Richard Evan Feldman, Antonio Celis-Murillo, Jill L. Deppe, Michael P. Ward. 2021: Stopover behavior of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) during fall migration on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Avian Research, 12(1): 66. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00299-w
Citation: Richard Evan Feldman, Antonio Celis-Murillo, Jill L. Deppe, Michael P. Ward. 2021: Stopover behavior of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) during fall migration on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Avian Research, 12(1): 66. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00299-w

Stopover behavior of Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) during fall migration on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula

Funds: 

the Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales of Mexico and the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología of Mexico #262986

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Richard Evan Feldman, richard.feldman@cicy.mx

  • Received Date: 15 Jun 2021
  • Accepted Date: 02 Nov 2021
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 19 Nov 2021
  • Background 

    For migrating birds, stopover requires spending time and energy that otherwise could be allocated to flying. Thus, birds optimally refuel their subsequent migratory flight by reducing stopover duration or foraging activity in food-rich environments. In coastal habitats, birds may forego refueling and take short stopovers irrespective of local food availability. Given the paucity of studies exploring how migrants adjust stopover behavior in response to temporal variation in food availability, especially in the Neotropics, we fixed radio tags to 51 Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceous) over two years at two sites on the coast of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.

    Methods 

    We applied VHF radio tags during the fall of 2016 and 2017, and tracked birds using automatic and manual receiving units. We estimated stopover duration and activity levels (one site only) for between six and fifteen birds, depending on site and year. We measured fruit availability weekly along the net lanes where we captured birds. We used a generalized linear model to estimate the relationships between stopover duration/activity level and fruit density, bird body mass and year. We interpreted relationships for the model with the lowest AICc value.

    Results 

    We found that approximately half of the birds departed on the same day they were captured. For the birds that stayed longer, we could not discern whether they did so because they were light, or fruit density was high. On the other hand, lighter birds were more active than heavier birds but only in one of the two years.

    Conclusions 

    Given our results, it is unlikely that Red-eyed Vireos refuel along the Yucatan coast. However, they still likely need to recuperate from crossing the Gulf of Mexico, which may necessitate foraging more often if in poor body condition. If the birds then move inland then stopover should be thought of as a large-scale phenomenon, where habitats with different functions may be spread out over a broad landscape.

  • The Spot-billed Pelican (Pelecanus philippensis), a near threatened bird, one of eight pelican species in the world, can be found only in South and Southeast Asia over an area between 129000 and 181000 km2 with strongholds in India, Sri Lanka, southern Cambodia and coastal areas of Sumatra. In India, it is presently distributed in southern and north-eastern India with concentrations in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Assam states (BirdLife International, 2001, 2011). Although observations of a natural history of breeding of the Spot-billed Pelican have been reported from various sites in India (Campbell, 1902; Rhenius, 1907; Neelakandan, 1949; Gee, 1960; Ganguli, 1964; Johnson, 1971; Venkatraman, 1996; Taher, 2007), few specific attempts have been made to explore the breeding biology of this pelican in detail in India except by Nagulu (1983) and Rao (1986). In general, there has been no quantified account of breeding success, a key variable in demographic studies, of Spot-billed Pelican in India. Hence, an attempt was made to document the breeding biology of the Spot-billed Pelican from September 2007 to September 2010 in the Karaivetti Bird Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, India.

    The study was carried out at the Karaivetti Lake, situated at 10°58′01″N and 79°11′07″E and covering an area of about 4.54 km2 in the Ariyalur District (Fig. 1). It was declared a bird sanctuary by the Forest Department in 1997. Rainfall ranges between 800–2000 mm and the temperature varies from 14℃ to 33℃. This freshwater lake is fed by the Pullambadi and Kattalai canals. It is the largest waterbody in the district and attracts a great number of birds every year. Vegetation, both natural and planted, in and at the edges of the lake, consists of Acacia nilotica, Prosopis chilensis, Azadirachta indica and Tamarindus indica. The Acacia nilotica plantation is the major nesting site for the pelicans. Recently, the lake has been designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA site code: IN-TN-13) in India by the Indian Bird Conservation Network (Islam and Rahmani, 2004) but despite this, no attempt has been made so far to study this wetland or its dependant avifaunal species.

