Figure
1.
The Three-toed Woodpecker subspecies Picoides tridactylus funebris
| Citation: |
Brian D. PEER, James W. RIVERS, Stephen I. ROTHSTEIN. 2013: Cowbirds, conservation, and coevolution: potential misconceptions and directions for future research. Avian Research, 4(1): 15-30. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0009
|
Avian brood parasitism is a model system for studies of coevolution and ecological interactions between parasites and their hosts. However, recent work may have led to misconceptions concerning the Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater), the most widely studied brood parasitic bird in the world, and its effects on host species. Potential misconceptions about this species that could affect management issues are as follows: cowbird populations are increasing; cowbirds are relatively new to North America; recently exposed hosts are defenseless against parasitism; cowbirds have caused widespread declines of songbirds; and cowbird control is always effective in increasing the size of endangered host populations. Potential coevolutionary misconceptions are that cowbirds are typically "host tolerant"; cowbirds evict host nestmates; and the mafia effect is widespread. It is important to clarify these issues because such misconceptions could hinder our understanding of parasite-host interactions, and thus obscure the direction of basic research and of management efforts taken to limit cowbird impacts on endangered species. We discuss these issues and suggest future research directions to enhance our understanding of this fascinating species.
The Three-Toed Woodpecker is circumpolal distributed across the Northern Hemisphere. This vast distribution area results in eight subspecies, which are currently divided into two separate species based on mitochondrial DNA: Picoides tridactylus in Eurasia and P. dorsalis in North America (Zink et al., 1995, 2002). The subspecies P. t. funebris (Fig. 1) is endemic to the Qinghai-Tibet plateau in China. No research is being ever conducted since its discovery in 1870 (Verreaux, 1870). Thus, P. t. funebris is a subspecies for which we are not aware of any reports on life history details including foraging behavior.
Foraging behavior in Three-toed Woodpeckers is strongly related to the availability of food which was shown to be the driving factor for selection of foraging sites (Hogstad, 1976, 1977, 1991; Pechacek, 2006). Bark beetles and wood boring beetle larvae that are both confined to the subsurface of dead and dying trees are reported to be the most important prey of Three-toed Woodpeckers (Pechacek and Kristin 2004). Morphological adaptations especially with regard to the shape of the chisel-like bill are the basic precondition to excavate these prey from foraging substrates.
Measurements of 12 museum specimens of P. t. funebris (6 males and 6 females, Y.Z. Zhu unpublished data) suggested that the differences in bill length between the sexes are less developed than in P. t. alpinus (< 4% vs > 8%) (Pechacek, 2006). This may have resulted in evolution of more serious competition between males and females because bill length differences are related to the pronounced foraging niche partitioning. Niche partitioning helps to prevent conflicts in cases when both sexes are foraging close to each other and was well described in P. t. tridactylus (Hogstad, 1976, 1977, 1991) and P. t. alpinus (Pechacek, 2006).
We therefore conducted field observations on P. t. funebris in Gansu Province, China to compare its foraging behavior with that of other subspecies we particularly aimed for 1) exploring foraging sites and foraging techniques, and 2) assessing the niche partitioning between the sexes.
The study was conducted at the Kache Forest Farm, Zhuoni County, Gansu Province, China (34°10′7″–34°38′20″N, 103°12′49″–103°48′50″E), with altitude ranging from 2500 to 4500 m above sea level. The Kache Forest Farm is composed of coniferous forests that are dominated by spruces (Picea asperata, P. wilsonii) and firs (Abies fargesii, A. faxoniana). Two large-scale logging operations were conducted in the area between 1949 and 1998, and afforestation took place in recent years.
A female P. t. funebris was caught in a mist net on 21 March 2007. It was banded and fitted with a 2 g radio transmitter (type BD 2G, Holohil, Canada). We followed the female by radio-tracking and collected foraging observation. The mated male individual was observed travelling together with the female frequently during the breeding season, and we therefore conducted observations on the foraging male as well.
Following field protocols by Pechacek (2006), foraging data was recorded every 15 s during an observed foraging bout. We recorded foraging behavior and associated parameters of foraging substrates. Foraging bout was considered as effective only if the woodpecker was observed foraging on a tree for more than 45 s and we could therefore record observations more than three times. Collected data reflected behavior or substrate use as a percentage of each foraging bout (i.e. percentage of time spent by displaying a particular foraging behavior or using a particular foraging substrate). To ensure the independency of foraging bouts, the next foraging bout was recorded after minimally one hour (Swihart and Slade, 1985), or alternatively, if the woodpecker moved at least 100 m from the previous location (Pechacek, 2006).
