrees that other birds were in 
the group; 15 chukars fanned out over 
the ridge, widely spaced for safety. | 
looked up at an Egyptian vulture which 
was regarding me curiously. | have no 
idea where it came from. 

A shout from the direction of the 
camp brought my head around. Our 
group was out in force. Two members of 
the party were gesturing at the vulture, 
several others were closing in from be- 
hind. 

The dog yawned and regarded me 
passively. 

“Wanna head back?” I inquired. 

He thumped his tail twice, then he 
stood, stretched fore and aft and trotted 
off. I followed, headed for breakfast and 
a last day of traveling with Yossi. Oo 


Pete Dunne is natural history information director 
of the New Jersey Audubon Society. 


Spring 1986 I 


The Spice of Bird Sone 


EPRESENTATIVES of the pas- 

serine order from the entire con- 

tinent had responded to the in- 
vitation. This was a momentous event, 
the chance for birds to compare once 
and for all the vocal skills nature had 
honed over eons of natural selection. 
Sparrows, buntings, wrens, mimids, 
watblers, blackbirds, thrushes, flycatch- 
ers—all were gathered at the great con- 
vention, each one eager to display his 
tunes. The judges were perched and 
waiting. Their criterion was simple: 
whichever bird could produce the great- 
est variety of songs would be the winner. 

The finchlike birds went first—chip- 
ping sparrows, field sparrows, white- 
crowned sparrows, white-throated 
sparrows, savannah sparrows, lazuli 
buntings, and indigo buntings. They 
sang and sang, but as the performance 
dragged on it became clear that each 
bird could manage only a single song. 
There were minor variations, but the 
judges were unanimous: the score for 
each bird was a resounding “1.” Song 
sparrows and northern cardinals fared 
somewhat better. Each began by repeat- 
ing a single song for several minutes, but 
just as the judges’ attention waned, the 
songsters introduced a second, third, 
and fourth song until after an hour, 10 
songs had been produced. 

Species after species performed. Fly- 
catchers scored low: alder and olive- 
sided flycatchers sang one song, eastern 
phoebes two, and eastern wood-pewees 
and willow flycatchers each sang three 
different songs, but that was the limit 
among these birds. 

The warblers managed to do better. 
The ovenbirds and common yellow- 
throats sang only one primary song, but 
an occasional flight song raised their 
scores. Blue-winged warblers sang 
mostly a relaxed bee-bzzz, but during 


12. The Living Bird Quarterly 


DONALD E. KROODSMA 


aggressive encounters each bird in- 
creased his singing tempo and used a 
second song. 

Chestnut-sided warblers were even 
more exciting. The judges detected 
three distinct forms of the please please 
pleased ta meet’cha song. In addition 
there was considerable variety in songs 
used during male-male rivalries, each 
variant depending on the intensity of 
the interactions. But even though the 
judges were impressed with this added 
dimension, they had to rate the warblers 
low in variety. 

Thrushes also were mediocre in vari- 
ety although they scored well in aesthet- 
ics. Veeries sang but one liquid vee-ur, 
vee-ur, veer. Swainson’s thrushes 
produced three to seven songs on 
slightly different scales; wood thrushes 
sang about 20 permutations of 10 to 14 
song elements. American robins were 
thrush champions, mastering up to 70 
different syllables in their clear, whistled 
caroling. 

Blackbird scores were mixed. Red- 
wings sang two to seven forms of konk- 
la-reeee, but they too added another di- 
mension to the competition: each male 
scored in relation to his age, indicating 
that he had learned about one new song 
each year of his life. The meadowlarks 
were a real surprise. Here were two spe- 
cies, almost identical in appearance, 
but stunningly different in voice. West- 
ern meadowlarks sang five to 12 flutelike 
songs, but each eastern cousin per- 
formed 50 to 90 clear slurred whistles, 
tee-you, tee-ydlr. 

Two groups with exceptional vocal 
acrobats, the wrens and the mimids, 
were next. The Bewick’s wren sang 10 to 
20 songs and the Carolina wren im- 
pressed all with 40 different renditions 
of tea-kettle, tea-kettle. But the cham- 
pion was the marsh wren—one from 


San Francisco perched upon a waving 
cattail and rattled off 210 songs in 45 
minutes. The New York and North Car- 
olina marsh wrens, knowing they could 
muster only 55 and 30 songs, respec- 
tively, decided to pass. 

This left the mimids. The northern 
mockingbird impressed the judges with 
his ability to mimic most of the sounds 
heard during the competition, but the 
maximum number of 244 songs from a 
Kansas bird was not much greater than 
the wren’s. Finally, a bored-looking 
brown thrasher took center stage. Rely- 
ing on enormous brain centers for con- 
trolling his massive vocabulary, he in- 
undated the judges with sounds. An 
hour later, the tally sheets were jammed 
and the judges had lost count at over 
2,000 different songs. The thrasher’s ge- 
nius seemed to lie in his ability not only 
to repeat favorite songs, but to improvise 
new ones. 

There was no doubt who should re- 
ceive the blue ribbon for variety, but the 
question “why” remained unanswered. 
Each delegation was successful and 
competent by its own standards, yet the 
disparity among groups was enormous. 
Why did some have only one song while 
others had thousands? Why did the San 
Francisco marsh wren sing almost four 
times as many as the one from New York 
who sang twice as many as the marsh 
wren from North Carolina? 

The facts on display at this mythical 
convention are astounding and perplex- 
ing to us humans. Despite decades of re- 
search we are still looking through a 
pinhole at a great world of bird song be- 
yond. Practically all we know about the 
song of the thrasher, for example, is that 
he sings far less after pairing with his 
mate than he does before—but so does 
the male white-throated sparrow, who 
sings only one song. Why it might take 


er ce es 


x 
~ 4 
= 
< 
A 
= 
= 
= 
> 
= 
z 
= 
= 
< 
ad 
= 
Sa 
N 
= 
= 





+ = ¥ 
noe 


an 
ee 


Tes 


ve 
i 











ALBERT KUHNIGK (VALAN PHOTOS) 


The curve-billed thrasher (left) has a large song repertoire while the grasshopper sparrow has a small one. Why it 


takes numerous songs to impress a female thrasher while a sparrow is satisfied with one or two is a mystery. 


thousands of songs to impress a female 
thrasher while a sparrow is satisfied with 
one is a mystery. 

One approach to understanding the 
evolution of song repertoires is to ob- 
serve how birds use song variety. For ex- 
ample, the eastern meadowlark and Be- 
wick’s wren typically sing one song over 
and over before switching to another. 
But when a male is courting a female or 
contesting a territorial boundary with 
another male, he sings fewer repetitions 
before switching to another song or he 
may sing different songs in succession. 
These males may be displaying a greater 
variety of songs in order to stimulate fe- 
males or to intimidate males. 

Experiments using tape recorders 
have confirmed this idea. When re- 
corded songs were played on the territo- 
ries of male red-winged blackbirds, song 
sparrows, and European great tits, the 
attention of listening males was main- 
tained longest when the variety of songs 
in the playback tape was greatest. Po- 
tential trespassers also seemed im- 
pressed with larger repertoires; when 
male blackbirds or tits were removed 
from their territories and replaced with 
loudspeakers, those territories from 
which large song repertoires were broad- 
cast remained unoccupied longer than 
those from which smaller ones were 
played. It’s possible that males associate 
large repertoires with older or more ag- 
gressive males. Another explanation, 


ingenious but perhaps farfetched, sug- 
gests that males may be fooled into 
thinking large repertoires come from a 
great number of individual males and 
that the area is therefore less suitable for 
occupancy. 

Females also seem impressed with va- 
riety. Female canaries that hear complex 
songs build nests faster than females 
hearing simple songs. Male canaries 
continue to learn songs in successive 
years, and older, more experienced 
males are usually more competent mates 
and successful parents. Therefore, a fe- 
male canary attentive to song variety 
may have a clue to the quality of her 
mate and her future reproductive suc- 
cess. Males of other species, including 
the northern mockingbird and red- 
winged blackbird, also learn new songs 
each year. 

One study has demonstrated that re- 
productive success may be directly re- 
lated to repertoire size. In European 
great tits, males with four or more songs 
produced more young that survived a full 
year than males with three or fewer 
songs. The link between repertoire size 
and breeding success is not clear, but it 
may be that males with larger reper- 
toires are able to defend better quality 
territories. 

Another approach to understanding 
the evolution of song repertoires is to 
compare the living conditions and vocal 
abilities of closely related species. The 


marsh wren and sedge wren, for exam- 
ple, are highly polygynous—males of- 
ten attract and mate with more than 
one female. Both species have large rep- 
ertoires, and both live in populations so 
dense that neighboring males often 
stimulate each other into a frenzy of 
singing. A variety of songs delivered 
with great speed may be needed to at- 
tract mates when space is limited and 
competition for mates is intense. Other 
North American wren species, such as 
the Bewick’s wren and Carolina wren, 
tend to be monogamous, and individu- 
als of these species defend larger territo- 
ries; repertoires are usually smaller, 
singing rates are slower, and each song 
variant is repeated many times before 
another is introduced. 

These trends are also apparent 
among different populations of a single 
species. San Francisco marsh wrens live 
on much smaller territories, are far more 
polygynous, and sing during a much 
longer breeding season than do New 
York wrens. The western wrens learn 
three times as many songs as their east- 
ern cousins and seem to use this variety 
with greater urgency. By omitting or 
shortening pauses between songs, and 
by singing fewer repetitions of the same 
song, western males deliver highly con- 
trasting songs at a blistering pace. Even 
though the western wrens are smaller 
than the New York wrens, the western 
males have about 50 percent more brain 


Spring 1986 15 


DONALD KROODSMA 





} ? eet | 
' Pelee 
hepa Ey 
| { Mi et 
tal 
j 
Wit 
woke " Pid 


BIRD SONG: LEARNED OR INHERITED? 





asserines (perching birds) and 
songbirds are often thought of as 
one and the same, but one North 
American group of passerines—the fly- 
catchers—are not songbirds at all. 
Flycatchers may look like songbirds, 
but they actually represent a more 
primitive suborder of passerine called 


- the suboscines. 


Originally suboscines were classi- 
fied as distinct from other passerines, 
known as oscines or true songbirds, 
because of a variety of structural dif- 
ferences. In particular the suboscine 
syrinx—voice box—is much simpler 
than that of the true songbird. Re- 
cently, however, ve done experiments 
which suggest that flycatchers differ 
from songbirds in another way. Unlike 
songbirds, which learn their songs 
from adults, flycatchers apparently 
have their songs encoded in their 
genes. 

We have long known that songbirds 
are born with a rudimentary song. 
They modify this into the typical 
song(s) of their species by listening to 
and imitating adults. When raised in 
isolation songbirds grow up singing 
only the rudimentary song or they de- 
velop a song not typical of their spe- 
cies. When young songbirds are ex- 
posed only to the song of a different 
species, they may adopt the entire song 
or use portions to devise a song of their 
own. 

Some evidence had suggested, how- 
ever, that the songs of suboscines might 
be determined genetically rather than 
learned. For one thing, flycatcher songs 
are remarkably similar over wide geo- 
graphic distances whereas many song- 
birds have regional dialects, a result 


of learning songs from neighboring 
birds. Also, some suboscines seem to 
lack the complex song-control centers 
that songbirds have in their fore- 
brains. 

Yet this indirect evidence alone was 
not convincing. Flycatchers could, for 
example, learn to sing by using differ- 
ent neural pathways than those used 
by songbirds. So to study suboscine 
song directly I did some experiments 
with two related suboscine species, the 
willow and alder flycatchers. I took nine 
one-week-old hatchlings from nests in 
Massachusetts— five willow flycatchers 
and four alder flycatchers— and raised 
them in individual isolation chambers, 
tutoring each with songs of the other 
species. If these flycatchers learned 
songs the way songbirds do, they would 
have developed highly abnormal songs 
or learned the songs of the wrong spe- 
cies. 

But they didn’t. fosiead they sang 
songs typical of their species just as if 
they had grown up in the wild. This 
experiment proved that the songs of 
willow and alder flycatchers are inher- 
ited rather than learned from adults. 

I had already obtained similar re- 
sults with another flycatcher, the east- 
ern phoebe, so it is possible that all 
flycatchers inherit their songs. It’s also 
possible that other suboscines, includ- 
ing antshrikes, antbirds, and cotingas, 
inherit songs, but further studies are 
needed to determine this. The findings 
will be interesting from an evolution- 
ary point of view, for they may suggest 
behavioral as well as anatomical dif- 
ferences in song development between 
the two passerine groups which di- 
verged 90-million years ago.—D. K. 





16 The Living Bird Quarterly 


space invested in controlling their com- 
plex vocal behaviors. 

Flycatchers represent a primitive 
family of perching birds and are at a dis- 
advantage in the repertoire game. All 
other birds discussed here learn songs 
much like humans learn words. Learn- 
ing permits the development of large vo- 
cabularies that are shared by other 
members of a population. Flycatchers, 
though, apparently do not learn their 
songs; evidence suggests that songs are 
encoded in the genes and that imitating 
other adults is not part of their develop- 
mental process. So, not only are songs 
simple and stereotyped, but repertoires 
are limited. The largest number of songs 
found encoded in flycatcher genes is 
only three, in the willow flycatcher and 
eastern wood-pewee. 

But just as nearly 400 flycatcher spe- 
cies prosper in spite of their limited vo- 
cal prowess, some songbirds thrive on a 
single song. In fact, studies have shown 
an advantage to small repertoires; terri- 
torial birds find it easier to recognize 
neighbors that sing only one or a few 
songs. 

Why some repertoires are small while 
others are enormous remains an 
enigma. Perhaps the rules by which song 
variety evolved are not the same among 
different bird groups. Or perhaps 
chance events have led to different au- 
ditory and vocal capabilities in different 
groups and our insistence on finding a 
logical process for the evolution of nat- 
ural diversity is doomed to failure. 

We will never have all the answers, 
but we can hope to enlarge the pinhole 
through which we view the perplexing 
world of bird song. With ingeniously de- 
signed playback experiments we can ask 
the birds directly how they view their 
sounds. By comparing the ecology and 
life history of similar species, we may 
learn if song coevolved with other as- 
pects of avian life. Discoveries of how 
sounds are processed in the brain will 
continue to provide valuable clues to 
how birds perceive variety. Studies in 
the species-rich tropics may lend insight 
into what is now a very biased, north- 
temperate zone view of bird song. Prog- 
ress will be slow, but perhaps one day we 
will understand what birds are commu- 
nicating with their great variety of 
songs. oO 


Donald ae is a professor in the zoology 

department at the University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst. 

Further Reading 

Jellis, R. Bird Sounds and Their Meaning. Cornell 
University Press, Ithaca, New York. 1984. 







THE WORLD OF ROBERT BATEMAN 
Text by Ramsay Derry 


This follow-up to The Art of Robert Bateman offers a new selection 
of more than 90 paintings, including some of his most recent 
work, carefully reproduced in full color. Bateman recreates the 
moment of seeing an animal in the wild, so the pictures are 
stunningly alive. The artist’s commentaries throughout the book 
demonstrate his skills as a naturalist and give the reader 
fascinating and personal insights into his work. 


1985, cloth, 170 pages. No. 2116/$50.00/$45.00 members 


A DICTIONARY OF BIRDS 
Edited by Bruce Campbell & Elizabeth Lack 


This authoritative, encyclopedic work contains contributions 
from over 280 ornithologists around the world. Articles cover all 
bird families, most of which are illustrated by a representative 
species, and numerous bird topics. More than 500 photographs, 
drawings, and diagrams support the text. This book is destined 
to become a major reference in the libraries of birders. 


1985, cloth, 670 pages. No. 2361/$75.00/$67.50 members 


., Venice, Florida 33595 


©1982 Robert Bateman. Courtesy of the artist and Mill Pond Press, Inc 


LIFE OF THE WOODPECKER 
Alexander E Skutch 


An intimate glimpse into one of the most fascinating bird 
families, based on the author's 40 years of field study. The book 
encompasses most of what is known about woodpeckers and 60 
color reproductions accompany the detailed narrative. 


1985, cloth, 136 pages. No. 2381/$49.95/$44.96 members 





Enclosed is a check or money order in U.S. funds, payable to The Crow’s Nest Bookshop. Ou 
address— The Crow’s Nest Bookshop, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, Sap 
sucker Woods, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. (607) 255-5057. 









































Catalogue No. Title Qty. Price 

Form of payment: Amount of order 

[] Check [] Money Order N.Y. State residents add 7% sales tax 

{J VISA [_] MasterCard Postage and handling 2.75 
Total amount enclosed 

Card # Expir. Date 

Signature 

Name 

Address 











City State Zip 











eS 


oe sf: 








Watching: White -breasted Nuthatches 


E had been walking in the 

woods for over half an hour. The 

winter morning was bitterly cold 
and dry, but offset by a crystal blue sky 
and a sun that lit up the bare trees. We 
had set out on this walk determined to 
find white-breasted nuthatches and 
watch their behavior. We had chosen a 
mature, deciduous forest because it is per- 
fect nuthatch habitat, providing food and 
nest holes. From the start of our walk we 
had strained to hear the slightest sounds 
of birds, but so far there were none. 

Suddenly we heard a distant bird call, 
but it was too faint to recognize. Imme- 
diately we moved off the path and 
started bushwhacking through the 
sparse understory toward the sound. As 
we got closer we knew we had found our 
bird, for the sound was the ank-call of 
the white-breasted nuthatch. 

With another 50 yards of stalking we 
spotted the birds, not one, but four, all 
within a 30-yard radius. With a quick 
glance through our binoculars we iden- 
tified them as two males and two fe- 
males. We could tell by looking at their 
heads—the cap of the male was solid 
black while that of the female was grayer 
or black with gray blotches. (Note that 
males and females cannot be distin- 
guished south and east of the Ohio 
River, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. ) 
The females were farther apart and feed- 
ing fairly quietly; the males were closer 
together and doing most of the calling. 

Each male had his tail fanned and the 
feathers on his back fluffed in an un- 
usual manner. One male had his head 
pointed down toward his feet. The 
males continued to give volleys of ank- 
calls and occasionally one flew at the 
other. This continued for about 10 min- 
utes while the females remained nearby, 
occasionally giving pairs of ank-calls. 

We were spellbound by the whole in- 
teraction and wondered what it meant. 
We had read much of the research on 
nuthatch behavior and from that had 
several clues. Throughout the year 
mated pairs of white-breasted nut- 
hatches tend to live on their home range 
of about 25 to 45 acres. In late winter 
and spring they may defend a smaller 


DONALD AND LILLIAN STOKES 


portion of that as a territory which usu- 
ally contains a suitable nesting hole. We 
also knew that the visual displays and 
rapid ank-calls of the males were used in 
aggressive encounters. Thus, we 
guessed that we were witnessing a 
boundary dispute between two pairs of 
nuthatches. 

We are always intrigued by territorial 
encounters between birds since they 
point out divisions of the land that we 
would never perceive. The woods 
looked the same to us, but here we had 
come upon a spot that had special sig- 
nificance for these four birds. Such ex- 
periences are glimpses into a bird’s view 
of the world. 

After about 10 minutes the interac- 
tion dissipated and the pairs moved off 
in opposite directions. Their calls had 
now switched to the quiet ip-call, a con- 
tact note used between a paired male 
and female as they move through the 
woods. It acts like an acoustical string 
connecting the birds, loud enough to 
inform each of the other’s whereabouts, 
but not so loud as to alert predators. 

We began following one pair, moving 
quickly to keep the birds in sight. We 
tried to anticipate their direction so that 
when they took flight we could be closer 
to where they would land. Even though 
the two birds were never more than 50 
feet apart, it was difficult to keep them 
in view. We were reminded of the ad- 
vantages of behavior-watching as a 
team; each of us followed one bird and 
in this way we could see all the behavior 
that occurred. 

This tactic paid off. Suddenly the fe- 
male stopped foraging, crouched low, 
and became uncharacteristically mo- 
tionless. At the same time the male’s 
foraging activity took on an air of ur- 
gency. Within seconds he retrieved a 
food morsel he had stored in a bark crev- 
ice and flew to the female’s branch. He 
ran to her and placed the food in her 
mouth. We had read about mate-feed- 
ing in white-breasted nuthatches, but 
had never seen it. It was so exciting that 
for a moment we forgot the cold in our 
fingers and toes. 

Mate-feeding occurs in many com- 


mon species. Why it occurs is not fully 
understood, but it is usually associated 
with the courtship phase of the breed- 
ing cycle. Thus, this pair of nuthatches 
was probably engaged in courtship— 
and it was only February. 

Most people think mating behavior 
occurs only in spring and summer, but 
the more you look at birds, the more 
their actions contradict our stereotyped 
notions of their lives. Now that we 
know nuthatch courtship begins in Feb- 
ruary we eagerly await it every year and 
have enjoyed watching mate-feeding 
countless times. 

About 15 minutes after we had seen 
the mate-feeding we heard a new sound 
in the distance—“werwerwerwerwer- 
werwerwer.” We recognized this as the 
song of the white-breasted nuthatch, a 
sound given only by the male. We 
walked several hundred yards and spot- 
ted the singer. He was perched conspic- 
uously at the top of a tree. As he sang he 
extended his neck and bobbed his head 
and body down with each repetition of 
the song. Then he stopped, came down 
lower, and looked for food in the crev- 
ices of the tree bark. He alternated sing- 
ing and feeding for about 15 minutes. 

Since we saw no female with this 
male, it is possible that he was single 
and announcing his presence in an at- 
tempt to attract a mate for the coming 
breeding season. 

Our morning of watching white- 
breasted nuthatches had started slowly, 
but became highly rewarding as the 
morning progressed. We had seen the 
behavior of a lone bird, a pair, anda 
group; we had seen courtship, mate- 
feeding, and a territorial interaction; we 
had heard the ip-call, ank-call, and 
song; and we had discovered the invisi- 
ble border between two nuthatch terri- 
tories. All of this reaffirmed our convic- 
tion that there are always exciting 
things to discover about birds, no mat- 
ter what species or season. Oo 


Further Reading 


Stokes, Donald W. and Lillian Q. A Guide to Bird 
Behavior, Vol. 2. Little, Brown and Company, 
Boston. 1983. 


Spring 1986 19 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





DUCKING THE ISSUE 


1. the autumn of 1979, 95-million 
ducks left their breeding grounds in 
Canada and the northern United 
States. Flying south on powerful wings, 
they headed for winter quarters in the 
southern states and Central America. 
Puddle ducks, bay ducks, sea ducks— 
all filled ponds, lakes and marshes 
across the country, and the flyways re- 
sounded with their calls. 

By autumn 1985 the population num- 
bered only 62-million, the lowest on 
record. That’s a 33 percent decrease in 
just six years, and many people became 
concerned. Birders were upset because 
they had fewer ducks to watch, hunters 
were troubled because there were fewer 
ducks to hunt, and conservationists 
worried about the reasons for the de- 
cline and what could be done about it. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) also was worried. This fed- 
eral agency manages our country’s wa- 
terfowl populations and stopping the de- 
cline was its responsibility. So the 
agency set stringent regulations on duck 
hunting during the autumn 1985-winter 
1986 hunting season. Agency biologists 
reasoned that significantly reducing the 
season’s kill might help the population 
to recover. 

But the restrictive measures received 
mixed reviews. While some conserva- 
tion organizations approved of the re- 
strictions, other groups felt they were 
unnecessary, perhaps useless. Were they 
necessary? The controversy surrounding 
this question has revealed the complex- 
ity of the issue and raised important 
questions about the future of North 
American duck populations. 


Foy do biologists know the duck pop- 
ulation is declining? Each year the 
USFWS and the Canadian Wildlife 
Service census waterfowl on North 
America’s most important duck breed- 
ing grounds—the “prairie pothole” 
country of midwestern Canada, the Da- 
kotas, and Montana. This vast region 
dwarfs the state of Texas and is pock- 
marked with millions of small, water- 


20 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


filled depressions which more than half 
the continent’s ducks use for nesting 
and rearing young. 

The censuses consist of two stages. In 
May biologists use small airplanes to 
cruise over the pothole region, counting 
the ducks below. The birds have re- 
turned from their wintering grounds 
and are preparing to breed. Other crews 
make counts from the ground. In July 
the biologists determine how successful 
the breeding season has been by count- 
ing young ducks. Information from 
these counts is combined to estimate 
the total autumn population. 

The 1985 censuses indicated that the 
population decrease which began in 
1979 was continuing at an alarming 
pace. Numbers had dropped a stagger- 
ing 22 percent in the last year alone. 
Declining species included mallards, 
black ducks, pintails, gadwalls, wi- 
geons, shovelers, scaup, canvasbacks, 
and redheads. USFWS blamed the pop- 
ulation crash on severe drought which 
began five years ago in the prairie pot- 
hole region and has dried up many thou- 
sands of the small ponds. 


Wat could be done about the de- 
cline? USFWS couldn’t refill dry 
ponds, but they could restrict duck 
hunting for the upcoming season. Based 
on the summer censuses, each Septem- 
ber the agency determines the length of 
the waterfowl hunting seasons and the 
daily “bag limit”—the number of ducks 
a hunter can shoot in one day—for each 
state. During years of high populations 
and good productivity, seasons are long 
and bag limits large; during years of low 
populations and poor productivity, sea- 
sons are shorter and bag limits smaller. 
Thus for the 1985—86 duck hunting 
season, USFWS set very short seasons 
and very small bag limits. Said agency 
director Robert Jantzen, ‘“We need to 
take the pressure off these birds while 
their numbers are down so they have a 
better chance to rebuild more quickly 
when better habitat conditions return.” 
Some conservation organizations 
hailed the restrictions as essential. One 
supporter was the Defenders of Wildlife. 


“We applaud the Service for their recent 
move and we're pleased that they’re fi- 
nally headed in the right direction,’ de- 
clared Defenders wildlife biologist Al- 
bert Manville. The National Audubon 
Society also supported the restrictions. 
Audubon vice president John M. An- 
derson said that without tighter hunting 
limits there might not be enough breed- 
ing pairs left to take advantage of the 
habitat when the drought ends, further 
delaying the recovery. 

But other groups disagreed. For ex- 
ample, Ducks Unlimited (DU), an or- 
ganization devoted to waterfowl conser- 
vation, attacked USFWS on two 
counts. First, DU said the agency’s 1985 
duck population estimate was wrong. 
DU biologists agreed that the number of 
ducks heading south in the fall would 
be below normal, but said it would be 
greater than in 1984. Second, DU said 
even if duck populations are declining, 
hunting restrictions would not help the 
population recover because research has 
shown that hunting does not affect the 
size of the waterfowl population. 

The National Wildlife Federation 
(NWF) also attacked USFWS, charg- 
ing the agency with attempting to stem 
the population decline by restricting 
hunting instead of dealing with a more 
significant threat to ducks, the wide- 
spread draining of breeding ponds for 
agriculture. Said NWF vice president 
Lynn Greenwalt, “The most important 
impacts on waterfowl are the continued 
wholesale destruction and degradation 
of wetlands in the U.S. and Canada” 


Whos right? Consider first the accu- 
racy of the USFWS duck censuses. For 
practical reasons biologists don’t count 
every bird on the prairie breeding 
grounds. Instead, they estimate the to- 
tal duck population from sample counts 
made throughout the breeding region. 
There is room for error, but the counts 
are conducted the same way each year. 
Even if the exact numbers are wrong, 
the downward trend should be real. 

DU also estimates duck populations 
each year, however, DU biologists count 
ponds, not breeding birds. Moreover, 


“oman sre naa 





a 





RESEARCH & REVIEW 








Prairie potholes occupy midwestern Canada, 
the Dakotas, and Montana. More than half of 
the continent’s ducks breed here, and severe 
drought throughout the region has caused the 
North American duck population to plummet. 


they count ponds only in Canada. This 
method does provide an estimate of 
breeding habitat available, and it’s true 
that the Canadian prairies had more 
ponds in 1985 than in 1984. But this 
fact alone doesn’t mean more young 
ducks were hatched. 

Next consider the effect of hunting on 
waterfowl. It might seem obvious that 
shooting ducks would reduce the duck 
population, however, several USFWS 
studies suggest that the number of ducks 
which die each year is relatively con- 
stant, whether or not they are hunted. 