    Figure  1.  Map showing location of study area

    Spot-billed Pelican nests were found in clusters on trees in the lake. I observed the behavior of the Spot-billed Pelican from a distance with binoculars and a spotting scope, permitting detailed observations without noticeably disturbing the pelicans. In total, 418 hours were spent studying the pelicans from September 2007 to September 2010. Completely visible nests along with their contents (eggs/chicks), built in the outermost trees in clusters found inside the lake, were chosen for a detailed study of the breeding biology of the Spot-billed Pelican during the study period. All eggs laid, eggs hatched and those failed to hatch, were recorded in order to calculate nesting success. In general, incubation can start as soon as the first egg is laid, in which case eggs will hatch asynchronously (one or two days apart); when the clutch is completed, eggs hatch synchronously, or at some point in between. In the case of the pelican, incubation starts as soon as the first egg is laid. For altricial species, the fledging period is typically the time spent in the nest, although birds may be dependent on their parents for a much longer period out of the nest (in some cases several weeks). In the present study, the fledging period of the Spot-billed Pelican was considered the time between the hatching of eggs and the independence of the chicks (leave the parents). In total, 68 nests were monitored for the present study: 14 nests in September 2007–June 2008, 20 nests in September 2008–June 09 and 34 nests in September 2009–June 2010. Besides, information on breeding was also collected from other breeding sites in Tamil Nadu.

    The greater part of the Spot-billed Pelican colony arrives at the Karaivetti Lake in late November while a very few arrive in late December. After a few days from their arrival, the pelican starts breeding activities when there is sufficient water in the lake. However, among the five breeding sites in Tamil Nadu, i.e., the bird sanctuaries of Vedanthangal, Karikili, Koonthagulam, Karaivetti and Melaselvanur & Kelaselvanur, breeding starts much earlier (late September) in the Vedanthangal and Karikili bird sanctuaries, where pelicans arrive much earlier than in the other three sites. In general then, the breeding season of the Spot-billed Pelican starts in September and ends in May for the entire state of Tamil Nadu. However, the season may at times extend up to June when the arrival of the pelicans is delayed (Table 1). Sharma and Raghavaiah (2002) reported that breeding of the Spot-billed Pelican is dependent on the monsoon and not on the amount of rainfall. It should be noted that the onset of the monsoon largely determines the arrival of pelicans in Tamil Nadu. The breeding season of the pelicans observed in the present study is similar to the observations by Kannan (2007), Talukdar (1994; 1995a; 1995b), Neelakandan (1949) and Lamba (1963) in other parts of India, Legge (1880) and Baker (1929) in Sri Lanka and Oates (1878) at Pegu in Myanmar (Burma).

    Table  1.  Various breeding activities of Spot-billed Pelican observed during various months of the study period (2007–2010) in Tamil Nadu (darkest area indicates peak breeding activity)
    Breeding activities Months
    Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
    Construction of nests
    Nest with Eggs
    Nest with chicks
    Overall breeding activities
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The Spot-billed Pelican is a gregarious bird, roosting and nesting on trees in large numbers at the breeding sites. However, among the 149 species of birds that the Karaivetti Lake harbors, the Spot-billed Pelicans are the last arrivals and thus are forced to occupy the remaining trees for either nesting or roosting in the lake. Largely thin-canopied trees, present at the periphery of clusters of trees (Acacia nilotica) present in the lake, are often ignored by other bird species and therefore these trees are only occupied by pelicans. Every year, the Karaivetti Lake harbors both non-breeding (not mature enough to breed) and breeding Spot-billed Pelicans. Although pelicans arrive in large numbers, only a small part of pelicans actually breed (of the 114 individual birds, only 36 bred in 2007–2008, 100 of 265 in 2008–2009 and 112 of 295 in 2009–2010) since pelicans reach maturity only after three years.

    The male pelican develops a bright yellow skin around its pinkish red eyes. The breeding adults are brilliantly white with darker grey primaries. Both sexes develop a grey and white mixed crest during the initial period of breeding, which gradually is shed as the breeding advances. The bill of both sexes becomes brilliant yellow and with noticeable dark brownish spots during the breeding season.