According to the sampling classification developed by Remsen and Robinson (1990) and Pechacek (2006), we distinguished nine types of behavior associated with foraging: pecking, peeling, sap-sucking, preening, territory defence, climbing, freezing, head swinging, and other. We summarized pecking, tapping and probing from the original classification (Remsen and Robinson, 1990; Pechacek, 2006) as pecking which represented foraging for prey hidden relatively deep in the foraging substrate. Scaling and gleaning from the original classification were summarized as peeling which represented foraging for prey available close to the substrate surface.
Parameters of foraging substrates were categorized and measured according to Pechacek (2006). We considered parameters that included foraging zone (i.e. base of the trunk, trunk, branches), substrate thickness, foraging height (i.e. lower, central and middle third of the foraging tree) and condition of the foraging substrate (i.e. alive, dead with and without bark). The thickness of foraging substrate was assessed referring to the bird itself (about 5.5 cm width). Additionally, we randomly placed 100 plots of 10 m × 10 m throughout the foraging area (i.e. home-range) of the male and female to assess the amount of snags (i.e. standing dead trees) in the foraging territory.
After recording a foraging bout, the nearest tree of random direction was selected as a reference. Tree species and diameter at breast height (DBH) were recorded for both foraging and reference tree, and then the feeding preference index (PI) was calculated to express the foraging preference, using the equation from Kells et al. (2001):
|
|
where Vk is the number of foraging visits of kth site, Vt the total number of visits to all sites, Ak the total number of kth reference, and At the total number of all references.
Analyses were conducted in SPSS 13.0. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to test the difference between DBH of foraging and reference trees. Mann-Whitney U-Test was used to test for differences in foraging behavior between the sexes. Results were considered significant at p < 0.05. Standard deviations (SD) are given with means.
We collected 117 observations on a foraging pair of P. t. funebris during the breeding season between April and August 2007. Of them, 89 accounted for the female and 28 for the male. Both partners were found foraging close to each other at 56 (47.8%) out of 117 occasions.
The volume of snags in the foraging territory amounted 4.3 m3·ha–1 (6 and 2.1 m3·ha–1 for the male's and female's home ranges, respectively).
P. t. funebris preferred live spruces and snags over other available sites (Table 1). Foraging trees had by 26% bigger DBH than the reference trees, whereas the mean DBH of the female's foraging trees was larger than that of reference trees (32.6 ± 8.8 vs 22.2 ± 9.2), and the DBH of the male's foraging trees was similar to the reference ones (33.1 ± 10.4 vs 30.2 ± 10.6) (Table 2). The main foraging technique of P. t. funebris was pecking (39.8 ± 27.0% of the foraging time) followed by the peeling (13.2 ± 15.0%).
| Site | Foraging tree (%) | Reference tree (%) | Preference index |
| Fir | 65.8 | 83.2 | 0.791 |
| Spruce | 18.8 | 10.3 | 1.825 |
| Snag a | 14.5 | 3.4 | 4.265 |
| Other | 0.9 | 3.4 | 0.265 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | – |
| n | 117 | 117 | – |
| a Unidentified species. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Foraging tree (cm) | Reference tree (cm) | Z a | p a | n | |
| Male | 33.1 ± 10.4 | 30.2 ± 10.6 | –0.1 | 0.996 | 28 |
| Female | 32.6 ± 8.8 | 22.2 ± 9.2 | –6.4 | 0.000 | 89 |
| Z b | –0.2 | –3.7 | |||
| p b | 0.858 | 0.000 | |||
| Total | 32.7 ± 9.2 | 24.1 ± 10.1 | –5.8 | 0.000 | 117 |
|
a Results derived from Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b Results derived from Mann-Whitney U-Test. |
|||||
DownLoad:
CSV
The mean DBH of the foraging trees showed no difference between male and female (p = 0.858). However, we observed the following differences between the sexes with regard to parameters of foraging substrates (Table 3): the female foraged more often in the upper third of a tree (p = 0.010), while the male was more frequently seen foraging in the lower third (p = 0.003). The thickness of the male foraging substrate was significantly larger than that of the female's (p = 0.013). The male foraged more often on the dead substrates covered with bark (p = 0.021). On the other hand, the female spent more time on living parts of trees (p = 0.017). Additionally, male used pecking more often than the female (p = 0.035; Table 4).