According to these studies, in years 
when hunting regulations are restric- 
tive, fewer ducks are killed by hunters 
and more die of natural causes such as 
starvation, accidents on migration, and 
predation on the wintering grounds. In 
years when regulations are liberal more 
ducks fall to hunters but fewer die natu- 
ral deaths. 

One conclusion from these studies is 
DU’s claim that hunting restrictions 
won’t help the duck population to re- 
cover. But the studies also suggest that 
hunting may reduce the population if it 
drops below a certain level. Has that 
threshold already been reached? Says 
USFWS biologist Bob Trost, ‘So far 
there is no good evidence that hunting 
has any effect on the population. But we 
don’t want to take any chances—the 


JIM BRANDENBURG/DRK PHOTO 


restrictive regulations for 1985—86 are 
precautionary.’ Meanwhile, the agency 
continues to study the relationship be- 
tween hunting and population size. 
That leaves NWF’s concern—that 
the federal government is attempting to 
bolster waterfowl populations with re- 
strictions on hunting instead of facing a 
greater threat, loss of breeding habitat. 
Even a hunting ban wouldn’t preserve 
duck populations unless the birds have 
places to nest and raise their young. 
And such places are fast disappearing. 
When the first European settlers 
came to North America about 127-mil- 
lion acres of wetland were present on the 
continent. Today fewer than 65-million 
acres remain. The rest have been 
drained for flood control, housing, and 
agriculture. The destruction is particu- 


Spring 198621 


TOM MANGELSEN 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





Besides drought, thé prairie pothole country is 
threatened by agriculture as thousands of 
potholes are drained each year to plant crops. 
Note the drained potholes in the foreground. 
If duck populations are to recover, remaining 
potholes must be protected immediately. 





larly worrisome in the prairie pothole re- 
gion where more than half the original 
wetlands have been drained for grain 
production. In the past five years drain- 
age has accelerated because the drought 
has made potholes easier to empty. Even 
when the drought ends many ducks will 
have a hard time finding water. 

If duck populations are to thrive, 
then prairie potholes and other wetlands 
must be protected immediately by what- 
ever means possible, for example, pur- 
chase by the U.S. and Canadian gov- 
ernments, or economic incentives such 


22 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


as tax breaks or direct payments for 
farmers who preserve nesting habitat. 
And wetland preservation, says NWF, is 
where USFWS should be putting its ef- 
fort. 

In fact, USFWS has not completely 
ignored habitat preservation. More 
than one million acres are now pro- 
tected in the prairie region, either by 
federal ownership or by easements. Yet 
some USFWS biologists estimate that 
nearly one million additional acres must 
be protected to maintain duck popula- 
tions at pre-drought levels. That is just 
in the U.S.; another 3.5 million acres 
must be protected in Canada. 


W ill the North American duck popu- 
lation recover? Perhaps. The present 
crash is not unprecedented. Duck num- 





bers were low during the dust bowl days 
of the 1930s and recovered when habitat 
conditions improved. 

But managing the population so that 
it can recover again has become a com- 
plex problem. Several intertwined issues 
must be addressed: the need to census 
ducks accurately on the breeding 
grounds, to assess the impact of hunting 
on duck populations, and to protect the 
birds’ breeding habitat from further 
destruction. 

Time for studying and debating these 
issues may be running out. Meanwhile, 
ducks need all the help they can get. 
Hunting restrictions may be burden- 
some to duck hunters, but they seem 
necessary until populations recover or 
studies prove that hunting is not con- 
tributing to the decline. Oo 





NEWS & NOTES 





LABORATORY of Ornithology coop- 
erative research staff has recently com- 
pleted two projects using data from 
Christmas bird counts to analyze popu- 
lation trends of North American birds. 

The first project analyzed the number 
of black ducks reported on Christmas 
bird counts from 1950 to 1983. The re- 
sults indicated an alarming 3 to 4 per- 
cent rate of decline in the population 
each year, with the number of black 
ducks in 1983 only 29 percent of what it 
was in 1950. 

The second project examined popu- 
lation trends in eight species of birds of 
prey between 1970 and 1983. Here the 
results showed increases in populations 
that had been decimated by DDT poi- 
soning by the 1970s. These species in- 
clude gyrfalcons (+ 500%), prairie fal- 
cons ( + 145%), bald eagles (+ 92%), 
northern goshawks (+ 68%), merlins 
(+ 43%), red-tailed hawks (+ 33%), 
and peregrine falcons (+ 19%). The 
only species in decline was the Harris’ 
hawk, whose population decreased by 
38 percent. Reasons for the decline are 
unknown. 

Results of both studies were submit- 
ted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- 
vice, which provided grants for the re- 
search. 


CORNELL’S Herbert E Johnson Mu- 
seum of Art and the Laboratory of Or- 
nithology are sponsoring an art exhibi- 
tion featuring the carrier pigeon. The 
display, ‘‘Wingtrace/the Sign of Its 
Track,’ comprises cage installations, 
drawings, audio tapes, and assemblages 
by noted California artist Joyce Cutler- 
Shaw. The show runs from May 10 
through June 22. For more information, 


call (607) 255-6464. 


DUCKS Unlimited, Inc. recently do- 
nated a record $1.4 million to the Mi- 
gratory Bird Conservation Fund. The 
fund is administered by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and is used to ac- 
quire habitat essential to ducks, geese, 
and other water birds. 

DU raised the money through auc- 
tions held at local chapters throughout 
the U.S. and Canada to commemorate 


Compiled by Steven C. Sibley 


the 50th anniversary of she federal duck 
stamp. All land purchased will be added 
to the National Wildlife Refuge System. 


strategic points throughout the country 
to monitor bird movements. Besides 
shifting flight training exercises away 


from peak migration periods and key mi- 
gration routes, the Israeli air force has 
adopted a new motto: Take Care—We 


Share the Air. 


Immature long-legged buzzard in Israel: 
potential bird/airplane collision victim. 


ISRAELI air force uses the observations 
of bird watchers to reduce collisions be- 
tween birds and jets by over 50 percent. 
Bird-airplane accidents are a problem in 
many parts of the world, but especially 
in Israel. Its geographic position at the 
end of the Mediterranean Sea makes it a 
major flyway for millions of birds of all 
kinds. Also, Israel is a small country 
surrounded by hostile governments, 
leaving little space in which the air force 
may train. 

A two-pound bird striking a plane 
traveling at 500 miles an hour hits with 
an impact equal to 20 tons. The 
hundreds of bird-jet collisions occurring 
in Israel each year were causing millions 
of dollars of damage to jets and killing 
several pilots. 

The air force now coordinates a net- 
work of bird watchers who are located at 











Dear Member: 


In 1974 I co-produced a film about bird song for the PBS “Nova” series. ““Why 
Birds Sing”’ explored many facets of bird song: how red-winged blackbirds use song to 
defend their territories, how white-throated sparrows say “I’m a white-throated spar- 
row” to others of their species, how the brain controls singing and how birds acquire 
their songs. 

Making the film was great fun. I liked taking films of singing birds, but even more 
enjoyable was discovering the extraordinary breadth of bird song studies. These 
ranged from observing bird behavior in the wild to conducting detailed examinations 
of brain cells. 

In the years since the “Nova” program, progress has continued at a great pace. We 
now know more about why birds sing different songs—see Don Kroodsma’s article in 
this issue. We also are beginning to understand the fundamental process occurring in 
birds’ brains. Fernando Nottebohm at the Rockefeller University, for example, has 
shown that neurons in canaries’ brains can grow and divide, a major surprise because 
previous thought held that once an animal’s brain cells were formed they never divided 
again. This finding has important implications not only for our understanding of how 
the bird brain grows, but for how the human brain develops and might repair itself 
after damage. 

Here at the Laboratory we plan to expand our Library of Natural Sounds to encom- 
pass a bioacoustics research center devoted to understanding animal sounds. The cen- 
ter would contain the latest computer equipment which can transform sounds into digi- 
tal records that then can be analyzed or modified by the researcher. Information from 
these experiments is especially helpful in understanding the function and contexts of 
bird sounds in nature. The proposed center has sparked interest from other university 
departments as varied as linguistics, anthropology, music, and neurobiology and 
behavior. 

The study of bird song has led in many exciting directions. We hope to make the 
Laboratory a central focus for future bird communication studies. 


CHARLES WALCOTT, Executive Director 





Spring 1986 23 


W.S. CLARK 


IBISES IN PERIL 


BISES are among the most ancient 

living birds. Embedded in the oil 

shales of Europe are fossil ibises dat- 
ing back 45-million years. During their 
early days, these long-legged, long- 
billed birds roamed the Eocene marshes, 
probing the primal mud and shallow wa- 
ter for invertebrate prey. 

Today, 26 ibis species range primarily 
in the tropical and subtropical regions 
of the world. Most are highly gregari- 
ous, and their multicolored assemblages 
decorate the landscape in breeding col- 
onies of hundreds, even thousands of 
pairs. 

Throughout their history, numerous 
ibis species have evolved or become ex- 
tinct in response to their changing en- 
vironments. Currently, five species of 
ibis are disappearing, but not as a con- 
sequence of the evolutionary process. 
They are threatened with extinction as 
a result of an assortment of human- 


Egyptian coffin of 
wood and gold leaf 


for the mummy 
of an ibis, circa 


330:B: E. 












DAVID E. MANRY 


induced ills, including habitat destruc- 
tion, pesticide contamination, exces- 
sive hunting, and disturbances at their 
breeding sites. 

Each of the five endangered ibis spe- 
cies is faced with its own set of prob- 
lems, and in each case only the highest 
level of commitment, ingenuity, and 
technical know-how that modern con- 
servation management can provide will 
improve the chances of survival for 
these vanishing birds. 

White (Japanese) crested ibis. Once 
numerous and widespread throughout 
Japan, northeastern China, and the So- 
viet Far East, only about 24 white 
crested ibises are known to exist today. 
The birds have been hunted for food and 
sport and their forest habitat has been 
destroyed for fuel, timber and agricul- 
ture. Despite international concern, ef- 
forts to save the species have failed re- 
peatedly. In 1934, for example, a 
remnant population of about 100 birds 
was discovered on remote Sado Island 
and nearby Noto Peninsula off the west 
coast of Japan. It was granted immediate 
and full protection by the government, 
but poachers continued to bag the un- 
wary birds while commercial tree cut- 
ting rapidly eliminated their breeding 
grounds. In 1962 a forest sanctuary was 
created on Sado Island to protect the 
ibises’ remaining habitat, but by that 
time the population had dwindled to 
only six birds. 

In 1965 an outdoor aviary was con- 
structed in the heart of the mountain 
sanctuary. Over the next five years, six 
juveniles were removed from their nests 
and transferred to the aviary in the 
hopes of establishing a captive-breeding 
colony. Disastrously, all but one bird 


died of food poisoning and parasites 
contracted from their unnatural diets, 
while fledglings in the wild succumbed 
to pesticide poisoning. By 1983 only 
three white crested ibises remained in 
all Japan. 

Although rescue efforts in Japan have 
foundered, promising developments in 
China herald renewed hope for the spe- 
cies. China may have been the bird’s 
primary stronghold before hunting and 
habitat destruction wiped it out from 
most of its range. The last known breed- 
ing colony was extirpated in 1958 when 
trees harboring the nests were felled. 
For two decades afterward the bird’s sta- 
tus in China remained a mystery. 

Then in 1978, Liu Yinzeng of the 
Chinese Institute of Zoology began an 
exhaustive search for the bird. In May 
1981, after traveling more than 12,500 
miles in nine provinces, Dr. Liu and his 
co-workers located two nesting pairs in 
a remote mountain range. Despite egg 
predation by crows and a chronic short- 
age of feeding habitat, this tiny nucleus 
has fledged successfully a few offspring 
each year, increasing its size to 21 birds 
as of January 1986. 

In 1983 two fledglings were outfitted 
with miniature radio transmitters with 
the hope that they would lead investi- 
gators to other ibis hangouts. In 1984 
the Chinese government sponsored a 
two-day ibis workshop to formulate a re- 
covery plan. The outlook for this gravely 
imperiled ibis is somewhat brighter 
thanks to Dr. Liu and his devoted team. 
[See story on page 28.] 

Waldrapp and bald ibis. The waldrapp 
and bald ibis are the only two members 
of the family that breed exclusively on 
cliffs. The waldrapp was formerly wide- 


Ancient Egyptians believed the sacred ibis was the incarnation of Thoth, god of wisdom and learning. Although the bird was regarded as a deity, 
a race of sacred ibis from Aldabra Island, near Madagascar, is endangered. Right, sacred ibis from Ethiopia. 


24 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 





INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION 





spread and prevalent throughout North 
Africa, Asia Minor, and the Alpine re- 
gion of southern Europe, where it for- 
aged for insects in gardens and meadows 
and nested on the walls of deserted 
castles. 

Today, fewer than 100 breeding pairs 
remain at only eight localities in Mo- 
rocco, anda single colony in Turkey. Sit- 
uated on cliffs overlooking the hamlet of 
Birecik on the Euphrates River, the 
Turkish colony comprised about 1,000 
birds in 1911. Living in amicable coex- 
istence with Birecik’s human inhabi- 
tants, the birds would return from their 
unknown winter quarters each February 
in concert with the spring rains. The 
citizens of Birecik celebrated the annual 
event with an elaborate feast. During 
the 1950s, however, DDT and other 
pesticides were sprayed on a massive 
scale throughout the region, extermi- 
nating hundreds of waldrapps in the 
process. 








Only about 24 white crested ibises are known 
to exist today. Some are in captivity in Japan, 
including a female on Sado Island, shown 
above. Also endangered is the waldrapp, right; 
a small colony nests on cliffs overlooking 

the Euphrates River in Birecik, Turkey. 


26 ~The Living Bird Quarterly 


Even after the spraying ceased, egg- 
shell thinning, a persistent by-product 
of DDT contamination, contributed to 
reproductive failure of the species. In 
addition, as Birecik’s human populace 


Although rescue 
efforts in Japan have 
foundered, promising 

developments 


in China herald 


renewed hope. 


grew, new housing was constructed atop 
the cliffs, leaving less room for nesting 
waldrapps. By 1973 only 22 breeding 
pairs remained. That year the World 
Wildlife Fund initiated a project aimed 
at reversing the colony’s downward 
trend. 

Under the leadership of Udo Hirsch, 
former breeding sites were cleared of hu- 
man refuse and some ledges were wid- 


ened and extended. In an attempt to in- 
duce the birds to nest away from the 
center of town, an aviary was con- 
structed on a cliff just north of Birecik 
and stocked with captive waldrapps to 
act as decoys to lure their wild counter- 
parts to the new breeding site. Within 
two years a few pairs had begun to nest 
there, and in 1983 eight pairs of Birecik 
waldrapps produced 17 fledged off- 
spring, the highest number in six years. 

Meanwhile the Moroccan waldrapp 
population has declined from 500 pairs 
in 1940 to fewer than 90 pairs today. Ef- 
forts are presently under way to stabilize 
the population and to protect a few of its 
important breeding and feeding areas. 
Fortunately the species adjusts well to 
captivity, and a number of breeding col- 
onies have been established in zoologi- 
cal collections around the world. Some- 
day it may be possible to reintroduce 
captive-bred waldrapps to parts of their 
former range. 

The waldrapp’s closest living rela- 
tive, the bald ibis, lives in the moun- 
tainous grasslands of extreme southern 
Africa where it feeds on insects and 
other invertebrates, and breeds on 
mountainsides and near waterfalls. Al- 








though in no immediate danger of ex- 
tinction, the birds have disappeared 
from much of their former range because 
of excessive hunting, commercial affor- 
estation, and increased pressure from an 
exploding human population. Probably 
no more than 8,000 bald ibises remain, 
and this highly vulnerable bird should 
be monitored carefully. 

Madagascar crested and giant ibis. Out- 
standing among the island’s birds is the 
Madagascar crested ibis, a shy denizen 
of lowland forests and woodlands. Vir- 
tually nothing is known about the abun- 
dance and status of this colorful and elu- 
sive species, but the rapid pace of tree 
cutting throughout the island, in addi- 
tion to illegal hunting, places it in peril. 
The bird’s survival is inextricably linked 
to the preservation of its forest habitat. 
A well planned and managed system of 
parks and reserves would greatly benefit 
the ibis as well as numerous other Mad- 
agascar birds. 

As the name implies, the giant ibis is 
the largest member of the family, com- 
parable in size to a large goose. This sol- 
itary-nesting species once occupied the 
lower Mekong River system in Vietnam, 
Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, where 


it foraged in swamps and rice paddies. 
The warfare that ravaged this region 
during the 1960s and 70s, however, 
combined with hunting and environ- 
mental damage by chemical defoliants, 


In the years following 
reunification of 
Vietnam, the giant 
ibis was presumed 
extinct, a 
casualty of war. 


contributed to the demise of this mega- 
ibis. In the years following reunification 
of Vietnam the bird was presumed ex- 
tinct, a casualty of war, but in 1982 
Vietnamese ornithologists located a few 
pairs nesting in the Mekong wetlands, 
and a more comprehensive search for 
the bird is planned in the hopes of lo- 
cating other populations. 

Other ibises may also qualify for the 





roster of peril. Davison’s black ibis of 
Southeast Asia, the dwarf olive ibis of 
Sao Tomé Island off the coast of west 
Africa, and the distinct Aldabra atoll 
form of the sacred ibis suffer from severe 
depletions of their numbers and face 
possible extinction in the near future. 
Almost one-fifth of all ibis species are 
exceedingly rare and in urgent need of 
effective conservation management. 
The plight of the waldrapp and white 
crested ibis, species reduced to pitifully 
small, remnant populations barely ca- 
pable of sustaining recovery programs, 
underscores the need for prompt action. 
In 1981 the Specialist Group on Storks, 
Ibises, and Spoonbills was created un- 
der the auspices of the International 
Council for Bird Preservation to deter- 
mine the status of all members of these 
avian families. With successful inter- 
vention perhaps we can preserve this 
ancient and intriguing group of birds. 0 





David Manry is an avian researcher at the Univer- 
sity of Colorado, Boulder. 

Further Reading 

Archibald, G. W,, S. D. H. Lantis, L. R. Lantis, 
and I. Munetchika. “Endangered ibises Threskior- 
nithinae: their future in the wild and in captivity.” 
International Zoo Yearbook, vol. 20, pp. 6-17. 


Spring 1986 27 


UDO HIRSCH/WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 








GEM OF THE ORIENT 


EARCH for white crested ibis— 

this was the task accepted by the 

Chinese Academy of Sciences 
from a vice premier of the State Council 
of the People’s Republic of China in 
1978. The white crested ibis is a species 
native to Asia and one of the rarest birds 
in the world. It was classified as a bird in 
need of international protection at the 
12th World Conference on Protecting 
Birds in 1960. There were no white 
crested ibis in the Soviet Union or Ko- 
rea at that time. A few were kept in 
cages in Japan, but they had lost their 
capacity to reproduce, being infirmed 
by old age. If scientists were to save the 
bird they had no alternative but to look 
to China. 

Here the ibis is called Zhulu or 
Honghe—red-headed giant-heron. It 
used to be distributed throughout the 
country and until the 1930s was regu- 
larly seen by the local folk. But, al- 
though the bird was regarded as a deity, 
in fact its fate was very bad. The species 
decreased rapidly, and by the early 1960s 
only a few birds remained. 

To search in China for ibis is like fish- 
ing for a needle in the ocean. The task 
was undertaken courageously by Liu 
Yinzeng, a scientist from the Chinese 
Institute of Zoology of the academy. 
There he studied specimens of 17 birds 
which had been collected from the 
whole of China, consulted the material 
of other scientists, analyzed routes, and 
otherwise prepared before starting his 
job in the wild. 

He spent three years, from 1978 to 
1981, and searched in nine provinces— 


ZHANG ZHI-YEN 


climbing mountains and wading across 
rivers, eating in the wind and sleeping 
in the dew, sometimes having to deal 
with beasts of prey, and traveling 12,500 
miles. The results—he saw not a sign of 
ibis, but he did find evidence of why it 
was almost extinct. He could hardly 
find a favorable circumstance for it to 
perch what with agricultural develop- 
ment, human and animal hunters, pes- 
ticide and other chemical poisonings, 
and the almost complete destruction of 
its wilderness habitat. 

While Mr. Liu didn’t find ibis, he did 
uncover two important clues: first, 
upon inquiries of a fisherman in Yang 
County in Shanxi Province, he learned 
that the district was indeed the haunt of 
ibis; second, he found three ibis feathers 
in a hunter’s home in Hui County, 
Gansu Province, and was told the bird 
had been shot dead only two or three 
years before. 

Returning to the institute, Mr. Liu 
reported these details to his leaders who 
encouraged him to continue searching 
the key regions. They even provided 
him with a motor car, increased his ex- 
pense funds, and made a set of ibis slides 
for him to show the local residents. 

In 1981 Mr. Liu again visited Yang 
County. He searched the plains and 
hilly land, but found nothing. Just when 
he was about to give up and move on, a 
peasant from a nearby village, Mr. Wu, 
ran over. He had seen the slide show at a 
cinema and said he had seen ibis. 

Mr. Liu didn’t believe him, for many 
egrets, herons, and white cranes had 
been mistaken by local peasants for ibis. 


Mr. Liu showed him an ibis photo and 
asked him to go once more and check 
his identification of the bird. Two days 
later the peasant returned and no 
sooner did he see Mr. Liu than he 
shouted, “Quite right, it’s the very im- 
age of your photo!” 

Together they drove to the moun- 
tains, then tramped three miles until 
they reached Jingjiahe, nearly 4,000 
feet above sea level. There they found a 
nest bigger than that of heron and cru- 
der than that of magpie, but was it ibis? 
Suddenly, Mr. Liu gave a cry—‘“Oh, it 
is true, God bless me!” For he noticed 
some footprints in the wet sand by a pool 
and after studying them he was sure— it 
was ibis. A living ibis had looked for 
food there within the past 48 hours. He 
had found nest number one. 

He wound up and down a circuitous 
mountain route for the next two days, fi- 
nally returning to Jingjiahe in late after- 
noon. Suddenly he looked up and saw 
an ibis flying toward him. “That’s just 
what I seek!” Mr. Liu blurted out. “Ibis, 
why do you live in such a high place?” 
Recently, he realized, with develop- 
ment, the activities of people, and dis- 
ruption of the environment, the ibis was 
unable to find peaceful shelter at the low 
elevations it prefers. Instead it was com- 
pelled to move to higher elevations of 
the mountain. 

Mr. Liu pursued the direction of its 
trail and a week later came to Yaojiagou 
village. There he saw an ibis eating 
something in a field. An old peasant 
said “It has built a nest in a high tree 
nearby and three nestlings were born a 


Climbing mountains and wading across rivers, eating in the wind and sleeping 
in the dew, surveying more than 12,500 miles of Chinese wilderness, Dr. Liu Yinzeng 


pursues the white crested ibis. 


Spring 1986 29 


INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION 


few days ago.” Soon Mr. Liu found the 
tree, and as expected, three nestlings 
hid in the nest, popping their heads in 
and out, crying “ji-ji-jia:’ To Mr. Liu the 
sound was like the most beautiful music 
in the world and excited tears started 
from his eyes. He had found nest num- 
ber two. Mr. Liu decided no longer to re- 
turn to the village, but to stay in the val- 
ley in sight of the nesting tree. Someone 
in a motor car delivered food to him 
once a week. 

Because of Mr. Liu’s presence, the 
parent ibis dared not return home the 
first night. At about 11 that night, as 
Mr. Liu sat at the foot of the tree record- 
ing notes, he heard something fall to the 
ground with a crash. He flashed his 
torch and searched the ground for two 
hours lest a nestling had fallen and in- 
jured itself, but he saw nothing. Next 
morning he swept the region and was at 
the end of his rope when a boy ran over 
and said a nestling was behind his 


Liu Yinzeng found two white crested ibis nests, 
but the birds’ future remains in doubt. Above, 
captive white crested ibis in Beijing Zoo, 
China. Experts will consider the species out 
of danger if it multiplies to at least 500 pairs. 


30. The Living Bird Quarterly 


house. They rushed there to find a nest- 
ling, very hungry, cold and tired, no 
longer able to crawl. He asked the boy to 
collect some river snails and a frog, 
which he cut into pieces and fed to the 


Three nestlings hid 


in the nest, popping 
their heads 


in and out, crying 


66°? ee ee Wy) 


ji-Ji-jla. 


starving bird. Then he placed it back in 
the nest, but after a while it again 
dropped to the ground. Mr. Liu was 
obliged to keep the nestling himself 
while he awaited instructions from his 
leaders in Peking. 

By this time some photos and sound 
recordings of the nestling had reached 
Peking and the message “ibis found in 
China” had gotten around and caused a 
sensation throughout China’s zoologi- 
cal world. 









LiL 


& 4 y¥ 
VILE yy ey 
eebece 


17% 
Lig 


UvY A ree 1 Se 


i LATTE 
Saaeee ct y A i7 
A, I ; 
ALLEY UY 


dA 











i LL ix 


he 





21 


ae 


ee 





ALATS 


$177 























The number of ibis found in the two 
nests totaled only seven by the end of 
1981. Emergency measures were insti- 
tuted: anyone with leads to the where- 
abouts of ibis were offered rewards, any- 
one who killed an ibis would be severely 
punished, scientists were encouraged to 
carry on investigations about the bird’s 
abundance and distribution, protection 
stations were set up, and other conser- 
vation steps were taken. Gradually the 
number of ibis increased—nine in 
1982, 12 in 1983, and in January 1986, 
21 ibis were reported in the wilderness. 

Some key problems remain. Experts 
say the ibis is on the verge of extinction 
and can be regarded as out of danger 
only if it multiplies to at least 500 pairs. 
If we don’t take effective action 
promptly, the ibis may fall into irretriev- 
able condition. We suggest that scien- 
tists in every country carry out interna- 
tional cooperation using modern 
scientific capabilities to raise the ibis’s 
egg-laying rate, hatching rate, and sur- 
vival rate in order to save this rare gem 
from extinction. Oo 


Zhang Zhi-yen is an ibis researcher from Gansu 
Province, People’s Republic of China. 











PLAN YOUR 
SAFARI NOW 


Explore the remarkable 
natural heritage of Kenya. 
Join the Laboratory of 
Ornithology on a photogra- 
phy and sound recording 
safari to East Africa. 
Whether you’re a beginner 
or have advanced skills, 
you'll find many opportuni- 
ties to photograph and 
record birds, lions, ele- 
phants, zebras, antelopes, 
giraffes, birds, hippos, rhi- 
nos, and birds at the best 
game parks in East Africa, 
including Nairobi National 
Park, Maasai Mara, Sam- 
bura, and Tsavo. 


@ March 1987 

@ Accommodations in lux- 
ury lodges, hotels, and 
tented camps 
Extensive pre-departure 
information 


When you think March 
safari to East Africa, think 
Cornell University Labora- 
tory of Ornithology. 


For more information 
contact David Blanton, 
Voyagers, P.O. Box 915, 
Ithaca, New York 14851. 
(607)257-3091. 





TIE LIVING BIRD 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


Editor: Jill Crane 

Design Director: Kat Dalton 

Associate Editor: Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 
Technical Editor: Charles R. Smith 
Editorial Assistant: Steven C. Sibley 
Publications Assistant: Maureene Stangle 





LABORATORY STAFF 


Executive Director: Charles Walcott 
Bookshop: Michele M. Barclay 

Cooperative Research: Gregory S. Butcher 
Raptor Research: Tom J. Cade 

The Living Bird Quarterly: Jill Crane 
Photography: Lang Elliott 

Library of Natural Sounds: James L. Gulledge 
Administration: Diane Johnson 

Seatuck Research Program: Thomas S. Litwin 
Library: Steven C. Sibley 

Education and Information Services: 

Charles R. Smith 

Public Affairs: Scott A. Sutcliffe 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


David L. Call, Chairman 
Albert E Appleton 
Robert Barker 

Rex J. Bates 

William G. Conway 
Alan Crawford, Jr. 