    The Spot-billed Pelican, soon after its arrival, spends three to five days to settle and during these days, the birds find their nesting trees for breeding activities. The Spot-billed Pelican pairs after a few display events in many nesting trees in the lake. However, their display is not as attractive and impressive as that of other waterbirds. Pelicans perform their display activities only at the top of trees and not in the air or in water, in contrast to other pelican species. Brown and Urban (1969) reported group display in Great White Pelicans (P. onocrotalus), while Schaller (1964) reported strut walking in American White Pelicans (P. erythrorhynchos). However, no such displays were observed in the Spot-billed Pelican. In the Spot-billed Pelican, the bill and gular pouch are on prominent display. The male initially distends his reddish bright gular pouch and wobbles vigorously. After a few seconds, the male swings his head up and down and sideways (Fig. 2a, 2b). During this display, the pelican also throws his bill a few times over the back down to the tail (Fig. 2c). After a few seconds, the bird claps his bill loudly while swaying the head up and down. Schreiber (1977) reported a similar behavior by the Brown Pelican, (P. occidentalis). However, not all these displays are performed exclusively to attract the opposite sex. Head sways and bill claps are often performed when any intruder nears the pelican or even when in a disturbed state. Hence, head sways and bill claps are signals of threat to other males or predators besides acting as courtship signals to attract eventual partners. After head sways and bill claps, both sexes of the pelican bow to each other as an act of acknowledgement (Fig. 2d). After this event, a few males take flight and do some circling in the air above the nest for a few seconds. The partner at the nest performs the head sways, bill claps and bow activities when the male returns to the nest from his flight. Mating occurs at the nest just after the courtship displays. The male holds the neck of his partner between his mandibles, mounts her back and keeps his wings spread and outstretched while mating (Fig. 3). Once the mating is over, the male releases the neck of the female from his mandibles and dismounts.

    Figure  2.  Display behavior shown by Spot-billed Pelican. (a) head swaying up and down, (b) head sway-lateral, (c) head throwing, (d) bowing.
    Figure  3.  Mating sequences of Spot-billed Pelican

    The Spot-billed Pelican start nest building largely after courtship. It is initiated by the collection of nest material, mainly small branches. Mating was also noticed during the collection of nest material and in some cases even after nest construction. Both sexes share nest building activities. However, the male largely collects the nest material and the female receives and aligns the material for nesting. Nest construction is undertaken by both members of the pair as reported elsewhere (Nagulu, 1983; Nagulu and Rao, 1990). Nest construction is largely done during the morning hours (07:00–10:00 hours, n = 68). Nest material is largely collected from the ground and occasionally from plants and older nests. Nest material consists primarily of small twigs and branches as reported by Oates (1878). Nests are placed very close to each other in such a way that an out-stretched wing can touch the nest of a nearby pelican. The nests are constructed on the top and outer canopy and a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 7 nests are found in a single nest plant. No nest was found in the inner canopy of a tree since this prevents easy landing and takeoff of pelicans due to their size. Up to 6–12 nests have been recorded in a single tree in Assam (Talukdar, 1995a) and up to seven nests in a series at Kokkare Bellur (Subramanya and Manu, 1996). Nest construction largely ceases in early December; however a few nested in February 2008 due to their late arrival. Although nests look loosely arranged, they are strong enough to hold two adult birds. Fresh vegetation is often seen lining the nest.

    Individual birds tend to nest in the same place in the canopy each year, although new locations within the canopy and new trees are sometimes chosen (Subramanya and Manu, 1996). Although nests are found in the same place every year, identification was not possible and it is therefore not known if the same individual birds are involved, but nest site fidelity may not be ruled out.

    In India, the Spot-billed Pelican often nest beside the Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala) (Abraham, 1973) or the Lesser Adjutant (Leptoptilos javanicus) (Talukdar, 1995b). Oates (1878) mentioned that nests in trees in the Sittang colony in Myanmar were often created by adjutants (Leptoptilus dubius). In Cambodia, the colonies are again mixed with adjutants and other storks (Parr et al., 1996). In the Karaivetti Lake, the Painted Stork and Asian Openbill-stork (Anastomus oscitans) shared the nest trees with the Spot-billed Pelican

    The Spot-billed Pelican lays its first egg 5–10 days after nest construction, with clutch sizes varying from two to three eggs (Table 2). In the Sittang colony, the clutch invariably contained three eggs (Oates, 1878), although there was presumably some undetected variation. Four-egg clutches have been recorded in Assam (Talukdar, 1995b). In Nelapattu, India, the mean clutch size was 2.4 (n = 13; Nagulu, 1983), with clutches of three eggs completed in about seven days. Clutch sizes of 2–4 have been reported elsewhere (Whistler, 1949; Ali and Ripley, 1978; Nagulu, 1983; Rao, 1986; del Hoyo et al., 1992). Eggs are laid at a minimum of two- to three-day intervals (mean = 2.04, SD = 0.4) at the Karaivetti Lake. The pelicans are not very aggressive against predators and thus they do leave the nest when any bird of prey approaches their nests.