| Male | Female | Z | p | All | |
| Foraging zone | |||||
| Base of the trunk | 14.3 ± 35.6 | 3.8 ± 18.3 | –1.5 | 0.141 | 6.3 ± 23.8 |
| Trunk | 46.4 ± 50.8 | 37.4 ± 45.2 | –0.96 | 0.926 | 39.6 ± 46.5 |
| Branches | 39.2 ± 49.7 | 57.7 ± 46.3 | –1.2 | 0.248 | 53.3 ± 47.6 |
| Foraging height | |||||
| Lower third | 28.6 ± 46.0 | 5.8 ± 23.2 | –3.1 | 0.003 | 11.3 ± 31.6 |
| Central third | 33.8 ± 46.6 | 28.6 ± 44.4 | –0.4 | 0.651 | 29.8 ± 44.8 |
| Upper third | 33.7 ± 47.8 | 65.5 ± 47.0 | –2.6 | 0.010 | 58.9 ± 48.5 |
| Condition | |||||
| Alive | 15.1 ± 35.6 | 28.9 ± 42.3 | –2.4 | 0.017 | 25.6 ± 41.1 |
| Dead with bark | 78.9 ± 38.1 | 63.9 ± 41.2 | –2.3 | 0.021 | 67.5 ± 40.9 |
| Dead without bark | 5.9 ± 15.3 | 7.3 ± 16.5 | –0.1 | 0.893 | 6.9 ± 16.2 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| Mean thickness of foraging substrates (cm) | 17.0 ± 11.6 | 11.0 ± 8.2 | –2.4 | 0.013 | 12.6 ± 9.9 |
| n | 28 | 89 | 117 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Foraging behavior | Male | Female | Z | p | All |
| Pecking | 46.2 ± 29.5 | 37.8 ± 26.0 | –1.8 | 0.035 | 39.8 ± 27.0 |
| Peeling | 13.0 ± 14.5 | 13.2 ± 15.3 | –0.2 | 0.430 | 13.2 ± 15.0 |
| Sap-sucking | 3.4 ± 18.0 | 4.3 ± 17.0 | –0.6 | 0.474 | 4.1 ± 17.2 |
| Preening | 6.1 ± 17.7 | 5.1 ± 16.5 | –1.1 | 0.142 | 5.3 ± 16.8 |
| Territory defense | 0.4 ± 1.9 | 1.1 ± 6.0 | –0.4 | 0.370 | 0.9 ± 5.3 |
| Climbing | 8.9 ± 13.3 | 9.7 ± 12.7 | –0.3 | 0.374 | 9.5 ± 12.8 |
| Freezing | 3.8 ± 10.8 | 9.5 ± 18.9 | –0.8 | 0.208 | 8.1 ± 17.4 |
| Head swinging | 7.5 ± 8.2 | 10.8 ± 11.9 | –1.1 | 0.139 | 10.0 ± 11.2 |
| Other | 10.5 ± 13.7 | 6.2 ± 6.7 | –1.4 | 0.079 | 7.2 ± 9.0 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| n | 28 | 89 | 117 |
DownLoad:
CSV
P. t. funebris preferred foraging on live spruces and snags that were bigger than surrounding reference trees with an average DBH of 32.7 ± 9.2 cm. We found differences between the sexes with respect to foraging height, substrate thickness and condition of the substrate. The most frequent foraging technique was pecking (39.8% of foraging time) followed by the peeling (13.2%). The male pecked more often than the female, and the female preferred foraging on trees that were larger than those available in female's foraging territory. Although the fir was the dominant tree species in our study area by amounting for 83.2% of the randomly selected reference trees, P. t. funebris preferred spruces and snags which had higher population density of bark beetles than firs (Liu et al., 1994). The observed foraging on trees with relatively large DBH was likely also related to the more abundant beetle prey that typically occurs in large substrates (Hanula et al., 2000).