John H. Dakin 

Robert G. Engel 

Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 
Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 
Thomas M. Hampson 
Frances C. James 
Hamilton FE Kean 

T. Spencer Knight 

Peter R. Marler 
Barnabas McHenry 

G. Michael McHugh 
Edwin H. Morgens 
Eugene S. Morton 

Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 
Stanley A. Temple 
Charles E. Treman, Jr. 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in 
January, April, July, and October by the Laboratory of 
Ornithology at Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, 
Ithaca, New York 14850. Telephone: (607) 255-5056. The Living 
Bird Quarterly is free to members of the Laboratory. For 
information concerning back issues please write to our 
Membership Department. © 1986 Cornell University Laboratory 
of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N. Y. 


>. 


Summer 1986 Volume 5 Number 3 





4 A BIRDER’S NOTEBOOK by Michael Harwood 


12 


14 


18 
20 
21 
22 


24 


In his first column for The Quarterly, birder Harwood rummages 
around in an old cigar box and discovers some birding memories. 


LIFE ON THE EDGE by Carlos Quintela 


Hundreds of thousands of acres of Latin American rain forest are 
cut down every year to make room for pastures which produce 
cheap beef. What are the effects of this alarming trend to both 
local bird and plant communities and to the rest of the planet? 


THE DATA GATHERERS by Elizabeth Cary Pierson 


How are seabirds affected by oil spills? What do microwaves and 
radioactivity do to birds? Manomet Bird Observatory near Boston 
is collecting information that will help to answer these questions. 


LOVE AMONG THE ICEBERGS by Elaine C. Grandjean 


On their summer breeding grounds at Hudson Bay on the edge of 
the Arctic Circle, female phalaropes show some markedly male 
behavior—displaying, competing, defending, and then, leaving. 


RESEARCH & REVIEW by Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 
NEWS & NOTES by Steven. Sibley 
THE CROW’S NEST BOOKSHOP 


WATCHING: AMERICAN GOLDFINCHES 
by Donald and Lillian Stokes 


A few ounces of yellow dashing through the alders brighten 
the midsummer doldrums for our two inquiring behavior-watchers. 


ARTIST IN THE WILD by Donald Luce 


The humid bayous of Florida where egrets fish, the guano-covered 
cliffs of Peru where seabirds sgquaawk —Francis Lee Jaques has 
captured the feeling of landscape and bird on canvas and diorama. 





p. 14 Dad and Junior 


Front Cover: Outside—Secretary bird in Africa. A full-grown male stands 
about 3 feet 2 inches tall, with a wingspread of about 7 feet. Its crest 
suggests an old-fashioned clerk or secretary with long quill pens stuck 
behind the ears. Photograph by Rod Williams (Bruce Coleman Limited). 
Inside—Greater flamingo photographed by Gregory G. Dimijian (Photo 
Researchers, Inc.). Back Cover: Outside—Western gull eating starfish, 
Monterey Bay, California. Photograph by Jeff Foote. Inside—Passenger 
Pigeons and Mourning Doves, watercolor by Francis Lee Jaques, early 1930s. 
Bell Museum of Natural History, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Above: 
Northern jacana by R. & M. Borland (Bruce Coleman Limited). 


A BIR DE R’S NOTE & OO X& 





Keeping Good 
Field Notes 


NTILa few weeks ago, 
when I finally threw 
most of them out, I 


kept a stack of old birding 
checklist cards in a cigar box. 
That box of cards had traveled 
with me from place to place for 
nearly 25 years, although | 
almost never dug into it except 
to file a new card or when | was 
trying to decide whether to 
chuck the whole lot of them. I 
don’t know why I saved the 
collection as long as I did; I 
guess essentially for the same 
reason one keeps ancient post- 
cards from friends and fam- 
ily—because the checklists 
might still call up the spirits of 
beloved adventures. But in fact 
they were poor talismans. 
After a few months the tick- 
marks and numbers in the col- 
umns opposite the species 
names conveyed virtually no 
meaning at all. 

Most birders usually go out 
birding for the pleasure and 
anticipation of small discover- 
ies—adding to a list, finding 
unexpected species, noticing 
unusual behavior or hearing an 
unusual song, experiencing 
moments of startling bird 
drama or loveliness. The prob- 
lem is, we promptly forget most 
of these discoveries, because 
we keep such sketchy rec- 
ords—or no records at all. 
Thereby we miss uncounted 
opportunities to savor recollec- 





Michael Harwood has written exten- 
sively for Audubon, Natural History, 
and The New York Times Magazine. 
Watch for A Birder’s Notebook in fu- 
ture issues of The Living Bird Quarterly. 


4 The Living Bird Quarterly 


tions and to fix knowledge in 
our personal memory banks. 
Occasionally we also flub a 
chance to add to the body of 
scientific data about birds. 
Mea culpa, I hasten to say. 
I’m often tempted to avoid 
note-taking altogether. If 
you re trying to cover 
ground—rush from image to 
image because the day’s so 
short and the possibilities are 
sO many—writing notes can 
slow you down and cause you 
to miss things that your com- 
panions see. But the rewards 
are enormous. Even a few 
words saved on paper can for- 
ever after call back a splendid 
moment or sequence. For 
example, I did not include in 
my recent Great Disposal one 
otherwise useless 1969 field 
card, because following my 
“X” beside “Yellowlegs, 
Greater” I had written, 
“including rescued bird?” 
Instantly I can see in my 
mind’s eye the odd behavior of 
that yellowlegs at the moment 
when my friend the Professor 
and I first noticed it. The bird 
was up to its belly in a rising 
tide, struggling to fly but 
caught on something under the 
surface— probably fishline, we 
thought. We waded out to it, 
and the Professor gently lifted 
it clear—along with the 
muddy clam that gripped one 
of its toes. Who ever heard of 
such a thing? Anchored like 
that, it would soon have 
drowned. It was exhausted, 
shivering, and helpless, so I 
carried it in my lap while 
we drove to our next birding 
stop, and by the time we 
arrived the yellowlegs 
had recovered sufficiently to 
return to its risky world. 


I have tried different 
approaches to this business of 
saving images of birding trips. 
Now and then I even take 
along a tape recorder, so I can 
continue looking for birds 
while I’m making notes. The 
trouble with that is, if I do the 
job right I have to make my 
notes twice—first into the 
machine and then on paper, 
and if the expedition lasts all 
day I may have hours of tran- 
scribing left to do when it’s 
over. No doubt about it, 
though, a tape can convey very 
powerful impressions. | 
remember one spring day when 
my friend the Professor was 
still a graduate student. We 
explored New Jersey’s Hacken- 
sack Meadows, across the Hud- 
son from New York City, and I 
brought along a big reel-to-reel 
recorder. We talked into the 
mike on and off all day, creat- 
ing a memoir rich not only in 
words but in tones of voice and 
background noises. 


A few simple notes 
might call up 

the spirits of 
adventures past. 





The meadows had once 
been a huge and productive 
estuarine marsh—the sort of 
terrain that industrial “pro- 
gressives” treat as wasteland, 
fit only for dumps. It had 
become a sprawling landfill by 
the time we saw it in the 
’60s—a sinister-looking, bad- 
smelling place. But puddles 
and patches of marsh still 
sprouted among the mounds of 
trash, and on that spring day 
there were birds all over the 
meadows. I realized there and 
then that, however sensitive to 
appearances we humans may 
sometimes be, birds are not 
aesthetes in any sense we’d 
recognize. The tape chroni- 
cled in particular our astonish- 
ment at a beautiful pair of 
blue-winged teal we found 
swimming in a pond that 
sprouted rusting kitchen appli- 
ances and an old bathtub. 

Still, tape recording such 
adventures can leave you with 
too much material in stor- 









A BIRDER’S NOTEBOOK 





I realized there and 
then that, however 
sensitive to 
appearances we 
humans might 
sometimes be, birds 
are not aesthetes 
in any sense 


we'd recognize. 


age—particularly if you go 
out birding more than a few 
times a year. | prefer written 
records; they are the most 
accessible. The act of writing 
does affect the pace of the 
birding, but on the whole it’s a 
good effect. When I start to 
make a written record I con- 
centrate my attention, and I 
notice more, and so there 

is more to delight me. A 
couple of examples by way of 
demonstration: 

On one April 6, alongside a 
neighbor’s farm, I heard “‘a 
high-perched robin singing a 
high, soft, tinkly, almost 
squeaky run of short phrases 
and trills, the phrases often 
repetitive, as if it were a 
thrasher or mocker doing an 
imitation. Some of the notes 
[are] almost juncolike. Every 
now and then the bird drops 
down into the normal register 
for a short, soft cheery or 
pupup. This goes on for several 
minutes without a pause.” 

On Penobscot Bay, Maine, 
on a first of June, I watched a 
small flotilla of common 
eiders, including young only a 
few days old, swimming near 
shore. “From the flock comes 
the basso quacking, mild 


growls, soft up-sliding and 
down-sliding moans, and soft 
owllike, pigeonlike hoots, as 
well as high wheeping that may 
be from the ducklings. They 
travel and feed in a tightly 
bunched formation. The adult 
males chase each other, do 
modified head-throws, each 
snapping the head back to 
touch the back—his breast 
(salmon-tinted) puffed out. 

... Meanwhile, the black 
ducklings dive and pop up like 
synchronized corks, blip-blip- 
blip-blip, monkey-see-monkey- 
do.” There’s nothing very fancy 
about any of that, but every 
time I reread such passages | 
wish I took the trouble to make 
notes much more often. 

The note-taking, which 
requires noticing, deepens 
one’s connection to the experi- 
ence, sharpens a point of view, 
and enlarges one’s understand- 
ing of birds. It can even lead to 
reflections about the much 
larger frame in which the bird- 
ing takes place. Here I am, for 
instance, on a cold, wet, 
windy afternoon at the end of 
January, walking along a ridge 
road in dairy country. 

“From the top of the ridge,” 
says my scribble, “the sur- 
rounding low blue and white 
hills loom faintly behind the 
screen of rain. The wet snow- 
fences and the trees dully glow 
reds, and the standing weeds 
in snow dully glow golds... . 
In [a] weedy field. . . about a 
hundred snow buntings forage 
in the rain—which, blowing 
almost horizontally in my face, 
makes glassing the birds 
impossible. But this is fine 
weather for buntings, who care 
not a fig for glassing us!” 


— Michael Harwood 


* 


Summer 1986 





Michael Harwood 


BY 


W. L. CHESS 





Burned wasteland 
borders untouched 
acreage at the MCS 
study site in Brazil, 
where vast tracts of 
rain forest are cleared 
each year for cattle 
pasture. Abrupt edges 
heat up and dry out 
remaining forest 
causing birds such as 
the white-chinned 


woodcreeper, below, to 


decline in numbers. 





6 The Living Bird Quarterly 


DOUG WECHSLER 


LIFE ON 
THE EDGE 


CARLOS E. QUINTELA 


HEN you bite into a fast-food hamburger, 

you may unwittingly be contributing to the 

demise of tropical rain forests. The steer 
that produced your dinner may not have come from 
Utah, Kansas, or the plains of Texas, but from a pas- 
ture that was once rain forest in Central or South 
America. 

Each year several hundred thousand acres of tropi- 
cal forest are cleared for cattle ranches. The lean, 
cheap beef produced on these ranches is exported to 
the United States and other developed countries for 
use in fast-food hamburgers, hot dogs and other pro- 
cessed beef products. And as the cattle move in, the 
native wildlife moves out or dies. Birds, mammals, 
reptiles, insects, all lose their homes as the trees are 
cut or burned. In Brazilian Amazonia alone, 31,000 
square miles—a chunk of land equal to South Caro- 
lina—were converted into ranches between 1966 and 
1978. 

Some people view the clearing of the rain forests as 
a boon rather than a problem. In fact, many Latin 
American governments provide economic incentives 
for agriculture. Between 1971 and 1977 international 
agencies provided $3.5 billion in loans and technical 
assistance to governments and individual ranchers to 
clear land for livestock production in Latin America. 

But there’s folly in this system. Most tropical pas- 
tures are ill-suited for grazing because rain forest soils 
are very poor. The useful life of pasture in Central 
Amazonia does not exceed five years. Hence, ranchers 
must move on, cutting more trees, leaving behind des- 
olate clearings that may take a century to grow back to 
forest. If this process continues, a vast ecosystem cru- 
cial to the health of the entire planet soon will be 
damaged beyond recovery. (See page 10.) 

Obviously the wildlife dependent upon forested 
areas is severely affected by clearing. Less obvious is 
that wildlife in the surviving forest is affected as well, 
because the remaining forests, once vast and contin- 
uous, have been broken up into fragments of trees sur- 
rounded by active and abandoned pasture and 
farmland. In many regions of tropical America all the 
remaining forest is in the form of fragments. Ostensi- 
bly these act as havens where flora and fauna may sur- 
vive despite the deforestation around them. Biologists 
studying fragments, however, have reported severe 
reductions in the kinds and numbers of plants and 


animals that live within them, suggesting that their 
value as reserves is limited, and that the fate of tropi- 
cal ecosystems may be even worse than originally 
believed. Why are plant and animal populations 
declining within tropical forest fragments? 

To find out, ecologists began to study fragments as 
if they were oceanic islands. Although the resem- 
blance is only superficial, researchers soon found that 
one theory used in island studies was also applicable 
to forest fragments. That theory is called the equilib- 
rium theory of island biogeography, and it predicts 
that small islands far from the mainland will contain 
fewer species than large islands closer to the main- 


nm i ih lt cai lac i i ak caer 





land. This is because small islands have higher extinc- 
tion rates than large islands, and islands far from the 
mainland have small immigration rates because colo- 
nizing species have difficulty crossing large expanses 
of ocean and finding the islands. 

In forest fragments the principles work the same 
way, except that the mainland for a fragment is the 
nearest large forest. Thus, the smaller a fragment and 
the greater its distance from a large forest, the fewer 
species it will contain. This is called the isolation 
effect. 

Armed with this theory, biologists from the World 
Wildlife Fund—U.S. and the Institute of Amazonian 


errr 


Research—Brazil, joined forces in one of the largest 
ecological field experiments ever conducted, located 
50 miles north of Manaus in the state of Amazonas. 
Called the Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems Proj- 
ect (MCS), it set out to study the effects of tropical 
forest fragmentation on the plants and animals within 
fragments and to determine how small they could 
become and still support healthy populations. Begin- 
ning in 1979 researchers entered intact forests and 
fragments of various sizes to monitor tree, butterfly, 
primate, reptile, amphibian, and bird populations. 
They found that the predictions of the equilibrium 
theory were largely upheld for birds that live in the for- 





WALT ANDERS‘ 


Summer 1986 





- 





8 


LEE H. HARPER 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


L. C. MARIGO (BRUCE COLEMAN LIMITED) 


est undergrowth. The smaller the fragment and the 
farther it was from continuous forest, the fewer species 
of understory birds were present. In fact, one group of 
birds completely disappeared from the fragments. 


These were the army-ant following birds—woodcreep- 
ers and antbirds—that flock in front of raiding army 
ants, capturing insects, spiders, and small vertebrates 
which are trying to escape the ants. 

Initially the MCS researchers attributed the disap- 
pearance of the ant-following birds to the reduction in 
forest area, which would have curtailed the birds’ 
home ranges and possibly those of the army ants. As 
data accumulated, however, I began to wonder if 
something else was contributing to the birds’ 
decline—the edge effect. 


dges are the areas where two dissimilar habitats 

meet. In temperate North America, edges usually 
contain a large number of species. The edge of a forest 
adjacent to a field, for example, generally contains 
more bird species than the core of either habitat 
because the edge serves as a meeting place where spe- 
cies with both habitat requirements may be found. In 
the Amazon, however, the situation is usually the 
opposite. Instead of being an area of species richness, 
forest edges generally have a very small number of bird 
species. 

I began to suspect that edges might be affecting 
bird populations in fragments because the MCS 
researchers had discovered that edges were affecting 
the plants. Trees along the forest margins were dying 
faster than trees within the fragments. The edges were 
altering the microclimate of the forest margins and 
those fragments which were exposed to edges on all 
sides. Opening the forest to sun and wind made it hot- 
ter and drier. The warm moist floor rich in ground 
dwelling fauna was replaced with an accumulation of 
dry leaf litter. It seemed possible, therefore, that edges 
were affecting bird populations by reducing the birds’ 
available prey. 

Increased edge could also reduce the number of 
bird species in other ways. First, edges created by 








clearcutting are very abrupt. Unlike natural edges, 
they do not provide a gradual transition from open 
habitat to brushy shrubs to forest. Second, because 
even natural edge is relatively uncommon in Central 
Amazonian forests, few birds have adapted to take 
advantage of this kind of habitat. Third, unlike North 
American species, tropical birds are very specialized 
in their habitat requirements and few use both forest 
and open areas. 

Because the edge effect is potentially devastating 
but poorly understood, | began studying it in detail in 
1984 at the MCS site. The design of my study was sim- 
ple. Using a series of mist nets, which harmlessly 
entangle birds so they can be identified, counted and 
released, I compared the kinds and numbers of birds 
present in three environments: in continuous forests, 


in natural edges formed by fallen trees, and in and 
near manmade edges created by clearcutting. After six 
months I had acquired some striking results. 

The number of species in continuous forests and 
natural edges was almost identical. However, man- 
made edges contained far fewer species, and the closer 
to the edge of the clearcut I sampled, the fewer the 
species. Natural edges, therefore, did not reduce the 
number of species present, but manmade edges 
severely depressed the number. Furthermore, the 
number of individuals at manmade edges also was 
reduced, again in relation to the distance from the 
clearcut edge. 

My studies, however, still did not explain why birds 
avoid manmade edges. To examine this question, | 
considered which species were most susceptible to the 


edge effect. I discovered, as had the researchers from 
the MCS project, that ant-following birds were partic- 
ularly vulnerable. These birds, including white- 
chinned woodcreepers, and rufous-throated and 
white-plumed antbirds, were equally common in con- 
tinuous forest and at natural edges, but they had prac- 
tically disappeared from manmade edges. 


nt-following birds were not the only species 

missing from the edge. Also absent were non- 
flocking, ground foraging birds such as the white- 
necked thrush and the musician wren. These birds 
have vastly different social systems and foraging meth- 
ods than the ant followers, but they do eat similar 
foods. Therefore, the disappearance of both groups 
from manmade edges is probably related to lack of 


DOUG WECHSLER 


Raiding army ants, 
left, are often pursued 
by warbling antbirds, 
far left, and white- 
plumed antbirds, in 
researchers’ hands. 
The birds capture 


insects, spiders, and 


small vertebrates which 


are trying to escape the 


ants. When nearby 
clearings cause the 
forest floor to become 
hot and dry, both ants 
and birds disappear. 


Summer 1986 


9 


More than half 
of the Earth’s 
rain forests 
have been cut 
down or 

burned since 
1945. Currently, 
90 acres are 
cleared every 


minute. 


10 The Living Bird Quarterly 


D. CAVAGNARO/DRK PHOTO 





T te Eo BH’ ¢ H PF Rt EE @ Ff - CH EA P 8 SY 





ropical rain forests are the Earth’s oldest, 
richest, and most diverse ecosystems. While 
they cover less than 10 percent of the Earth’s 


land surface, they support almost half its plant and 
animal species and about 80 percent of its land 
vegetation. New species are discovered in the trop- 
ics each year. 

Yet tropical rain forests are being destroyed 
faster than any other ecosystem. Worldwide, more 
than half have been cut down or burned since 1945, 
and currently an estimated 27-million acres—an 
area about the size of New York State—are 
destroyed every year. That’s over 50 acres per min- 
ute. 

Most remaining tropical forests are in Southeast 
Asia, equatorial west Africa, and the Amazon 
River basin of South America. For North Ameri- 
cans these places are remote and their futures may 
seem irrelevant. But the effects of tropical deforest- 
ation, such as mass extinctions and changes in the 
Earth’s climate, will be felt close to home. 

The forests are being cut for many reasons. In 
Central and South America they are cleared pri- 
marily to create pasture for cattle. Tropical 
ranches produce lean, cheap beef, most of which 
is exported to wealthier countries for fast-food 
hamburgers, hot dogs and processed beef foods. 

Tropical forests are also cut for the exotic wood 
they contain such as teak and mahogany. Because 
these prized species are widely dispersed through- 
out the forests, huge areas are often destroyed to 
remove one or two trees. Still other rain forests are 
felled to make plantations of crops such as coffee 
and bananas. Like the lean beef, exotic woods and 
other crops are not usually consumed in the tropics 
but are exported to the United States and Europe. 

All the effects of tropical deforestation are not 
known. Short-term effects are easiest to identify. 
As forests are destroyed, many species of plants 
and animals become extinct. Since new species are 
being found every year, it’s possible that some may 
disappear without ever being discovered. 


But it is the long-term effects of tropical defor- 
estation that are most worrisome. Foremost in the 
minds of bird watchers is the effect of deforestation 
on migrant birds. Nearly half the species that 
breed in North America each summer migrate to 
the tropics in winter. As tropical forests are cut 
these birds have fewer places to go and, if they 
cannot adapt to the cleared areas, their popula- 
tions surely will decline. 

Another cause for concern is the potential effects 
of deforestation on the Earth’s climate. Tropical 
forests hold half of the planet’s carbon. When 
burned, they release huge amounts of carbon diox- 
ide into the atmosphere. Some theorists feel that 
increased levels of carbon dioxide could warm the 
Earth’s temperature sufficiently to melt part of the 
polar icecaps, raising the oceans and drowning 
coastal cities. Others predict a clouding of the sun 
and a cooling that could start a new ice age. Most 
agree that increased variability in the weather, 
whatever the outcome, already has begun. 

What can be done to preserve the remaining rain 
forests? First, we must recognize the importance 
of the forests to the health of the planet and reduce 
or halt consumption of rain-forest goods whose 
production requires that more trees be cut. One 
way to do this is to end the subsidies that inter- 
national organizations provide to Latin American 
countries for deforestation projects. The World 
Bank, for example, has loaned hundreds of mil- 
lions of dollars for environmentally destructive 
projects such as the development of cattle ranches. 

Another way to preserve the rain forests is to 
harvest their products in an environmentally 
sound manner. For example, researchers at the 
Centro Agronémico Tropical de Investigacién y 
Ensenanza in Costa Rica are developing agrofor- 
estry—a method of planting crops within forests 
so that tropical farmers can produce food, crops, 
and valuable timber without cutting down huge 
numbers of trees. 

Finally, the U.S. and other western nations can 
stop importing tropical wood and beef. Many desir- 
able alternatives to teak and mahogany exist that 
are grown in North America, and only about 10 
percent of our total beef consumption is imported. 
If all the beef eaten in the United States were pro- 
duced within our borders, the price of a fast-food 
hamburger may increase by five cents, but the con- 
tribution toward preserving one of the world’s most 
important ecosystems would be tremendous. 

For more information contact: Rainforest Action 
Network, 466 Green St., Suite 300, San Francisco, 
California 94133, or World Wildlife Fund—U.S., 
1601 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20009. 





Tropical forest reserves 
should be as large as 
possible to support 
birds such as the 
ornate hawk eagle, left, 
which needs 100-acre 
tracts of virgin forest 
to survive and 
reproduce successfully. 
Also, one 100-acre tract 
has less harmful edge 


than ten 10-acre tracts. 





food, specifically leaf-litter insects which cannot live 
in the edges’ hotter, drier climates. 

The impact of edge is important when considering 
the value of forest fragments as wildlife reserves. My 
study showed that the edge effect extended at least 50 
yards into the uncut forest. Using this conservative 
estimate, a 2.5 acre fragment would be entirely edge, 
a 25-acre fragment would be 50 percent edge, and 
even a 250-acre fragment would have 20 percent of its 
area influenced by edge. Therefore, to be useful as 
reserves, fragments must be as large as possible, and 
the vegetation around them should be allowed to 
regenerate as a buffer zone which would reduce the 
edge effect by preventing wind from drying the under- 
growth. 

Fragmentation of the forest affects bird populations 
in another way. Not only are fragments mostly edge, 
but they are frequently too small to meet the food and 
shelter needs of pairs of many rain forest birds, espe- 
cially larger species. A pair of harpy eagles, for exam- 
ple, will not survive and successfully reproduce in a 
100-acre fragment because they can’t find enough 
food. If a continuous forest is broken into small frag- 
ments, harpy eagles may have to abandon the area. 

The good news is Amazonia still contains expan- 
sive rain forests. The bad news is that the cutting con- 
tinues at a prodigious rate. Conservationists around 


the world are working to slow the cutting and to 
ensure more efficient use of cut forests so they don’t 
need to be abandoned so quickly. The World Wildlife 
Fund has begun a campaign to identify valuable prod- 
ucts that can be extracted from tropical forests on a 
sustained basis, without extensive cutting. 
Conservationists are also working to preserve larger 
areas of forest rather than numerous small ones, so 
that the community of plants, birds, and other wild- 
life is affected as little as possible. MCS researchers 
are continuing to study what the minimum size of 
reserves must be, and their work is crucial to the 
future of the Amazonian rain forest. If the forests con- 
tinue to be cut into small fragments, we may lose the 
flora and fauna of one of the largest and richest eco- 


systems on Earth. O 





Carlos Quintela is a Ph.D. candidate in zoology at Louisiana State 
University, Baton Rouge. 

Further Reading 

Caufield, C. In the Rainforest. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1985. 
Myers, N. The Primary Source: Tropical Forests and Our Future. 
W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1984. 

Soulé, M.E. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Di- 
versity. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Mass. 1986. 

For more information on the MCS write: Pieter de Marez Oyens, 
Project Coordinator, Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems Project, 
World Wildlife Fund, 1255 23rd Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20037. 


enn ee ee 


ALBERT KUHNIGK (VALAN PHOTOS) 


Summer 1986 


11 


On ships, on 
shorebird 
feeding 
grounds, and 


right out back 


in the mist 


nets, MBO 


workers gather 


12 


data vital 
to bird 
population 
studies. 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


THE DATA GATHERERS 


N the bow of the Albatross IV, steaming down 

the continental shelf toward Cape Hatteras, is 

an intern from Manomet Bird Observatory. 
Despite the dusk that soon will settle and the winds of 
an October sea, she is on deck, clipboard in hand. 
Since 0530 that morning she has been below only 
twice—for lunch and supper—a routine she has fol- 
lowed for two weeks. The Albatross IV is a National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration vessel 
doing studies on microscopic sea organisms called 
plankton. The intern is aboard as an MBO seabird 
observer. 

Each half hour from dawn to dusk she conducts a 
15-minute count, estimating the number of birds per 
square kilometer and noting species, color phase, age, 
and behavior. Ultimately the data she gathers will help 
to determine the distribution of seabirds along the 
coast. The work is exhausting and often accompanied 
by a queasy stomach, and when darkness falls there is 
still the task of transcribing notes onto computer 
cards. 

Studying seabirds over the gray Atlantic is just one 
of many projects carried out by MBO, one of only 
three major bird observatories in North America. 
Begun 17 years ago as a small bird banding station, 
MBO has grown into a professional research and edu- 
cation center with programs of international scope. 


—_e— 


DAVID TWITCHELL 








Although large studies are under way on a variety of 
nonavian topics, the observatory’s research often 
focuses on birds because they are sensitive to environ- 
mental change. 

MBO headquarters hardly looks like a renowned 
center of scientific inquiry. It lies at the end of a pot- 
hole-ridden dirt road 40 miles south of Boston. The 
gray building, once a gracious summer home, is now a 
conglomeration of banding lab, library, offices, 
kitchen, and bunk space. Among the old furnishings, 
dusty bird mounts, and topographic maps, 12 scien- 
tists organize and oversee MBO’s operations. 

The primary goal of MBO is to answer pressing 
environmental questions—how are seabirds and 
other marine organisms affected by oil spills? What 
are the effects of microwaves and radioactivity on 
birds? How has deforestation in South America 
affected migrant songbirds? The means to this goal is 
the long and tedious process of gathering data—the 
facts and figures needed to assess the health of wild 
bird populations. 

One method of obtaining this information is 
through international seabird surveys like the one 
conducted aboard the Albatross IV. MBO began 
studying seabirds in 1976 when a western North 
Atlantic fishing grounds called Georges Bank was pro- 
posed as an oil drilling site. This region yields 20 per- 
cent of the world’s fisheries’ catch, but little was 
known about the seabirds in the area, leaving a 
vacuum of knowledge if an oil spill occurred. 

MBO’s objective was clear: to document the distri- 
butions of seabirds prior to oil exploration. Since 1976 
MBO biologists, interns, and volunteers have logged 
thousands of hours taking censuses of seabirds from 
Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia. As a result, MBO has 
documented the distributions and abundances of 44 
seabirds, defined areas of seabird concentration, 
examined feeding habits, and estimated population 
sizes. In the second phase of the study, researchers will 
relate this information to oceanographic features such 
as temperature, salinity, depth, and distributions of 
plankton and fish. 

Baseline data such as these have become increas- 
ingly important as the continental shelf comes under 
pressure from waste disposal, shipping, oil and gas 
extraction, and commercial fishing. Expert testimony 
from MBO is often sought at offshore oil lease hearings 
and by fishery experts who develop management mod- 
els and set harvest quotas. 

Another area where the collection of long-term and 
far-ranging data is vital is in the study of shorebirds. 
Because they migrate in large flocks and frequent the 
same stopover sites every year, shorebirds are espe- 


ELIZABETH CARY PIERSON 


cially vulnerable to manmade changes in their envi- 
ronment. For 12 years MBO has been carrying out 
studies aimed at identifying critical areas and discov- 
ering the reason for their importance to shorebirds. 


ore than 500 birders in North, Central, and 

South America regularly survey local sites. 

The information collected is sent to MBO 
where it forms a database that now exceeds 200,000 
entries on the distribution and abundance of shore- 
birds throughout the Americas. An analysis of these 
data has revealed some important findings. Dur- 
ing spring migration, for example, more than 75 per- 
cent of all North Amefican shorebirds are in just two 
locations— Delaware Bay and Cheyenne Bottoms, 
Kansas. 

Project director Brian Harrington explains why 
shorebird data are invaluable. “The more questions we 
can answer—where do the birds concentrate and 
why, why do they prefer one beach to another, what 
resources do they need—the better we can predict the 
effects that development will have on the birds.” 

MBO soon will publish a shorebird atlas written for 
conservation agencies and planners that will provide 
information needed to protect key areas upon which 
shorebirds depend. 

A third way MBO collects data on bird populations 
is by banding individual birds that fly over Manomet 
and get caught in the nearly invisible mist nets which 
have been erected to capture birds harmlessly. 

“Banding is at the core of this organization,’ says 
Trevor Lloyd-Evans, chief of the banding program. 
Lloyd-Evans formerly worked at the British Trust for 
Ornithology where he banded land birds and studied 
hazardous gull concentrations at airports. 

Every day, weather permitting, MBO volunteers 
and interns band from a few dozen to three or four 
hundred birds. Working deftly, the interns extricate 
birds from the nets and fit one leg with a uniquely 
numbered aluminum band. The banders record infor- 
mation vital to the understanding of a bird’s health: 
species, sex, age, weight, parasites present, molting 
condition, amount of fat, breeding status. Later this 
information is computer processed and added to the 
database on the species. 

At the height of fall migration MBO operates 50 
mist nets which capture primarily thrushes, vireos, 
warblers, sparrows, and flycatchers. 

“By measuring the number of birds caught per open 
net hour,’ says Lloyd-Evans, “we can detect changes in 
their populations.” 

In 17 years, MBO has banded over 200,000 birds of 


220 species and has uncovered some enlightening 


ROBERT PR CARR (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 





facts. For example, Lloyd-Evans cites a 600 percent 
increase in the 1970s and early ’80s in the number of 
bay-breasted and Cape May warblers that MBO 
banded each fall. He links the increase to an outbreak 
of spruce budworms in eastern Canada and Maine. 
Both warblers feed on budworms during the nesting 
season, and with a superabundance of food for their 
young, both species were very successful breeders. In 
the past two years, however, as the budworm popula- 
tion declined, the number of bay-breasted and Cape 
May warblers similarly declined. 

Another valuable fact is the significant decrease in 
the number of northern thrushes MBO has banded 
since the late 1970s, a possible reflection, Lloyd-Evans 
surmises, of deforestation on the birds’ wintering 
grounds in South America. 


n ships, on shorebird feeding grounds, and 

right out back in the mist nets, MBO workers 

are gathering bits of information, not only 
about birds, but about harbor seals and whales, fire 
ecology, and methods of controlling salt marsh mos- 
quitoes. On a remarkably low budget, MBO has 
acquired a wealth of data. Much of this information 
may not reap answers for many years, but through its 
careful and methodical collection, MBO hopes to use 
it for sound conservation planning. 0 





Elizabeth Cary Pierson is a freelance writer living in Maine. 
Further Reading 
Pierson, E.C. “Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change”” 


Orion. Summer 1983. 


Though upside-down 


and tangled, birds are 


not harmed when 
captured in mist nets 
Banders extricate the 


birds, weigh and 


measure them, and fit 


them with uniquely 
numbered aluminum 
bands. During fall 
migration MBO 


volunteers may band 


three or four hundred 


birds every day. 


Summer 1986 


13 


oo 


Rake 








ee 








LOVE AMONG THE 
ICEBERGS 


ELAINE C. GRANDJEAN 


On their breeding grounds at Hudson Bay, female phalaropes show some markedly 
male behavior — displaying, competing, defending, and then, leaving. 


are turning the promise of summer into a real- 

ity. Only scattered patches of snow linger on 
the tundra, and the icelocked Churchill River is 
opening up to new life. 

Many birds have returned from their distant win- 
tering grounds to the edges of these icy waters to nest 
and rear their young. Lapland longspurs flock from the 
northern and central parts of the United States, 
northern pintails from Central America, golden plov- 
ers from Argentina, and red-necked phalaropes from 
the coasts of Peru, Argentina, and Chile. 

Breeding in the arctic is an intense business. With 
only six weeks until the start of fall migration, birds 
must make the most of their opportunities to repro- 
duce. As a result, male birds are busily displaying 
everywhere. Brightly colored northern shovelers are 
courting females in the shallows along the shoreline. 
Male Arctic terns fly overhead carrying fish to entice 
prospective mates, and male white-rumped sandpip- 
ers chase other males away from their females. 

Meanwhile, in a pocket of an arctic pool, brightly 
colored female red and red-necked phalaropes display, 
court, and defend their smaller, drabber mates in a 
manner usually reserved for males. What is going on 
here? 

It’s called sex-role reversal and it is highly unusual 
in birds. In most species, males play the dominant role 
in courtship. They are usually larger and more colorful 
than their mates, which they defend vigorously from 
all other suitors. Males often play little or no role in 
building the nest, incubating eggs or rearing their 
young; housekeeping duties are left to the smaller, 
drabber females. 

In a handful of species, however, the typical sex 
roles are reversed. Females are larger, more colorful 
and aggressive in courtship, while the smaller, drabber 
males build the nest, incubate the eggs and care for 
the young. Sometimes the female even produces a sec- 
ond clutch with another mate during the same season. 

All three species of phalarope, red and red-necked, 


ARLY June at Hudson Bay: the lengthening days 


which breed in the arctic and subarctic regions world- 
wide, and Wilson’s, which breeds on the flatlands and 
prairies of North America, belong to the 30-odd bird 
species whose sex roles are reversed. Even among these 
few, the extent of reversal varies. 

Female spotted sandpipers, for example, are about 
the same size and color as males, but the females are 
more aggressive and defend territories while the males 
do most of the incubation. Male and female northern 
jacanas (a tropical water bird) have similar plumage, 
but the aggressive females are about twice as large as 
the males, which build nests, incubate eggs and care 
for chicks. 

Outside of laying the eggs, virtually every aspect of 
mating is reversed in phalaropes. Females are larger 
and in breeding plumage are more colorful than males; 
they court males and defend them from other females, 
and they leave the males to incubate the eggs and care 
for the young. Other species with complete sex-role 
reversal include the Eurasian painted snipe and the 
button quails of Africa, Asia, and Australia. 

A typical June day at Hudson Bay finds the phala- 
ropes busily replenishing energy sup- 
plies severely depleted during migra- 
tion from their wintering quarters off 
the coasts of South America. Like 
whirling dervishes, the birds spin 
around in circles in the small ice-free 
ponds, jabbing here and there for the 
mosquito larvae, beetles, and midges 
that form their summer diet. 

But they are not so intent on feed- 
ing that they forget the purpose of 
their long flight north—mating. 
Here and there a female red phala- 
rope stays very close to a particular 
male. Persistently she keeps to his 
side and when another female 
approaches, she quickly stretches her 
neck full length and points her 
stubby bill like a weapon. The warn- 





Female red-necked phalarope 


STEVEN C. KAUFMAN 


Summer 1986 15 


Male red phalarope, 
top right, is smaller 
and drabber than his 
mate. The female leaves 
the male in charge of 
raising the young, 
which can swim and 
feed themselves soon 
after birth, bottom 
right. Other bird 
species where 
traditional sex roles 
are reversed are the 
Eurasian painted 
snipe, male below 
incubating eggs, and 


Australian cassowary, 


male with chicks. 








16 The Living Bird Quarterly 


© FRITHFOTO (BRUCE COLEMAN LIMITED) 


LEE LYON (BRUCE COLEMAN LIMITED) 


ing is immediately understood and the interloper has- 
tily moves away. Like many other birds faced with a 
short breeding season, this female has gotten a head 
start on breeding by forming a pair bond during migra- 
tion. 

As part of her defense strategy the female leads the 
male to a quiet part of the pond. While the pair feeds, 
the female keeps up a patter of short plunking sounds 
to which he responds in kind. Should the female 
momentarily lose sight of the male, she would initiate 
more intense calling that usually would bring the male 
flying back to her. 

Besides acting as suitor and defender, the female 
phalarope takes the dominant role further. She 
chooses the nest site but, unlike other birds, it’s not 
for her, it’s for him. The male retreats to low shrubs 
nearby to scrape out a rudimentary nest hollow with 
his feet. There the female lays four eggs, depositing 
one a day until the clutch is complete. 

Then the female abandons both nest and mate. 
Depending on food and male availability, weather, 
and other factors, she either joins other females in 
“hen parties” and leaves the breeding grounds, or she 
forms another pair bond and mates again. Meanwhile 
the male incubates the eggs for about 21 days. Within 
a few hours after hatching the precocial chicks can 
run, swim, and feed themselves, but the male shep- 
herds them until they can fly in about two weeks. 

The prompt exit of the female does not imply mater- 
nal indifference. With her colorful plumage and larger 
size, she would be an easy target for predators if she 
were to spend time on the nest. In addition she lacks 
brood patches, featherless areas of skin on a bird’s 
belly that develop a rich supply of blood vessels during 
the breeding season. The patches function as a sort of 
avian hot-water bottle, warming the eggs and embryos 
within. Male phalaropes have brood patches, which 
are found only on females in most species. 

Also, the female’s early departure might make more 
food available for the rapidly growing chicks. In short, 
female phalaropes abandon their mates for the same 
reasons that males of other species leave theirs. 

But how and why did the sex roles become reversed? 
The answer is uncertain, but to speculate, we must 
step back in time. Brood patches and the urge to 
incubate apparently are stimulated by two hormones, 
androgen and prolactin. Androgen also is responsible 
for the colorful plumage. In the remote past, both 
sexes may have produced equal amounts of these 
hormones. At that time the differences in appearance 
we see today would not have existed: both sexes would 
have been colorful and would have had brood 
patches. 

The change to marked sexual difference in appear- 
ance and behavior could have been the result of a 
mutation that lowered a female’s production of prolac- 
tin. (Today’s female phalaropes produce very little of 
this hormone.) The result would have been a colorful 
female without brood patches or the inclination to 


B. LYON (VALAN PHOTOS) 


JEN AND DES BARTLETT (BRUCE COLEMAN LIMITED) 





incubate. Since the male would still have patches and 
inclination, he would carry out the parental duties. 
With her hormonal ties to the nest gone, the female 
would probably leave. 

If the mutation proved advantageous and was 
passed to succeeding generations, the population 
would slowly evolve until the mutant females became 
the norm. At the same time evolution would cause 
males to become smaller and drabber since inconspic- 
uous males would be the most successful at rearing 
young. 

But what would be the advantage for males to raise 
the young? There are several possibilities. W.D. Graul 
and coworkers have suggested that reversed sex roles 
evolve primarily in birds that breed in areas where the 
season is so short and food so scarce that females have 
difficulty mustering the energy to migrate to the 
breeding grounds, produce eggs, incubate them, and 
replenish fat supplies for the long trip back to the win- 
tering grounds. For such species, phalaropes and sev- 
eral other shorebirds included, it would be 
advantageous for the males to assume responsibility 
for incubation and caring for the young so the female 
could get an earlier start on migration. 

It also is noteworthy that most species with reversed 
sex roles are polyandrous, that is, the female mates 
with more than one male, leaving a clutch of eggs 
with each. Sex-role reversal may have evolved as a 
means of facilitating polyandry. This mating system 
could also be important for a species with a short 
breeding season. It allows a female that lays a fixed 
number of eggs per clutch to produce more eggs in one 
season. 

Finally, it is probably significant that most species 
which have reversed sex roles bear precocial young. 
Since they need little parental care, a single parent 
can easily raise them. Considering this, James Erck- 
mann of the University of Washington has concluded 
that for species where both sexes participate equally in 
the reproductive process, male care and sex-role 
reversal may be just as likely to evolve as female care. 
There is no reason why females should be better at 
raising young than males. 

Mid-July at Hudson Bay: the days are already short- 
ening and fall migration is under way. Hudsonian god- 
wits are beginning their long flight that might take 
them all the way to the Straits of Magellan; green- 
winged teal and northern pintail are headed for the 
southern U.S. and beyond, and semipalmated sand- 
pipers are leaving for the West Indies or perhaps Peru. 
The phalaropes are going, too; first the females, then 
the males, and finally the young. 0 





Elaine Grandjean is an editor in environmental health for an inter- 
national organization in Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Further Reading 

Haley, Delphine, editor. Seabirds of Eastern North Pacific and Arctic 
Waters. Pacific Search Press, Seattle. 1984. 

Johnsgard, Paul A. The Plovers, Sandpipers and Snipes of the World. 
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1981. 


The female 
phalarope takes 
the dominant 
role further. 
She chooses the 
nest site but, 
unlike other 
birds, it’s not 
for her, 


it’s for him. 


Summer 1986 17 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





New Books 


Bird enthusiasts and amateur 
ornithologists will be inter- 
ested in two new books from 
Great Britain. Both are highly 
useful references which distill 
much of the current knowledge 
in ornithology. 


A Dictionary of Birds edited 
by Bruce Campbell and Elizabeth 
Lack. 1985. Published for the Brit- 
ish Ornithologists’ Union by 
Buteo Books, Vermillion, South 
Dakota. 670 pages. $75.00 
(cloth). 


A Dictionary of Birds, which 
more accurately should be enti- 
tled an encyclopedia, is a suc- 
cessor to Sir Landsborough 
Thomson’s 1964 classic, A 
New Dictionary of Birds. It is far 
more than a revision, however, 
because most of the material 
has been completely rewritten 
to reflect advances in ornithol- 
ogy over the past 20 years. 
More than 280 specialists from 
around the world contributed 
to this monumental work, 
making it comprehensive and 
authoritative. 

The book is written in clear, 
nontechnical language and 
comprises hundreds of alpha- 
betically arranged articles from 
abdomen to zygomatic arch. It 
includes long scientific articles 
such as that on molting, which 
explains why birds lose their 
feathers each year, and on 
flight, which describes how 
birds remain aloft. It also con- 
tains lengthy cultural articles 
such as one on birds in art, 
which discusses such topics as 
the frequent depiction of the 
goldfinch in religious paint- 
ings, and another on birds in 
music, where the reader learns 
that Mahler shot birds because 
their singing distracted him 
while he composed. 


18 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Shorter articles cover a wide 
array of topics such as belly 
soaking, crop milk, edible 
nests, distraction behavior, 
urbanization, and wing for- 
mula. And there are articles 
describing all the families of 
birds. It’s hard to find an orni- 
thological subject not dis- 
cussed in this exhaustive 
volume. 

North American readers 
may wonder how this book 
compares with John K. Terres’ 
Audubon Society Encyclopedia 
of North American Birds, 
another excellent work. While 
the two books are comparable 
in size and cost, there are sev- 
eral differences. The Dictio- 
nary is more up to date on 
scientific findings, is more 
comprehensive, and has more 
detailed treatments of most 
topics. It is also more authori- 
tative; however, it is scantily 
illustrated and has neither 
color photographs nor biogra- 
phies of individual species. 
The Terres Encyclopedia is not 
as detailed, but deals ade- 
quately with most ornithologi- 
cal topics, and includes very 
useful bird biographies and 
beautiful color photographs of 
all North American species. 
On balance, for North Ameri- 
can birders who don’t want 
both books, Terres is the better 
choice. 


The Encyclopedia of Birds 
edited by Christopher M. Perrins 
and Alex L.A. Middleton. 1985. 
Facts on File, New York. 447 
pages. $35.00 (cloth). 


This book is also poorly 
named. It is not really an ency- 
clopedia, but a detailed 
description of the world’s 180 
families of living birds, 
arranged taxonomically (in the 
order in which birds are 


believed to have evolved), from 
ostriches to crows. For each 
family, information is given on 
appearance, food and habitat 
preferences, nesting behavior, 
and more. Maps depict the dis- 
tribution of each family on the 
seven continents. Accounts 
are clearly written by 90 
experts and are accompanied 
by superb color photographs 
and illustrations. 

Because the book concen- 
trates on the general character- 
istics of bird families, it usually 
is not useful for learning about 
individual species. Nonethe- 
less it is an excellent and valu- 
able work, and is superior to 
the only other book of its type, 
Birds of the World by Oliver 
Austin, which is far less 
detailed, partly outdated, and 
contains several factual errors. 
The Encyclopedia will appeal 
to professional ornithologists 
and armchair birders alike. 


Tales of a Low-Rent Birder 
by Pete Dunne. 1986. Rutgers 
University Press, New Brunswick, 
New Jersey. 157 pages. $15.95 
(cloth). 


Pete Dunne loves to tell tales. 
He’s an avid birder and since 
he makes his living as an orni- 
thologist, he’s usually broke. 
So it’s easy to explain the title 
of this essay collection. 

Explaining the contents is 
more difficult. Most of the sto- 
ries are about birds and bird 
watching. Many take place at 
Cape May, New Jersey, where 
Dunne was sanctuary director 
for several years. Some are 
about studying birds, others 
about ignoring them. 

The tones of the stories are 
as varied as the themes. They 
run from factual to conjec- 
tural, philosophical to satiri- 
cal, compassionate to 


FOREWORD BY ROGER TORY PETERSON 





irreverent. There is one com- 
mon thread: all are very good. 

In “Billy Leeds and the 
Eagle;’ Dunne meets a crusty 
old codger in a Cape May salt 
marsh. Pete is watching hawks; 
the old man prefers to shoot 
them. What does a 30-year-old 
naturalist from suburbia say to 
an ancient local? “Birdathon 
1983” chronicles the adven- 
tures of Dunne’s Guerrilla 
Birding Team as it sets a new 
record for the most species 
seen in New Jersey in a 24- 
hour period. “First-year Bird” 
presents an hour in the day of a 
young and hungry red-shoul- 
dered hawk. “Thoughts While 
Waiting for an Ice Falcon” is a 
conversation between Dunne’s 
conscious and subconscious 
mind that examines the drive 
that keeps dedicated birders in 
the field. “SVAT,” the Species 
Verification Attack Team, 
stops at nothing— including 
dynamiting a farm—to help 
its clients find new species to 
add to their life lists. 

Dunne escapes the traps 
that can make nature stories 
boring by avoiding the hack- 
neyed, presenting the unex- 
pected in the mundane, and 
applying his distinctive wit to 


CARL R. SAMS II 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





every situation. Dunne’s is 
among the freshest and most 
humorous outdoor writing to 
appear in a long time, and any- 
one who watches birds and 
contemplates the complexities 
of human nature should enjoy 


this book. 


Iron Heads 


Migrating birds have several 
methods of finding their way to 
and from their breeding 
grounds. Sometimes they 
determine direction from the 
sun, sometimes they follow the 
stars, and other times they 
apparently use the north— 
south orientation of the 
Earth’s magnetic field. To navi- 
gate using the sun or stars, 
obviously a bird can use its 
eyes. But what kind of sensor 
would allow a bird to detect 
the Earth’s magnetic field? 
One possibility is that birds 
may have iron inside their 
heads. Robert Beason and Joan 
Nichols of the State University 
of New York at Geneseo 
recently have identified depos- 
its of magnetite—a magneti- 
cally sensitive iron oxide—in 





the heads of bobolinks (“Mag- 
netic orientation and magneti- 
cally sensitive material in a 
transequatorial migratory 
bird,’ Nature, vol. 309, pp. 
151-153). 

Beason and Nichols began 
their study inside a planetar- 
ium where their experiments 
showed that bobolinks, like 
many other birds, respond to 
changes in magnetic fields. 
Then the researchers exam- 
ined the heads of 22 bobo- 
links, looking for magnetically 
sensitive materials. A series of 
tests indicated the presence of 
magnetite concentrated in 
sheaths around the olfactory 
nerve and in bristles which 
projected into the nasal cavity. 

Because the magnetite 
occurs in high concentrations 
and is adjacent to nerve tissue, 
Beason and Nichols suggest 
that the material can sense 
magnetic fields and relay infor- 
mation about them to the 
birds’ brains. Other research- 
ers have previously discovered 
magnetite in the heads of hom- 
ing pigeons, which are also 


thought to detect magnetic 
fields. 


Bobolinks may have iron in their heads. 





Pest Control 


Nesting season is a busy time 
for parent birds as they struggle 
to provide food for their raven- 
ous young. There is little time 
for frivolous activity, neverthe- 
less, many species of hawks 
and eagles adorn their nest 
with sprigs of green foliage, 
sometimes replacing them 
every day. Is it decoration or 
does the greenery serve some 
purpose? 

Several functions that have 
been suggested are unconvinc- 
ing. For example, the greenery 
could aid in nest sanitation by 
covering debris, but this 
doesn’t explain why the mate- 
rial is brought to the nest 
before it becomes dirty. The 
vegetation could advertise nest 
occupancy, but it is brought to 
the nest even when eggs or 
nestlings are present. It could 
shade the nestlings, but birds 
that nest in tree cavities or 
below the forest canopy use 
greenery as often as birds with 
exposed nests. 

Peter Wimberger of Cornell 
University has another expla- 
nation. Noting that green veg- 
etation often contains 
naturally occurring chemicals 
which repel insects, he sug- 
gests that the sprigs in nests 
might repel or kill noxious par- 
asites: fleas, ticks, and various 
flies (“The use of green plant 
material in bird nests to avoid 
ectoparasites’ The Auk, vol. 
101, pp. 615-618). 

Nestlings can have big prob- 
lems because of parasites. Most 
are blood suckers that can kill 
their hosts, and certain fly lar- 
vae winter in nests, emerging 
about the time the eggs hatch. 
Parasite infestation is one rea- 
son most birds build a new nest 
each year instead of reusing the 
old one. 


Bald eagles may use aromatic 
greens for natural pest control. 








Many birds of prey, however, 
do reuse their nests, and when 
Wimberger examined the 
nesting habits of 49 species of 
vultures, harriers, hawks, and 
eagles he made an interesting 
discovery. Of the species that 
decorate their nests, 80 per- 
cent reuse their nest, while 
only 40 percent of the species 
that don’t decorate use their 
nest again. This suggests that 
the greenery helps to reduce 
parasites in a nest so that it 
can be reused. Among the few 
passerines that reuse their 
nests, starlings, purple mar- 
tins, and American crows have 
also been reported to place 
fresh greens or the aromatic 
inner bark of western red cedar 
in their nests. 

This is scant and indirect 
evidence that greenery repels 
parasites, as Wimberger points 
out. Further studies could be 
done in the field by comparing 
fledging success in hawk nests 
where aromatic greenery was 
experimentally added and sub- 
tracted. If more young hatch 
from the greenest nests, per- 
haps birds use a natural means 
of pest control. 


—Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


Summer 1986 19 


JOHNNY JOHNSON/DRK PHOTO 





N ‘EWS 2& UN Ont: Es 





National Science Foundation 
has awarded more than 
$190,000 to the Laboratory of 
Ornithology to support Dr. 
Charles Walcott’s bird orienta- 
tion research through 1988. 
The pigeon project, as it is 
called because that bird is its 
subject, is the largest bird ori- 
entation research project in 


the world. Work this summer 
is concentrating on orientation 
in relation to magnetic fields. 


The administrative board of 
the Laboratory of Ornithology 
welcomes two new members: 
Stanley A. Temple of the 
Department of Wildlife 
Ecology at the University of 





Dear Member: 


What exhausting work, preparing a long-term plan for the Labo- 
ratory of Ornithology! Everyone here has participated: thinking, 
discussing, writing, and finally solidifying our thoughts. In the end 
our ideas of what to accomplish over the next five years were com- 
pressed into 16 pages of goals, a five year plan. 

Was it worth the effort? Yes! As an exercise the plan forced us to 
focus our energies on the Laboratory’s primary mission—to further 
the understanding of birds. As an end the plan sets goals against 
which we can measure our progress. 

Here are a few highlights. First, we plan to make our cooperative 
research program the world’s largest databank for information 
about North American birds. Over 35,000 volunteers already share 
their observations with us as part of ongoing bird surveys. This 
information is edited and compiled by Laboratory staff. Then, using 
the Cornell mainframe computer, we can look for changes in bird 
populations. So far we’ve found that populations of black ducks 
have declined over the past 30 years, while those of many birds of 
prey — including the bald eagle—have recently increased. These 
trends may be used as indicators of environmental change. 

As part of our Library of Natural Sounds we are planning a bio- 
acoustics research program which will analyze bird songs by dis- 
secting them into their elements (frequency, volume, pitch). By doing 
so we hope to learn about the fundamentals of bird song and bird 
behavior. The program will also contribute to our understanding of 
other animal sounds. For example, Laboratory Affiliate Katy Payne 
has recently found that elephants make sounds too low in pitch for 
us to hear. These probably aid in long-distance communication. 

On the education front we will soon be teaching a new course at 
Cornell, bird biology and ecology. This is a great opportunity for us 
to extend our facilities and expertise to Cornell students. In addition 
to classroom teaching, we plan to expand our local radio program, 
“Know Your Birds” by national syndication. 

Our five year plan spells progress, but to get there from here will 
require a financial boost. So, as we plan our programs we must also 
establish a sound financial base. In this and other issues of The Liv- 
ing Bird Quarterly you will see notes about planned giving. The 
beauty of planned giving programs is that they offer as much finan- 
cial benefit to a donor as they do to the Laboratory. Please review 
our announcements and write or call us if you desire more informa- 
tion. The Laboratory’s road to the future may not be paved with 
gold, but with your help it will be passable. 


CHARLES WALCOTT, Executive Director 





20 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Wisconsin in Madison, and 
returning after a brief absence, 
Robert G. Engel, group 
executive for corporate finances 
at Morgan Guaranty Trust 
Company in New York City. 
The board bade farewell to 
Morton S. Adams, Imogene P. 
Johnson, John D. Leggett, Jr., 
and Charles D. Webster. All 
four were tremendously helpful 
to the Laboratory during their 
four years on the board. 
Reappointed to second two-year 
terms were Robert Barker, 
Clifton C. Garvin, Jr., Mrs. 
Harvey Gaylord, and Joseph R. 
Siphron. 


Paul Schwarz, a specialist in 
computer programming, joined 
the Laboratory of Ornithology 
staff this spring. He is respon- 
sible for operating the SQL 
mainframe database manage- 
ment system used by the Labo- 
ratory’s cooperative research 
program. SQL is used to 
organize information in the 
Nest Record Program and 
Colonial Bird Register, and 
from Audubon Christmas Bird 
Counts. SQL was given to the 
Laboratory by IBM in 1985 
through Cornell’s Project Ezra, 
one of about 20 programs 
through which IBM is donat- 
ing computer hardware and 
software to major institutions 
for education and research. 


Bird Banding Laboratory at 
Patuxent Wildlife Research 
Center is asking birders to 
report any color-marked birds 
they see. Licensed banders 
attach lightweight, metal U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 
bands to several hundred thou- 
sand birds each year. Of these, 
a few thousand are also marked 
with colored plastic bands, 
nontoxic dyes, plastic neck col- 





lars, or plastic streamers. Many 
neck collars and streamers | 
have identifying numbers or | 
letters. The additional markers 
are used in special projects so 
that researchers may follow the 
movements of individual birds 
without recapturing them. 
The success of these projects 
depends on the reporting of 
sightings. | 
Color-marked birds should | 
be reported to the Bird Band- | 
ing Laboratory, Patuxent 
Wildlife Research Center, 
Laurel, Maryland 20708. 
Please include as much of the | 
following information as possi- 
ble: your name and address, 
date of sighting, exact loca- 
tion, habitat, species, number 
of individuals of that species | 
present, colors of bands or | 
markings, numbers or letters | 
on markers or bands, and color | 
combinations of bands. 


— Steven C. Sibley 





WILL POWER 


Beyond your lifetime, birds 
will live on. So can your inter- 
est in them. With a little plan- 
ning and a provision for the 
Laboratory of Ornithology in 
the form of a charitable 
bequest, your love of birds will 
endure. The task is simple yet 
the potential reward for our 
world’s birdlife is tremendous. 
In addition, your action now 
may save your family estate 
taxes later. We can help ensure 
that your involvement with 
birds does not end with your 
lifetime. 

For more information, 
please contact: Scott Sutcliffe, 
Office of Public Affairs, Cor- 
nell Laboratory of Ornithol- 
ogy, 159 Sapsucker Woods 
Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. 
(607) 255—4288. 








Bird Day Afternoons at 
The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


A visual wilderness experience with natural sounds and colors. No 
music or narrative. Hear water sounds, bird songs, the wail of a 
timber wolf, wind through the trees, thunderous skies, and the 
echoing cry of the loon. Observe wilderness green, glowing campfire 
embers, and mists over a far-off lake. A relaxing retreat at the end of 
a hectic day. 





Running time 30 minutes. In VHS or Beta. 
VHS No. 1884/$24.95/$22.46 members 
Beta No. 1885/$24.95/ $22.46 members 


New and completely revised, this diary is an excellent way to record 
all the North American bird species you’ve seen. Space is provided 
for the date and location of each sighting plus room for retaining 
special memories of birding adventures. Other features 

include quick-search guide, list of accidental species, and an index. 
1986, laminated paper with wire ring binding, 224 pages. 

No. 2058/$6.95/$6.26 members 


New and revised guide to bird classification, this volume has been 
updated to correspond with the sixth edition of the AOU checklist. 
Presents sketches of 34 orders and 185 families. Color illustrations of 
species selected to typify family characteristics. 


1985, paper, 200 pages. No. 2391/$7.95/$7. 16 members 


A collection of stories about birds and bird watchers. Dunne’s is 
among the freshest and most humorous outdoor writing to appear in 
a long time. For anyone who watches birds and contemplates the 
complexities of human nature. 


1986, cloth, 157 pages. No. 2397/$15.95/$14.36 members 


















































Enclosed is a check or money order in U.S. funds, payable to The Crow’s Nest Bookshop. Ou 

address—The Crow’s Nest Bookshop, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, Sar 

sucker Woods, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850. (607) 255-5057. 

Catalogue No. Title Qty. Price 

Form of payment: Amount of order 

[_] Check [] Money Order N.Y. State residents add 7% sales tax 

(] VISA [J MasterCard Postage and handling 2.75 
Total amount enclosed 

Card # Expir. Date 

Signature 

Name 

Address 

City State Zip 


WATCHING 





American 
Goldfinches 


NE warm July morning 

as we walked along a 

meadow brook lined by 
iris and alders we spotted 
something unusual. A small 
bird circled overhead with 
deep wingbeats, and a slow, 
stalling flight. We tried to 
identify the flight pattern, but 
no familiar gestalt came to 
mind. When we looked 
through our binoculars we 
were surprised to see a male 
American goldfinch. It was 
doing none of the typical 
behaviors of the species, such 
as its undulating flight accom- 
panied by the perchicoree call. 
Instead, its flight was level and 
its call was a short explosive 
warble. 

Whenever we see a marked 
change in a bird’s normal 
behavior we watch closely, for 
these behaviors are often dis- 
plays. Displays are instinctive 
actions and sounds that are 
part of a bird’s communication 
system. By understanding 
them we gain new insights into 
what birds are doing. 

The actions of the goldfinch 
were actually two displays. The 
flight is called flat-flight and 
the sound is called short-song. 
They are often performed by a 
male goldfinch over his breed- 
ing territory and may help 
advertise it to nearby males 
and his mate. 

Knowing the male was over 
his territory, questions imme- 
diately came to mind. Where 





Donald and Lillian Stokes are authors 
of the Stokes nature guides which 
include A Guide to Bird Behavior, Vols. 
land II. 


22 The Living Bird Quarterly 





was the female? Had she built a 
nest? Was she incubating eggs? 
Hoping to spot her, we decided 
to sit down and wait. As we 
watched, the male goldfinch 
flew down, perched atop an 
alder, and gave several bursts of 
short-song. Suddenly we spot- 
ted movement through the al- 
ders. We watched intently. It 
was the female! We could tell 
by her muted colors and lack of 
a black patch on her forehead. 
We lost sight of her when she 
flew into the shrubs, but she 
soon returned. 

The trips back and forth 
meant that she was fetching 
nesting material or food for 
nestlings. Before she disap- 
peared again among the alders, 
we caught a glimpse of some 
long strands in her bill, and 
when she left we saw that it 
was empty. Now we knew she 
was building a nest right in 
front of us. 

We noted that the female 
was using strands of bark from 
old milkweed stalks, stems of 
maple seeds, and the dispersal 
filaments from a wildflower as 
nesting material. However, we 
were surprised when we saw 
her fly to an ash tree where 
there was a web nest of fall 
webworms. She fluttered her 
wings in the webbing, then 
flew to her nest where she care- 
fully pulled pieces of it off her 
wings with her bill and applied 
them to the nest. 

Goldfinches nest late in 
summer, well after most other 
songbirds. Some people have 
suggested this is because the 
bird depends on thistle down 
for its nest and thistles do not 
go to seed until late summer. 
We have observed the birds 
using a variety of materials, 
however, leading us to believe 


that goldfinches do not depend 
on thistle alone. A better 
explanation of their late nest- 
ing may be that they need an 
abundance of seeds to feed 
their young. Most songbirds 
feed insects and fruits to their 
young, but goldfinches feed 
their chicks a regurgitated 
slurry of partially digested 
seeds. They especially favor 
seeds from composite flowers, 
such as thistle and sunflower, 
which are not mature until late 
summer. 

Over the next few weeks we 
returned many times to the 
nest. It was finished in four 
days and for several days after 
that the pair disappeared from 
the territory. This is typical in 
goldfinches. Perhaps the 
repeated trips to the nest dur- 
ing building make its location 
known to predators, such as 
cowbirds, jays, or raccoons. 
However, a potential predator 
may lose interest and forget 
about the nest if the gold- 
finches leave the area for a 
while before egg laying. 

After this absence the 
female returns on successive 
mornings, laying one egg each 
day until the clutch of four or 
five eggs is complete. The 
female goldfinch does all the 
incubation and is more con- 
stant than other songbirds. 
One study showed that she can 
remain on the nest 95 percent 
of the time. In most other spe- 
cies the female leaves the nest 
to feed on her own, but male 
goldfinches supply mates with 
almost all of their food. 

The male, who often leaves 
his territory to feed, flies back 
to the nest site, and circles 
high above it giving the flat- 
flight display or a deep-loop- 
flight display, where the bird’s 


normal flight undulations are 
exaggerated. At the same time 
he may give bursts of short- 
song. If the female is hungry, 
she calls teeteeteeteeteetee. 
When the male hears this he 
drops down near the nest, the 
female hops over to him, and 
he regurgitates food into her 
mouth. The male returns every 
hour or so and if the female 
does not call he leaves and 
comes back later. 

After the young have 
hatched, both parents feed 
them regurgitated seeds. 
When the parents leave the 
nest sometimes they carry a 
white blob called a fecal sac in 
their bill. At this stage in the 
nestlings’ life their droppings 
are encased in a membrane 
which the parents take away to 
keep the nest clean. When the 
nestlings are about to fledge 
they stop producing fecal sacs 
and instead defecate over the 
edge of the nest. Thus, a gold- 
finch nest with droppings 
around the rim probably means 
the nest was a success and the 
young have departed. 


he calls of fledgling 
goldfinches are distinc- 
tive. They sound like 


chipee, chipee, chipee and are 
given as the birds fly after their 
parents demanding food. 
When we hear the calls, we 
know that soon the asters will 
be blooming and the leaves 
will be turning color. After 
most other birds have finished 
nesting and are preparing for 
migration, the goldfinches are 
a bright spot for the behavior- 
watcher. They give us one 
more chance to follow the fas- 
cinating behavior of breeding 
birds. 

—Donald & Lillian Stokes 


a 
zs 
a) 
Nn 
a} 
5 
Z 
< 
= 
= 
O 
= 


When the male hears teeteeteeteeteetee he regurgitates food into his mate’s mouth. 





Summer 1986 23 


Peruvian Bird Group, 
pencil, 17 X 15, 1935. 


Jaques, above, visited 


coastal Peru and 
sketched the barren, 
rocky headlands of 
South Chincha Island, 
capped with thick 
deposits of dried 
guano, dazzling white 


in the hot tropical sun. 


24 The Living Bird Quarterly 


ARTIST IN THE WILD 


DONALD LUCE 


HE coast of Peru, 1925: an artist is intently 
sketching seabirds—guanay cormorants, 
Peruvian boobies, and pelicans that nest there 
by the millions. He had tried but abandoned his oil 
paints; the wind vibrated the canvas, and the feather 
flies that drift above the colonies in clouds stuck to the 
paint. Instead, he works in pencil, carefully noting 
the birds’ color patterns and defining their form with 
strong, sure lines. These sketches will form the basis 
of a series of paintings illustrating what has become a 
classic work, Robert Cushman Murphy’s Oceanic 
Birds of South America. 
Though alone and on his first expedition for the 
American Museum of Natural History in New York, 
Francis Lee Jaques was experienced in fending for 





himself. Having grown up on isolated farms in Kansas 
and Minnesota, Jaques knew the value of self-reli- 
ance. As a young man, he worked as a lumberjack, 
taxidermist, railroad fireman, and electrician, and 
often explored by canoe the wilderness of pine forests, 
lakes and rocky shores along Minnesota’s northern 
border. Through all these endeavors, he maintained a 
passion for drawing, particularly birds. 

As a boy on the Kansas prairie, Jaques often hunted 
waterfowl with his father. The ducks were food for the 
family, but Jaques was not insensitive to their beauty. 


He made many detailed drawings of the birds in char- 
coal and chalk. Once he kept a pair so long while 
doing a drawing, they spoiled. Even at this early age, 
Jaques was fascinated by the flight of birds and 
impressed by the great flocks of migrating geese that 
filled the sky with wavy lines and Vs. 

After the family moved to Minnesota, Jaques was 
given more responsibilities and finding time to draw 
was not always easy. Jaques recalled that he and his 
brother were given the task of spading the garden. 
There was only one spade, so they took turns. “Spad- 
ing a garden is a boring process, but there were birds, 
and I watched birds, and between heats drew birds.” * 
Now in his late teens, Jaques taught himself to use 
watercolors and produced a series of paintings of wild- 
life through the seasons. In looking at his painting of 
hooded mergansers from this period, it is easy to see 
how Jaques could have developed a passion for birds. 
In this cold, bleak scene of early spring, two small 
ducks stand out as the only sparks of life, harbingers of 
the season to come. 

After his army service in World War I, Jaques took 
informal art lessons from a painter friend in Duluth. 
He also took a job as an illustrator for a photo-engrav- 
ing company. He did pen and ink drawings for adver- 
tisements and catalogues. “Our work was labels, toilet 
paper, match boxes, lettering, dozens of drawings of 
useless devices to make a Model T Ford run better or 
to hold it together”’ Though the subjects left much to 
be desired, the experience developed his innate ability 
to draw. Eventually he realized his true calling was to 
paint birds and nature. Recalling a museum exhibit of 
mule deer he had seen in San Francisco during his 
army training, he decided to apply for work at a 
museum. 

So in 1924, at the age of 37, he sent a painting of 
black ducks to the American Museum with the hope 
that they needed an artist. There was little chance 
that the museum would even consider an obscure 
illustrator from Minnesota with no academic training 
in either ornithology or art. Yet his painting was beau- 
tiful, accurate and strikingly different. 

The prominent bird artists of the day such as Louis 
Agassiz Fuertes were schooled in the tradition of John 
James Audubon. Their objective was ornithologically 
accurate descriptions of feather and other surface 
detail. Fuertes had a remarkably thorough under- 


* 


he 
i 


fi, 
Fn colin 


Su 


CP g naan as 





Pca tiger, 
tee ee 


Tia ph MIR te 


ye 


io 


ee a AA LNL LLL O65 
ote ee ot 


een: 


a ct 
f ae 
‘i meer 
eS ee 


Ae: 





Pe eee Ps: 


SIOQLSTH TM OYN AQ WOAsSA 


ayy 


WT 


* Seca Set 


TAS ONIAY YG “SAQNAIQS HO SWATKQY ¥I 





Swans over Tundra, oil 
on canvas, 30 X 42, 
1928. 


Jaques sketched and 
painted birds in flight as 
he knew them in the 
field. He was sensitive 
to the patterns of birds 
against the sky and 
captured on canvas the 
flight characteristics of 
each species. In Alaska 
this pair of whistling 
swans emerged over a 
salt marsh. Right, a 
detail from a pencil 


sketch of black ducks. 


Taipee Valley, Nuka 
Hiva Island, 
Marquesas, oil on 
canvas, approx. 

20 X 45, 1934. 

After an arduous climb 
to the top of this ridge, 
Jaques knew he could 
not return with 
painting equipment. 
Instead, he took 
photographs and 
painted this three-part 
panorama on board the 


schooner Zaca. 


26 The Living Bird Quarterly 


DONALD LUCE 





standing of birds—his subjects are perfectly struc- 
tured and display the subtle postures and gestures 
characteristic of each species. Fuertes was at his artis- 
tic best in close-up portraits that seem to capture the 
very essence of the living bird. However, his birds are 
almost always at rest, with little or no background 
landscape. 

Jaques, on the other hand, painted birds in flight as 
he knew them in the field. This was well before high- 
speed photography, and few artists could convincingly 
portray birds in flight. Jaques was sensitive to the 
movement and pattern of single birds or flocks against 
asky, and captured on canvas the flight characteristics 
of each species. Jaques’ abilities, though far from fully 
developed, were evident in that first painting sent to 
the American Museum. Dr. Frank Chapman, curator 
of ornithology and one of America’s leading ornithol- 
ogists, was so impressed that he invited Jaques to join 
the staff. 

Soon after his arrival, Jaques traveled with Chap- 
man to Panama to collect material and make sketches 
for a tropical rain forest exhibit. While in Panama, he 
was chosen to illustrate Murphy’s book, and since he 
was already halfway there, he was sent on to Peru. 
“This required an emergency passport, money, which 
I carefully wasn’t given much of, and ‘instructions:” 
Thus, less than a year after leaving the familiar forests 
and prairies of Minnesota, Jaques found himself on the 
guano-covered rocks of Peru’s bird islands. 

He was fascinated by the headlong dives of Peruvian 
boobies. He sought out Inca terns on cliff ledges and 
Peruvian penguins in wave-washed sea caves. Though 
enamored of the birds, their environment impressed 
him even more so, particularly the contrasts of this 
bare and rocky coast. Offshore, anchovies swarmed 
by the trillions in the cold, nutrient-rich waters. Feed- 
ing on these fish, seabirds flourished, nesting in vast 


colonies on islands along the coast. Rain, however, 

was extremely rare and the shore itself was barren. 

Jaques later wrote: 
“Looking shoreward across Independencia Bay, miles 
away with the glasses, was a great gentle slope of gravel. 
Nothing has ever grown there, nothing ever lived there, 
and across the whole mountainside is a criss-cross pat- 
tern of lovely tracks. Whose tracks? Why? How many 
years have they been there? Nothing has ever left me so 
mystified, they seemed so small in time and space. I was 
grateful I knew something of this coast before I came. 
Nowhere on Earth is there anything to equal it. Nowhere 
else is life so abundant and death so obvious.” 


Jaques’ interest in landscape as well as birds proved 
to be a great asset in creating innovative habitat 
exhibits that were transforming natural history 
museums. The old museum exhibits consisted of 
heavy cases crammed with taxonomically arranged 
specimens. These cases were descendants of the 
ancient curio collections and represented an earlier 
stage of natural science, one strictly concerned with 
describing and cataloguing nature’s diversity. With 
the growth of evolutionary theory and the rise of the 
conservation movement in the early 20th century, sci- 
ence and public attitudes toward nature were chang- 
ing. Naturalists were recognizing the importance of 
habitat and were seeking the underlying relationships 
that produced nature’s diversity. 

This change in science combined with growing 
urbanization called for new ways of bringing natural 
history to the city dweller. Chapman was a great 
popularizer of natural science and conservation, and 
promoted the replacement of old museum cases with 
habitat exhibits. These exhibits recreated natural 
scenes with their characteristic plants and animals 
displayed against a curved background mural. In 
viewing the new exhibits, visitors could glimpse the 
diverse plant and animal communities from all over 
the world. 

To gather material and make sketches for these 
exhibits, Jaques traveled not only to Panama and Peru, 
but to the Bahamas and Europe. He joined museum 
expeditions to the arctic in 1928 and the South Pacific 
in 1934-35. Transportation in Alaska and the Pacific 
was by schooner, still practical for long voyages in 
remote waters where fuel and supplies were hard to 
come by. Jaques’ principal responsibility was to take 
photos and make sketches and paintings for later ref- 
erence in composing background murals and bird 
illustrations. He also collected bird and mammal 
specimens and took samples of rocks, soils, and 
plants. In Panama, for instance, he did many detailed 
drawings of tropical plants and collected the entire 
lower trunk of a strangler fig tree. 

Jaques’ environmental concern is a hallmark of 
much of his art. Where other artists merely suggested 
a bird’s habitat by placing it on a sprig of vegetation, 
Jaques painted birds and other animals into land- 
scapes. Rarely are these landscapes just backdrops for 


ae ee eee 


BELL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 


AS ene 





AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 





Summer 1986 27 






ibe 
~ a 
v 
> 
v te ; * 
: + : s 
i Ses 
= ao: % 2 ‘ 
2 " es * 
8 ‘ w 
: 4, 
* $e 
< met Tas 
as ¥ re 


@ Hengina ¥ 





\ 


pA) 


| 











ie LA - rs : ; ; ee ae 


AYOLSIH TVYNLVN SO WOSSNW TTS 


Strangler Fig Tree, 
Panama, pencil, 
18 x 12, 1925. 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


28 





IENCES 


CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SC 

















Eiders off Alaskan 
Coast, casein, 

20 X 23, 1928. 
Jaques traveled by 
schooner to reach 
remote and inaccessible 
regions of the globe. 
These king and 
common eiders were 
painted on board the 
Morrissey during an 
expedition to the 
arctic. Left, Jaques on 
board the Zaca. 


Summer 1986 29 


BELL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 


Egret in Florida Pond, 


oil on canvas, 


24 X 28, c.. 1935. 


30 


The Living Bird Quarterly 


the animal subject. Instead Jaques showed the 
interdependence of animals and their environment. 

For example, in Egret in Florida Pond, the bird is 
stalking its aquatic prey at the water’s edge. This 
alone would be a fairly obvious statement about the 
egret and its habitat. However, the painting is rich in 
subtle meaning. With his distinctive use of color and 
light, Jaques lets us sense the heat, humidity and still- 
ness of the morning air. The southern pines, under- 
story shrubs, grasses and red mud are beautifully 
described, but not through the use of detail. Rather, 
Jaques distills each subject to its essential forms. 
These forms, like pieces of a puzzle, are fitted together 
into an integrated composition. This integration, 
which characterizes a Jaques painting, echoes the 
interaction of plants, animals and their environment 
in a living ecosystem. 

Jaques was painting the wilderness landscape from 
the ecological perspective long before concern for the 
environment was commonplace. His depiction of 
birds in flight, particularly waterfowl, and his combi- 
nation of bird and landscape painting, foreshadowed 


some of today’s successful wildlife artists, such as Rob- 
ert Bateman. Though well known and respected by 
many naturalists and artists of his day, Jaques never 
gained the recognition of Fuertes or Roger Tory Peter- 
son. He was an intense but reserved person who 
shunned the spotlight, and his death in 1969 at age 82 
came before wildlife painting gained its current pop- 
ularity and commercial success. Yet Jaques’ work has 
an authenticity often lacking in the works of modern 
wildlife painters, and his art remains a beautiful 
expression in visual form of a profound ecological con- 
sciousness. 0 


“All quotes from Jaques’ unpublished autobiography. 


Donald Luce is assistant curator of exhibits, Bell Museum of Natu- 
ral History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 


Further Reading 


Jaques, Florence Page. Francis Lee Jaques: Artist of the Wilderness 
World. Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York. 1973. 
Luce, Donald T: and Laura M. Andrews. Francis Lee Jaques, Artist- 
Naturalist. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 1982. 

Murphy, Robert Cushman. Oceanic Birds of South America, Vols. 1 
and 2. The American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1936. 


Ea 
e 
B 
x 
3 
=) 
< 
Z 
oh 
fe) 
= 
= 
=a) 
D 
=) 
= 
— 
rs 
[<2] 





elie 


MA as See 





























DISCOVER THE LABORATORY’S 
HOME STUDY COURSES 


he Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell 

University offers two comprehensive cor- 
respondence courses for bird watchers and am- 
ateur ornithologists. 










































BIRD BIOLOGY Enrich your understanding of 
birdlife with this home study course in orni- 
thology. You receive nine lessons written by 
prominent ornithologists and illustrated by well- 
known bird artists and photographers. Each les- 
son is followed by a written assignment which is 
corrected by Laboratory staff. Among the topics 
covered are migration, flight, behavior, and nest- 
ing habits. There is no time limitation and you 
receive a certificate upon completion. 

For more information, please write or call: 
Bird Biology, Dept. TN, Laboratory of Orni- 
thology, Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, New York 
14850. (607) 255-5564. 


BIRD PHOTOGRAPHY Improve your photo- 
graphic technique and produce professional- 
quality results. You receive a text with over 200 
photographs and drawings, with essays by noted 
bird photographers. Your four assignments re- 
ceive personal evaluations from our professional 
staff. You are encouraged to work at your own 
pace, leaving ample time between assignments to 
respond to evaluations. 

For more information, contact: Bird Photog- 
raphy, Dept. TN, Laboratory of Ornithology, 
Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, New York 14850. 
(607) 255-4017. 













* 


Cee 


. ee “ : ats nae 
iP. 3 —— “i. oo) . 2 ” Pd ial 





Ae e aie, Se 
a Sea 















ee ee ae 


TIE LIVING BIRD 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


Editor: Jill Crane 

Design Director: Kat Dalton 

Associate Editor: Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 
Technical Editor: Charles R. Smith 
Editorial Assistant: Steven C. Sibley 
Publications Assistant: Maureene Stangle 





LABORATORY STAFF 


Executive Director: Charles Walcott 
Bookshop: Michele M. Barclay 

Cooperative Research: Gregory S. Butcher 
Raptor Research: Tom J. Cade 

The Living Bird Quarterly: Jill Crane 
Photography: Lang Elliott 

Library of Natural Sounds: James L. Gulledge 
Administration: Diane Johnson 

Seatuck Research Program: Thomas S. Litwin 
Library: Steven C. Sibley 

Education and Information Services: 

Charles R. Smith 

Public Affairs: Scott A. Sutcliffe 


ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD 


David L. Call, Chairman 
Albert FE Appleton 
Robert Barker 

Rex J. Bates 

William G. Conway 
Alan Crawford, Jr. 

John H. Dakin 

Robert G. Engel 

Clifton C. Garvin, Jr. 
Mrs. Harvey Gaylord 
Thomas M. Hampson 
Frances C. James 
Hamilton E Kean 

T: Spencer Knight 

Peter R. Marler 
Barnabas McHenry 

G. Michael McHugh 
Edwin H. Morgens 
Eugene S. Morton 

Olin Sewall Pettingill, Jr. 
Chandler S. Robbins 
Joseph R. Siphron 
Stanley A. Temple 
Charles E. Treman, Jr. 
Charles Walcott, Ex Officio 


The Living Bird Quarterly, ISSN 0732-9210, is published in 
January, April, July, and October by the Laboratory of 
Ornithology at Cornell University, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, 
Ithaca, New York 14850. Telephone: (607) 255-5056. The Living 
Bird Quarterly is free to members of the Laboratory. For 
information concerning back issues please write to our 
Membership Department. © 1986 Cornell University Laboratory 
of Ornithology. 

Printing by Brodock Press Inc., Utica, N.Y. 

Typography by Partners Composition, Utica, N. Y. 


>. 


Autumn 1986 — Volume 5 Number 4 





4 A BIRDER’S NOTEBOOK by Michael Harwood 


Birder Harwood is all ears as he hunkers down by the machine to 
listen to and learn from an assortment of bird song recordings. 


6 WANTED: DAKOTA DUCKS by John G. Sidle 


For 10,000 breeding seasons, North America’s prairie pothole 
country has served as the prime nesting grounds for much of the 
continent’s waterfowl. What happens to the birds as the sloughs 
and marshes of these wetlands turn into amber waves of grain? 


12 A PEDANTRY OF OWLS by Anselm Atkins 


We've all heard of a gaggle of geese, but what about a gloom of 
ravens, a swell of prairie chickens, a recrudescence of gulls? 


14 OAKUM BOYS by Ron Naveen 


Retriever pups, teddy bears, college students wearing raccoon 
coats—the brown down of a young king penguin is not only cute, 
it serves to protect the chick through its first harsh winter. 


18 RESEARCH & REVIEW by Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


The vanishing California condor: from Pleistocene to present. 


21 NEWS & NOTES by StevenC. Sibley 
22 WATCHING: MALLARDS by Donald and Lillian Stokes 


An ordinary autumn day down at the duck pond is enlivened by the 
head-shake and tail-shake, the head-up-tail-up, a cacaphony of 
decrescendo-calls, and an arch performance of grunt-whistles. 


24 A BEWILDERMENT OF FEEDERS by John V. Dennis 


Used to be that you could throw food on the ground and call it 
bird feeding. Nowadays the backyard birder is faced with a 
procession of plastic pods, mesh pouches, and wooden bungalows. 


28 THE CROW’S NEST BOOKSHOP 
29 THE ORIGINAL DROLL YANKEE by John V. Dennis 


Peter Kilham took a few washers, a piece of plastic tubing, and 
some scrap metal, and turned them into a bird feeding revolution. 





p. 6 Depression in Dakota 


Front Cover: Outside—The snowy egret lives around fresh, brackish, 
and salt water where it eats small fish, frogs, lizards, snakes, crabs, and 
other aquatic prey. The bird uses one foot to stir the bottom of shallow 
ponds and marshes to frighten prey into view, then stabs the victim with 
its bill. Photograph by Tim Fitzharris. Inside—Earl Dibble and 
Magellanic penguin on an island in the Straits of Magellan. Photograph 
by Earl Dibble (Photo Researchers, Inc.). Baek Cover: Outside— 


Swainson’s hawk giving a curious look in New Mexico. Photograph by 


* Marty Cordano. Inside—Peafowl. Attributed to Mansur, Mughal, India, 


ca. 1610. Private collection. 





A BIRDER’S NOTEBOOK 





Listening 
and Learning 


HEN I was still just a 
neophyte birder 25 
years ago, I read 


Roger Tory Peterson’s Birds over 
America and learned about 
May Big Days—those mad ex- 
peditions on which one chases 
birds for up to 24 hours at a 
stretch, trying to find as many 
different species as possible. 
Century Runs they were called 
in New England in those days, 
because the species totals 
could be a hundred or more. 
With visions of huge lists of 
wonderful birds dancing in my 
head, I talked my birding men- 
tors, my father and my uncle 
David, into going on a Cen- 
tury Run in Massachusetts. 

At about 4 o’clock on the 
morning appointed, we drove 
slowly out onto the state 
road— just coasting, really— 
with the convertible top down 
and the dawn concerto well 
into its first movement. Imme- 
diately Dad and Dave began 
pointing into the darkness in 
all directions, calling out the 
names of singing birds: “Yellow 
warbler.’ “Rose-breasted gros- 
beak.” “Song sparrow.’ “Scarlet 
tanager.” “Least flycatcher.’ 
“Swamp sparrow.’ “Chestnut- 
sided warbler.” “Wood thrush.” 
Hey, no fair! How on Earth did 
they do that? 

How they did that, of 
course, had to do with decades 
of experience, hundreds of 
chases after unfamiliar bird 
songs, and some help along the 
way from birders who knew 
more than they did. I had a lot 
of that learning process still 
ahead of me. 


4 The Living Bird Quarterly 


Today’s generation of birders 
has an advantage from the 
start that my father and uncle 
did not—a large and growing 
library of commercial audio re- 
cordings through which expe- 
rienced birders may give us the 
benefits of their knowledge. 
Some of these records are 
aimed at beginners, and they 
offer only limited selections. 
For example, one of the earli- 
est, “Songbirds of America,’ 
produced by Houghton Mifflin 
and the Federation of Ontario 
Naturalists in 1954, comprises 
the songs of 24 common birds, 
accompanied by a text, photo- 
graphs, and a simple narrative. 

Others are in effect general 
reference works, with many 
bird species represented. The 
Peterson-Houghton Mifflin re- 
cord series, which comple- 
ments the Peterson eastern and 
western field guides, offers vo- 
calizations from several 
hundred birds, including some 
Hawaiian species. 

Still others concentrate in 
detail on groups of birds, or 
even on a single species. 
Among these is the delightful 
and mysterious “Voices of New 
World Nightbirds” — owls, 
nightjars, and the like, com- 
piled by John William Hardy. 

As it turns out, these re- 
cordings have a variety of prac- 
tical uses besides teaching us to 
identify birds by ear. They can 
help a fellow get tuned up for 
Big Days, and that’s a plus. In 
the field, playing taped songs 
can coax birds, in defense of 
territory, out to where you can 
see them, or may stimulate 
them to sing. And the re- 
corded calls of eastern screech- 
owl and saw-whet owl in day- 
light can draw quite a varied 


crowd—mostly small song- 
birds that come to scold the 
owl, but now and then I’ve 
also seen a red-tailed hawk 
drifting over, apparently look- 
ing for what might make an 
easily caught meal. 

I must say, I have some phil- 
osophical and moral doubts 
about using recordings as bird- 
attracting aids. Each time | do 


Immediately Dad and 
Dave began pointing 
into the darkness in all 
directions, calling out 


the names of singing 


birds: ‘Yellow warbler.” 


‘‘Rose-breasted grosbeak.”’ 


‘Song sparrow.” 
**Scarlet tanager.” ... 


Hey, no fair! 


it, | am aware that I am inter- 
fering with birds’ normal rou- 
tines. There is also plenty of 
evidence that repeated artifi- 
cial intrusions by invisible 
competitors during the breed- 
ing season can actually push a 
bird off its territory. On the 
other hand, where would I be, 
I wonder, without a horribly 
hissy and scratchy re-re-re-re- 
cording of the eastern screech- 
owl cut on the Peterson- 
Houghton Mifflin eastern birds 
record, to bring the chickadees 
and hermit thrushes and 
brown creepers into view dur- 
ing Christmas counts? 

In any case, these bird-find- 
ing uses aren’t the greatest re- 
wards the recordings offer me. 
I’ve discovered that the main 
attraction is what you might 
call “music appreciation.” A 


prime example is “Voices of the 
Loon?’ a record devoted solely 
to the common loon, produced 
in 1980 by the North Ameri- 
can Loon Fund and National 
Audubon Society. The classi- 
cal-music “deejay” Robert J. 
Lurtsema narrates on one side 
of the record, giving a short 
course on the wails, tremolos, 
yodels, and hoots of loon mu- 
sic. The loons sing by them- 
selves (accompanied by various 
sounds of nature) on the other 
side. 

You and I may now and 
then hear common loons call- 
ing—along a lake shore at 
night, say, or overhead during 
migration. But relatively few of 
us ever hear a full loon con- 
cert, ringing with long echoes, 
on one of the northern wilder- 
ness lakes where the loons 
nest, and when we do hear 
loons calling in nature, they 
are usually far off, so we don’t 
hear them really well. A pre- 
sentation that edits and ar- 
ranges an array of distinct, 
close-at-hand calls and pro- 
vides a knowledgeable interloc- 
utor to explain the fine points 
of the concert can enrich our 
images of a bird species—al- 
low us to learn things about it 
that we would never find out 
on our own. 

Not all recordings offer as 
much interpretive help as they 
might. The Peterson sets, for 
instance, simply identify songs 
and calls. Some of the older 
recording productions, such as 
“Songbirds of America,’ 
“Dawn in a Duckblind;’ and 
“Birds on a May Morning,’ 
which were made in the 1950s 
and ’60s and are still available, 
do somewhat more, but they 
now seem quite funky, rather 


A BIRDER’S NOTEBOOK 





What kind of bird is singing in this 
California buckeye tree at Point Reyes 
National Seashore —a song sparrow, an 
American goldfinch, or maybe a yellow 
warbler? If you knew its song you could 
identify the bird without seeing it. 


like Victorian valentine 
cards—the “come with us on 
a poetic bird walk” approach. 
Each of those styles has its 
place, and the bird songs are 
always interesting to listen to. 
But to me the best audio pro- 
ductions, which do the most to 
expand my ability to listen to 
bird song, combine detailed 
accompanying texts and a var- 
ied selection of examples for 
each species presented. 

I particularly admire the 
work of Donald J. Borror in 


that respect, and by far the 
best of the bird song-recording 
productions he’s been associ- 
ated with is the “Warblers of 
North America,’ recorded by 
Borror and the late William 
W.H. Gunn and produced last 
year by the Cornell Laboratory 
of Ornithology in association 
with the Federation of Ontario 
Naturalists. Each of the 57 
species of wood warblers that 
occurs north of Mexico is repre- 
sented by several different ex- 
amples of songs—usually four 
to six of them—and call notes 
are included for 48 of the spe- 
cies. The 50-page booklet in- 
cludes information about the 
recordings themselves and a 
key to the identification of war- 





toe Gees 
RaSh 


bler songs, but mostly it com- 
prises 57 species accounts of 
songs and calls. The only illus- 
trations are sonograms. 

Until I saw the “Warblers” 
booklet, I didn’t think highly 
of sonograms, having met 
them mainly in miniature in 
the margins of the Golden field 
guide to the birds of North 
America, where they did noth- 
ing for my understanding or 
knowledge of bird song. But 
here they are presented larger 
on the page than a life-size 
warbler, and I can now see why 
ornithological audio specialists 
find sonograms so fascinating. 
Reading the charts of familiar 
species while listening to re- 
cordings of their songs has led 





me to notice things I never 
would have paid attention to 
otherwise—for example, the 
surprisingly wide ranges in 
pitch within many songs, and 
the rests between notes in 
rapid passages— pauses we 
can’t hear because the songs go 
past us so fast. I believe if I lis- 
ten to warbler songs and read 
sonograms for a while, I'll 
begin to hear all birds in a 
new way. 

That’s a good project. And 
with winter coming, and so 
many birds gone south or gone 
silent, what better time to put 
a recording on the machine 
and sit by the stove, to listen 
and learn? 


—Michael Harwood 


Autumn 1986 = 5 


DOUG WECHSLER 


JOHN SIDLE (4) 


The Living Bird Quarterly 





Wanted: 
akota Ducks 


JOHN G. SIDLE 


F ducks were engineers, they could not have de- 

signed better breeding habitat than the prairie 

pothole region of America’s northern great 
plains. Among the fields of prairie grasses lie millions 
of small ponds, marshes, swamps, and kettles— ideal 
terrain for the care and feeding of young waterfowl. 

The pothole region comprises 300,000 square miles 
and contains parts of lowa, North Dakota, South Da- 
kota, Minnesota, Montana, and the prairie provinces 
of Canada. For 10,000 breeding seasons this area has 
attracted millions of nesting ducks and fledged new 
flocks which disperse to inhabit much of the western 
hemisphere. Called North America’s duck factory, 
the region constitutes only 10 percent of the conti- 
nent’s waterfowl breeding habitat, yet it produces 50 
percent of all ducklings hatched in North America 
each year. 

These remarkably fertile wetlands also supply food 
for millions of birds as they migrate south each fall and 
back to their breeding grounds in spring. Shorebirds 
returning to Hudson Bay from South America peck 
for invertebrates at pothole shores, and tundra swans 
from Chesapeake Bay stop on Dakota ponds before 
heading for the arctic. 

Unfortunately for breeding waterfowl and migratory 
birds, the potholes are in the middle of some of the 
most productive farmland on the continent. Farmers 
drain the potholes of water, and plant wheat, sunflow- 
ers, and other crops on the newly exposed soil. At 
present, over half of the original prairie potholes have 
been drained for wheat production, and duck popu- 
lations that breed in the region are declining. In the 
autumn of 1979, 95-million ducks left their pothole 
nesting grounds for winter quarters. By autumn 1985 
the population numbered only 62-million, a 33 per- 
cent decrease in just six years and the lowest number 
on record. 

During the five years I worked as a manager at the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Arrow- 
wood Wetland Management District in North Dakota 
during the late 1970s and early ’80s, both family farm- 
ers and pothole ducks were going through a bust pe- 
riod. A lone grain elevator marked the remains of 


Aerial views of prairie 
wetlands: top, an 
intact pothole; below, 
potholes in the midst 
of farmlands. The 
conflict between wildlife 
preservation and 
farming is not new. In 
1934 President 
Roosevelt’s Committee 
on Wildlife Restoration 
said there was 
“incontrovertible 
evidence of a critical 
and continuing decline 
in wildlife resources, 
especially migratory 
waterfowl, due to the 
destruction and neglect 
of vast breeding 

and nesting areas by 
drainage, encroachment 
of agriculture, and 

the random efforts 

of our disordered 
progress toward 


an undefined goal.” 


Autumn 1986 7 





JAMES BRANDENBURG/DRK PHOTO 





8 The Living Bird Quarterly 


JOHN GERLACH 





small towns. Many communities had died as small 
farms no longer turned a profit. Farming today is big 
business, with the typical agricultural complex aver- 
aging 1, 100 acres. Asa result, woodlots and fencerows 
have disappeared, streams and coulees have been 
channeled, and thousands of wetlands have been 
drained. 

I explored the area often. On many a morning dur- 
ing spring thaws, my boots would sink through the 
damp plow furrows on the expansive farmland of the 
Arrowwood District. Rain and melting snow mois- 
tened the soil, and water filled the wetlands. Some 
potholes were just splashes of water that would soon 
dry up. Others were deeper, permanent, and partially 
covered with cattails. A tractor covered with mud 
waited in the fallow field. Plow furrows rimmed the 
wetlands and farmers soon would be planting. 

Wetlands are among the last of the prairie’s features 
to be transformed by man, but were one of the first 
creations of the retreating glaciers 10,000 years ago. 
The continental ice sheet, over one mile deep in 
places, attacked the land with awesome force, grind- 
ing bedrock into powder and leveling the land. At the 
end of the ice age the Earth rebounded and there re- 
mained a landscape of wide open plains, conical hills, 
and millions of potholes of various shapes and sizes. 

Before the prairie was settled, great herds of buffalo 
roamed the infinite expanses, while huge flocks of wa- 
terfowl presented a winged spectacle of nature’s abun- 
dance. Then in the mid-19th century, settlers with 
shovels began to make the first dent into the vast wet- 
land acreage. 

By 1938, 98 percent of lowa’s original potholes had 
been drained. The arrival of heavy machinery in the 
1940s accelerated the pace. Half of the U.S. potholes 
had been drained by the 50s. Currently, over half of 
the five million acres of wetlands in North Dakota 
have been destroyed, with an estimated 20,000 new 
acres ditched each year. 

Drainage trends are similar in the other pothole 
states. And full-scale drainage is under way in the 
prairie provinces of Canada with many areas experi- 
encing the heavy drainage that took place in the Da- 
kotas in the 1950s and ’60s. On nature’s time scale the 
wetlands are being eliminated in a fraction of the 
thousands of years it took the glaciers to create them. 


While prairie ducks may not go the way of the buf- 
falo, waterfowl are having increasing problems finding 
places to raise their young. Sixty percent of the dab- 
bling ducks—those that nest on the ground and feed 
on the surface of land or water—once bred in pothole 
shallows. Mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, north- 
ern shoveler, and blue-winged teal hens nested on the 
surrounding grasses, later leading their broods to per- 
manent water. 

Today these grasslands are wheat fields, unsuitable 
for dabbling ducks which are forced to seek refuge else- 
where. Diving ducks also depend on prairie wetlands. 
Canvasbacks and redheads plunge below a pond’s sur- 
face to feed, and they nest in the rushes and cattails of 
deep, permanent sloughs and marshes. Many of these 
potholes have been drained. 

The disappearance of wetlands has not gone un- 
noticed by the federal government; however, while 
some agencies were set up to protect wetlands, others 
fostered drainage and agricultural development. In 








the late 1950s, for example, the USFWS began pro- 
tecting potholes while the Soil Conservation Service 
promoted drainage. But in 1958 the government took 
its first major step to protect wetlands. That year Con- 
gress amended the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 
of 1934 to allow the government to use revenues from 
sales of duck hunting stamps to acquire pothole areas 
by purchase or easement. This program was named 
the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP), 
and it meant that the USFWS could either buy wet- 
land acreage outright or set up an easement whereby, 
in exchange for a single payment, the landowner 
agreed not to drain, burn, fill, or level the wetlands on 
his property. 

Why would farmers sell land or set up easements 
under SWAP? Some wanted to help waterfowl conser- 
vation, others were persuaded by money. In the early 
1960s many farmers were surprised to be offered 
money for sloughs they never planned to drain. 

The purchase and easement technique for wetland 


ee a ee: 


ve. 


pss 


ea) 


conservation is more widely used in the prairie pothole 
region than anywhere else in the world. In North Da- 
kota, for example, the USFWS has purchased 
215,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas 
(WPAs), about 40 percent of which is wetland, and 
easements protect 759,000 additional wetland acres. 
Easements often adjoin WPAs and together they offer 
choice duck breeding habitat. But even one million 
acres of protected habitat aren’t enough to support ex- 
isting duck populations, and some WPAs have been 
degraded by agricultural practices. 

Along a county road one summer afternoon, | 
topped a gentle rise and a large patch of grass came 
into view—an island struggling to maintain its integ- 
rity in a sea of tilled land. The 160-acre tract was one 
of 149 WPAs in the Arrowwood Wetland Manage- 
ment District. Black earth surrounded the lone plot; 
wetlands had been ditched into the WPA and strong 
winds had deposited soil over part of it, reducing the 
quality of the nesting cover. 


GARY R. ZAHM 


Dabbling ducks like the 
gadwall, far left, feed 
from the surface of 
pothole shallows. 
Diving ducks such as 
the canvasback, below, 
plunge beneath the 
water to feed on 
aquatic plants. Both 
types of ducks suffer 
from wetland drainage. 
Left, corn stubble 
surrounds a pothole in 
South Dakota. To 
assist waterfowl some 
farmers leave stubble 
in which the birds can 
nest, instead of 
plowing the land black. 


Autumn 1986 9 


TIM FITZHARRIS 





10 The Living Bird Quarterly 





JAN L. WASSINK 





I walked through the dense grass. It wasn’t the orig- 
inal vegetation. The land had been farmed for many 
years prior to USFWS acquisition. Alfalfa, brome- 
grass, wheatgrass, and sweetclover, good duck nesting 
cover, had been seeded until techniques are developed 
to re-establish prairie flora. Occasionally, native forbs 
and grasses brushed my boots, sparse reminders of the 
sea of bluestem and Indian grass that once blanketed 
the region. I spotted several pairs of blue-winged teal 
and pintails in a section of marsh. A black tern darted 
over two swimming pied-billed grebes. Returning to 
my truck, I flushed a savannah sparrow and a nesting 
northern harrier. 

The price of drainage goes beyond lost waterfowl 
and other breeding birds. Emptying wetlands reduces 
the water-holding capacity of the land resulting in fre- 
quent spring flooding. Normally the wetlands act as 
great reservoirs, storing runoff, controlling erosion, 
and releasing water into the aquifer. But the long tra- 
dition of drainage has disrupted normal water flow. 
When drainage involves thousands of acres of wet- 
lands, water dumped into rivers causes widespread 
flooding and poor water quality. Also, one farmer’s 
ditched sloughs become another’s flooding problem as 
spring thaws and rains wash out roads and culverts and 
inundate farms downstream. 

One spring morning | pulled into the driveway of a 
farmstead to inquire about an easement violation. 
The landowner admitted to ditching several shallow 
potholes because a neighbor’s drained wetland had 
flooded his sloughs. After discussing the problem we 
set a date for restoring the wetland by filling in ditches 
and removing dirt from wetland basins. 

Driving along gravel roads to visit my next ease- 
ment violator, I noted many ditched non-easement 
wetlands. The topography was nearly flat on the east- 
ern section of Arrowwood, ideal for farming and con- 
trasting sharply with the hillier country 20 miles to 
the west. Ducks and coots floated in the road ditch 
water, almost the last aquatic refuge for the birds in 
this part of the state. Grassland and other vegetation 
for nesting was absent except along road rights-of-way. 
Mallards would attempt to nest in rock piles and other 
odd areas, but even these habitats are disappearing. 

Although easement violations occur each year and 





weaknesses in the program exist, I see easements and 
the purchase of WPAs as two of the best solutions to 
the problem of disappearing habitat. Many more wet- 
lands will have to be protected to enhance duck pop- 
ulations; some biologists estimate that nearly one mil- 
lion additional acres must be protected just to 
maintain duck populations at present levels. 

Wetland acquisition has been difficult in recent 
years. In North Dakota, political opposition to 
SWAP has grown as the number of easements and 
WPAs increased and became a hindrance to water de- 
velopment projects. Historically, county water man- 
agement boards never had to answer to the federal gov- 
ernment when developing large-scale drainage 
projects. If anything, the local boards were assisted by 
the government. But counties began to find their proj- 
ects blocked by the USFWS because the intended 
route of ditches and channels would pass through 
easement wetlands. 

In 1977 the North Dakota state legislature, frus- 


trated by federal intervention in the state’s manage- 
ment of its water, passed laws making it extremely dif- 
ficult for SWAP to continue. Later laws barred private 
conservation groups from acquiring habitat. Ironi- 
cally, North Dakota was in the midst of a grain sur- 
plus. While many farmers offered wetland easements 
to the USFWS, other farmers drained land to create 
idle cropland so they could collect money under a fed- 
eral program assigned to reduce the wheat harvest. 

In 1979 the federal government finally brought suit 
against the state of North Dakota to have the anti- 
SWAP laws declared unconstitutional. The federal 
case worked its way through the courts for four years, 
winning unanimously at each level including the U.S. 
Supreme Court in 1983. Meanwhile, six years had 
passed with no new wetlands protected and acquisi- 
tion offices dismantled. SWAP is under way again, but 
at a much reduced level. This year, however, the gov- 
ernor of North Dakota and the leaders of several con- 
servation groups agreed to end the conflicts over wet- 


land acquisition and to work toward the development 
of “no net loss of wetlands” policies for the state. 

In the long run only the conservation of good wet- 
lands and grasslands will preserve healthy duck pop- 
ulations. There is hope for the future of North Amer- 
ican ducks because wetlands are important to more 
than just waterfowl. They provide habitat for many 
kinds of birds and other wildlife, and they help to filter 
water, control flooding, and maintain the water table. 
Perhaps prospects for Dakota ducks will improve as 
more people become aware of the many values of wet- 
lands and the need to preserve them. 0 





John Sidle is currently a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service’s endangered species division in Minneapolis. 

Further Reading 

Luoma, Jon R. “Twilight in Pothole Country:’ Audubon. September 
1985. 

Madson, John. “American Waterfowl: Troubles and Triumphs.” 
National Geographic. November 1984. 

Rudd, Clayton G., editor. Naturalist. Winter 1983. 


TOM MANGELSEN 


Ducks are forced into 
odd nesting places 
while crop surpluses 
pile up in grain 
elevators across the 
United States and 
Canada. The future of 
North American 
waterfowl and other 
species, such as the 
American coot, below, 
is inextricably linked to 


modern agriculture. 


Autumn 1986 11 


BHL 
> 


Blank Page Digitally Inserted 


A PEDANTRY OF OWLS 


ANSELM ATKINS 


OLLECTIVE nouns are repositories for everyday 

poetry. We take pleasure in using them, though 

opportunities for doing so are rare. How often, 
for instance, do we get to say “gaggle of geese;” “pride 
of lions,” or “pod of whales”? When was the last time 
you mentioned a spoke of cyclists, dabble of artists, 
drizzle of weathermen, cut of surgeons, or fluff of or- 
nithologists? 

In any fluff of ornithologists there will be two or 
three who collect collective nouns for birds. Here I of- 
fer a new list which they may add to their own. It does 
not include every American species. Unlike the anx- 
ious taxonomist who must separate all 50 sparrows, | 
lumped these along with many others. I also include a 
few species which seldom collect, birds which can 
scarcely bear the sight of one another. 

Five rules are at work in the formation of these col- 
lective nouns. The list is arranged to illustrate each 
tule. 

Rule One is binding: a collective noun must be apt. 
It must refer to some characteristic of the bird either 
observable or reasonably projectable by the imagina- 
tion. Examples of aptness would be— 


GLOOM OF RAVENS FEINT OF KILLDEER 
WATCH OF KINGFISHERS PIRACY OF JAEGERS 
STRIKE OF FALCONS PROBE OF WOODCOCK 
CLEAVAGE OF SHEARWATERS BOOM OF GROUSE 


RAINBOW OF GROSBEAKS 
SWELL OF PRAIRIE CHICKENS 


SCRATCH OF THRASHERS 
CREEP OF NUTHATCHES 


Rule Two requires that a name be interesting. One 
way to be interesting is to be to the side of the mark: 
not inappropriate, but not exactly obvious either. An 
interesting combination conveys unexpected infor- 
mation, surprises, and provokes questions, such as— 


RETREAT OF SANDERLINGS TINKLE OF WATERTHRUSH 
HOARD OF GOLDFINCHES PEDANTRY OF OWLS 
STEALTH OF COWBIRDS SHOT OF REDSTARTS 
TEETER OF STILTS APOLOGY OF SPARROWS 


MONOTONY OF WILLS 
REGENCY OF KINGBIRDS 


ALACRITY OF PIPITS 
PARLANCE OF CHAT 


12. The Living Bird Quarterly 


Rule Three maintains that a collective noun be ei- 
ther short or lengthy. To be considered long, the word 
should have four or more syllables; short, one syllable 
of four or fewer letters. A few examples are— 


NAG OF CROWS REGULARITY OF SWALLOWS 
PECK OF DOVES ARISTOCRACY OF WAXWINGS 
BORE OF WOODPECKERS IMPROBABILITY OF SPOONBILLS 
CUT OF SKIMMERS RECRUDESCENCE OF GULLS 
SALT OF GANNETS COMMONALITY OF CHICKADEES 
EYE OF OSPREY RECURVATION OF AVOCETS 


Rule Four states that a collective noun be tinged 
with poetry. The noun might catch some depth 
of feeling, sensuality, or penetrating insight. For 
instance— 


AFFLICTION OF STARLINGS PHANTASM OF IVORY- BILLED 


FARCE OF JAYS WOODPECKERS 

SPECKLE OF THRUSHES ELEGANCE OF TERNS 
PALETTE OF BUNTINGS YELLOWING OF WARBLERS 
NOCTURNE OF SNIPE PATIENCE OF HERONS 
ASYLUM OF LOONS CHEER OF VIREOS 


Rule Five requires alliteration, as long as it does not 
compromise the other rules— 


PRECISION OF PELICANS TATTLE OF TURKEYS 
ROTUNDITY OF ROBINS PRECIOUSNESS OF PUFFINS 
HEART OF HARRIERS SWEEP OF SWIFTS 

PIPE OF PLOVER WISH OF WILLETS 

MIME OF MOCKINGBIRDS FLAMBOYANCE OF FLAMINGOS 
MOTLEY OF MAGPIES SOLITUDE OF SORAS 


There you have them: handy collective nouns for a 
medley of American birds; now you can refer to even 
the largest and busiest of flocks in a knowledgeable 
and accurate manner. I plan to provide a similar ser- 
vice for lepidopterists. There flies a shimmering of 
ringlets, a dunning of blues, a Halloween of Dianas, a 
wedge of skippers, a rack of mourning cloaks. But 
more of that at another time, in another place. oO 





Anselm Atkins edits Wingbars, the newsletter of the Atlanta Au- 
dubon Society, and tinkers with philosophical aspects of evolution. 


CHIMEDES” BY ROSAMOND WOLFF PURCELL 











LT WITH EGG: JEN & DES BARTLETT (BRUCE COLEMAN INC.) 


ADL 


OAKUM BOYS 


TEXT AND PHOTOGRAPHS BY RON NAVEEN 


Consider penguins which live in the Antarctic. 

Here the snow never melts, the winds always 
blow, and food supplies are very irregular. It’s a wonder 
that anything survives. 

Because of these harsh circumstances, most pen- 
guins have short breeding cycles; courtship, incuba- 
tion, and fledging are compressed into a few months, 
so the season’s young will be fully 
feathered and able to fend for them- 
selves well before the onset of winter. 
Adélie penguins, for example, are on 
their own just eight weeks from the 
time they hatch. 

King penguins are an exception. 
These hardy birds live on the Falk- 
lands, Marion, Kerguelen, Macquarie, 
Heard, Crozet and other islands which 
encircle Antarctica. While not quite 
as desolate as the Antarctic continent, 
the islands do experience summer 
snows and gales. Nevertheless, the 
king penguin’s breeding cycle is es 
greatly lengthened. The young remain chicks for 10 to 
13 months, so they must endure their first winter long 
before they reach independence. During this time 
food is limited, and the young will survive only if their 
parents can fatten them up before winter begins. 
Chicks produced late in the breeding season usually 
starve. 

King penguins have several adaptations that help 
them to survive their inclement environment. The fe- 
male lays just one egg, and to keep it warm she holds 
it snugly between her feet and a fold of thick skin on 
her lower abdomen. Occasionally the birds trade the 
egg in a comic study of maneuverability. As the parent 
bird incubates, it fasts for days at a time while its mate 


OME birds breed under pretty bleak conditions. 








Ron Naveen is a free-lance writer and photographer who leads bird- 
ing tours to the Antarctic. 

Further Reading 

Stonehouse, Bernard. Penguins. Golden Press, New York. 1968. 
Todd, Frank S. Sea World Book of Penguins. Harcourt Brace Jovano- 
vich, New York. 1981. 


remains at sea, feeding heavily on squid and fish. 

An especially valuable defense against the bitter 
cold is the young king penguin’s thick coat of brown 
feathers. When first hatched the bird is nearly naked, 
but within days the down begins to grow until, after 
five or six weeks, the bird resembles a teddy bear. Un- 
like the feathers of most other species, which grow in 
discrete feather tracts, the penguin’s down sprouts 
from all parts of its body. This adapta- 
tion is also true of the adult plumage, 
which provides a thick, waterproof 
barrier for the bird as it flies through 
the water in search of food. 

Adaptation aside, the chicks’ fluffy 
appearance is quite captivating. In- 
deed, the birds inspired pet names 
such as “retriever pups” or “wooly pen- 
guins” among the sealers, eggers, and 
whalers working the southern oceans 
in the 19th century. In his 1936 classic 
Oceanic Birds of South America, Robert 
Cushman Murphy, the eminent sea- 
bird biologist, said the chicks re- 
minded ee of “college students wearing raccoon- 
skin coats.’ However, according to Murphy, the aptest 
name ever applied was “oakum boys,’ dubbed by the 
sealers at Crozet. 

Oakum is loose hemp or jute fiber, often treated 
with tar, creosote, or other binding agents. It was used 
by sealers and whalers to caulk the seams of their 
ships, and to make their barrels, casks, and pipe joints 
watertight. The chicks’ thick, wooly feathering bore a 
strong resemblance to this brownish substance. 

The downy coats of oakum boys (and girls) grow as 
long as 3 inches. They are worn until the birds are 
from nine to 12 months old. Then the down begins to 
drop, often in clumps, usually starting on the flippers, 
followed by the belly, back, upper breast, throat, and 
head. As the down falls out it reveals the subadult 
plumage beneath, and when young king penguins go 
off to sea for the first time they resemble pale versions 
of their parents. In a few years the young will return to 
the area to breed and produce their own oakum boys. 


Autumn 1986 15 





King penguins breed on islands north of the pack ice in the subantarctic. The birds pictured here are from a 
colony on South Georgia. They normally lay a single egg and incubate it between their feet and abdominal 
fold. The birds build no nests and have tiny territories. They breed on muddy flats or sodden fields of grass, 
where the footing becomes slippery at times. King penguin chicks remain at the teddy bear stage for nine to 
12 months, their development virtually stalled —an unusual situation among bird species. So slow is the 
young bird to reach independence that a pair of king penguins can rear only two offspring in three years. As 
the young reach maturity, the down begins to shed, first from the flippers, then the belly, sometimes clinging 
persistently. At last the young penguins will resemble the adults and go off to sea to fend for themselves. 





RESEARCH & REVIEW 





The Condor’s 
Last Stand 


ik may be easy for some peo- 
ple to dismiss the vanishing 
California condor as an inevi- 
table consequence of human 
civilization. The 20-pound 
scavenger has been described 
as a Pleistocene relic, an out- 
dated monster whose needs 
cannot be met in the modern 
world. This may be true. 

But as the condor popula- 
tion dwindles— it’s now down 
to 27 birds, 24 in captivity and 
three in the wild—the fight to 
preserve the species goes on. 
And what a fight it has been. 
Not only have conservationists 
struggled to save condors from 
shooting, poisons and loss of 
habitat, but they have fought 
each other over the best way to 
preserve the birds. 

California condors have 
been uncommon and restricted 
to a small range in southern 
California ever since natural- 
ists began recording their ob- 
servations. The birds were 
abundant and wide-ranging, 
however, during a long-gone 
time, the Pleistocene Epoch, 
which lasted two million years 
and ended 10,000 years ago 
with the retreat of the last ice 
age. During the Pleistocene 
the giant bird soared over 
much of western North Amer- 
ica, feeding on the remains of 
mastodons, giant bison, and 
other grass-eating animals 
killed by saber-toothed tigers 
and dire wolves. By the end of 
the Pleistocene these large 
mammals had disappeared, 
and with them went the 
condors. 

But not all of them; a small 
population managed to survive 


18 The Living Bird Quarterly 


on the west coast. Carl Koford, 
a biologist who studied condors 
in the 1940s and 50s, has sug- 
gested that as the large land 
mammals began to disappear, 
a coastal race of condors sur- 
vived by shifting its diet to 
whales and seals that washed 
onto beaches. From southern 
British Columbia to Baja Calli- 
fornia, a few hundred birds 
hung on for several thousand 
years— nesting in shallow 
caves or crevices in rock cliffs, 
and feeding in grasslands or 
open woodlands. 

Then around 1880 the pop- 
ulation began to collapse 
again. This time, however, the 
threat wasn’t loss of prey, but 
direct human persecution. 
The birds’ nine-foot wingspan 
and slow, soaring flight made 
them easy targets. Many were 





shot because they were sus- 
pected livestock predators 
(though they never attack live 
prey), because they were 
thought to spread disease, for 
museum specimens, or just 
for fun. 

Persecution may have done 
more damage to the species 
than it would have to most 
others because condors have an 
extremely low reproductive 
rate. They don’t breed until 
they are at least six years old, 
they usually lay only one egg 
per nesting attempt, and they 
often don’t nest every year. 
Thus a pair must live for sev- 
eral years before it can raise 
two young and replace itself in 
the population. With no ene- 
mies and a more than 20-year 
life span, the low reproductive 
rate was not a problem— but 


DAVID CLENDENEN (2) 


when the shooting began, the 
population dropped rapidly. 

By the early 1900s the con- 
dor population had probably 
fallen below 100 birds, con- 
fined to a small mountainous 
region of southern California. 
Much of the shooting then 
stopped with the enactment of 
game laws, but the condors’ 
problems didn’t end; habitat 
loss further sapped the popula- 
tion. Their foraging range be- 
came hemmed in by fast-grow- 
ing cities like Ventura and Los 
Angeles. By 1940 the popula- 
tion hovered around 60 birds. 

In 1937 the U.S. Forest Ser- 
vice (USFS) made the first at- 
tempt to protect condor habi- 
tat by establishing a special 
refuge, the 1,200-acre Sisquoc 
Sanctuary in the Los Padres 
National Forest. This area was 
particularly important to the 
birds because many of them 
nested or roosted there. Then 
in 1947 USFS added another 
reserve, the 53,000-acre Sespe 
Sanctuary. Human activity 
was sharply curtailed in these 
areas, but the condor popula- 
tion continued to decline. 
Some were still being shot. 
Some may have been killed by 
poisoned carcasses set out by 
ranchers to kill coyotes. Pesti- 
cides such as DDT; which were 
proven to affect the reproduc- 
tive ability of birds of prey, 
may have affected condors as 
well. And many died for un- 
known reasons. As the years 
rolled by the population con- 
tinued to drop until by 1978 
there were just 25 birds. 


F or biologists, conserva- 
tionists, and bird lovers 
concerned about the majestic 
vulture, the situation seemed 


desperate. Thus was born the 
California condor recovery 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





plan, a joint effort begun in 
1979 by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS), 
the National Audubon Society 
(NAS), the California Fish 
and Game Commission 
(CFGC), USES, and the Bu- 
reau of Land Management. 
The plan outlined several 
conservation measures. Some 
were standard—maintenance 
of sanctuaries, control of pesti- 
cides, reduction of disturbance 
near nests—but the program 
also introduced two new and 
controversial steps designed to 
save the species from immi- 
nent extinction. First, several 
adult condors would be fitted 
with radio transmitters to mon- 
itor their movements. Second, 
non-breeding birds would be 
trapped for captive propagation. 
The plan was plagued with 
dissent from the start. Many 
biologists and conservationists 
felt that radio telemetry and 
captive breeding were essential 
if the condor was to survive the 
century. According to their 
view, telemetry would help to 
identify exactly where the birds 
nest and feed, and perhaps 
why they die. Without know- 
ing this information, saving 
the condor would be almost 
impossible. Captive breeding 
seemed important to ensure 
that some birds would survive 
even if the wild population dis- 
appeared. If a healthy captive 
population could be estab- 
lished, birds eventually could 
be released back to the wild 
once their habitat needs were 
better understood. 
Nevertheless other conserva- 
tion groups, notably Friends of 
the Earth, the Sierra Club and 
some chapters of NAS, urged a 
hands-off approach. Said 
David Brower of Friends of the 
Earth, “The condor is not an 


electronic toy to play with. We 
understand, but regret and de- 
plore, the overcuriousity of the 
biologists who would invade 
the privacy of the condor and 
thus imperil one of the most 
famous and spectacular of all 
the endangered species.” 

The differences between the 
two camps had to do with both 
conservation philosophy and 
emotions. The hands-off 
groups believed that increased 
habitat protection would do as 
much as radio tracking and 
captive breeding to save the 
species, and that intervention 
could even speed the demise of 
the population by stressing the 
birds. They also had an emo- 
tional objection to meddling 
with one of California’s 
last symbols of free-flying 
wilderness. 

But other biologists said that 
habitat protection wouldn’t 
work. John Borneman, re- 
gional NAS representative in 
Ventura, pointed out that 
much of the condor’s range was 
already lost to development. 
Furthermore, USFS had previ- 
ously banned all human use of 
areas within one-half mile of 
condor nest sites, and had 
banned vehicles and blasting 
within a mile and a half. Wil- 
liam Conway, director of the 
New York Zoological Society, 
summed up the view of the 
plan’s advocates: “The evi- 
dence to date very strongly 
points to extinction unless we 
do something pretty radical;” 
he told Science magazine in 
1980. 

Despite the differences in 
opinion, the plan was condi- 
tionally approved by CFGC in 
May of 1980. Trapping of 
adults was to begin that fall, 
but the plan suffered a setback 
almost at once. On June 30, 


1980 a wild condor chick died 
as biologists handled it at its 
nest on a rocky ledge in the 
San Rafael Wilderness of the 
Los Padres National Forest. 
The researchers were examin- 
ing it for parasites to determine 
whether it was healthy. Those 
involved, Noel Snyder of 
USFWS and John Ogden of 
NAS, said the death was a 
fluke, and that nest checks 
were crucial. They also 
pointed out that they had suc- 
cessfully handled another 
chick just three days earlier. 
But the chick was dead and 
one of only two known to have 
hatched that year, and CFGC 
suspended the permit for the 
recovery plan. 

Hands-off advocates said the 
chick’s death proved that the 
condor is highly vulnerable to 
manipulation. But trapping 
proponents pointed to success- 
ful handling, breeding and re- 
leasing of Andean condors, 
which are biologically similar 
to the California species. Fi- 
nally in January 1982, CFGC 
reapproved the program, but 
cut back sharply on the num- 
ber of condors that could be 
trapped. 

Between 1982 and 1985 
nine condors were fitted with 
transmitters and tracked by bi- 
ologists from the Condor Re- 
search Center (CRC) in Ven- 


tura, who learned a great deal ° 


about the birds’ movements and 


unearthed some clues as to why 
they were declining so fast. II- 
legal shooting, collisions with 
power lines, and poisoning by 
coyote traps and lead bullets 
ingested from hunter-killed an- 
imals were found to be the cul- 
prits. All of the birds that 
were found dead were on areas 
where the birds fed, primarily 
private ranches, leading some 


biologists to pronounce the 
condor’s foraging range lethal. 
By autumn 1985 only six wild 
birds remained, and the popu- 
lation seemed doomed. 


B ut the last hope—cap- 
tive propagation—still 
flickers for the species. As the 
wild population has dwindled, 
CRC biologists have been re- 
moving condor eggs and nest- 
lings from the wild and raising 
them at the San Diego Wild 
Animal Park. The researchers 
have discovered that when an 
egg is removed from a nesting 
pair the female usually lays a 
replacement, and by taking 
both eggs, biologists have 
raised the number of captive 
condors to 24. All are re- 
sponding well to their zoo en- 
vironments, so there is hope 
that these birds, when mature, 
will produce young that can be 
released into the wild. 


What about the remaining 
wild birds? On December 17, 





California condors typically nest in 
shallow caves or ledges on cliff faces. 
Only two nests have ever been found in 
giant sequoias, although the trees are 
found throughout the birds’ range. Left, 
an adult stands at a nest cavity in 

1984. The egg below was brought into 


captivity and produced a healthy chick. 
The captive population numbers 24. 





Autumn 1986 19 


RESEARCH & REVIEW 





1985, USFWS proposed that 
all six immediately be cap- 
tured and placed in zoos. The 
only breeding female was 
known to have high levels of 
lead in her blood. Also, five 
wild birds had died of un- 
known causes the winter be- 
fore, so the future of the re- 
maining six seemed uncertain. 
And these last wild birds, 
which represented several fam- 
ily lines, would increase the 
genetic diversity of the captive 
population and help to reduce 
potential problems from 
inbreeding. 

Once again biologists and 
conservationists were polar- 
ized. Many sided with 
USFWS, agreeing that the 
wild birds’ demise was immi- 
nent and that their genes were 
needed in the captive popula- 
tion. But others, including 
NAS, argued that if all the 
birds were captured, there 
would be no incentive to pro- 
tect their remaining habitat 
from development— and if the 
habitat were lost, there would 
be no place to release the birds 
in the future. This is a real 





Heartbreaking failure and heartening 
success— workers at the San Diego Zoo 
try in vain to save a condor suffering 
from lead poisoning, but a newly hatched 
chick, Sisquoc, prospers in an isolette. 





20 The Living Bird Quarterly 


concern, since one of the 
birds’ prime foraging areas— 
the 11,000-acre Hudson 
Ranch— is up for sale. Said 
Glenn Olson, Audubon’s west- 
ern regional vice president, 
“Capture of the entire popula- 
tion would open the door for 
destruction of condor habitat 
that could never be replaced. 
In the Los Padres National For- 
est, for example, oil develop- 
ment and road building are 
now limited within range of 
condor nest sites. With the 
wild birds gone, these controls 
could be lifted.” 

Right or wrong, USFWS 
began rounding up the six re- 
maining wild birds on January 
3, 1986, starting with the fe- 
male with lead poisoning. 
Soon after her capture she 
died, leaving further doubts 
about the vitality of the other 
five. Meanwhile, NAS had ob- 
tained a temporary injunction 
in federal court barring the 
capture of additional birds. A 
few weeks later NAS had the 
injunction changed to allow 
two of the birds to be cap- 
tured, which they soon were, 
and the injunction was over- 
turned on June 6, 1986. But as 
of late August, the last three 
birds remained in the wild, 
partly because the condor re- 
covery team was still divided 
about the wisdom of bringing 
them in. The birds’ fate should 
be decided this fall, and it is 
likely that only hindsight will 
tell whether the final decision 
was the correct one. 


‘ | a with a captive breed- 


ing program, the future of 
the California condor is very 
uncertain. So far, no captive 
birds have bred, so there is no 
guarantee that the captive 
population will be viable. And 


even if captive birds are re- 
leased into the wild, they may 
not survive and reproduce. So 
why bother spending millions 
of dollars trying to save the 
species? Why continue the 
struggle which has made ene- 
mies out of those presumably 
fighting for the same cause? 
Why not let the “Pleistocene 
relic” fade into oblivion? 

These are difficult ques- 
tions. Many would say that we 
humans should never give up 
trying to save a symbol of wil- 
derness. The condor is a bird 
surrounded by mystical folk- 
lore—a link with prehistoric 
times and with early years of 
American history. To give up 
on this species is to cut an im- 
portant tie with our heritage. 

But will the condor of the 
future really be the condor of 
the past? Will it be a majestic 
beast casting an awesome spec- 
tacle as it soars over a desert 
canyon, or a genetically im- 
poverished relic of its former 
self, perpetuated only by zoo 
stock and confined to a vestige 
of its former range? 

A successful captive breed- 
ing program will cost several 
million dollars. Why is the 






condor so valuable—because 
it’s famous and spectacular? 
Would this money be better 
spent on some of the other 
500,000 to two million species 
of plants and animals that have 
been predicted to go extinct by 
the year 2000? Might it not 

be better to preserve rapidly 
dwindling wildlife habitat 
than to preserve a few condors 
in azoo? 

It probably would. But in a 
less than perfect world, it is 
easier to raise funds for a large, 
dramatic form of wildlife than 
for an obscure one—and con- 
dors are more charismatic than 
the rare modoc sucker and 
Texas blind salamander. On 
the positive side, condor habi- 
tat is good for more than con- 
dors. And large-scale efforts to 
save one species help to engen- 
der support for wildlife conser- 
vation in general. 

Whether or not the fight to 
save the condor should go on, 
it almost certainly will. If it 
succeeds, the majestic bird 
may live into one more cen- 
tury. If it fails, the legendary 
thunderbird will become a 
memory. 


—Richard E. Bonney, Jr. 


© ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO (2) 


NEWS & NOTES 





sociate. The Cuban ivorybill 
varies only slightly from the 
subspecies which apparently 
has vanished from the south- 
ern United States. Wood- 
pecker expert Lester Short of 


The ivory-billed woodpecker 
is not extinct. At least two 
birds survive in eastern Cuba, 
where they were sighted last 
spring by Cuban and Ameri- 
can biologists, including bio- 
acoustician George Reynard, a 
Laboratory of Ornithology As- 





Dear Member: 

From the cutting of Brazilian rain forest to overgrazing of 
African savannah, habitat loss is occurring on a worldwide scale. 
While these are dramatic examples, a more subtle process is also 
occurring—the “‘suburbanization” of our own backyards. 

The Laboratory’s Seatuck Research Program in Islip, Long 
Island has been busily looking at the effects of growing suburbia 
on wildlife. Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
researchers are examining the Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge 
and other Long Island reserves in order to answer the question, 
“How do we preserve wildlife within isolated areas of habitat?” 

For the past five years Seatuck biologists have been studying 
the grasshopper sparrow at Jamaica Bay National Wildlife 
Refuge, endangered least tern and piping plover populations 
around Long Island’s extensive shoreline, and songbird habitat in 
local neighborhoods. And, to their surprise, the researchers have 
become immersed in studies of deer and mosquitoes. 

Mosquitoes? At first glance the only thing a bird and mosquito 
have in common is wings, but the two are related in another 
way —they use the same habitat. Marsh areas like those at 
Seatuck can breed mosquitoes of an impressive hunger and 
enthusiasm. In the 1950s mosquito control was simple— you 
sprayed with DDT. But as softened osprey eggs and subsequent 
population declines showed, this was a poor solution. 

To avoid harmful measures, alternative control methods are 
being tested at Seatuck. For example, biologists are deepening 
pools to create habitats for fish that will eat mosquito larvae and 
in turn will be eaten by hungry green-backed herons. The 
researchers are also spraying marshes with an organic larvicide 
that kills mosquito larvae, but does not harm other insects that 
are food for willets, yellowlegs, and peeps. 

A herd of white-tailed deer also inhabits the refuge. With large 
areas of the deer’s range being fragmented by neighborhoods, it 
is inevitable that deer will pass through them— nibbling 
shrubbery along the way. While the neighbors enjoy seeing the 
deer, the disappearance of a newly planted yew is not greeted 
with enthusiasm. In addition, the deer harbor ticks which carry 
Lyme disease, a serious illness being contracted by increasing 
numbers of Long Islanders. A fence between the sanctuary and 
the nearest neighbors has been erected, but the problem 
remains, and studies of the deer’s movements are continuing. 

Deer and mosquitoes might seem a long way from birds, but 
they are interrelated. One important lesson coming out of Seatuck 
is the complexity of managing a suburban sanctuary. To preserve 
habitat for birds, we must study other wildlife as well. We hope 
this knowledge will result in a better understanding of suburban 
birds and in wisely managed oases for all wildlife. 


CHARLES WALCOTT, Executive Director 





the American Museum of Nat- 
ural History, another of the bi- 


ologists to spot the Cuban 
birds, is optimistic that more 
ivorybills exist in unexplored 
regions nearby. The Cuban 
government has banned all 
logging in a large area sur- 
rounding the location of the 
sightings, and is allowing only 
scientists to enter. 


Proceedings of the Second 
Northeastern Breeding Bird 
Atlas Conference are now 
available from the Laboratory 
of Ornithology. Sponsored by 
the Laboratory, the conference 
was held at Cornell’s Arnot 
Forest in April and attracted 
more than 50 participants 
from 19 states and three Cana- 
dian provinces. The 192-page 
booklet contains papers on all 
aspects of atlasing, summaries 
and a directory of 26 state and 
provincial atlas projects, and a 
bibliography. To obtain a copy, 
please send a check for $10 pay- 
able to Cornell Laboratory of 
Ornithology to: Sally Sut- 
cliffe, Cooperative Research 
Program, Laboratory of Orni- 
thology, 159 Sapsucker Woods 
Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. 


Piping plover was added to 
the U.S. list of endangered 
and threatened species in Janu- 
ary by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. The plovers 
have declined drastically in 
numbers since the turn of the 
century due to habitat destruc- 
tion and human disturbance of 
nesting adults and young. Sur- 
veys on Long Island conducted 
by the Laboratory’s Seatuck 
Research Program were an im- 
portant part of the agency’s as- 
sessment of Atlantic coast pop- 
ulations. In the 1930s about 
500 pairs bred on Long Island. 
Last summer the number had 
declined to 100 pairs. 


A pre-dawn flat tire hind- 
ered the bird-watching efforts 
of the Sapsuckers, the Labora- 
tory of Ornithology’s Biggest 
Day birding team, in the third 
annual World Series of Birding 
held in New Jersey last May. 
Reluctant to continue compet- 
ing with no spare, the team 
lost 45 crucial minutes waiting 
for the tire to be repaired. 
Nevertheless, the Sapsuckers 
managed to find 169 species 
during the 24-hour event, not 
enough to capture the out-of- 
state award, which went to the 
National Geographic Society’s 
team, but enough to raise 
$17,000 in pledges from Labo- 
ratory members. The Sapsuck- 
ers are already planning their 
1987 strategy, which will in- 
clude a spare spare. 


—Steven C. Sibley 





BIRD INVESTMENT 


Cornell’s Laboratory of Orni- 
thology is pleased to offer a dif- 
ferent method of financial in- 
vesting, called a Pooled Life 
Income Fund, that can benefit 
you, your family, and the Lab- 
oratory. This investment al- 
lows you to join others in a gift 
arrangement that works like a 
mutual fund. With a mini- 
mum of $5,000 you are assured 
an annual income for the rest 
of your life. Your share of the 
fund is transferred to Cornell 
and the Laboratory after the 
lifetime of your beneficiaries. 
In addition, you are allowed a 
charitable income tax deduc- 
tion for your gift. 

To learn more about this in- 
vestment opportunity call or 
write: Scott Sutcliffe, Office of 
Public Affairs, Cornell Labo- 
ratory of Ornithology, 159 
Sapsucker Woods Road, Ith- 
aca, New York 14850. (607) 
255-4288. 


Autumn 1986 21 


WATCHING 





Mallards 


ART of a weekend work- 
Pp shop we conducted re- 

cently included watch- 
ing bird behavior. We took our 
class of 30 to the grassy bank of 
a park lake where we sat down 
to look at mallards. We talked 
about all the exciting behavior 
we would see on this gorgeous 
fall afternoon, but the class 
seemed skeptical. After all, 
each of them was familiar with 
the lake, but no one had ever 
seen mallards do anything 
special. 

We told them to look for a 
display called head-pumping, 
where first the male and female 
together rhythmically bob 
their heads, then the male 
aligns himself with the female, 
steps on her back and the two 
mate. Following this the male 
steps off and swims in a circle 
while the female bathes. 

Binoculars raised, the class 
began to look for displays. Sud- 
denly someone shouted that he 
saw a pair head-pumping. 
With all eyes turned to the 
mallards, the class witnessed 
the whole mating display, and 
when it ended we cheered, not 
just for the performance, but 
for the fascinating experience 
of seeing a whole sequence of 
predicted behaviors. 

But this was just the start of 
our mallard exploration, for 
there were many fascinating 
aspects of mallard behavior to 
be seen and heard at the local 
duck pond. 

Some people think ducks 
just quack, but mallards ac- 





Donald and Lillian Stokes are authors 
of the Stokes Nature Guides which 
include A Guide to Bird Behavior, 
Vols. I and II. 


22. The Living Bird Quarterly 


tually make at least five differ- 
ent sounds. Only the female 
mallard quacks, the male 
doesn’t make this sound. The 
female quacks in a series that 
starts loud and then gets softer, 
quaQUACK Quack quack 
quack quack. This decre- 
scendo-call is given when she 
is uneasy or separated from her 
mate. Her other call is quieter 
and sounds like a rapid 
quegegegegege. This is the incit- 
ing-call and is given during the 
inciting display, where the fe- 
male rapidly flicks her bill over 
one shoulder as she swims be- 
hind her mate. It usually oc- 
curs when another male ap- 
proaches and it seems to 
reaffirm her bond with her 
mate. 

Male calls are entirely differ- 
ent. The most common is a 
drawn-out, nasal rhaeb which 
you hear as you approach the 
pond. It is given during dis- 
turbances or possible danger. 
Another call is a fast, two- 
syllable rebreb, rebreb, rebreb. 
This is given during aggressive 
encounters between two 
males. The third male call is 
the most unexpected; it is a 
short, high-pitched whistle 
and is given during the male’s 
courtship displays. 

Another interesting aspect 
of mallard life is the changes 
in plumage and sequence of 
molts. You can follow these by 
watching mallards at various 


times of year. Mallards undergo 


two molts per year, but unlike 
most other birds, the molts of 
the male and female are at dif- 
ferent times. After the young 
are independent, around mid- 
summer, the female undergoes 
a complete molt of all feathers 
during which she is flightless. 
This is common in ducks but 


unusual for other birds; most 
species lose and regrow feath- 
ers a few at a time, thus retain- 
ing the ability to fly. By fall the 
female mallard has a new set of 
feathers. In late winter she un- 
dergoes a second molt which 
involves just the head and body 
feathers. Her new spring plum- 
age includes special downy 
feathers which she eventually 
plucks from her body to line 
her nest. 

The male undergoes his 
complete molt, during which 
he is also flightless, in May or 
June—a month or two before 
his mate, usually right after she 
starts incubating. At this time 
he looks just like the female 
since his new plumage is 
brown. The bill, however, dif- 


ferentiates them. Female bills 





Down-up 

The male tips forward to dip his bill 
and breast into the water, then lifts 
only his bill and gives a whistle-call 
followed by a rhaebrhaeb-call. The 
display lasts no longer than two 
seconds. 





Grunt- Whistle 

The male raises the back of his neck 
while keeping his bill pointed down. A 
whistle is given when the neck is most 
arched, and just before this an arc of 
droplets is tossed into the air. The 
whole display may take less than a 
second and is given by small groups of 
males, often simultaneously, in front of 
a female. 


are orange with a blotch of 
black, while the gray-green 
bills belong to the males. The 
male’s brown plumage is kept 
for only two months. In late 
summer and fall he goes 
through the same head and 
body molt the female experi- 
ences in late winter. Look at 
mallards in fall and you will 
see the males with part green, 
part brown heads as they grad- 
ually acquire bright breeding 
plumage. 

Why do mallards change 
colors in these ways at these 
times? One possible reason the 
male turns brown in summer is 
to remain inconspicuous when 
he is flightless. The female may 
undergo this molt later because 
at the time the male molts she 
is still protecting the young 
and may need to fly. 

Males acquire their bright 
breeding plumage in fall be- 
cause mallard courtship begins 
then. It continues through 
winter with the peak of court- 
ship activity occurring in 
December. 

Mallard courtship displays 
are of two types: displays by 
groups of males, and displays 
between a male and female. To 
see group displays, look for 
three or more males swimming 
around each other with their 
heads drawn down so that 
their white neck ring is hid- 
den. Two preliminary dis- 
plays—the quick tail-shake or 
head-shake—will alert you to 
the more exciting but brief dis- 
plays that follow, the grunt- 
whistle, head-up-tail-up, and 
down-up. 

Each of these displays is ac- 
companied by the whistle-call 
which is often easier to hear 
than the displays are to see 
since they happen very 


TIM FITZHARRIS 


WATCHING 





quickly. Group displays are 
usually done in front of a fe- 
male and may enable her to 
compare males and decide 
which to choose. Once a male 
and female are paired they stay 
together most of the time. 

It may seem odd that mal- 
lards start pairing in fall when 
they don’t lay eggs until the 
following spring. Studies have 
shown that paired ducks are 
dominant over unpaired ducks. 
This could mean that ducks 


In the summer, male mallards molt their 
bright breeding plumage and acquire a 
drab “eclipse” plumage which resembles 
that of the female. During much of this 
time the males cannot fly, and the brown 
plumage helps them remain inconspicuous. 


that pair early are more likely 
to gain access to food in the 
event of a shortage. Another 
possible reason for early pairing 
may be competition for females 
since there often are more 
males in a given flock. 
Although mallard copula- 
tion can be seen in fall, it is 
more common in spring when 
it actually results in fertilizing 
the female. In spring it is also 
common to see forced copula- 
tion— matings with no head- 
pumping display and seemingly 
forced on the female. Studies 
have shown some striking cor- 
relations between the timing 
of these matings and the sex- 
ual physiology of the female. 


Most forced matings are by 
unpaired males and occur 
within an hour after the female 
has laid an egg. This is when 
she has started to develop an- 
other to be laid the next day. 
Without a forced mating she 
would use sperm stored from 
her last mating, which was 
presumably from her partner. 
But the more recent sperm to 
enter her body are more likely 
to fertilize her developing egg. 
It seems that evolution has 
finely tuned the timing of 
forced matings so they have 
the greatest chance of fertiliz- 
ing eggs. 

The female is so secretive 
during nest building and incu- 


bation that we usually don’t 
know where she has nested un- 
til we see ducklings. Mallard 
nests are built on the ground 
near water and under the cover 
of dense vegetation. The male 
usually leaves once the female 
starts incubating, and she in- 
cubates the eggs and raises the 
young on her own. 

Mallards are fascinating 
birds. In addition, their 
sounds, changing colors, 
courtship displays, and mating 
cycle can be enjoyed through 
behavior-watching. And au- 
tumn is an excellent time to 
start, for mallard courtship is 
just beginning. 


—Donald & Lillian Stokes 





Autumn 1986 23 


The ground or a 
slightly raised bird 
table provide an ideal 
surface for ground- 
foraging birds. A 
ladder-backed 
woodpecker cannot 
resist halved fruits on 
a stick, while Inca 


doves partake of white 


millet and milo. 





24 = The Living Bird Quarterly 


A Bewilderment 
of Keeders 


JOHN V. DENNIS 


ILLIONS of people are feeding birds these days, 
M and no wonder. Watching birds in your yard 

is fun. What’s more, every guest has some- 
thing to offer. Mourning doves feeding from the 
ground, chickadees hanging from a specialty feeder, or 
purple finches feeding from a second-story window— 
all provide enjoyment to the viewer and a close-up 
look at birds as they crack open seeds, carry off chunks 
of suet, and interact with other birds. 

Feeding birds can be quite simple. Fancy bird feed- 
ers and exotic foods are not necessary. A slightly hol- 
lowed out tree stump, a large flat rock, a well cover, a 
roof outside a bedroom window, or crevices in the 
bark of trees are handy places to stuff or scatter the 
simplest of foods. Even the ground is not a bad place. 

Bird feeders do have some advantages, however. 
They protect seed from weather and unwanted guests, 
and enable you to raise food off the ground for birds 
that prefer not to feed down low. Several types of feed- 
ers are aesthetically pleasing as well. 

But what type of feeder do you need? A bewildering 
variety is available, designed for different purposes and 
pocketbooks. Here are descriptions of some of the 
feeders, with the advantages and disadvantages of 
each. 

Ground. The simplest way to feed birds is to scatter 
food on the ground. If you are anxious to attract 
mourning doves, game birds such as the bobwhite and 
ring-necked pheasant, and many of the sparrows and 
finches, the ground is so rewarding that you should 
not overlook this lowest possible site to conduct bird 
feeding. Even the red-bellied woodpecker, which is 
usually a tree dweller, does some foraging on the 
ground. 

To be successful, ground feeding should not be a 
haphazard activity. Food should be scattered in the 
same places daily, near cover, and in parts of the yard 
that are protected from the wind. You should be able 
to view ground-feeding areas from your windows. 

Corn in its various forms is the most economical 


Z food to use in ground feeding, but cracked corn has 
° the disadvantage of rapid spoilage in wet weather. 
2 Other seeds and grains, such as white proso millet and 
ms = canary seed, are also well received by ground-feeding 

= G birds. Food scattered on the ground will be supple- 


aS ae — 


mented by sizable amounts that sift down from ele- 
vated feeders, so even if you choose not to throw seeds 
on the ground directly, ground-feeding birds should 
always receive some portion of your feast. 

Bird tables. One problem with feeding birds on the 
ground is that the seeds and grains are subject to losses 
from weather and prowling animals. Therefore, many 
people who feed birds use various methods to get food 
up off the ground, where it is better protected and ac- 
cessible to birds that prefer not to feed on the ground. 
One simple method is the bird table. 

Almost any table will do. All that is needed is a 
flat, raised surface where seeds, grain, and other foods 
can be spread as if on a banquet table and where birds 
will have adequate room for feeding. A table 22 feet 
high, 3 feet long, 2 feet wide, with a rim at the edge 
one-half inch high (to prevent food from blowing 
away) is a convenient size. A peaked, detachable roof 
with overhanging eaves looks attractive and provides 
protection from wind, rain, and snow. 

Some of the foods that I offer at my bird table are 
overripe (but not moldy) fruit, stale bakery products, 
nutmeats, corn, millet, and some sunflower. The 
guests that I entertain range from cardinals and eve- 
ning grosbeaks to starlings and house sparrows. There 





is little friction among these visitors because there is 
enough food and space for them all. 

I give the top of the table a good cleaning every day 
or so, and I also rake the ground below. This chore is 
important for keeping the premises tidy and safe- 
guarding guests from the dangers of infectious disease 
that might be spread by moldy foods and droppings. 

Bird tables are not as popular as they used to be. 
This is largely because of the high cost of bird food. 
Most people are anxious to provide food in a manner 
affording even more protection than a table gives from 
weather or undesirable visitors. Hence the popularity 
of hanging feeders. However, having some foods in the 
open where birds can see them will advertise your 
feeding program and probably get many more species 
than you would have otherwise. 

Simplest of the hanging feeders are box models, 
which can be suspended from a line or tree limb, or 
placed upon a bird table, feeding tray or pole. These 
feeders look like small houses, with a sloping roof, 
glass sides, and a bottom tray where birds can feed. 
Box models are reasonably weatherproof and econom- 
ical and can be filled with any type of seed—sun- 
flower, millet, various nuts or mixes. Because the 
seeds trickle out gradually as birds feed, you can fill 


DALE & MARIAN ZIMMERMAN (VIREO) 


the feeder and rest assured that there will be enough 
food for your guests for several days. 

No gymnastic feats are required of birds using this 
feeder, and large birds such as jays or even mourning 
doves can feed at it. However, this can be a shortcom- 
ing as well as an advantage. A few hungry blue jays or 
evening grosbeaks can monopolize a box feeder. Also, 
box models are hard to clean and moldy food often ac- 
cumulates on the trays. Therefore, more specialized 
hanging feeders have been designed which are easier 
to clean and exclude some of the bullies while allowing 
smaller birds to get their fill. 

Tube feeders. Among the most successful of the 
specialized hanging feeders are tube feeders such as 
the Droll Yankee manufactured by Droll Yankees, Inc. 
of Foster, Rhode Island. The clear plastic cylinder 
holds food while birds feast from six portals. Food 
drops down to these outlets as birds feed. This is the 
old-fashioned principle of the hopper feeder superim- 
posed upon a hanging cylinder. Like the hopper, the 
tube feeder keeps food protected until it is eaten and 
allows only a few birds to eat at a time. 

When filled with sunflower seed (black oil sun- 
flower is preferred by most birds) the Droll Yankee 
is good for attracting small woodland birds like 
chickadees and the tufted titmouse, and finches, such 
as the American goldfinch, purple finch, and pine sis- 
kin. Because these birds must extract seeds while 
perched on short pegs just below the holes, or by cling- 
ing to the feeder, larger birds such as grosbeaks and 
cardinals are generally excluded. However, many tube 
feeders come with removable seed-catching trays 
which can be attached at the bottom. With these in 
place, larger birds can use the feeder easily, so tube 
feeders are quite versatile. 

One drawback to the tube feeders is that their su- 
perior performance may lull users into thinking that 
no other kinds of feeder are necessary. If you want to 
attract a variety of guests, you'll need to use several 
kinds of feeders. There are still other kinds of hanging 
feeders that are well worth trying. 

Dome feeders. The dome feeder is a seed-filled bowl 
suspended below a larger dome. Only birds small 
enough to fit between the bowl and dome can use this 
feeder. In most models the distance between the bowl 
and dome can be adjusted to accommodate birds of 
different sizes. The larger dome feeders hold a lot of 
seeds, and up to 10 birds can feed on them at one time. 
The dome also protects seeds from the weather and 
works fairly well as a squirrel baffle. But dome feeders 
do have some disadvantages. They are easily buffeted 
by the wind, and bird droppings are apt to splatter the 
dome and get into the seed. These feeders require fre- 
quent cleaning. 

Thistle feeders. Niger seed, also known as thistle 
seed, is a great favorite with goldfinches and other 
small finches. The tiny black seeds, which are im- 
ported from Ethiopia and India, require special feed- 
ers. The best way to offer this food is in tube thistle 


Autumn 1986 25 





A suet mixture may be 
served in many types 
of containers. Here it is 
stuffed into a cypress 
knee where it tempts a 
red-winged blackbird. 
Certain mammals find 
feeders interesting, too, 
the most notorious 
being squirrels. They 
gain access to feeders 
by making desperate 
leaps or acrobatic 
maneuvers from trees 
or rooftops. Feeders 
don’t have to be feeders 
per se. Even toy wagons 
will do as long as birds 


can get to the food. 


26 The Living Bird Quarterly 


feeders made of plastic with very small holes that pre- 
vent the seed from pouring out. Woven mesh bags are 
a poor substitute for holding niger since a large pro- 
portion of the expensive seeds spill on the ground. 

Suet holders. A whole different side to bird feeding 
is revealed when we provide suet (animal fat) and var- 
ious mixtures that can be made with melted suet. 
These foods call for different feeders and techniques. 
The first rule is to expose such foods at elevated feeders 
where they will be well out of reach of prowling mam- 
mals. The second is always to secure suet in small con- 
tainers so that it cannot be removed whole by mam- 
mals or bird guests. 

Unlike seeds and grains, there is no need to protect 
suet from wet weather, but most suets should not be 
made available in temperatures above 70 degrees Fahr- 
enheit since they spoil. 

Suet and suet mixtures should be placed at a num- 
ber of feeders so that all guests will have a chance at 
this energy-giving food. Unrendered suet can be 
placed in woven mesh bags such as those used to hold 
oranges or onions. Hang the bags from nails or tie to 
branches or a line strung between two posts. Pieces 
can be fitted into suet holders on posts or tree trunks, 
or placed in holders in certain windowsill or hopper- 
type feeders. 

Melted suet, to which other ingredients such as 
cornmeal and peanut butter have been added, gener- 
ally makes for a better food than pure suet. Mixtures 





GEORGE H. HARRISON (GRANT HEILMAN PHOTOGRAPHY) 





are more nutritious, longer lasting, and liked by more 
birds. Usually it is a sound practice to render a large 
quantity of suet at one time. Then the question arises 
of what to do with the melted suet mixture in the 


saucepans. 

The first step is to spread out newspapers and then 
pour the partially cooled mixture into suitable con- 
tainers. You can use jar tops, aluminum foil dishes, 
plastic cups, milk cartons cut down to suitable sizes, 
tuna fish cans, even empty citrus rinds. Place the filled 
containers in the refrigerator for storage; some may be 
used right away at bird feeders. Small cans may be 
wedged into wooden frames on posts and tree trunks. 

Hanging coconuts. One of the easiest feeders to 
make, and a handsome one too, is the hanging coco- 
nut. Cut a coconut in half at its widest portion, drill 
three holes at the edge for hanging with string or wire, 
and attach to a tree limb or line. The other half of the 
coconut may serve as a roof. The main function of the 
hanging coconut is to serve as a dish. Fill with suet or 
a mixture of suet and seeds. This is an excellent feeder 
for chickadees, tufted titmice, nuthatches, and small 
woodpeckers. 

Hanging logs. The same clientele that frequents the 
hanging coconut will come to holes bored in hanging 
logs or sticks which have been filled with a suet mix- 
ture. The logs, a foot or so long, about three inches in 
diameter, and with six or eight round holes for food, 
are attractive as well as practical. Insert a screw eye at 


TOM MANGELSEN 


one end and hang from a tree limb or line. Try to get 
wood to which the bark tightly adheres. Bark im- 
proves the appearance of the feeder and provides a sur- 
face that birds can cling to. With the addition of 
perches beneath each hole, the log feeder can be used 
by blue jays, gray catbirds, yellow-rumped warblers, 
northern orioles, dark-eyed juncos, and American 
tree sparrows. 

Windowsill feeders. Many people like to see birds 
right at their windows. A window feeder is apt to in- 
vite tamer birds, like chickadees, tufted titmice, and 
nuthatches. Also, windowsills are often the place 
where you can expect the occasional bird that may 
need special attention. The strategy with lingerers 
and strays is to get them feeding as close to the house 
as possible. Here they won’t be subjected to the heavy 
competition typical at feeders farther from the house. 
Suppliers of bird feeders now offer suction-cup feeders 
that can be attached easily to windowpanes. Feeders 
of this type are small and made of clear plastic. Be sure 
to read the directions carefully or your feeder may not 
stay put. Not only are these feeders the coziest you can 
provide, but they are easy to service. On cold, snowy 
mornings you can replenish your feeder from the win- 
dow rather than having to make a trip outside. 

Feeder placement. Encouraging birds to feed at dif- 
ferent levels and in dispersed locations helps to reduce 
friction among various bird species. Small, closely 
spaced feeders and not enough food encourage some 


individuals to become bullies. If you want your birds 
to behave én a reasonably courteous manner, you need 
to be generous with food and have it widely distrib- 
uted. With some feeders at windowsills and others at 
varying heights and distances from the house, birds 
have a wide choice of places to feed, and you should be 
able to accommodate a large variety of species with 
minimal friction. 

Bird feeders should be located in portions of the 
yard sheltered from the wind. Usually the south side of 
a house will have a good measure of protection be- 
cause the house itself blocks cold northerly winds. 
When the south side contains the windows where 
most bird watching will take place, you have ideal 
conditions for bird feeders. But even the north side 
can be suitable for feeders if cold winds are deflected 
by plantings, a fence, or a wall. 

Another important consideration is escape cover to 
which birds can retire at any hint of danger. Wherever 
possible, feeders should be located near suitable cover. 
A maple or apple tree, a privet, lilac, forsythia, or 
other bushes near the house may furnish moderately 
good cover. A Tartarian honeysuckle behind a bird 
feeder makes an excellent tangle where birds can con- 
eregate when not eating, and a small thicket of natu- 
ral growth along the rear property line is an ideal place 
to establish a feeder or two well away from the house. 

If there are cats in the neighborhood, it is a good 
idea to keep feeders at slightly greater distances from 
cover than would otherwise be advisable. A cat out in 
the open where birds can see it presents no serious 
danger; it is another story when a cat is concealed un- 
der a bush near where birds are feeding. At the same 
time, you should not go to the other extreme and place 
food too far out in the open. If feeders are to be safe for 
most users, they should not be over five feet from 
cover. 

Feeders should be located to take advantage of ex- 
isting trees and shrubbery. Any natural growth, such 
as a thicket at the rear edge of a yard, should be care- 
fully preserved during this day of complete land clear- 
ing for developments. Although newer plantings will 
in time reach a size adequate for cover and nesting 
sites, there is really no substitute for the diversity of 
natural growth. 


L astly, it is always helpful to have some nearby 
sources of natural foods so that birds do not have 
to rely upon your feeding stations. While many birds 
can be attracted even to an open lot with foods, feed- 
ers and bird baths, it is still habitat and not these 
other enticements that makes a yard well suited to 
birdlife. To attract the greatest number and diversity 
of birds, you should consider establishing plantings for 
birds along with your feeders. You'll beautify your yard 
and help birds at the same time. oO 


Reprinted (with updated material) from A Complete Guide to Bird 
Feeding. © 1975 by John V. Dennis, by permission of Alfred A. 
Knopf, Inc. 


BILL FIELD 





Autumn 1986 27 


S: ing a Song 0’ Christmas at 
The Crow’s Nest Bookshop 


VOICES OF THE LOON 
North American Loon Fund and 
National Audubon Society 


Collection of the common loon’s beautiful calls. 
Side one contains a narrative introducing and 
identifying loon calls; side two is uninterrupted 
choruses, duets, wails, confrontations, and 
more. Available in record or cassette. 


Record No. 1815/$10.95/9.96 members 
Cassette No. 1876/$12.95/11.66 members 


WARBLERS OF NORTH AMERICA 
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 


Definitive album by Donald Borror and William 
Gunn, produced by the Laboratory’s Library of 
Natural Sounds. More than 325 examples of 
songs and calls of all 57 North American 
species. Exceptional recordings are superbly 
reproduced; accompanying booklet includes 
detailed song descriptions and sonographs. 
Available as 3 record set or set of 2 cassettes. 


Records No. 1893/$29.95/26.96 members 
Cassettes No. 1894/$29.95/26.96 members 


COMMON BIRD SONGS 
Donald J. Borror 


Sixty of the most commonly heard bird songs in 
the eastern and central U.S. and Canada. 
Numerous variations are given for most songs. 
Accompanying booklet describes the songs 

and calls. 

Record No. 1877/$5.95/5.36 members 
Cassette No. 1892/$7.95/7.16 members 


SONGS OF EASTERN BIRDS 
Donald J. Borror 


Songs of 60 bird species common in the eastern 
U.S., arranged in order of complexity. 
Accompanying booklet describes the function 
and production of song for each species. 
Record No. 1881/$5.95/5.36 members 
Cassette No. 1891/$7.95/7.16 members 


SONGS OF WESTERN BIRDS 
Donald J. Borror 


Songs and calls of 60 bird species common in 
the western U.S., arranged in order of 
complexity, and by geographic range and 
habitat. Accompanying booklet describes the 
songs and calls. 


Record No. 1804/$5.95/5.36 members 
Cassette No. 1890/$7.95/7.16 members 


To order, please use form attached to 
subscription card in this issue. 





RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD BY CARL R. SAMS II 





s director of the Massa- 

chusetts Audubon So- 

ciety’s Moose Hill Bird 
Sanctuary near Sharon from 
1947 to 1949, I was very much 
interested in better ways to 
feed birds. The sanctuary, 
noted for its bird feeding pro- 
gram, was visited by people 
from miles around who came 
to watch birds at the many 
feeders. Inspired by what they 
saw, they often returned home 
with feeders and bird food pur- 
chased at the sanctuary. Al- 
though bird feeding goes back 
to the last years of the 19th 
century, it was just catching on 
as a popular hobby. What I saw 
at Moose Hill in those days 
was only a small taste of what 
was to come. 

Thanks to a day school at 
Moose Hill, I met Peter Kil- 
ham, father of one of the day 
campers and the man who was 
to revolutionize the way in 
which birds are fed. Years later 
he would invent a tube feeder 
that would keep food high and 
dry, within easy reach of the 
smaller birds that people take 
such delight in. 

It wasn’t long before my wife 
and I visited the Kilhams at 
their farm near Plainfield, 
Massachusetts. He had a wry 
humor and the frank manner 
and characteristic speech of 
the New Englander. We hit it 
off because of our common in- 
terest in birds and in preserv- 
ing the environment. | do not 
recall that I discussed bird 
feeders with him. He had a 
wide range of interests— many 
of them associated with ma- 
chines and working with orna- 
mental iron. When I asked 
him about his interests he said 


The Original Droll Yankee 


JOHN V. DENNIS 








Inventor Peter Kilham 


he was a frustrated artist and 
couldn’t make his living at 
anything! 

The story of Peter Kilham 
can be described as one of not 
infrequent change from rags to 
riches and back to rags again. 
Born in Brookline, Massachu- 
setts in 1905, Peter had a nor- 
mal boyhood which included 
an interest in nature. He 
shared this enthusiasm with 


his two brothers, one of whom, 


Lawrence, became a well- 
known naturalist. After a year 


at Harvard, Peter became disil- 
lusioned with formal education 


and decided to strike out on his 
own. For several years he 
taught geometric design in an 
art school and designed and 
made modern furniture. Dur- 
ing World War II he received a 
contract from the Navy to 
build a gunsight for bombers. 
This project turned out to be 
very successful. After the war 
he designed and built ma- 
chines for forming tubes used 
in Pratt and Whitney jet en- 
gines. It was at this stage in his 
career that he owned the farm 
that my wife and I visited. I re- 
call that sheep were grazing in 


fields and that bluebirds nested 
in nest boxes. 

There seemed to be an in- 
consistency about Peter Kil- 
ham—why would an inventor 
of his stature choose a simple 
life close to nature when riches 
were Clearly within his reach? 
To be sure, he had overhead 
and unexpected costs that pre- 
vented him from making a 
profit. But one suspects that he 
preferred a simple life and hav- 
ing all the time he needed to 
indulge in his various forms of 
creativity. Perhaps he looked 
back longingly upon early days 
in the field with his two broth- 
ers. Machines alone weren’t 
the answer, but if he could 
somehow combine machines 
with his love for nature, he 
would be happy. 

The first big opportunity to 
do this came in 1960 when, 
using an Air Force radar dish 
with a microphone in its cen- 
ter, he took up sound record- 
ing. For the next few years he 
was all over New England cap- 
turing the sounds of farm life, 
toots of steamboats, sounds of 
the sea, and bird songs. His 
bird song recordings were one 
of his outstanding achieve- 
ments. They received plaudits 
from the press, the Library of 
Congress, and even the Ken- 
nedy family. Station WGBH 
in Boston still starts its day’s 
broadcasting with them. Re- 
calling these years, Peter says 
he was always broke or close to 
it, but that he did his best 
work when he was broke. 

His second and most ambi- 
tious venture into combining 
mechanical skills with natural 
history came about purely by 
accident. One day in Barring- 


Autumn 1986 29 


ton, Rhode Island, where he 
was living with his second 
wife, Dorothy, he decided to 
replace a squirrel-chewed 
wooden bird feeder with one 
that he had built from scraps 
in his workshop. At the time 
he was involved in building a 
better wood-burning stove. 


Already the germ of new 
ideas about other 
models had entered his 
mind. He would build 
hummingbird feeders, 
squirrel-proof feeders, 
grackle-proof feeders, 
and still others, 


and he did! 


Using a few washers, a piece of 
plastic tubing, and some scrap 
metal, he had made a feeder 
that met his specifications. 

Now he would try it out on 
the birds. In all the years of de- 
signing and building bird feed- 
ers that followed, Peter kept in 
mind the special needs of the 
birds that would be using 
them. The distance from a 
bird’s feet to its beak must be 
kept in mind, and the fact that 
ground-feeding birds are best 
served if they have a tray to 
feed from. As for the appear- 
ance of the feeder, Peter states 
that “birds don’t care what the 
feeder looks like so long as they 
can get to the food.” 

Deciding that his new feeder 
suited the birds, as well as 
himself, he built a second 
model and sent it to Johnny 
Appleseed’s mail order house. 
They ordered four gross by re- 
turn mail. He entered the 
feeder in the New York Gift 
Show, and orders for thousands 
poured in. A manufacturer was 
found, and Peter at last had a 
business that produced a profit 
and gave him all the satisfac- 
tion he could ask for. In 1969, 
the first year the new feeder 
was on the market, 32,000 of 


30 The Living Bird Quarterly 


them were sold. In the second 
year about 90,000 were sold; to 
date sales of this one model 
have totaled over one million. 

Peter once told me that 
somehow the first of whatever 
he turned out was always his 
best. When he was recording 
sounds of nature, his first bird 
song recording “Birds of a May 
Morning” was his best, so he 
thought, and the one that fur- 
nished the greatest number of 
sales. Of his bird feeders, now 
running well over a dozen 
models, he feels his original 
Droll Yankee was his biggest 
success. 

When I visited Peter in Bar- 
rington in 1969, he seemed 
mostly engrossed in his wood 
stove. Although he felt it was 
far superior to any ever in- 
vented, he somehow didn’t see 
enough of a market for it. Af- 
ter visiting his basement, 
which was filled with a bewil- 
dering variety of machine 
tools, I got him around to talk- 
ing about birds and bird feed- 
ers. He said that grackles were 
decapitating his house spar- 
rows and eating the brains of 
these luckless birds. He wasn’t 
concerned about this, but 
wondered if the grackles might 
not offer other birds serious 
competition at his new feeder. 
Already the germ of new ideas 
about other models had en- 
tered his mind. He would build 
hummingbird feeders, squirrel- 
proof feeders, grackle-proof 
feeders, and still others, and he 
did! 

By the time Peter intro- 
duced his Droll Yankee, bird 
feeding had become big busi- 
ness. Other suppliers were put- 
ting out their own versions of 
tube feeders. Peter told me that 
a Japanese entrepreneur had 
introduced a Droll Yankee to 
Japan and hadn’t even changed 
the name. He went on to say 
that about 75 percent of the 
feeders made in this country 
are based on his designs. Com- 
petition didn’t much bother 


him, though. He was too busy 
working on other models and 
was confident that he could 
produce a better feeder. 

In 1980, the next time I saw 
Peter, he was living in Foster, 
Rhode Island. He had pur- 
chased a sizable acreage in the 
country well outside the town 
proper. Near the house, he had 
constructed two buildings—a 
large machine shop and a 
smaller building for office space 
and storage. During this and 
other visits to his new home, I 
saw more bird houses than 
feeders. He had bluebird 
houses everywhere and a mar- 
tin house with martins in it, 
overlooking a large artificial 
pond. Peter couldn’t under- 
stand why some of the birds, in 
spite of his efforts to provide 
accommodations for them, in- 
sisted upon nesting in the most 
unlikely places. At least two 
pairs of robins, for example, 
had built nests on loops of wire 
under the eaves of his shop. 

Not only were the actions of 
birds closely followed by Peter 
and Dorothy, but also those of 
the small mammals, butter- 
flies, turtles, fish, and even the 
doodlebugs that built their 
conical pits in the dry soil un- 
der the eaves of the house. In 
spite of the effort that Peter 
had expended in devising 
squirrel-proofing for bird feed- 
ers, he was on very friendly 
terms with the gray squirrels 
on his property. Several were 
tame enough to take food from 


his hand. 


hen I visited Peter in 
; : 1983 he was working 
on a completely new 


feeder design. He called this 
one the Garden Pole Feeder. It 
is a round tray mounted on a 
metal pole which fits into a 
heavy base made of a round 
steel rod formed into a circle. 
Hooks are available for hang- 
ing flower pots or other feeders 
above the feeding tray. A baffle 
keeps squirrels away and a 


dome roof protects the food 
from the elements. I have now 
tested this feeder for three 
years and have found it to be 
squirrel-proof. 

The final test of a bird feeder 
comes when it is placed near 
the house and filled with food. 
If the birds respond properly, 
Peter knows that he has an- 
other feeder worth putting on 
the market. Sometimes his 
feeders do not pan out. He 
scrapped one model after 
spending many months on it 
and some $20,000. For every 
10 feeders he designs, nine are 
scrapped. He says that the 
greatest mistake an inventor 
can make is to fall in love with 
his own work. 

Peter believes that the buy- 
ers of bird feeders also have re- 
sponsibilities. Feeders should 
be cleaned often and thor- 
oughly, for instance. There is 
no way he can design a feeder 
to prevent a few moldy seeds 
from accumulating at the bot- 
tom of a tray or tube. Probably 
his biggest peeve is that people 
insist upon putting every kind 
of seed except the right one in 
feeders. Sunflower seeds should 
go into his tubular feeders, 
thistle into his thistle feeder, 
and 1:4 parts sugar water into 
his hummingbird feeders. 

As a step toward overcoming 
the tendency to use the wrong 
food in the wrong feeder, he 
recently created the Super 
Yankee. It is a tubular feeder 
with perches and trays adjust- 
able for any type of seed and it 
is attractive to nearly all birds. 
Would this be his final feeder? 

In June of 1986 my wife and 
I visited the Kilhams at their 
home in Foster and again were 
taken on a tour of the sights. 
Peter, as spry as ever, was talk- 
ing about putting an oriole 
feeder on the market to be 
filled with sugar water just like 
hummingbird feeders. 

“T never run out of ideas,” 
Peter said. “Ideas are what 
keep me going.” O 




















Reece ee 
oe Sout 


sina ate, 
ay ier: 


WEE 35 ert eas 


Natanant 

Etre. Syst 

ro aes Ot, 
See 


3 vee A 


Bn bat SG, 


“ 
D 

Pe ay eats 

at Fach 


te