    Table  2.  Summary of reproductive success of Spot-billed Pelican at the Karaivetti Lake, Tamil Nadu, 2007–2010
    Parameter Breeding period
    2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 Overall
    Clutch size
    Mean 2.42 2.95 2.64 2.69
    Mode 3 3 3 3
    Range 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3
    Incubation period
    Mean 30.82 30.5 30.9 30.8
    Range 25–36 29–32 30–32 25–36
    SD and SE 1.98, 0.36 1.02, 0.13 0.87, 0.09 1.18, 0.08
    Fledging period
    Mean 95.06 94.05 92.91 93.71
    Range 91–98 90–99 90–102 90–102
    SD and SE 2.21, 0.57 2.85, 0.60 2.74, 0.47 2.77, 0.33
    Survival rate
    % of successful nest a 100 100 100 100
    % of eggs hatched 85.29 94.91 100 95.43
    Nest success
    Rate (%) b 79.41 91.52 94.4 90.28
    Fledging/total nests 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.3
    a nests that hatched at least one young.
    b total fledglings/total eggs.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The Spot-billed Pelican starts incubation as soon as the first egg is laid (Nagulu, 1983). Both sexes share the incubation; however, incubation by females predominates. Both sexes contribute to "domestic duties" during nesting (Lamba, 1963). The incubation period varied from a minimum of 25 days to a maximum of 36 days (Table 2). During incubation, the adult bird puffs its wings to fully cover the entire nest and performs no activities. Nearly similar incubation periods (30–36 days) have been reported elsewhere (Nagulu, 1983; Rao, 1986; del Hoyo et al., 1992).

    Hatching of the first egg starts after an average of 30 days. Newly hatched birds are altricial, i.e., born naked with red flesh (Fig. 4). The fledging period continues from a minimum of 90 days to a maximum of 102 days (Table 2). Fledging periods of around four months have been reported for the Spot-billed Pelican by Nagulu (1983), del Hoyo et al. (1992) and Talukdar (1995). The young birds start moving, perching and standing only after 30 days. During this act, chicks often fall from the nest, but no adults show any interest to rescue them from the water. Few are able to regain the nest and die in the water. During the study period, nine chicks lost their life due to such occurrences (2 in 2007–2008, 2 in 2008–2009 and 5 in 2009–2010). Adults largely try to flee when any intruder nears the nest rather than showing any aggression. Adults remain in the nest up to a maximum of 15 days after hatching; after that, they remain outside the nest to safeguard the young for about a further maximum of 19 days. After 30 days of hatching, adults are rarely seen in the nest. Adults visit the nest only during delivery of food to the young. When the young are 30–36 days old, they do not remain in the nest and dismantle it by pulling out the sticks from the nest. The young remain perching on the branches till they finally take off. At the end of the breeding season, it is very difficult to locate even the rudiments of nests on the tree and one finds on the ground, under the nesting tree, heaps of fallen white sticks.

    Figure  4.  Chicks of Spot-billed Pelican

    The Spot-billed Pelican feeds its young in three ways (Fig. 5). After a few days of hatching, the adults give a pre-digested liquid diet to their chicks. Adults drip this predigested liquid through the mandibles and right to the mouth of the young (Fig. 5a). After 7–10 days, the adult, by standing in front of the young, vigorously shakes its neck and regurgitates the food onto the nest (Fig. 5b). The young pick up this food and eat it bit by bit by seriously tossing or jerking their mandibles. After 30 days, the young are very much capable to draw the food straight from the gullet of the parent by inserting their mandibles up to the neck into the adults' mouth (Fig. 5c). Up to 30 days, adults feed their young largely 3–7 times a day and gradually reduce the frequency.

    Figure  5.  Various ways of feeding the chicks by Spot-billed Pelican. (a) feeding pre-digested liquid diet, (b) regurgitating small fingerlings, (c) young picks up food from adult.

    No studies have been reported on nest success of the Spot-billed Pelican. However, breeding success was reported to be constrained largely by floods, cyclones and felling of nesting trees (Nagulu, 1983; Santharam, 1993; Narasimhulu, 1995; Talukdar, 1995b). At Kokkare Bellur, India, an average of 1.6 nestlings fledged per nest in 1995. In the present study, a mean of 2.3 nestlings fledged per nest at the Karaivetti Lake (Table 2). Nagulu and Rao (1990) judged that the pelicans nesting at Nelapattu had a breeding success of 73.5%. Of the 68 nests studied, the Spot-billed Pelican had a nest success of 90.28% during September 2007 to September 2010 at the Karaivetti Lake (Table 2).

    The Spot-billed Pelican breeds during November and April at the Karaivetti Lake. The availability of suitable nesting trees, nest material, colonies surrounded by water for safety reasons, good food supplies within the lake and at nearby lakes, fewer human disturbances and poaching activities could be the key reasons for the successful nesting activities of the Spot-billed Pelican in recent years at the Karaivetti Lake.