We found that P. t. funebris extensively foraged on dead branches (53.3% of the foraging time), while P. t. alpinus rarely did so (13%, Pechacek, 2006). This may have been adaptation to the small amount of snags available in the foraging territory in our study area (4.3 m3·ha–1). In contrast, snag amount was much higher in habitats of P. t. alpinus in the European Alps (30 m3·ha–1 of combined volume of snags and downed logs, Konnert, 2000). Woodpeckers may have therefore compensated for the lack of snags to obtain prey on another form of dead wood, the dead branches. We noted that sap-sucking was observed more often in P. t. funebris than in P. t. alpinus (4.1% vs 1.2% of the foraging time) (Pechacek, 2006), suggesting that P. t. funebris was more dependent on the tree sap than the other subspecies.
P. t. funebris showed pronounced vertical niche partitioning between the sexes. This was consistent with observations on Three-Toed Woodpeckers elsewhere (Hogstad 1977, 1991; Pechacek, 2006). We found distinct differences between the sexes with respect to use of three out of four investigated parameters of the foraging substrates. The male occupied for most of the foraging time the lower third of coniferous trees and thicker substrates, where beetle prey is typically more abundant than in the upper third and on branches (Chen et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2007). Excavation of prey from the substrates composed of large DBH and thick bark required more time investment by extensive pecking. This may have explained the higher proportion of the male's pecking behavior compared to female. Conversely, the female used more often dead substrates with bark already peeled off, and living substrates. These sites presumably contained less abundant food. We also found that the volume of snags was higher within the male's home range compared to that of the female (6 vs 2.1 m3·ha–1). Moreover, we detected the male driving away the female for five times, which accounted for 8.9% of all records when both partners were found travelling together. We therefore concluded that the male dominated over the female by occupying prey-richer resources also in P. t. funebris despite of less obvious competitive advantages as demonstrated by little differences in the bill length between the sexes in comparison with P. t. alpinus (Pechacek, 2006).
We confirmed that P. t. funebris displayed foraging behavior and niche partitioning that showed similar patterns to those reported for other studied subspecies of the Three-toed Woodpecker. The observed niche partitioning, however, did not reflect well the expected strong competition for the best foraging sites based on less pronounced sexual dimorphism (here represented by bill length) in P. t. funebris.
|
Askins RA. 2000. Restoring North America's Birds: Lessons from Landscape Ecology. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
|
|
Belles-Isles JC, Picman J. 1986. Destruction of heterospecific eggs by the Gray Catbirds. Wilson Bull, 98: 603–605.
|
|
Berger AJ. 1951. The cowbird and certain host species in Michigan. Wilson Bull, 63: 26–34.
|
|
Bollinger EK, Peer BD, Jansen RW. 1997. Status of Neotropical migrants in three forest fragments in Illinois. Wilson Bull, 109: 521–526.
|
|
Brewer AE. 1995. Cowbird warning. Br Birds, 88: 157.
|
|
Chace JF, Cruz A, Marvil RE. 2000. Reproductive interactions between Brown-headed Cowbirds and Plumbeous Vireos in Colorado. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 128–134.
|
|
Cimprich DA, Comolli K. 2010. Monitoring of the Black-capped Vireo during 2010 on Fort Hood, Texas. In: Endangered Species Monitoring and Management at Fort Hood, Texas: 2010 Annual Report. The Nature Conservancy, Fort Hood Project, Fort Hood, Texas, USA.
|
|
Cimprich DA, Heimbuch M. 2011. Monitoring of the Blackcapped Vireo during 2011 on Fort Hood, Texas. In: Endangered Species Monitoring and Management at Fort Hood, Texas: 2011 Annual Report. Fort Hood Natural and Cultural Resources Management Branch, Fort Hood, Texas, USA.
|
|
Cimprich DA, Moore FR. 1995. Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The Birds of North America, No. 167. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
|
|
Davis SK, Sealy SG. 2000. Cowbird parasitism and nest predation in fragmented grasslands of southwestern Manitoba. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 210–219.
|
|
Dawkins R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
|
|
Dawson WL. 1923. The Birds of California: A Complete and Popular Account of the 580 Species and Subspecies of Birds Found in the State. South Moulton Company, San Diego.
|
|
DeCapita ME. 2000. Brown-headed Cowbird control on Kirtland's Warbler nesting areas in Michigan, 1972–1995. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 333–341.
|
|
Du Bois AD. 1956. A cowbird incident. Auk, 73: 286.
|
|
Elliott PF. 1999. Killing of host nestlings by the Brown-headed Cowbird. J Field Ornithol, 70: 55–57.
|
|
Friedmann H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. U.S. National Mus Bull No. 233. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
|
|
Goldwasser S, Gaines D, Wilbur S. 1980. The Least Bell's Vireo in California: a de facto endangered race. Am Birds, 34: 742–745.
|
|
Hauber ME. 2003. Hatching asynchrony, nestling competition, and the cost of interspecific brood parasitism. Behav Ecol, 2: 227–235.
|
|
Hayden TJ, Tazik DJ, Melton RH, Cornelius JD. 2000. Cowbird control program at Fort Hood, Texas: lessons for mitigation of cowbird parasitism on a landscape scale. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 357–370.
|
|
Hill RA. 1976. Host-parasite relationships of the Brown-headed Cowbird in a prairie habitat of west-central Kansas. Wilson Bull, 88: 555–565.
|
|
Johnsgard PA. 1997. The Avian Brood Parasites. Deception at the Nest. Oxford University Press, New York.
|
|
Kostecke RM, Cimprich DA, Summers SG. 2010. Partial cessation of cowbird management at Fort Hood, Texas: year five. In: Endangered Species Monitoring and Management at Fort Hood, Texas: 2010 Annual Report. The Nature Conservancy, Fort Hood Project, Fort Hood, Texas, USA.
|
|
Kus B. 1999. Impacts of Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism on productivity of the endangered Least Bell's Vireo. Stud Avian Biol, 18: 160–166.
|
|
Laymon SA. 1987. Brown-headed Cowbirds in California: historical perspectives and management opportunities in riparian habitats. Western Birds, 18: 63–70.
|
|
Lorenzana JC, Sealy SG. 1999. A meta-analysis of the impact of parasitism by the Brown-headed Cowbird on its hosts. Stud Avian Biol, 18: 241–253.
|
|
Mann CC. 2005. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Vintage Books, New York. Mayfield HF. 1965. The Brown-headed Cowbird, with old and new hosts. Living Bird, 4: 13–28.
|
|
Mayfield HF. 1977. Brown-headed Cowbird: agent of extermination. Am Birds, 31: 107–113.
|
|
Morrison ML, Hall LS, Robinson SK, Rothstein SI, Hahn DC, Rich TD (eds). 1999. Research and management of the Brownheaded Cowbird in western landscapes. Stud Avian Biol, no. 18.
|
|
Nakamura TK, Cruz A. 2000. The ecology of egg-puncture behavior by the Shiny Cowbird in southwestern Puerto Rico. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 178–186.
|
|
Newton I. 1998. Population Limitation in Birds. Academic Press, New York.
|
|
Ortega CP, Chace JF, Peer BD. 2005. Management of cowbirds and their hosts: balancing science, ethics, and mandates. Ornithol Monogr, 57: 1–114.
|
|
Payne RB, Payne LL. 1998a. Nestling eviction and vocal begging behaviors in the Australian Glossy Cuckoos Chrysococcyx basalis and C. lucidus. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and their Hosts: Studies in Coevolution Oxford University Press, New York, pp 152–169.
|
|
Payne RB. 2005. The Cuckoos. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
|
|
Pearson TG, Burroughs J. 1917. Birds of America. Nature Lover's Library. University Society Inc., New York.
|
|
Peer BD, Bollinger EK. 2000. Why do female Brown-headed Cowbirds remove host eggs? A test of the incubation efficiency hypothesis. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 187–192.
|
|
Peer BD, Sealy SG. 1999. Parasitism and egg puncture behavior by Bronzed and Brown-headed cowbirds in sympatry. Stud Avian Biol, 18: 235–240.
|
|
Phillips RS. 1951. Nest location, cowbird parasitism, and nesting success of the Indigo Bunting. Wilson Bull, 63: 206–207.
|
|
Pielou EC. 1991. After the Ice Age: The Return of Life to Glaciated North America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
|
|
Pyne SJ. 1997. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
|
|
Robinson SK, Rothstein SI, Peer BD. 2013. Nest parasitism. In: Levin S (ed). Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd ed. Elsevier, New York.