    I thank the Academy of Higher Education, National College, Trichy -1 for academic support throughout the study. I also thank the Department of Science and Technology (SERC-Fast track Young scientist Scheme), India for funding the study and the Tamil Nadu Forest Department for granting me the required permission. I also thank IDEAWILD for its logistical support. I thank Mr. V.Kannan, Ms. N.Sheeba and Mr. P.Senthilkumar for sharing their knowledge.

  • Aborn DA, Moore FR. Activity budgets of summer tanagers during spring migratory stopover. Wilson J Ornithol. 2004;116: 64–8.
    Alan RR, McWilliams SR, McGraw KJ. The importance of antioxidants for avian fruit selection during autumn migration. Wilson J Ornithol. 2013;125: 513–25.
    Alerstam T. Optimal Bird Migration Revisited. J Ornithol. 2011;152: 5–23.
    Alerstam T, Hedenström A. The development of bird migration theory. J Avian Biol. 1998;29: 343–69.
    Alerstam T, Lindström Å. Optimal bird migration: the relative importance of time, energy and safety. In: Gwinner E, editor. Bird migration. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1990. p. 331–51.
    Bairlein F. Fruit-eating in birds and its nutritional consequences. Comp Biochem Phys A. 1996;113: 215–24.
    Bairlein F. The effect of diet composition on migratory fuelling in Garden Warblers Sylvia borin. J Avian Biol. 1998;29: 546–51.
    Bairlein F. How to get fat: nutritional mechanisms of seasonal fat accumulation in migratory songbirds. Naturwissenschaften. 2002;89: 1–10.
    Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67: 1–48.
    Bayly NJ, Atkinson PW, Rumsey SJR. Fueling for the Sahara crossing: variation in site use and the onset and rate of spring mass gain by 38 Palearctic migrants in the western Sahel. J Ornithol. 2012;153: 931–5.
    Bayly NJ, Rosenberg KV, Easton WE, Gómez C, Carlisle J, Ewert DN, et al. Major stopover regions and migratory bottlenecks for Nearctic-Neotropical landbirds within the Neotropics: a review. Bird Conserv Int. 2018;28: 1–26.
    Blake JG, Loiselle BA. Variation in resource abundance affects capture rates of birds in three lowland habitats in Costa Rica. Auk. 1991;108: 114–30.
    Blake JG, Loiselle BA, Moermond TC, Levey DJ, Denslow JS. Quantifying abundance of fruits for birds in tropical habitats. Stud Avian Biol. 1990;13: 73–9.
    Bolser JA, Alan RR, Smith AD, Li L, Seeram NP, McWilliams SR. Birds select fruits with more anthocyanins and phenolic compounds during autumn migration. Wilson J Ornithol. 2013;125: 97–108.
    Bonter DN, Zuckerberg B, Sedgwick CW, Hochachka WM. Daily foraging patterns in free-living birds: exploring the predation-starvation trade-off. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;280: 20123087.
    Both C, van Asch M, Bijlsma RG, van den Burg AB, Visser ME. Climate change and unequal phenological changes across four trophic levels: constraints or adaptations? J Anim Ecol. 2009;78: 73–83.
    Buler JJ, Moore FR. Migrant-habitat relationships during stopover along an ecological barrier: extrinsic constraints and conservation implications. J Ornithol. 2011;152: 101–12.
    Buler JJ, Moore FR, Woltmann S. A multi-scale examination of stopover habitat use by birds. Ecology. 2007;88: 1789–802.
    Cimprich DA, Moore FR. Fat affects predator-avoidance behavior in Gray Catbirds (dumetella carolinensis) during migratory stopover. Auk. 2006;123: 1069–76.
    Clipp HL, Cohen EB, Smolinsky JA, Horton KG, Farnsworth A, Buler JJ. Broad-scale weather patterns encountered during flight influence landbird stopover distributions. Remote Sens. 2020;12: 565.
    Cohen EB, Moore FR, Fischer R. Experimental evidence for the interplay of exogenous and endogenous factors on the movement ecology of a migrating songbird. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e41818.
    Cohen EB, Moore FR, Fischer RA. Fuel stores, time of spring, and movement behavior influence stopover duration of Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus. J Ornithol. 2014;155: 785–92.
    Cohen EB, Barrow WC, Buler JJ, Deppe JL, Farnsworth A, Marra PP, et al. How do en route events around the Gulf of Mexico influence migratory landbird populations? Condor. 2017;119: 327–43.
    Cohen EB, Horton KG, Marra PP, Clipp HL, Farnsworth A, Smolinsky JA, et al. A place to land: spatiotemporal drivers of stopover habitat use by migrating birds. Ecol Lett. 2021;24: 38–49.
    Dänhardt J, Lindström Å. Optimal departure decisions of songbirds from an experimental stopover site and the significance of weather. Anim Behav. 2001;62: 235–43.
    Deppe JL, Rotenberry JT. Temporal patterns in fall migrant communities in Yucatan, Mexico. Condor. 2005;107: 228–43.
    Deppe JL, Rotenberry JT. Scale-dependent habitat use by fall migratory birds: vegetation structure, floristics, and geography. Ecol Monogr. 2008;78: 461–87.
    Deppe JL, Ward MP, Bolus RT, Diehl RH, Celis-Murillo A, Zenzal TJ, et al. Fat, weather, and date affect migratory songbirds' departure decisions, routes, and time it takes to cross the Gulf of Mexico. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112: E6331–8.
    Deutschlander ME, Muheim R. Fuel reserves affect migratory orientation of thrushes and sparrows both before and after crossing an ecological barrier near their breeding grounds. J Avian Biol. 2009;40: 85–9.
    Dossman BC, Mitchell GW, Norris DR, Taylor PD, Guglielmo CG, Matthews SN, et al. The effects of wind and fuel stores on stopover departure behavior across a migratory barrier. Behav Ecol. 2016;27: 567–74.
    Dossman BC, Matthews SN, Rodewald PG. An experimental examination of the influence of energetic condition on the stopover behavior of a Nearctic–Neotropical migratory songbird, the American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla). Auk. 2018;135: 91–100.
    Feldman RE, Dorantes EA. La fenología de frutos de la duna costera de la Península de Yucatán. Desde Herb CICY. 2017;9: 77–82.
    Feldman RE, Žemaitė I, Miller-Rushing AJ. How training citizen scientists affects the accuracy and precision of phenological data. Int J Biometeorol. 2018;62: 1421–35.
    Ferretti A, Maggini I, Lupi S, Cardinale M, Fusani L. The amount of available food affects diurnal locomotor activity in migratory songbirds during stopover. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 19027.
    Gallinat AS, Primack RB, Willis CG, Nordt B, Stevens AD, Fahey R, et al. Patterns and predictors of fleshy fruit phenology at five international botanical gardens. Am J Bot. 2018;105: 1824–34.
    Gauthreaux SA. A radar and direct visual study of passerine spring migration in southern Louisiana. Auk. 1971;88: 343–65.
    Greenberg R, Niven DK, Hopp S, Boone C. Frugivory and coexistence in a resident and a migratory vireo on the Yucatan Peninsula. Condor. 1993;95: 990–9.
    Greenberg R, Foster MS, Marquez-Valdelamar L. The role of the White-Eyed Vireo in the dispersal of Bursera fruit on the Yucatan Peninsula. J Trop Ecol. 1995;11: 619–39.
    Gwinner E, Schwabl H, Schwabl-Benzinger I. Effects of food-deprivation on migratory restlessness and diurnal activity in the garden warbler Sylvia borin. Oecologia. 1988;77: 321–6.
    Hedenström A. Adaptations to migration in birds: behavioural strategies, morphology and scaling effects. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;363: 287–99.
    Horton KG, Van Doren BM, La Sorte FA, Cohen EB, Clipp HL, Buler JJ, et al. Holding steady: little change in intensity or timing of bird migration over the Gulf of Mexico. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25: 1106–18.
    Johnson AB, Winker K. Autumn stopover near the Gulf of Honduras by Nearctic–Neotropic migrants. Wilson J Ornithol. 2008;120: 277–85.
    Ke WJ, He P, Peng HB, Choi CY, Zhang SD, Melville DS, et al. Migration timing influences the responses of birds to food shortage at their refuelling site. Ibis. 2019;161: 908–14.
    Klaassen M, Biebach H. Energetics of fattening and starvation in the long-distance migratory garden warbler, Sylvia borin, during the migratory phase. J Comp Physiol B. 1994;164: 362–71.
    Klinner T, Buddemeier J, Bairlein F, Schmaljohann H. Decision-making in migratory birds at stopover: an interplay of energy stores and feeding conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2020;74: 10.
    La Sorte FA, Hochachka WM, Farnsworth A, Sheldon D, Fink D, Geevarghese J, et al. Migration timing and its determinants for nocturnal migratory birds during autumn migration. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84: 1202–12.
    La Sorte FA, Fink D, Hochachka WM, Kelling S. Convergence of broad-scale migration strategies in terrestrial birds. Proc R Soc B. 2016;283: 20152588.
    Lafleur JM, Buler JJ, Moore FR. Geographic position and landscape composition explain regional patterns of migrating landbird distributions during spring stopover along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Landscape Ecol. 2016;31: 1697–709.
    Lind J, Cresswell W. Anti-predation behaviour during bird migration; the benefit of studying multiple behavioural dimensions. J Ornithol. 2006;147: 310–6.
    Lindström Å, Alerstam T. Optimal fat loads in migrating birds: a test of the time-minimization hypothesis. Am Nat. 1992;140: 477–91.
    Lindström Å, Piersma T. Mass changes in migrating birds: the evidence for fat and protein storage re-examined. Ibis. 1993;135: 70–8.
    Loria DE, Moore FR. Energy demands of migration on red-eyed vireos Vireo Olivaceus. Behav Ecol. 1990;1: 24–35.
    Lupi S, Maggini I, Goymann W, Cardinale M, Rojas Mora A, Fusani L. Effects of body condition and food intake on stop-over decisions in Garden Warblers and European Robins during spring migration. J Ornithol. 2017;158: 989–99.
    Ma Z, Hua N, Peng H-B, Choi C, Battley PF, Zhou Q, et al. Differentiating between stopover and staging sites: functions of the southern and northern Yellow Sea for long-distance migratory shorebirds. J Avian Biol. 2013;44: 504–12.
    Macleod R, Barnett P, Clark JA, Cresswell W. Body mass change strategies in blackbirds Turdus merula: the starvation-predation risk trade-off. J Anim Ecol. 2005;74: 292–302.
    Maggini I, Trez M, Cardinale M, Fusani L. Stopover dynamics of 12 passerine migrant species in a small Mediterranean island during spring migration. J Ornithol. 2020;161: 793–802.
    Marra PP, Hobson KA, Holmes RT. Linking winter and summer events in a migratory bird by using stable-carbon isotopes. Science. 1998;282: 1884–6.
    Marshall TJ, Dick MF, Guglielmo CG. Seasonal dietary shifting in yellow-rumped warblers is unrelated to macronutrient targets. Comp Biochem Physiol Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2016;192: 57–63.
    McCabe JD, Olsen BJ. Landscape-scale habitat availability, and not local geography, predicts migratory landbird stopover across the Gulf of Maine. J Avian Biol. 2015a;46: 395–405.
    McCabe JD, Olsen BJ. Tradeoffs between predation risk and fruit resources shape habitat use of landbirds during autumn migration. Auk. 2015b;132: 903–13.
    McWilliams SR, Kearney SB, Karasov WH. Diet preferences of warblers for specific fatty acids in relation to nutritional requirements and digestive capabilities. J Avian Biol. 2002;33: 167–74.
    McWilliams SR, Guglielmo CG, Pierce BJ, Klaassen M. Flying, fasting, and feeding in birds during migration: a nutritional and physiological ecology perspective. J Avian Biol. 2004;35: 377–93.
    Mehlman DW, Mabey SE, Ewert DN, Duncan C, Abel B, Cimbrich D, et al. Conserving stopover sites for forest-dwelling migratory landbirds. Auk. 2005;122: 1281–90.
    Moermond TC, Denslow JS. Fruit choice in neotropical birds: effects of fruit type and accessibility on selectivity. J Anim Ecol. 1983;52: 407–20.
    Moore FR. Biology of landbird migrants: a stopover perspective. Wilson J Ornithol. 2018;130: 1–12.
    Moore FR, Kerlinger P. Stopover and fat deposition by North American wood-warblers (Parulinae) following spring migration over the Gulf of Mexico. Oecologia. 1987;74: 47–54.
    Moore FR, Kerlinger P, Simons TR. Stopover on a Gulf Coast barrier island by spring trans-gulf migrants. Wilson Bull. 1990;102: 487–500.
    Moore FR, Woodrey MS, Buler JJ, Woltmann S, Simons TR. Understanding the stopover of migratory birds: a scale dependent approach. In: Ralph CJ, Rich TD (eds. ). Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the third international partners in flight conference. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191; Albany. 2005. p 684–9
    Moore FR, Covino KM, Lewis WB, Zenzal TJ, Benson TJ. Effect of fuel deposition rate on departure fuel load of migratory songbirds during spring stopover along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. J Avian Biol. 2017;48: 123–32.
    Norris DR, Marra PP, Kyser TK, Sherry TW, Ratcliffe LM. Tropical winter habitat limits reproductive success on the temperate breeding grounds in a migratory bird. Proc Biol Sci. 2004;271: 59–64.
    Parrish JD. Patterns of frugivory and energetic condition in Nearctic landbirds during autumn migration. Condor. 1997;99: 681–97.
    Parrish JD. Behavioral, energetic, and conservation implications of foraging plasticity during migration. Stud Avian Biol. 2000;20: 53–70.
    Paxton KL, Moore FR. Carry-over effects of winter habitat quality on en route timing and condition of a migratory passerine during spring migration. J Avian Biol. 2015;46: 495–506.
    Pyle P. Identification guide to North American Birds. Part 1. Point Reyes: State Creek Press; 1997.
    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
    Raim A. A radio transmitter attachment for small passerines. Bird-Banding. 1978;49: 326–32.
    Rappole JH, Warner DW. Relationships between behavior, physiology and weather in avian transients at a migration stopover site. Oecologia. 1976;26: 193–212.
    Reed TE, Jenouvrier S, Visser ME. Phenological mismatch strongly affects individual fitness but not population demography in a woodland passerine. J Anim Ecol. 2013;82: 131–44.
    Schaefer HM, Schaefer V. The fruits of selectivity: how birds forage on Goupia glabra fruits of different ripeness. J Ornithol. 2006;147: 638–43.
    Schaefer HM, Schmidt V. Feeding strategies and food intake of Blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) consuming ripe or unripe fruits and insects. J Ornithol. 2002;143: 341–50.
    Schaub M, Jenni L, Bairlein F. Fuel stores, fuel accumulation, and the decision to depart from a migration stopover site. Behav Ecol. 2008;19: 657–66.
    Schmaljohann H, Eikenaar C. How do energy stores and changes in these affect departure decisions by migratory birds? A critical view on stopover ecology studies and some future perspectives. J Comp Physiol A. 2017;203: 411–29.
    Schofield LN, Deppe JL, Zenzal TJ, Ward MP, Diehl RH, Bolus RT, et al. Using automated radio telemetry to quantify activity patterns of songbirds during stopover. Auk. 2018;135: 949–63.
    Sillett TS, Holmes RT. Variation in survivorship of a migratory songbird throughout its annual cycle. J Anim Ecol. 2002;71: 296–308.
    Skrip MM, Bauchinger U, Goymann W, Fusani L, Cardinale M, Alan RR, et al. Migrating songbirds on stopover prepare for, and recover from, oxidative challenges posed by long-distance flight. Ecol Evol. 2015;5: 3198–209.
    Smetzer JR, King DI. Prolonged stopover and consequences of migratory strategy on local-scale movements within a regional songbird staging area. Auk. 2018;135: 547–60.
    Smith SB, McWilliams SR. Patterns of fuel use and storage in migrating passerines in relation to fruit resources at autumn stopover sites. Auk. 2010;127: 108–18.
    Smith AD, McWilliams SR. What to do when stopping over: behavioral decisions of a migrating songbird during stopover are dictated by initial change in their body condition and mediated by key environmental conditions. Behav Ecol. 2014;25: 1423–35.
    Smith RJ, Moore FR. Arrival timing and seasonal reproductive performance in a long-distance migratory landbird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2005;57: 231–9.
    Smith RJ, Moore FR, May CA. Stopover habitat along the shoreline of northern Lake Huron, Michigan: emergent aquatic insects as a food resource for spring migrating landbirds. Auk. 2007;124: 107–21.
    Smolinsky JA, Diehl RH, Radzio TA, Delaney DK, Moore FR. Factors influencing the movement biology of migrant songbirds confronted with an ecological barrier. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2013;67: 2041–51.
    Solomon LE. Stopover ecology of Neotropical migratory songbirds in the northern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Master's Thesis. Charleston: Eastern Illinois University; 2016.
    Suomala RW, Morris SR, Babbitt KJ, Lee TD. Migrant songbird species distribution and habitat use during stopover on two islands in the Gulf of Maine. Wilson J Ornithol. 2010;122: 725–37.
    Valdez-Hernández M, Andrade JL, Jackson PC, Rebolledo-Vieyra M. Phenology of five tree species of a tropical dry forest in Yucatan, Mexico: effects of environmental and physiological factors. Plant Soil. 2010;329: 155–71.
    Wheelwright NT. Seasonal changes in food preferences of American robins in captivity. Auk. 1988;105: 374–8.
    Woodworth BK, Francis CM, Taylor PD. Inland flights of young red-eyed vireos Vireo olivaceus in relation to survival and habitat in a coastal stopover landscape. J Avian Biol. 2014;45: 387–95.
    Zenzal TJ, Fish AC, Jones TM, Ospina EA, Moore FR. Observations of predation and anti-predator behavior of Ruby-throated Hummingbirds during migratory stopover. Southeast Nat. 2013;12: N21–5.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Figures(4)  /  Tables(2)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (481) PDF downloads (6) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return