|
|
Robinson SK. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented Illinois landscape. In: Hagan III JM, Johnston DW (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp 455–471.
|
|
Rothstein SI, Kus BE, Whitfield MJ, Sferra SJ. 2003. Recommendations for cowbird management in recovery efforts for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Stud Avian Biol, 26: 157–167.
|
|
Rothstein SI, Peer BD. 2005. Conservation solutions for threatened and endangered cowbird (Molothrus spp.) hosts: separating fact from fiction. Ornithol Monogr, 57: 98–114.
|
|
Rothstein SI, Robinson SK. 1998. Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts. Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
|
|
Rothstein SI. 1994. The cowbird's invasion of the far West: history, causes and consequences experienced by host species. Stud Avian Biol, 15: 301–315.
|
|
Sauer JR, Hines JE, Fallon JE, Pardieck KL, Ziolkowski Jr. DJ, Link WA. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2010. Version 12.07.2011. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.
|
|
Schram BA. 1994. An open solicitation for cowbird recipes. Birding, 26: 254–257.
|
|
Sealy SG, McMaster DG, Peer BD. 2002. Tactics of obligate brood parasites to secure suitable incubators. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian Incubation: Behaviour, Environment, and Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 254–269.
|
|
Sealy SG. 1994. Observed acts of egg destruction, egg removal, and predation on nests of passerine birds at Delta, Manitoba. Can Field-Natur, 108: 41–51.
|
|
Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG. 2000. Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin.
|
|
Soler M, Soler JJ, Martinez JG, Møller AP. 1995. Magpie host manipulation by Great Spotted Cuckoos: evidence for an avian mafia? Evolution, 49: 770–775.
|
|
Sorenson MD, Payne RB. 2001. A single, ancient origin of obligate brood parasitism in African finches: implications for hostparasite coevolution. Evolution, 55: 2550–2567.
|
|
Spottiswoode CN, Stryjewski KF, Quader S, Colebrook-Robjent JFR, Sorenson MD. 2011. Ancient host specificity within a single species of brood parasitic bird. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 43: 17738–17742.
|
|
Stewart RE. 1953. A life history study of the Yellowthroat. Wilson Bull, 65: 99–115.
|
|
Stutchbury B. 1997. Effects of female cowbird removal on reproductive success of Hooded Warblers. Wilson Bull, 109: 74–81.
|
|
Svensson EI, Råberg L. 2010. Resistance and tolerance in animal enemy – victim coevolution. Trends Ecol Evol, 25: 267–274.
|
|
Sykes PW, Clench MH. 1998. Winter habitat of Kirtland's Warbler: an endangered Nearctic/Neotropical migrant. Wilson Bull, 110: 244–261.
|
|
Terborgh J. 1989. Where Have All the Birds Gone? Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
|
|
Thompson FR Ⅲ, Dijak W, Burhans, DE. 1999. Video identification of predators at songbird nests in old fields. Auk, 116: 259–264.
|
|
Twomey AC. 1945. The bird population of an elm-maple forest with special reference to aspection, territorialism, and coactions. Ecol Monogr, 15: 173–205.
|
|
Underwood TJ, Sealy SG, McLaren CM. Experiments on egg discrimination in two North American corvids: further evidence for retention of egg ejection. Can J Zool, 82: 1399–1407.
|
|
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Appendices A-O
|
|
Walkinshaw LH. 1983. Kirtland's Warbler: the Natural History of an Endangered Species. Cranbrook Institutes of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
|
|
Ward D, Smith JNM. 2000. Interhabitat differences in parasitism frequencies by Brown-headed Cowbirds in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 210–219.
|
|
Whitfield MJ, Sogge MK. 1999. Range-wide impact of Brownheaded Cowbird parasitism on the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Stud Avian Biol, 18: 182–190.
|
|
Whitfield MJ. 2000. Results of a Brown-headed Cowbird control program for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts: Studies in the Conservation of North American Passerine Birds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 371–377.
|
|
Wiens JA, Goble DD, Scott JM. 2012. Birds: Time to accept conservation triage. Nature, 488: 281.
|
|
Wilson AS, Marra P, Fleischer RC. 2012. Temporal patterns of genetic diversity in Kirtland's Warblers (Dendroica kirtlandii), the rarest songbird in North America. BMC Ecol, 12: 8.
|
|
Zahavi A. 1979. Parasitism and nest predation in parasitic cuckoos. Am Nat, 113: 157–159.
|
Figures(3) / Tables(1)
| Site | Foraging tree (%) | Reference tree (%) | Preference index |
| Fir | 65.8 | 83.2 | 0.791 |
| Spruce | 18.8 | 10.3 | 1.825 |
| Snag a | 14.5 | 3.4 | 4.265 |
| Other | 0.9 | 3.4 | 0.265 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | – |
| n | 117 | 117 | – |
| a Unidentified species. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Foraging tree (cm) | Reference tree (cm) | Z a | p a | n | |
| Male | 33.1 ± 10.4 | 30.2 ± 10.6 | –0.1 | 0.996 | 28 |
| Female | 32.6 ± 8.8 | 22.2 ± 9.2 | –6.4 | 0.000 | 89 |
| Z b | –0.2 | –3.7 | |||
| p b | 0.858 | 0.000 | |||
| Total | 32.7 ± 9.2 | 24.1 ± 10.1 | –5.8 | 0.000 | 117 |
|
a Results derived from Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b Results derived from Mann-Whitney U-Test. |
|||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Male | Female | Z | p | All | |
| Foraging zone | |||||
| Base of the trunk | 14.3 ± 35.6 | 3.8 ± 18.3 | –1.5 | 0.141 | 6.3 ± 23.8 |
| Trunk | 46.4 ± 50.8 | 37.4 ± 45.2 | –0.96 | 0.926 | 39.6 ± 46.5 |
| Branches | 39.2 ± 49.7 | 57.7 ± 46.3 | –1.2 | 0.248 | 53.3 ± 47.6 |
| Foraging height | |||||
| Lower third | 28.6 ± 46.0 | 5.8 ± 23.2 | –3.1 | 0.003 | 11.3 ± 31.6 |
| Central third | 33.8 ± 46.6 | 28.6 ± 44.4 | –0.4 | 0.651 | 29.8 ± 44.8 |
| Upper third | 33.7 ± 47.8 | 65.5 ± 47.0 | –2.6 | 0.010 | 58.9 ± 48.5 |
| Condition | |||||
| Alive | 15.1 ± 35.6 | 28.9 ± 42.3 | –2.4 | 0.017 | 25.6 ± 41.1 |
| Dead with bark | 78.9 ± 38.1 | 63.9 ± 41.2 | –2.3 | 0.021 | 67.5 ± 40.9 |
| Dead without bark | 5.9 ± 15.3 | 7.3 ± 16.5 | –0.1 | 0.893 | 6.9 ± 16.2 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| Mean thickness of foraging substrates (cm) | 17.0 ± 11.6 | 11.0 ± 8.2 | –2.4 | 0.013 | 12.6 ± 9.9 |
| n | 28 | 89 | 117 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Foraging behavior | Male | Female | Z | p | All |
| Pecking | 46.2 ± 29.5 | 37.8 ± 26.0 | –1.8 | 0.035 | 39.8 ± 27.0 |
| Peeling | 13.0 ± 14.5 | 13.2 ± 15.3 | –0.2 | 0.430 | 13.2 ± 15.0 |
| Sap-sucking | 3.4 ± 18.0 | 4.3 ± 17.0 | –0.6 | 0.474 | 4.1 ± 17.2 |
| Preening | 6.1 ± 17.7 | 5.1 ± 16.5 | –1.1 | 0.142 | 5.3 ± 16.8 |
| Territory defense | 0.4 ± 1.9 | 1.1 ± 6.0 | –0.4 | 0.370 | 0.9 ± 5.3 |
| Climbing | 8.9 ± 13.3 | 9.7 ± 12.7 | –0.3 | 0.374 | 9.5 ± 12.8 |
| Freezing | 3.8 ± 10.8 | 9.5 ± 18.9 | –0.8 | 0.208 | 8.1 ± 17.4 |
| Head swinging | 7.5 ± 8.2 | 10.8 ± 11.9 | –1.1 | 0.139 | 10.0 ± 11.2 |
| Other | 10.5 ± 13.7 | 6.2 ± 6.7 | –1.4 | 0.079 | 7.2 ± 9.0 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| n | 28 | 89 | 117 |
DownLoad:
CSV
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds