BIRD POPULATIONSInstitute for Bird Populations, along with complete name, address, and email address...
241
BIRD POPULATIONS A journal of global avian demography and biogeography Volume 8 2007 (2005-2006) Published annually by The Institute for Bird Populations
Transcript of BIRD POPULATIONSInstitute for Bird Populations, along with complete name, address, and email address...
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global avian demography and biogeography
Volume 8 2007 (2005-2006)
Published annually by The Institute for Bird Populations
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global avian demography and biogeography
Published byThe Institute for Bird Populations
Editor: DAVID G. AINLEY, H.T. Harvey & Associates, 983 University Avenue, Bldg D, Los Gatos,CA 95032; 408-458-3223; [email protected]
Managing Editor: DAVID F. DESANTE, The Institute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 1346, PointReyes Station, CA 94956-1346; 415-663-2052; 415-663-9482 fax; [email protected]
Spanish Translation of Abstracts: BORJA MILA, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, JoséGutiérrez Abascal 2, Madrid 28006, Spain; [email protected]
Layout and Typesetting: PRISCILLA YOCOM, 24252 Songsparrow Lane, Corona, CA 92883
THE INSTITUTE FOR BIRD POPULATIONS
A tax-exempt California nonprofit corporation established in 1989 and dedicated to fostering aglobal approach to research and the dissemination of information on changes in bird populations.
President: STEPHEN M. ALLANKETNER, 1292 High Street #162, Eugene, OR 97401.
Secretary-Treasurer: JAMES HEDDLE, 91 Brighton Road, Bolinas, CA 94924.
Directors: DAVID F. DESANTE, CORDELL GREEN, and DAN TOMPKINS.
All persons interested in birds are invited to join The Institute for Bird Populations. Individualmembership dues are $35 per year. Institutional memberships are $50 per year; student and seniormemberships are $15 per year. Please send check or money order (in U.S. dollars) payable to TheInstitute for Bird Populations, along with complete name, address, and email address to: TheInstitute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 1346, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956-1346. All membershipsand donations are fully tax-deductible as provided by law.
BIRD POPULATIONS (ISSN 1074-1755) is an entirely electronic journal published annually by TheInstitute for Bird Populations. Copyright 2007 by The Institute for Bird Populations. BIRDPOPULATIONS can be accessed free of charge at www.birdpop.org. All material in this journal maybe copied for the non-commercial purpose of educational or scientific advancement without theneed to seek specific permission
Bird Populations is an annual journal of dynamic global avian demography and biogeographythat publishes original research and review papers dealing with changes in the numbers,distributions, and ecological relationships of birds. Papers providing documentation of quantitativechanges in bird populations or distributions are preferred, but papers providing baselinepopulation or distribution information are also acceptable. Papers describing or evaluating fieldtechniques or analytical methods for assessing population and distribution changes are alsowelcome. Contributions are encouraged from throughout the world from both well-known andlittle-studied avifaunas. Bird Populations is published in English with abstracts in Spanish, French,and German.
Authors should submit three complete double-spaced copies of each manuscript, in English, to:David G. Ainley, Editor, Bird Populations, H.T. Harvey and Associates, 983 University Avenue, BldgD, Los Gatos, CA 95032; [email protected]. Guidelines for preparing and submittingpapers to Bird Populations, including the format for literature citations, are similar to those of TheCondor and Studies in Avian Biology. Authors are urged to examine a recent issue of Bird Populationsand follow the niceties of the journal’s style. All research papers and review articles submitted toBird Populations are subject to peer review. Submission of accepted papers on computer-readablemagnetic media (MS-Word, or WordPerfect files in MS-DOS or Macintosh format) is encouragedstrongly and will be appreciated greatly.
Bird Populations also prints or reprints annual reports of major avian monitoring programs fromaround the world. These annual reports are an important focus of the journal which is intended toserve as a yearbook on the status of the Earth’s birdlife by bringing together, under a single cover,information from many widespread localities on the annual changes in the abundance anddistribution of birds. We believe that the printing or reprinting of these annual reports will drawattention, in a timely manner, to short-term population fluctuations that may turn out to begeographically widespread or that may signal the beginnings of longer-term trends. We hope thatthe publication of these reports will provide ornithologists with a global informational network foraddressing avian population changes, will encourage an integrative global approach to avianmonitoring studies, will stimulate the establishment of additional avian monitoring programs,particularly in the developing nations, and ultimately will aid in the conservation of global aviandiversity.
Any agency or organization from anywhere in the world conducting a long-term, relativelylarge-scale, standardized, avian monitoring program is invited to submit the annual (or biennial)report of that program to Bird Populations for printing or reprinting. Annual reports submitted fororiginal printing will undergo peer review; please submit three copies of such reports. Alreadypublished annual reports submitted for reprinting will not be peer reviewed, but will be screenedby the Editor when first submitted with regard to the scope and scientific merit of the monitoringprogram and the appropriateness of the methods and analyses; please submit one copy of suchreports. Annual reports of programs included for publication will be printed or reprinted withoutpage charges. Submission of reports on computer-readable magnetic media is encouraged and willbe appreciated.
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global avian demography and biogeography
Volume 8 2007 (2005-2006)
CONTENTSPATTERNS OF SEASONAL ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY IN THE WATERBIRD COMMUNITY OF
NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIAJ. I. Nirmal Kumar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHANGES IN THE SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OF GREATER YELLOWLEGS AT TOTTEN INLET,WASHINGTON
Joseph B. Buchanan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
REPORTS OF MAJOR AVIAN MONITORING PROGRAMSINTRODUCTION TO THE REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26THE 1999-2003 SUMMARY OF THE NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY
Keith L. Pardieck and John R. Sauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) PROGRAM 2002 AND
2003 REPORTDavid F. DeSante and Danielle R. Kaschube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
THE 2003 AND 2004 NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD CENSUS WITH ADDITIONS FOR 2001AND 2002
Thomas Gardali and James D. Lowe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS?Mike Raven, David Noble and Stephen Baillie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
MONITORING WATERWAYS BIRDS (AND MAMMALS)John Marchant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
CHARTING THE SUCCESS OF UK HERONSJohn Marchant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
A POOR BREEDING SEASON — CONSTANT EFFORT SITES, 2003Dawn Balmer and Steve Freeman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
LATE FINISHERS AND EARLY STARTERSDavid Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
FULL OF EARLY PROMISE!David Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
NEST RECORD SCHEME: LATEST RESULTSHumphrey Crick, Dave Leech and Peter Beaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
WETLAND BIRD SURVEY ALERTSIlya Maclean and Graham Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
LATEST NEWS FROM THE WEBS FRONTMark Collier, Steve Holloway and Andy Musgrove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
BLACKCAP AND ROSEFINCH — GARDEN STARS David Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
RECENT CHANGES IN COMMON BIRD POPULATIONSMike Raven and David Noble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
WATERWAYS SURVEYS IN 2004John Marchant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
CLOSER TO HOMEMike Toms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
CES NOW MONITORING CETTI’S WARBLERDawn Balmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
RAS COMES OF AGERob Robinson, Stuart Newson and John Marchant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global avian demography and biogeography
Volume 8 2007 (2005-2006)
CONTENTS (Continued)MILD CONDITIONS BENEFIT BREEDING OWLS
David Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210WHITE STORK FAILS TO DELIVER
David Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213NEST RECORD SCHEME BREEDING TRENDS — LATEST RESULTS
Dave Leech and Humphrey Crick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215WEBS ALERTS: WATERBIRD TRENDS ON PROTECTED AREAS
Ilya Maclean and Graham Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219BLACK REDSTARTS BRIGHTEN WINTER BIRDTABLES
David Glue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221NEW WILD BIRD INDICATORS FOR ENGLAND
David Noble, Alex Banks and Stuart Newson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225EUROPEAN BIRD INDICATORS
David Noble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228WILD BIRD INDICATORS FOR THE ENGLISH REGIONS
Sarah Davis, David Noble and Andrew Joys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Juliet Vickery, Dan Chamberlain and David Noble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
[1]
Bird Populations 8:1-20© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
PATTERNS OF SEASONAL ABUNDANCE ANDDIVERSITY IN THE WATERBIRD COMMUNITY OF NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA1
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR
Head & Senior Reader, P.G. Department of Environmental Sciences,Institute of Science & Technology for Advanced Studies & Research (ISTAR),
Vallabh Vidyanagar – 388 120, Gujarat, IndiaE-mail: [email protected]
HIREN SONI
Lecturer, Ashok and Rita Patel Institute of Integrated Study & Research inBiotechnology & Allied Sciences (ARIBAS),
New Vallabh Vidyanagar – 388 121, Gujarat, India
RITA N. KUMAR
Head, Department of Biosciences & Environmental Sciences,N.V. Patel College of Pure & Applied Sciences, Vallabh Vidyanagar – 388 120, Gujarat, India
Abstract. We studied the waterbird community of Nal Lake Bird Sanctuary (NLBS),Gujarat State, India, a proposed Ramsar Site and Wetland of International Importance, todetermine site-specific seasonal variation in abundance and diversity. The study wasconducted at eight selected sites in NLBS from March 2004 to February 2005. Data weregathered monthly to ensure quantification of seasonal changes in diversity and density.Overall, 109 waterbird species belonging to 64 genera and 18 families were documented,including 42 year-round residents and 67 seasonally present or migratory species. Amongthese, 8 species were considered to be abundant, 51 common, and 50 rare. Overall waterbirddensity was highest where resident species such as Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea), Little Egret(Egretta garzetta), Median Egret (Mesophoyx intermedia), Red-wattled Lapwing (Vanellusindicus) and Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) were present; some migratoryspecies such as Greater Flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber), Graylag Goose (Anser anser),Common Coot (Fulica atra) and Whiskered Tern (Chlidonias hybridus) contributed to areas ofhigh density. Diversity was high where profuse growth of emergent aquatic vegetation andlow human disturbance was evident; it was low at sites that experience high levels ofpollution and tourism. The abundance and composition of the waterbird assemblage wasaffected by the interplay of several factors, including site-specific presence of certain species,
____________________1First received: 26 April 2007. Revision accepted: 13 September 2007.
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global avian biogeography
Volume 8 2007 (2005-2006)
INTRODUCTIONThe conservation of wetlands has become afrequent topic among wildlife managers.Wetlands are important conservation sites dueto their rich biodiversity, they are among themost productive ecosystems in the world, andthey harbor many globally threatened species(Casado and Montes 1995, Green 1996, Petrie1998, Getzner 2002). Diverse wetland complexesare of greatest value in providing habitat forwetland bird species (Miller 2003).
Over 90% of Earth’s wetlands have been lostduring the past 150 years (Kempka et al. 1991),along with increased habitat fragmentationwithin those that remain (Van Vessem et al. 1997).
The major problem is agricultural expansionand urban development (Shuford et al. 1998;Shine and Klenm 1999). One associated result isthe loss of native aquatic seeds consumed bywaterbirds (Petrie and Rogers 1996). Thesehistorical reductions in water and food
availability have forced most waterbirds tomigrate towards riverine systems of semi-aridareas and subtropical regions during winter(Raeside 2005).
Current efforts to increase wetland habitatsare hampered by a paucity of biological data(Streeter et al. 1993, Shuford et al. 2004). One keytype of information involves the factors thataffect the abundance of aquatic birds in a givenwetland, an abundance that may differdepending on the time of day, season or year inwhich the bird surveys are conducted (Miller2003). To address this data gap in India, wecoordinated counts of waterbirds at Nal LakeBird Sanctuary (NLBS) from March 2004 toFebruary 2005, and report here the pattern ofseasonal, site-specific variation in speciesabundance and diversity for this Ramsar Siteand Wetland of International Importance (Davis1994, Frazier 1996, GSFD 2005). Similar studieshave been carried out, for example, in such areasas the altiplano wetlands of north-western
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[2]
habitat fragmentation and the presence of core refugial habitats. Recommendations formanagement and research are made to ensure the effective conservation of waterbirdpopulations and their habitats in this region.
Key words: Nal Lake Bird Sanctuary, Gujarat, India, species diversity, waterbirdcommunity, waterbird management.
PATRONES DE ABUNDANCIA Y DIVERSIDAD ESTACIONAL EN LA COMUNIDAD DEAVES ACUÁTICAS DEL SANTUARIO DE AVES DEL LAGO NAL, GUJARAT, INDIA Resumen. Estudiamos la comunidad de aves acuáticas del Santuario de Aves del Lago Nal
(Nal Lake Bird Sanctuary, NLBS), Gujarat State, India, un lugar propuesto como Sitio Ramsary Humedal de Importancia Internacional, para determinar la variación estacional local enabundancia y diversidad. El estudio fue llevado a cabo en ocho sitios del NLBS entre marzode 2004 y febrero de 2005. Los datos fueron colectados mensualmente para asegurar lacuantificación de cambios estacionales. En conjunto, documentamos la presencia de 109especies acuáticas pertenecientes a 64 géneros y 18 familias, incluyendo 42 residentespermanentes y 67 especies estacionales o migratorias. Entre estas, 8 especies fueronconsideradas abundantes, 51 comunes, y 50 raras. La densidad general de aves acuáticas fuemayor donde especies residentes como Ardea cinerea, Egretta garzetta, Mesophoyx intermedia,Vanellus indicus, e Himantopus himantopus estaban presentes; algunas especies migratoriascomo el flamenco Phoenicopterus ruber, Anser anser, Fulica atra y Chlidonias hybriduscontribuyeron también en áreas de alta densidad. La diversidad fue alta donde eranevidentes la profusión de vegetación acuática emergente y la baja perturbación humana; fuebaja en lugares que experimentan altos niveles de polución y turismo. La abundacia ycomposición de la comunidad de aves acuáticas se vieron afectadas por la interacción dediversos factores, entre ellos la presencia local de ciertas especies, la fragmentación delhábitat y la presencia de zonas de hábitats relictuales. Aportamos recomendaciones para elmanejo y la investigación a fin de asegurar la conservación efectiva de las poblaciones deaves acuáticas y sus hábitats en esta región.
Palabras clave: comunidad de aves acuáticas, manejo de aves acuáticas, diversidad deespecies, Nal Lake Bird Sanctuary, Gujarat, India
Argentina (Colwell and Taft 2000, Caziani et al.2001), after which we modeled our investi-gations. We make recommendations formanagement and future research to ensureeffective conservation of waterbirds in thisregion of India.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
STUDY AREA
Nal Lake Bird Sanctuary is located between 22º78’ N to 22º 96’ N latitude and 71º 92’ E to 72º 64’E longitude, amidst the semi-arid lands ofAhmedabad and Surendranagar districts, 65 kmfrom Ahmedabad. Biogeographically, the areafalls in the 4-B Gujarat-Rajwara biotic provinceof the semi-arid biogeographical zone (Rodgersand Panwar 1988). The legal area of thesanctuary is 120.89 km2. The sanctuary supportsmore than 300 islets, most of which fringe itswestern boundary. It receives water mainly fromtwo rivers, Brahmini and Bhogavo, flowing fromits northern border (Fig. 1). The entire areaexperiences three distinct seasons: winter(November to February), summer (March toMay), and monsoon (mid-June to mid-October).Average temperature varies from 45º C duringsummer to 7º C during winter. Annual rainfallranges from 500 to 600 mm.
The unique geographical location, climate andtopography have endowed NLBS with greatfloral and faunal diversity. This natural shallowlake flourishes with 48 species of phytoplankton,76 species of zooplankton and 71 floweringplants, including more than 30 species of aquaticmacrophytes. The lake fauna includes >20 speciesof fish, 11 species of herpetofauna, 216 species ofbirds, including 160 species of waterfowl of bothresident and migratory species, and 13mammalian species including the threatenedIndian Wild Ass (Equus hemionus khur) andBlackbuck (Antelope cervicapra) (GEER 1998).
SITE SELECTION
As NLBS includes an extensive geographicaland hydrobiological regime, preliminary visitswere made to assess sites that could beconsistently surveyed (see Nirmal Kumar andRita Kumar 2000). The entire area was assessedfrom all directions by approaching peripheralboundaries by road, walk-ways on banks and by
boats. Discussions with knowledgeable localexperts were included in the reconnaissance. Intotal, eight survey sites were selected (15 to 20%of NLBS) so as to cover the longitudinal cross-section of the entire lake ecosystem: Site-1(upstream of Brahmini River) and Site-2(Downstream of Brahmini River) fringe thenorthern boundary of the lake; Site-3 (Bendi Bet)is an unperturbed site; Site-4 (Dharbla Bet) is atourist spot for recreational activities; Site-5(Core Zone/Sanctum sanctorum), is an 8 km2 areaforming the central portion of the lake; Site-6represents the south-west border (Mahatal Bet);Site-7 represents the lake’s southern limit (BajotBet) and Site-8 (Dakthali) occurs at thesoutheastern periphery of the sanctuary.
SURVEYS
We counted waterbirds by species from March2004 to February 2005, visiting each sitemonthly. We surveyed only settled birds presentin and around each site, and did not includeflying individuals in order to minimize over- orunderestimation (Javed and Kaul 2002).
The total surface area of large sites wasestimated using width, length and configurationdimensions acquired from 1:50,000 base maps(Raeside 2005). Small site-dimensions wereestimated by pacing lengths and widths. Inorder to derive a consistent measure ofwaterbird abundance among sites of differentsizes, raw abundance values were divided bythe total area of the site for a measure ofwaterbird density (Reynolds et al. 1980).Because of the huge expanse of the study areaand varying logistical constraints among sitesand habitats, we used a combination of surveymethods (Bibby et al. 1992, Miller 2003, Shufordet al. 2004) including sampling of nesting andbreeding grounds. Large flocks of birds wereestimated by 10’s or 100’s; if necessary, onoccasion we flushed birds to count them in theair (Guadagin et al. 2005).
Sites 3, 4, 6, 7 were covered by walking on theisland and sites 1, 2, 5, 8 by canoe. Sites withthick emergent vegetation were walked in orderto flush birds into view. However, to avoidunnecessary flushing, binoculars and spottingscopes were used to observe as much as possiblefrom a distance (Buckland et al. 1993). Toprevent double counting, all birds flushed froma wetland were watched for ingress and egress.
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[3]
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[4]
FIGURE 1. Surveyed sites in Nal Lake Bird Sanctuary (NLBS); the numbers preceding various place names areused in other tables and figures in this report.
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[5]
All wetland birds seen or heard during the first15 min following arrival were recorded for lateranalysis. We proceeded to adjacent sites in adirection that avoided the counting of displacedbirds; however, the direction around each sitewas alternated to procure maximum possiblespecies diversity. In total, 10 surveys wereconducted in 2004 and 2 in 2005 for all eightsites. Some sites required more time than others.The time needed to complete surveys rangedfrom 3 to 6 hrs either in the morning or evening(06:00 to 10:00, 16:00 to 18:00 hrs). Somepasserines and purely terrestrial birds were notincluded. The occurrence status of the specieswas determined as per GEER (1998).
STATISTICAL METHODS
A Station Index Method (SIM) was used in theassessment (see Verner 1985). Therefore, thedensity of birds (per km2) was calculated forthose recorded within 250 m2 (in all fourdirections) of each viewing site.
A comprehensive list of recorded avianspecies was prepared (Appendix I). All surveyswere pooled for analyses (Ludwig and Reynolds1988). Site-specific total abundance, mean totalabundance, total density and mean total density,along with number of species of all eight siteswere calculated in order to evaluate howwetland bird abundance differed among sitesand seasons (Conover 1980, Ott 1984). Totalabundance (number of birds per site) andspecies richness (number of species per site)were included in the summaries. The unilateralF-test compared totals among all eight sites andseasons against overall species richness to checkif significant differences existed in the number ofspecies by season.
The 12-months of data were pooled tocompare various indices of species diversity, i.e.“concentration of dominance” over the entirecommunity (Odum 1996). These indicesincluded (A) Dominance (Simpson’s Index;1949) and (B) Species Diversity/SpeciesRichness Indices: Odum’s (1962), Margalef’s(1958), Menhinick’s (1964), Brillioun’s (1951),Shannon–Weaver (H) (1963), and EvennessIndex (Hill 1973) index.
Birds recorded with <100 individuals wereconsidered as rare, those between 100 to 500individuals as common, and those recorded>500 individuals as abundant (GEER 1998).
We referred to Magurran (1988), Colwell(1997) and other texts for statistical methods,performed using SPSS Version 12.0 (SPSS Inc.,Chicago, IL) (Norusis 1993) and PC-ORDVersion 4.0 Multivariate Analysis of EcologicalData (MJM Software Design, Gleneden Beach,OR) statistical software.
RESULTS During the present study, 109 species ofwaterbirds were documented, represented by 64genera of 18 families. Of these, 42 species (38.5%)were resident and 67 species (61.5%) were foundto be migratory or seasonally resident. Abundantspecies (8, or 7.3%) included resident waterbirdssuch as Asian Openbill (Anastomos oscitans) andGlossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), and migratorybirds such as Greater Flamingo (Phoenicopterusruber), Graylag Goose (Anser anser), CommonCoot (Fulica atra), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosalimosa), Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) and WhiskeredTern (Chlidonias hybridus). What we considered tobe common birds totalled 51 species (46.8%),while only 50 species (45.9%) were found to berare (Appendix I).
Community composition varied by season(Fig. 2). The highest number (100%) of familieswas recorded during summer and winter,followed by 83.3% during the monsoon period.On the basis of genus, the highest number(100%) occurred during winter, followed bysummer (79.7%) and monsoon (65.6%); a similarpattern was evident among species: winter(94.5%), followed by summer (72.5%) andmonsoon (53.2%). Resident species made theirgreatest contribution during winter (97.6%),followed by 85.7% each during summer andmonsoon. All species considered to be abundantoccurred during winter and summer (100%each), followed by 87.5% during monsoon,while peak values of species of commonoccurrence occurred during winter (98.04%),followed by summer (96.1%) and monsoon(78.4%). Among rare species, 90% were presentduring winter, followed by summer (44%) andmonsoon (22%). Overall, waterbirds were mostabundant during summer (67.3%), followed bywinter (36.7%) and monsoon (10.4%). Theabundance of waterbirds recorded duringdifferent seasons at NLBS largely correspondedto their density. The density of waterbirds was
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[6]
maximum during summer (69.66%), followedby winter (52.0%) and monsoon (15.6%). Similarobservations were made by Ericia et al. (2005).
The lowest number of families was recordedat Site 1 (50%) during summer and monsoon,while the highest was documented at Site 6(100%, all families) during winter (Fig. 3).
Among genera, abundance was lowest at Site 1(31%) during summer and highest at Site 6(86%) during winter. On the other hand, Site 1had the lowest number of species (24%) duringsummer, while Site 6 (72%) had the highestduring winter. Only 43% of resident specieswere recorded at Site 1 during summer, and
FIGURE 2. Seasonal patterns of overall waterbird abundance at NLBS. F refers to Family, G to Genera, S toSpecies, Rs to Resident, Mg to Migrant, Ab to Abundant, Cm to Common, Rr to Rare; and TA= TotalAbundance, TD = Total Density.
FIGURE 3. Site-specific occurrence of waterbirds at NLBS by season; see Methods for description of Sites andFigure 2 for definition of symbols.
F
Cm
G
Rr
S
TA
Rs
TD
Mg Ab
Summer
Num
bers
Abu
ndan
ce
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
S M W S M W S M W S M W S M W S M W S M W S M W
25000
22000
19000
16000
13000
10000
7000
4000
1000
-2000
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
WinterMonsoon
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 G S Rs Mg Ab Cm Rr
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[7]
almost 90% at Sites 3 and 6 during winter. Lownumbers of migratory species were documentedat Site 1 (12%) during summer, while almost63% of migratory species were present at Site 2during winter. Among abundant species, only25% were recorded at Site 1 during summer, butsites 3, 6, 7 and 8 were found to support all theabundant species during winter. Only 43% ofcommon species were found at Site 1 duringsummer, while almost 98% were at Site 3 duringwinter. As for rare species, Site 5 had only 2%,but Site 6 had 44% during winter. In general, Site1 harbored the lowest number of waterbirdsduring summer in contrast to Site 6, whichsupported highest waterbird populations duringwinter. Thus the gradient of waterbird numbersamong study sites was: site 1 < sites 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 < site 6.
The waterbird populations of NLBSfluctuated among sites in different seasons dueto local, environmentally dependent factors (seealso Hill et al. 1993; Tables 1, 2). Abundance waslow at Site 1 (141 birds) during monsoon andwas highest at site 5 (5,601) during summer.Mean abundance per month was 35.2 birds, totaldensity was 191.3 birds/km2 and mean densityper month was 47.83 birds/km2. By and large,the overall population of waterbirds duringmonsoon was low due to greater water depth,which favors only diving ducks, e.g. Tachybaptus,Anas, etc. The highest waterbird populationswere recorded during summer (Masero et al.2000) owing to low water depth and exposure ofshores, banks, muddy islands and mudflats,which increases habitat complexity. The latterfactors encourage larger numbers especially oflarge birds, e.g. Pelecanus, Ardea, Ardeola,Anastomus, Mycteria, Phoenicopterus, and Grusspp., as well as small waders, e.g. Capella,Gallinago, Actitis, Calidris, and Tringa spp.Overall, the total abundance of waterbirds waslow (3,675 individuals) during monsoon, andhigh during summer (19,151), with the meanabundance per month of 919 birds, mean totaldensity of 5,468 birds/km2 and mean densityper month of 1,367 birds/km2. Considered bysite, during monsoon the region supported lownumbers at Site 1 and highest numbers at Site 6(see Table 2).
The unilateral F-test on the overall speciesrichness at NLBS in different seasons (separatelyagainst all three seasons), indicated significant TA
BL
E 1
. Wat
erbi
rd a
bund
ance
and
den
sity
in d
iffe
rent
sea
sons
at N
LB
S.
TAM
A /
Mon
thT
DM
D /
Mon
th__
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Site
sS
MW
SM
WS
MW
SM
W
126
214
122
065
.5±1
2.0
35.2
±4.
2755
.0±
5.9
334.
219
1.3
1315
.083
.6±
9.7
47.8
±4.
732
8.8±
50.3
243
028
916
9310
7.5±
14.7
72.2
±7.
3242
3.2±
73.2
548.
541
4.5
2047
.213
7.1±
14.2
103.
6±9.
251
1.8±
66.8
324
7828
214
8461
9.5±
124.
170
.5±
5.81
371.
0±36
.831
60.7
428.
619
91.1
790.
2±12
1.1
107.
1±8.
449
7.8±
31.5
417
6351
545
644
0.8±
98.9
128.
8±10
.62
114.
0±11
.722
48.7
656.
913
95.4
562.
2±84
.316
4.2±
12.8
348.
8±30
.35
5601
1089
1206
1400
.2±
392.
127
2.2±
80.1
330
1.5±
45.8
7144
.115
03.8
1821
.417
86.0
±35
4.9
376.
0±79
.245
5.4±
41.2
636
0849
625
1490
2.0±
273.
012
4.0±
8.30
628.
5±74
.346
02.0
1103
.330
91.8
1150
.5±
251.
827
5.8±
32.6
773.
0±64
.17
3490
582
1799
872.
5±12
9.2
145.
5±13
.71
449.
8±33
.544
51.5
788.
323
09.9
1112
.9±1
27.7
197.
1±15
.857
7.5±
30.2
815
1928
182
537
9.8±
44.5
70.2
±5.
2820
6.2±
18.7
1937
.538
1.4
4256
.848
4.8±
44.6
95.3
±6.
710
64.1
±100
.0M
ean
2393
.945
9.4
1274
.659
8.5±
610.
811
4.8±
80.9
031
8.7±
222.
930
53.4
683.
522
78.5
763.
4±89
.417
0.9±
14.3
569.
6±43
.5N
LB
S19
151
3675
1019
747
87.8
918.
825
49.2
2442
7.3
5468
.118
228.
361
06.8
1367
.045
57.1
TA: T
otal
Abu
ndan
ce; M
A: M
ean
Abu
ndan
ce; T
D: T
otal
Den
sity
; MD
: Mea
n D
ensi
ty; S
: Sum
mer
; M: M
onso
on; W
: Win
ter;
mea
ns e
xpre
ssed
±st
and
ard
err
or
differences in the number of species amongthree different seasons (p<0.05) as follows:summer 4.790, monsoon 1.099, and winter 1.151.Based on this result, it is obvious that themonsoon season supports lowest abundance ofwaterbirds compared to summer. This might bedue to site fidelities, site-specific environmentalfactors and the amount of anthropogenicinterventions (Ericia et al. 2005).
During our study, 16 (14.7%) species wereabundant at some time during the year (Figs. 4a,b). These species, Phoenicopterus ruber, Plegadisfalcinellus, Anastomus oscitans, Anser anser, Fulicaatra, Chlidonias hybridus, Limosa limosa,Himantopus himantopus, Philomachus pugnax,Phoenicopterus minor, Actitis hypoleucos, Mycterialeucocephala, Threskiornis melanocephalus, Sternaalbrifrons, Calidris minuta and Mesophoyxintermedia, occurred widely in the study area(see also Dolman et al. 1995). They contributedalmost 7.3% to the total species richness, and82.1% to the total abundance.
Among all abundant waterbirds, the highestpopulation (5,942 individuals), that ofPhoenicopterus ruber, was recorded in July(1,869), followed by P. falcinellus (5,156) in May,A. oscitans (1,524) in February, A. anser (1,326) inJune, F. atra, (1,276) in January, C. hybridus(1,163) in March, L. limosa (960) in June, H.himantopus (871) in March, P. pugnax (756) inApril, P. minor (715) in May, A. hypoleucos (705)in March, M. leucocephala (636) in June, T.melanocephalus (609) in June, S. albrifrons (602) inMarch, C. minuta (571) in March and M.intermedia (536) in May. All 16 of these species,except F. atra (migrant, abundant in winter),
were widely present during the post-winterperiod (February to March) due to low waterlevels, open mudflats and shallow banks(Atkinson-Willies 1976).
During this study, some waterbirds exhibited avery low frequency of occurrence and lowabundance (Burton et al. 2000a, 2000b)(Appendix I). Only 9 species were sightedoccasionally and showed sporadic distribution atNLBS: Ixobrychus flavicollis, Tringa nebulari,Calidris ferruginea, Pelicanus crispus, Larus heuglini,Anas platyrhynchos, Calidris temminckii, Xenuscinereus and Ixobrychus sinensis (Fig. 5). Theywere scattered in and around NLBS only duringsome months [frequency (n=1); abundance(N=1)]. Of these, I. flavicollis and L. heuglini wererecorded in November; T. nebulari in April; C.ferruginea, C. temminckii, and X. cinereus inJanuary; P. crispus and A. platyrhynchos in March;and I. sinensis in December. These rare speciescontributed only 0.8% to the total richness, andonly 1.2% to the total abundance.
Overall, the values of various diversity indicesvaried from 0.10 to 0.63 for NLBS. Site-specificvariations were as follows: Odum’s index (0.11-Site 4 in winter; 0.99-Site 1 in summer),Margalef’s index (0.10-Sites 6, 7, 8; 0.90-Site 2 inwinter), Menhinick’s Index (0.25-Site 1; 0.78-Site 6 in winter), Brillioun’s Index (0.49-Site 1 inmonsoon; 0.49-Site 5 in summer), Simpson’sIndex (0.10-Sites 6,7,8; 0.90-Site 2 in winter),Shannon–Weaver’s Index (0.10-Site 4 in winter,Site–8 in monsoon; 0.97-Site 2 in monsoon), andEvenness Index (0.12- Site 1 in summer; 0.89-Site 6 in winter) (Fig. 6). A similar relationshipwas established by Elmberg et al. (1994) and
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[8]
TABLE 2. Seasonal abundance and density of waterbirds at NLBS by Site.
Summer Monsoon Winter__________________________ _______________________ ________________________Sites Mean AD SD Mean AD SD Mean AD SD
1 6.8 5.4 9.7 2.6 3.4 4.7 10.9 15.3 50.32 5.6 7.8 14.2 5.7 6.2 9.2 16.9 22.2 66.83 32.6 46.4 121.1 5.9 6.1 8.4 16.5 19.2 31.54 23.2 33.4 84.3 9.0 7.7 12.8 11.5 14.9 30.35 73.6 115.4 354.9 20.6 27.8 79.2 15.0 19.5 41.26 47.4 66.6 251.8 15.1 15.1 32.6 25.6 30.5 64.17 45.9 63.4 127.7 10.8 10.7 15.8 19.1 20.3 30.28 20.0 26.2 44.6 5.2 5.3 6.7 35.2 43.6 100.0NLBS 31.5 39.7 89.4 9.4 8.7 14.321 18.8 23.2 51.8
AD: Average Deviation; SD: Standard Deviation
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[9]
Walther and Martin (2001), respectively, withreference to estimation of species diversity andspecies richness.
DISCUSSION In our study, counting methods, frequency ofcounting, and experience of field ornithologistswere heterogeneous. Despite the integration ofall data into one dataset, caution is still neededwhen interpreting trends and patterns (Ericia etal. 2005). This is especially true in the case of theeffect of differences in monitoring frequenciesthat might bias the patterns for migrants thatpass through the area only briefly or that use thearea irregularly as a refuge (Goss-Custard 1991).The number of species observed in the 12-monthcensus tended to reach an asymptote, however,suggesting that efforts recorded the true numberof species at NLBS (Appendix I). Speciescomposition differed among areas and monthsbecause of habitat differences, seasonalmovement patterns, local and regional habitatchanges, large-scale population changes andclimatic conditions (see also Ericia et al. 2005).However, our results confirmed and indicatedthe importance of NLBS as a foraging andresting habitat for migratory waterbirds.
SPATIAL PATTERNS
Available habitat surface, the amount and type offood resources (which in turn are affected bywater quality, salinity, hydrodynamic regime,sediment, soil texture and moisture), and theconfiguration of particular sites affected thenumber and species of waterbirds present (Hill etal. 1993). In the same way, proximity to suitablehabitat is essential as high-water roost andadditional feeding grounds, also contributing tothe maintenance of high densities of foragingwaders on mudflats (Masero et al. 2000).
At the scale of an entire freshwater wetland, aclear change in waterbird population wasobserved along a habitat gradient related toavailable surface area, habitat heterogeneity andfood resources (Goss-Custard et al. 1995). Mostwaders (benthivores) were present duringsummer because of the presence of extensivemudflats, cultivated fields in surrounding areas,and a high benthic biomass (see Long andRalph 2001). In contrast, geese and wigeons(herbivores), teal and gadwall were concen-
trated mainly during winter due to theirmigratory habits (see Kushlan 1993). Suchgroups of waterbirds may be considered as“wetland bioindicators” for an accurateassessment of the health of a particular wetland(Green 1995). In summary, the differencesamong waterbird populations at selected siteswas related to their position along freshwatergradients, habitat type, shape and suitabilityand human land use in the vicinity (Ericia et al.2005; Fig. 3, Table 2).
Due to monotonous reed vegetation, lack ofinland roosts and available feeding grounds,sites 1 (upstream), 2 (downstrem) and 4(recreation spot), offered the least interestingforaging and resting habitats for both herbivoresand benthivores. On the other hand, largemudflats, exposed muddy islands and openshores at Sites 3, 6 and 7 provided ideal refugeand resting place for high numbers of wadersduring summer. Along with waders, the mostheterogeneous mudflats and muddy bankshosted the most diverse assemblages of largewaterbirds, including storks, flamingoes,herons, egrets, spoonbills, and pelicans. Thesefindings agree well with the work of Ericia et al.(2005) in Lower Zeeschelde of the East AtlanticRegion and of Demetrio et al. (2005) infragmented wetlands of southern Brazil.
SEASONALITY
During our study, some species showed verydistinct winter and/or migration peaks, butothers exhibited a variable seasonal patternaccording to winter severity. Varied wintereffects were noticed during the study period forducks like wigeon, Common Teal, pintail andGargeny. In addition, the higher numbers ofwaders and large birds at the onset of summercould be related to the low water depth and theavailability of exposed islands, which could berefuges (Appendix I). Such open muddy islandsmight serve as sites of population overflowwhen numbers are high (Melftofte et al. 1994).Seasonality and response to the above-mentioned factors differed greatly for all sites;sites were important at specific times and/or fordifferent functions among resident as well asmigrant species.
In the case of dominant species, our investi-gation revealed that certain species, such asflamingo, reached peak numbers during one
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[10]
FIGURE 4a. Population flux of dominant waterbirds at NLBS by month.
season (summer) to then diminish gradually inthe next season (winter). Similar observationshave been made elsewhere, e.g. in the HighAndes wetlands of South America (Virginia andBonaventura 2002), the Tugas Estuary ofPortugal (Susana et al. 2003), in the MississippiDelta (King and Werner 2001), and in the
fragmented wetlands of southern Brazil(Demetrio et al. 2005).
FINAL THOUGHTSNal Lake Bird Sanctuary, a Wetland ofInternational Importance, has recently been
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[11]
FIGURE 4b. Annual population flux of dominant waterbirds at NLBS by month; the y-axis is average numbers.
proposed as a Ramsar Site on the basis of itsinternationally important populations ofmigratory birds, numbering in the millions(GSFD 2004). Our study was carried out in asingle annual cycle, a fact that could raisequestions about the generality of the patternsfound. The patterns exhibited during the present
investigation, however, are strong and consis-tent with other studies in Rio Grande do Sul (seeAccordi 2003). The turnover between winter andsummer migrants resulted in small seasonalvariations in the number of species, but drasticdeclines during monsoon (Colwell andCodington 1995). In addition, the huge
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[12]
FIGURE 5. Annual population flux of rare waterbirds at NLBS by month; the y-axis is average numbers. Bb:Black Bittern (Ixobrychus flavicollis), Cg: Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia), Cs: Curlew Sandpiper (Calidrisferruginea), Dp: Dalmatian Pelican (Pelicanus crispus), Hg: Heuglin's Gull (Larus heuglini), M: Mallard (Anasplatyrhynchos), Tst: Temminck's Stint (Calidris temminckii), Tsp: Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus), Yb: YellowBittern (Ixobrychus sinensis).
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[13]
FIGURE 6. The variation in site-specific diversity indices among seasons at NLBS.
wintering aggregations we saw are common-place in waterbird communities in temperateregions (Kershaw and Cranswick 2003).
Several factors other than area have beenassociated with the richness and abundance ofwaterbirds, such as physico-chemical condi-tions, food resources, vegetation cover and
interspersion, and habitat and landscapeconfiguration (Caziani et al. 2001, Stickney et al.2002). Also contributing are the regional pool ofspecies (Telleria et al. 2003), their particularabundance of range patterns (Murray et al.1999), the site and landscape structures(especially the area: Fairbairn and Dinsmore
2001), the presence of core refuges (Guillemainet al. 2002), and the influence of the surroundingphysiographic matrix (Czech and Parsons 2002).All these factors are probably involved in thespecies gradients found at NLBS and thereforedeserve further attention. Therefore, we suggestthat working toward a landscape and trans-boundary perspective is essential for buildingsound management strategies for waterbirdassemblages at NLBS (Erwin 2002).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors are grateful to Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi forfinancial assistance, and Institute of Science andTechnology for Advanced Studies and Research(ISTAR), Vallabh Vidyanagar. We offer gratitudeto “Charotar Ratna” and “Shalin Manav Ratna”Dr. C. L. Patel, Chairman, Charutar VidyaMandal (CVM), Vallabh Vidynagar, Gujarat,India, for being a constant source of inspiration,initiation and motivation for the present work;without his initiative, this work would not havebeen possible.
REFERENCESACCORDI, I. A. 2003. Estrutura espacial e sazonal da
avifauna e consideracoes sobre a conservacao deaves aquaticas em uma area umida no Rio Grandedo Soul, Brasil. Dissertation, Universidade Federaldo Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
ATKINSO-WILLIES, G. L. 1976. The Numerical distri-bution of ducks, swans and coots as a guide inassessing the importance of wetlands in midwinter,p. 199-254. In M. Smart. (Ed.), Proceedings ofInternational Conference on Conservation ofWetlands and Waterfowl, Heiligenhafen, Germany.
BIBBY, C. J., N. D. BURGESS, AND A. HILL. 1992. Birdcensus techniques. Academic Press, London, UK.
BRILLIOUN, L. 1951. Physical entropy and information.Journal of Applied Physics 22:338-343.
BUCKLAND, S. T., D. R ANDERSON, K. P. BURNHAM, AND J.L. LAAKE. 1993. Distance sampling: estimatingabundance of biological populations. Chapman &Hall, London UK.
BURTON, N. H. K., M. J. S. ARMITAGE, A. J. USGROVE, AND
M.M. REHFISH. 2002a. Impacts of man-madelandscape features on numbers of estuarineWaterbirds at low tide. Environmental Manage-ment 30:857-864.
BURTON, N. H. K., M. M. REHRISH, AND N. A. CLARKE.2002b. Impact of disturbance from constructionwork on the densities and feeding behaviour of
waterbirds using the intertidal mudflats of CardiffBay, UK. Environmental Management 30:865-871.
CASADOS, S., AND C. MONTES. 1995. GuÌa de los lagos yhumedales de EspaÒa. J. M. Reyero, Madrid,Spain.
CAZIANI, S.. M., E. J. DERLINDATI, A. TALAMO, A. L.SUREDA, C.E. TRUCCO, AND G. NICOLOSSI. 2001.Waterbird richness in altiplano wetlands of north-western Argentina. Waterbirds 24:103-117.
COLWELL, M. A., AND O. W. TAFT. 2000. Waterbird com-munities in managed wetlands of varying waterdepth. Waterbirds 23:45-55.
COLWELL, R. K. 1997. Estimates 5: Statistical estimationof species richness and shared species fromsamples. Version. 5.0.1. Department of Ecology andEvolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut,Storrs, CN USA.
COLWELL, R. K., AND J. A. CODINGTON. 1995. Estimatingterrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation, p.101-118. In D. L. Hawksworth (Ed.), Biodiversity:Measurement and Estimation. Chapman & Hall,London UK.
CONOVER, W. J. 1980. Practical nonparametric statistics.2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY USA
CZECH, H. A., AND K. C. PARSWONS. 2002. Agriculturalwetlands and waterbirds: a review. Waterbirds25:56-65.
DAVIS, T. J. 1994. (Ed.) The ramsar convention manual:a guide to the convention on wetlands ofinternational importance especially as waterfowlhabitat. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland,Switzerland.
DEMETRIO, L. G., A. S. PETER, L. F. C. PERELLO, AND LMALTCHIK. 2005. Spatial and temporal patterns ofwaterbird assemblages in fragmented wetlands ofSouthern Brazil. Waterbirds 28:261-272.
DOLMAN, P. M., AND W. J. SUTHERLAND. 1995. Theresponse of bird populations to habitat loss. Ibis137:538-546.
ELMBERG, J., P. NUMMI, H. POYSA, AND K. SJOBERG. 1994.Relationships between species number, lake sizeand resource diversity in assemblages of breedingwaterfowl. Journal of Biogeography 21:75-84.
ERICIA, V. DEN B., Y. TOM, AND P. MEIRE. 2005. Waterbird communities in the Lower Zeeschelde: long-term changes near an expanding harbour.Hydrobiology 540:237-258.
ERWIN, R. M. 2002. Integrated management of water-birds: beyond the conventional. Waterbirds 25:5-12.
FAIRBAIRN, S.E., AND J. J. DINSMORE. 2001. Local andlandscape level influences on wetland birdcommunities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa.Wetlands 21:41-47.
FRAZIER, S. 1996. An overview of the world’s Ramsarsites. Wetlands International Publication 39.Wetlands International, Oxford, UK.
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[14]
GEER (GREATER EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
CONFERENCE). 1998. Environmental impact assess-ment of Sardar Lake Project on Nal Lake BirdSanctuary. Final Technical Report, NarmadaPlanning Group, Sardar Lake Narmada NigamLimited, Gandhinagar, India.
GETZNER, M. 2002. Investigating public decision aboutprotecting wetlands. Environmental Management64:237-246.
GOSS-CUSTARD, J. D., R. W. G. CALDOS, R. T. CLARKE,S.E.A. LE V. DIT DURELL, J. URFI, AND A. D. WEST.1995. Consequences of habitat loss and change topopulations of wintering migratory birds:predicting the local and global effects from studiesof individuals. Ibis 137:556-566.
GOSS-CUSTARD, J. D., R. M. WARWICK, R. KIRBY, S.MCGRORTY, R. T. CLARKE, B. PEARSON, W E. RISPIN,S.E.A. LE V. DIT DURELL, AND R. J. ROSE. 1991.Towards predicting wading bird densities frompredicting prey densities in a post-barrage Severnestuary. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:1004-1026.
GREEN, R. E. 1995. Diagnosing causes of bird popu-lation decline. Ibis 137:547-555.
GREEN A. J. 1996. Analyses of globally threatenedAnatidae in relation to threats, distribution,migration patterns and habitat use. ConservationBiology 10:1435-1445.
GSFD (GUJARAT STATE FOREST DEPARTMENT). 2005. Sixwetlands now at par with Chilka. A Proposition byChief Wildlife Warden, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
GUADAGIN, D. L., A. S. PETER, L. F. C. PERELLO AND L.MALTCHIK. 2005. Spatial and temporal patterns ofbird assemblages in fragmented wetlands ofSouthern Brazil. Waterbirds 28:261-272.
GUILLEMAIN, M., H. FRITZ, AND P. DUNCAN. 2002. Theimportance of protected areas as nocturnal feedinggrounds for dabbling ducks wintering in WesternFrance. Biological Conservation 103:183-198.
HILL, D., P. RUSHTON, N. CLARCK, P. GREEN, AND R.PYRS-JONES. 1993. Shorebird communities on Britishestuaries: factors affecting community compo-sition. Journal of Applied Ecology 30:220-234.
HILL, M. O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifyingnotation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427-432.
JAVED, S., AND R. KAUL. 2002. Field methods for birdsurveys. Bombay Natural History Society;Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh MuslimUniversity, Aligarh and World PheasantAssociation, South Asia Regional Office (SARO),New Delhi, India.
KEMPKA, R. G., R. P. KOLLASCH, AND J. D. OLSON. 1991.Aerial techniques measure shrinking waterfowlhabitat, p. 48-52. In Geo Info Systems, November/December 1991. Eugene, OR USA.
KERSHAW, M, AND P. A. CRANSWICK. 2003. Numbers ofwintering waterbirds in Great Britain, 1994/1995-1998/1999: I. Wildfowl and selected waterbirds.
Biological Conservation 11:91-104.KING, D. T., AND S. J. WERNER. 2001. Daily activity
budgets and population size of American WhitePelicans wintering in South Louisiana and theDelta Region of Mississippi. Waterbirds 24:250-254.
KUSHLAND, J. A. 1993. Waterbirds as bio-indicators ofwetland change: are they a valuable tool?, p. 48-55.In M. Moser, R. C. Prentice, and J. van Vessem(Eds.), Waterfowl and wetland conservation in the1990s: a global perspective international waterfowland wetlands research bureau (IWRB), SlimbridgeUK.
LONG, L. L., AND C. J. RALPH. 2001. Dynamics of habitatuse by shorebirds in estuarine and agriculturalhabitats in north-western California. WilsonBulletin 113:41-52.
LUDWIG, J. A., AND J. F. REYNOLDS. 1988. Statisticalecology: a primer on methods and computing.John Wiley, New York, NY USA.
MAGURRAN, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and itsMeasurement. Croom Helm, London.
MARGALEF, R. 1958. Information theory in ecology.General Systematics 3:36-71.
MASERO, J. A., A. PEREZ-HURTADO, M. CASTRO, AND G.M. ARROYO. 2000. Complementary use of intertidalmudflats and adjacent Salinas by foraging waders.Ardea. 88:177-191.
MELFTOFTE, H., J. BLEW, J. FRIKKE, H. U. ROSNER, AND C.J. SMIT. 1994. Numbers and distribution ofwaterbirds in Wadden Sea: results and evaluationof 36 simultaneous counts in the Dutch-German-Danish Wadden Sea. 1980-1991. IWRB Publication34. Wader Study Group Bulletin, 74 special issue.Wader Study Group, Wilhelmshaven, Netherlands.
MENHINICK, E. F. 1962. A comparison of some speciesdiversity indices applied to samples of field insects.Ecology 45:859-861.
MILLER, A. A. 2003. Influence of habitat characteristicson wetland bird abundance and species richness atOrdway Prairie, South Dakota. M.S. thesis, SouthDakota State University, Brookings, SD USA.
MURRAY, B. R., B. L. RICE, D. A. KEITH, P. J. MYERS-COUGH, J. HOWELL, A. G. FLOYD, K. MILLS, AND M.WESTOBY. 1999. Species in the tail of rank-abundance curves. Ecology 80:1806-1816.
NIRMAL KUMAR, J. I., AND R. KUMAR. 2000. Ecologicalstudies of certain protected areas with reference toanthropogenic pressures of Gujarat. Technicalreport, Gujarat State Forest Department,Ghandhinagar, India.
NORUSIS, M. J. 1993. SPSS for Windows ProfessionalStatistics 6.1. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL USA.
ODUM, E. P. 1962. Relationships between structure andfunction in the ecosystem. Japanese Journal ofEcology 12:108-118.
ODUM, E. P. 1996. Fundamentals of ecology. W.B.Saunders Company, St. Louis, MO USA.
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[15]
OTT, L. 1984. An introduction to statistical methodsand data analysis. 2nd ed. PWS Publishers, Boston,Massachusetts USA.
PETRIE, S. A. 1998. Nutrient reserve dynamics, foragingstrategies, molt patterns and movements of White-faced Whistling Ducks in South Africa. Ph.D.dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg, South Africa.
PETRIE, S. A., AND K. H. ROGERS. 1996. Foods consumedby white-faced whistling ducks (Dendrocygnaviduata) on the Nyl River floodplain, South Africa.Gibralter Faune Sauve 13:755ñ771.
RAESIDE, A. A. 2005. Waterfowl abundance and diver-sity in relation to season, wetland characteristicsand land use in semi-arid South Africa. Ph.D.thesis, University of Western Ontario, London,Ontario, Canada.
REYNOLDS, R. T., J. M. SCOTT, AND R. A. NUSSBAUM.1980. A variable circular plot method forestimating bird numbers. Condor 82:309-313.
RODGERS, B. L., AND K. N. PANWAR. 1988. Planning awildlife protected area network (PAN) in India.State Summaries, Volume II. Wildlife Institute ofIndia (WII), Dehra Dun.
SHANNON, C. E., AND W. WEAVER. 1963. The mathe-matical theory of communication. University ofIllinois Press, Urbana., IL USA
SHINE, C., AND C. KLEMN. 1999. Wetlands, water andthe law: using law to advance wetland conser-vation and wise use. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
SHUFORD, W. D., J. M. HUMPHREY, R. B. HANSEN, C. M.HICKEY, G. W. PAGE, AND L. E. STENZEL. 2004.Patterns of distribution, abundance, and habitatuse of breeding Black-necked Stilts and AmericanAvocets in California’s Central Valley in 2003. Draftfinal report for the Central Valley ShorebirdWorking Group. PRBO Conservation Science,Petaluma, CA USA
SHUFORD, W. D., G. W. PAGE, AND J. E. KJELMYR. 1998.
Patterns and dynamics of shorebird use ofCalifornia's Central Valley. Condor 100:227-244.
SIMPSON, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature163:688.
STICKNEY, A. A, B. A. ANDERSON, R. J. RITCHIE, AND J. G.KING. 2002. Spatial distribution, habitatcharacteristics sand nest-site selection by TundraSwans on the central Arctic coastal plain, northernAlaska. Waterbirds 25:227-235.
SREETER, R. G., M. W. TOME, AND D. K. WEAVER. 1993.North American waterfowl management plan:shorebird benefits? Transactions of the NorthAmerican Wildlife Natural Resources Conference58:363-369.
SUSANA, R., J. M. PALMEIRIM, AND F. MOREIRA. 2003.Factors affecting waterbird abundance and speciesrichness in an increasingly urbanized area of theTagus Estuary in Portugal. Waterbirds 26:226-232.
TELLERIA, J. L, R. BAQUERO, AND T. SANTOS. 2003. Effectsof forest fragmentation on European birds:implications of regional differences in speciesrichness. Journal of Biogeography 30:621-628.
VAN VESSEM, J., N, HECKER, AND G. M. TUCKER. 1997.Inland wetlands, p. 125-158. In G. M. Tucker, andM. I. Evans (Eds.), Habitats for birds in Europe: aconservation strategy for the wider environment.BirdLife Conservation Series 6, BirdLife Inter-national, Cambridge UK.
VERNER, J. 1985. Assessment of counting techniques, p.247-302. In R.F. Johnston (Eds.), CurrentOrnithology, R.F. Johnston (Ed.). Plenum Press,New York, NY USA.
VIRGINIA, M., AND S. M. BONAVENTURA. 2002. Patternsof abundance, distribution and habitat use offlamingos in the High Andes, South America.Waterbirds 25:358-365.
WALTHER, B. A., AND J. L. MARTIN. 2001. Speciesrichness estimation of bird communities: how tocontrol for sampling effort? Ibis 413-419.
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[16]
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[17]
APP
EN
DIX
I. A
quat
ic b
ird
s fo
und
dur
ing
dif
fere
nt s
easo
ns a
t NL
BS,
Guj
arat
, Ind
ia.
Sum
mer
Mon
soon
Win
ter
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
__G
roup
s /
Com
mon
Nam
eFa
mily
/ S
peci
esM
SPS
FA
MA
DM
DF
AM
AD
MD
FA
MA
DM
D
GR
EB
ES*
PO
DIC
IPE
DID
AE
Gre
at c
rest
ed g
rebe
Pod
icep
s cr
ista
tus
2R
00
00
00
00
00
12
110
3L
ittl
e gr
ebe
Tach
ybap
tus
rufi
colli
s1
C12
110
2856
114
017
4812
245
6129
118
3060
215
1Pe
lican
s*Pe
leca
nid
aeD
alm
atia
n pe
lican
Pele
canu
s cr
ispu
s2
R1
10
51
00
00
00
00
00
Gre
at w
hite
pel
ican
Pele
canu
s on
ocro
talu
s2
R0
00
00
00
00
04
226
112
28C
orm
oran
ts#
Phal
acro
cora
cid
aeG
reat
cor
mor
ant
Phal
acro
cora
x ca
rbo
1R
10
00
01
82
4110
00
00
0In
dia
n co
rmor
ant
Phal
acro
cora
x fu
scic
ollis
1C
2014
135
719
180
2271
1836
291
3119
449
990
247
Lit
tle
corm
oran
tPh
alac
roco
rax
nige
r1
C26
223
5611
3828
425
8922
454
114
3216
942
862
216
Her
ons#
, Egr
ets#
, Bit
tern
s#A
rdei
dae
Gre
y he
ron
Ard
ea c
iner
ea1
C32
7719
393
9824
3810
194
4831
6115
311
78Pu
rple
her
onA
rdea
pur
pure
a1
C31
7719
393
9823
4511
230
5731
5915
301
75In
dia
n po
nd h
eron
Ard
eola
gra
yii
1C
3015
940
811
203
2678
2039
899
3281
2041
310
3L
ittl
e gr
een
hero
nB
utor
ides
srt
iatu
s1
R0
00
00
22
110
36
62
318
Bla
ck c
row
ned
nig
ht h
eron
Nyc
tico
rax
nyct
icor
ax1
R1
92
4611
27
236
910
205
102
26C
attl
e eg
ret
Bub
ulcu
s ib
is1
C23
6917
352
8821
4211
214
5428
5915
301
75L
arge
egr
etC
asm
erod
ius
albu
s1
C28
117
2954
613
622
287
143
3620
226
112
28L
ittl
e eg
ret
Egr
etta
gar
zett
a1
C32
282
7114
3936
024
7519
383
9631
8622
439
110
Wes
tern
ree
f egr
etE
gret
ta g
ular
is1
R1
10
51
00
00
03
31
154
Med
ian
egre
tM
esop
hoyx
inte
rmed
ia1
C32
283
7114
4436
125
107
2754
613
632
146
3774
518
6B
lack
bit
tern
Ixob
rych
us fl
avic
ollis
2R
00
00
00
00
00
11
05
1Ye
llow
bit
tern
Ixob
rych
us s
inen
sis
1R
00
00
00
00
00
11
05
1St
orks
#C
icon
iidae
Asi
an o
penb
illA
nast
omus
osc
itan
s1
A11
450
113
2296
574
2326
065
1327
332
2881
420
441
5310
38E
urop
ean
whi
te s
tork
Cic
onia
cic
onia
2R
11
05
10
00
00
11
05
1W
hite
nec
ked
sto
rkC
icon
ia e
pisc
opus
1R
35
126
68
154
7719
1418
592
23Pa
inte
d s
tork
Myc
teri
a le
ucoc
epha
la1
C16
554
139
2872
718
2147
1224
060
1935
917
945
Ibis
es# ,
Spoo
nbill
#T
hres
kior
nith
idae
Bla
ck ib
isPs
eud
ibis
pap
illos
a1
C9
379
189
4712
379
189
4719
5013
255
64G
loss
y ib
isPe
gald
is fa
lcin
ellu
s1
A26
3571
8931
8219
4555
2430
677
1561
390
3212
7932
065
2616
31O
rien
tal w
hite
ibis
Thr
eski
orni
s m
elan
ocep
halu
s1
C17
400
100
2041
510
2211
930
607
152
3090
2345
911
5E
uras
ian
spoo
nbill
Plat
alea
leuc
orod
ia1
C6
7920
403
101
25
126
618
4712
240
60
APP
EN
DIX
I. C
onti
nued
.
Sum
mer
Mon
soon
Win
ter
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
__G
roup
s /
Com
mon
Nam
eFa
mily
/ S
peci
esM
SPS
FA
MA
DM
DF
AM
AD
MD
FA
MA
DM
D
Gre
bes*
Pod
icip
edid
ae
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[18]
FLA
MIN
GO
S#P
HO
EN
ICO
PT
ER
IDA
EL
esse
r fl
amin
goP
hoen
icop
teru
s m
inor
2C
546
911
723
9359
83
137
3469
917
51
109
2755
613
9G
reat
er fl
amin
goP
hoen
icop
teru
s ru
ber
2A
939
4198
5201
0750
273
609
152
3107
777
1713
9234
871
0217
76G
EE
SE**
, DU
CK
S*A
NA
TID
AE
Gra
y la
g go
ose
Ans
er a
nser
2A
312
3730
963
1115
780
00
00
589
2245
411
4N
orth
ern
pint
ail
Ana
s ac
uta
2C
119
597
245
226
112
2826
208
5210
6126
5N
orth
ern
shov
eler
Ana
s cl
ypea
ta2
C1
113
5614
548
1224
561
2111
429
582
145
Com
mon
teal
Ana
s cr
ecca
2C
113
634
694
173
00
00
018
124
3163
315
8E
uras
ian
wig
eon
Ana
s pe
nelo
pe2
C0
00
00
00
00
024
160
4081
620
4M
alla
rdA
nas
plat
yrhy
ncos
2R
11
05
10
00
00
00
00
0Sp
ot b
illed
duc
kA
nas
poec
ilorh
ynch
a1
C6
6817
347
8710
277
138
3416
6316
321
80G
arge
nyA
nas
quer
qued
ula
2C
526
566
1352
338
518
592
2323
235
5911
9930
0G
adw
all
Ana
s st
repe
ra2
C2
3810
194
480
00
00
2528
271
1439
360
Com
mon
poc
hard
Ayt
hya
feri
na2
C3
4812
245
614
215
107
2724
158
4080
620
2Tu
fted
poc
hard
Ayt
hya
fulig
ula
2R
00
00
00
00
00
39
246
11Fe
rrug
inou
s po
char
dA
ythy
a ny
roca
2R
00
00
00
00
00
218
592
23L
esse
r w
hist
ling
duc
kD
endr
ocyg
na ja
vani
ca1
C1
21
103
811
830
602
151
1446
1223
559
Cot
ton
teal
Net
tapu
s co
rom
ande
lianu
s1
C12
7519
383
964
174
8722
2513
233
673
168
Red
cre
sted
poc
hard
Rho
done
ssa
rufin
a2
R0
00
00
00
00
01
21
103
Com
b d
uck
Sark
idio
rnis
mel
anto
s1
C1
82
4110
745
1123
057
1711
830
602
151
Rud
dy
shel
duc
kTa
dorn
a fe
rrug
inea
2R
310
351
130
00
00
434
917
343
CR
AN
ES#
GR
UID
AE
Saru
s cr
ane
Gru
s an
tigo
ne1
C5
7719
393
984
62
318
719
597
24C
omm
on c
rane
Gru
s le
ucog
eran
us2
C2
153
3878
119
59
5414
276
6913
9323
474
119
Dem
oise
lle c
rane
Gru
s vi
rgo
2C
00
00
09
5614
286
7110
195
4999
524
9R
AIL
S#, G
ALL
INU
LES*
, CO
OT
*R
ALL
IDA
EB
row
n cr
ake
Am
auro
rnis
ako
ol1
R4
51
266
11
05
15
51
266
Bai
llon'
s cr
ake
Por
zana
pus
illa
2R
00
00
00
00
00
44
120
5W
hite
bre
aste
d w
ater
hen
Am
auro
rnis
pho
enic
urus
1R
22
110
314
226
112
2815
226
112
28R
udd
y br
east
ed c
rake
Gal
licre
x ci
neri
a1
R0
00
00
11
05
12
21
103
Ind
ian
moo
rhen
Gal
linul
a ch
loro
pus
1C
426
713
333
1237
918
947
1344
1122
456
Purp
le s
wam
phen
Por
phyr
io p
orph
yrio
1C
2329
574
1505
376
1610
125
515
129
2111
629
592
148
Com
mon
coo
tFu
lica
atra
2A
1730
576
1556
389
647
1224
060
2892
423
147
1411
79
APP
EN
DIX
I. C
onti
nued
.
Sum
mer
Mon
soon
Win
ter
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
__G
roup
s /
Com
mon
Nam
eFa
mily
/ S
peci
esM
SPS
FA
MA
DM
DF
AM
AD
MD
FA
MA
DM
D
Gre
bes*
Pod
icip
edid
ae
AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY AT NAL LAKE BIRD SANCTUARY, GUJARAT, INDIA
[19]
JAC
AN
AS*
JAC
AN
IDA
EPh
easa
nt ta
iled
jaca
naH
ydro
phas
ianu
s ch
irur
gus
1C
1198
2551
512
917
5514
281
7026
175
4489
322
3Sh
oreb
ird
s - W
ader
s 1#
Bur
hini
dae
Gre
at th
ick
knee
Esa
cus
recu
rvir
ostr
is1
R1
10
51
00
00
02
21
103
SHO
RE
BIR
DS
- WA
DE
RS
2#C
HA
RA
DR
IID
AE
Red
wat
tled
lapw
ing
Van
ellu
s in
dicu
s1
C32
221
5511
2828
224
118
3060
215
128
6216
316
79W
hite
taile
d la
pwin
gV
anel
lus
leuc
urus
2R
26
231
80
00
00
613
366
17Ye
llow
wat
tled
lapw
ing
Van
ellu
s m
alar
bari
cus
1R
00
00
013
236
117
298
103
5113
Ken
tish
plo
ver
Cha
radr
ius
alex
andr
inus
2R
00
00
00
00
00
58
241
10L
ittl
e ri
nged
plo
ver
Cha
radr
ius
dubi
us2
C5
168
4285
721
40
00
00
859
1530
175
Com
mon
rin
ged
plo
ver
Cha
radr
ius
hiat
icul
a2
R1
21
103
00
00
00
00
00
Gre
ater
san
d p
love
rC
hara
driu
s le
sche
naul
tii
2R
00
00
00
00
00
13
115
4Pa
cifi
c go
lden
plo
ver
Plu
vial
is fu
lva
2R
00
00
00
00
00
212
361
15B
lack
win
ged
sti
ltH
iman
topu
s hi
man
topu
s1
C32
405
101
2066
517
2518
145
923
231
3228
571
1454
364
Avo
cet
Rec
urvi
rost
ra a
vose
tta
2R
121
510
727
00
00
01
10
51
SHO
RE
BIR
DS
- WA
DE
RS
3#G
LAR
EO
LID
AE
Smal
l pra
tinc
ole
Gla
reol
a la
ctea
1C
449
1225
063
00
00
02
8622
439
110
Ori
enta
l pra
tinc
ole
Gla
reol
a m
aldi
varu
m1
R10
5714
291
730
00
00
221
510
727
SHO
RE
BIR
DS
- WA
DE
RS
4#R
OST
RA
TU
LID
AE
Pint
ail s
nipe
Cap
ella
ste
nura
2R
00
00
00
00
00
25
126
6C
omm
on s
nipe
Gal
linag
o ga
llina
go2
C4
113
2857
714
40
00
00
1715
238
776
194
Gre
ater
pai
nted
sni
peR
ostr
atul
a be
ngha
lens
is1
R0
00
00
11
05
11
10
51
SHO
RE
BIR
DS
- WA
DE
RS
5#SC
OLO
PAC
IAD
AE
Com
mon
san
dpi
per
Act
itis
hyp
oleu
cos
2C
1328
271
1439
360
1211
529
587
147
2830
877
1571
393
Cur
lew
san
dpi
per
Cal
idri
s fe
rrug
inea
2R
00
00
00
00
00
11
05
1W
ood
san
dpi
per
Trin
ga g
lare
ola
2C
1213
333
679
170
1611
028
561
140
3017
143
872
218
Mar
sh s
and
pipe
rTr
inga
sta
gnat
ilis
2R
00
00
00
00
00
1431
815
840
Tere
k sa
ndpi
per
Xen
us c
iner
eus
2R
00
00
00
00
00
11
05
1L
ittl
e st
int
Cal
idri
s m
inut
a2
C5
285
7114
5436
40
00
00
2828
672
1459
365
Tem
min
ck's
sti
ntC
alid
ris
tem
min
ckii
2R
00
00
00
00
00
11
05
1Sp
otte
d r
edsh
ank
Trin
ga e
ryth
ropu
s2
C3
5915
301
750
00
00
1345
1123
057
Com
mon
gre
ensh
ank
Trin
ga n
ebul
aria
2R
21
05
10
00
00
00
00
0C
omm
on r
edsh
ank
Trin
ga to
tanu
s2
R7
8221
103
00
00
04
51
266
APP
EN
DIX
I. C
onti
nued
.
Sum
mer
Mon
soon
Win
ter
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
__G
roup
s /
Com
mon
Nam
eFa
mily
/ S
peci
esM
SPS
FA
MA
DM
DF
AM
AD
MD
FA
MA
DM
D
Gre
bes*
Pod
icip
edid
ae
J. I. NIRMAL KUMAR, HIREN SONI AND RITA N. KUMAR
[20]
Bar
taile
d g
odw
itLi
mos
a la
ppon
ica
2R
710
526
00
00
00
01
31
154
Bla
ck ta
iled
god
wit
Lim
osa
limos
a2
A11
411
103
2832
708
1464
1632
782
3248
512
124
7461
9E
uras
ian
curl
ewN
umen
ius
arqu
ata
2R
815
40
01
31
154
1426
713
333
Whi
mbr
elN
umen
ius
phae
opus
2R
822
60
00
00
00
33
115
4R
udd
y tu
rnst
one
Are
nari
a in
terp
res
2R
746
1261
150
00
00
11
05
1D
unlin
Cal
idri
s al
pina
2R
00
00
00
00
00
14
120
5G
reat
kno
tC
alid
ris
tenu
iros
tris
2C
617
644
898
224
00
00
00
00
00
Ruf
fP
hilo
mac
hus
pugn
ax2
A11
317
7948
0112
0018
173
4388
322
120
266
6713
5733
9G
UL
LS#
, TE
RN
S#LA
RID
AE
Bro
wn
head
ed g
ull
Laru
s br
unni
ceph
alus
2C
37
236
90
00
00
2320
050
1020
255
Yello
w le
gged
gul
lLa
rus
cach
inna
ns2
R0
00
00
00
00
02
21
103
Les
ser
blac
k ba
cked
gul
lLa
rus
fusc
us2
R1
21
103
00
00
017
256
128
32G
reat
bla
ck b
acke
d g
ull
Laru
s m
arin
us2
R1
10
51
00
00
04
41
205
Heu
glin
's g
ull
Laru
s he
uglin
i2
R0
00
00
00
00
01
10
51
Bla
ck h
ead
ed g
ull
Laru
s ri
dibu
ndus
2R
11
05
10
00
00
1625
612
832
Whi
sker
ed te
rnC
hlid
onia
s hy
brid
us2
A12
880
220
4490
1122
1817
444
888
222
3010
927
556
139
Whi
te w
inge
d b
lack
tern
Chl
idon
ias
luec
opte
rus
2R
00
00
00
00
00
12
110
3G
ull b
illed
tern
Gel
oche
lidon
nilo
tica
2C
416
482
2014
297
148
3730
5614
286
71B
lack
bel
lied
tern
Ster
na a
cuti
caud
a1
C9
114
2911
729
00
00
011
9524
485
121
Lit
tle
tern
Ster
na a
lbifr
ons
2C
2036
591
1862
466
2014
837
755
189
3189
2245
411
4R
iver
tern
Ster
na a
uran
tia
1C
1533
816
842
2556
1428
671
3257
1429
173
Cas
pian
tern
Ster
na c
aspi
a2
R1
21
103
00
00
01
10
51
Com
mon
tern
Ster
na h
irun
do2
C10
134
3468
417
112
226
112
2817
287
143
36W
AG
TAIL
S#M
OTA
CIL
LID
AE
Whi
te w
agta
ilM
otac
illa
alba
2C
57
236
916
5614
286
7131
8822
449
112
Gre
y w
agta
ilM
otac
illa
cine
rea
2R
523
611
729
924
612
231
2038
1019
448
Cit
rine
wag
tail
Mot
acill
a ci
treo
la2
C15
101
2551
512
916
4612
235
5932
8020
408
102
Yello
w w
agta
ilM
otac
illa
flava
2C
1513
033
663
166
1575
1938
396
3295
2448
512
1
MS
- Mig
rato
ry s
tatu
s; P
S - P
opul
atio
n st
atus
; F -
Freq
uenc
y; A
- A
bund
ance
; MA
- M
ean
abun
dan
ce; D
- D
ensi
ty; M
D -
Mea
n d
ensi
ty;
* =
Wat
erbi
rds;
**
= W
ater
fow
l; #
= W
ater
-dep
end
ant b
ird
s
[21]
Bird Populations 8:21-25© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
CHANGES IN THE SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OFGREATER YELLOWLEGS AT TOTTEN INLET,
WASHINGTON1
JOSEPH B. BUCHANAN
Cascadia Research2181/2 West Fourth Avenue, Waterstreet Building, Suite 201
Olympia, WA 98501, USA;[email protected]
Abstract. The Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) is a relatively common andwidespread shorebird along the North American Pacific Flyway. In two distinct studyperiods, 1980 to 1989 and 1999 to 2007, Greater Yellowlegs at Totten Inlet, Washington, werecounted during 563 visits to the site in spring, autumn and winter. Mean abundance of thespecies declined between the two study periods in all seasons. During the same time periods,Christmas Bird Count data indicated that Greater Yellowlegs abundance in winter increasedin British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California. The escapement of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta) has increased at Totten Inlet over the last 20 years, and a testablehypothesis is that more abundant salmon has altered the availability of aquatic prey of theGreater Yellowlegs.
Key words: Greater Yellowlegs, local population decline, prey availability, Tringamelanoleuca, trophic competition, Washington.
CAMBIOS EN LA ABUNDANCIA ESTACIONAL DEL ARCHIBEBE PATIGUALDOGRANDE EN TOTTEN INLET, WASHINGTON
Resumen. El archibebe patigualdo grande (Tringa melanoleuca) es un ave costerarelativamente común y ampliamente distribuida a lo largo de la ruta migratoria del Pacíficode Norteamérica. En dos distintos periodos de estudio, 1980 a 1989 y 1999 a 2007, losarchibebes patigualdos de Totten Inlet, Washington, fueron contabilizados durante 563visitas al lugar en primavera, otoño e invierno. La abundancia promedio de la especiedeclinó entre los los periodos de estudio en todas las estaciones. Durante los mismosperiodos, datos del Conteo de Navidad indicaron que la abundancia del archibebepatigualdo en invierno aumentó en British Columbia, Washington, Oregon y California. Lasescapadas de salmón chum (Oncorhynchus keta) ha aumentado en Totten Inlet durante losúltimos 20 años, y una hipótesis testable es que el aumento de los salmones ha alterado ladisponibilidad de presas acuáticas del archibebe patigualdo.
Palabras clave: Tringa melanoleuca, archibebe patigualdo grande, declive poblacional local,Washington, disponibilidad de presas, competición trófica.
____________________1First received: 21 November 2007. Revision accepted: 26 November 2007
INTRODUCTIONThe Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) is arelatively common and widespread shorebird inthe North American Pacific Flyway (Elphick andTibbitts 1998). Range wide, the status of this
species is not well understood, but may bestable (Morrison et al. 2006). During winter itoccurs north to coastal portions of Oregon,Washington and southern British Columbia(Elphick and Tibbitts 1998), where it is most
often found in protected estuaries during winterand migration (Campbell et al. 1990, Contreras2003, Buchanan 2005). Although the species hasa broad distribution in the region, aggregationsof ≥20 occur at relatively few sites (e.g.,Buchanan 1988). In this paper I describe changesin the abundance of this species at one such site,Totten Inlet, in western Washington.
METHODSMonitoring of Greater Yellowlegs abundancewas conducted at Totten Inlet, a small estuary insouthern Puget Sound, Washington. Mud flats atthe site extend out from the mouths of two smallcreeks that enter the inlet adjacent to a smallmarsh (see Brennan et al. 1985). In the early1980s this site supported one of the largestwinter populations of Greater Yellowlegs in thePacific Northwest (Buchanan 1988), and amongthe largest aggregations in Puget Sound duringmigration (Evenson and Buchanan 1997).
As part of an ongoing shorebird monitoringeffort, I counted all Greater Yellowlegs presenton every visit I made to the site. I regularlyvisited Totten Inlet between 1980 and 1988,making a combined 133 visits during spring(March and April), autumn (August throughOctober) and winter (December throughFebruary). I visited the site 430 times between1999 and 2007 during the same seasons. The sitewas visited during mid- and higher phases of thetide cycle when birds foraged along shorelinesand were easily observed and counted.
I evaluated whether changes in GreaterYellowlegs abundance occurred at the site intwo ways. First, I determined the high count foreach season in each year and compared thesemean values from 1980 to 1988 with values from1999 to 2007 using two-sample t-tests. Next, Icalculated the mean value of all countsconducted from each season in each of the twostudy periods and compared these values alsowith a two-sample t-test.
Trends or changes in abundance at a single siteare difficult to evaluate relative to the range-wide status of a species without additionalcontextual information. For this reason, I usedChristmas Bird Count (CBC) data from thewinters of 1980-81 to 1988-89 and 1998-99 to2006-07 to evaluate whether there had beenchanges in abundance at CBC locations during
the same two periods used in my field effort. Iused CBC data from locations that had activecount efforts throughout both 9-yr study periods(Appendix 1), from count locations in BritishColumbia (n = 7), Washington (n = 8) andOregon (n = 5). Greater Yellowlegs had beenidentified previously as being common in theselocations during winter (Buchanan 1988). Inaddition, I included 33 sites from California thatmet the active count criterion. Greater Yellowlegsare conspicuous and therefore easily detected,and use species-rich habitats that are targetedduring CBC efforts (B. Tweit, pers. comm.).Consequently, I based subsequent analyses onthe total numbers of birds observed and did notcorrect for observer effort because this wouldhave produced index values that likely wouldhave underestimated the abundance of GreaterYellowlegs. In 3% (n = 29) of the count-years (n =972) a count was not conducted. In these cases Icalculated the mean of the counts both two yearsbefore and two years after the missing value andused this estimate for subsequent analysis. Icalculated the total number of GreaterYellowlegs observed in the CBCs in each stateper year and compared mean values for bothstudy periods with two-sample t-tests.
RESULTSIn all seasons, the abundance of GreaterYellowlegs at Totten Inlet declined significantlybetween the two 9-yr study periods (Table 1).Declines in mean abundance were greater whenall counts were used within each season(reductions by factors of 4.7 to 14.2) compared toseasonal high counts only (reductions by factorsof 2.9 to 5.4). The greatest decline (reduction bya factor of 14.2) occurred in all counts fromautumn migration.
In contrast to the declines at Totten Inlet, CBCdata indicated increases throughout the region.Increases in abundance between 1980-81 – 1988-89 and 1999-2000 – 2006-07 were substantial:British Columbia (factor of 2.4), Washington(factor of 1.9), Oregon (factor of 2.7) andCalifornia (factor of 1.5) (Table 2).
DISCUSSIONAt least three explanations for the local declineof Greater Yellowlegs abundance at Totten Inlet
JOSEPH B. BUCHANAN
[22]
are possible. The first involves a negativenumerical response by Greater Yellowlegs toincreasing populations of predators. Predatorshave the ability to influence aspects of thebehavior of their prey (e.g., Dierschke 2003),and it has been suggested that the recentrecovery of Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)populations has influenced migration behaviorand site use patterns of sandpipers along thePacific coast of North America (Lank et al. 2003,Ydenberg et al. 2004, Pomeroy 2006). Althoughthe abundance of Peregrine Falcons and BaldEagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has increased atTotten Inlet during this study (J. Buchanan,unpubl. data), I believe it is unlikely this isresponsible for the decrease in GreaterYellowlegs abundance. The increased presenceof Peregrine Falcons and Bald Eagles hasoccurred region-wide, and an increased effect ofpredator presence on yellowlegs should haveoccurred at a number of other sites, and this isnot reflected in the CBC data (Table 2) or myown observations at other sites (J. Buchanan,unpubl. data). Also, declines in GreaterYellowlegs abundance were noted in spring andautumn, seasons when Peregrine Falcons andBald Eagles were virtually absent from TottenInlet (J. Buchanan, unpubl. data). This indicates
that a factor other than predator presence hasinfluenced the changes, at least in those twoseasons.
It is also possible that changes in localconditions, such as increased sedimentation,influenced the decreases in Greater Yellowlegsabundance at Totten Inlet. However, beachsubstrate has not changed in upper Totten Inletand changes elsewhere in the inlet are minorover the time period involved as this inlet hasexperienced far less shoreline development thanmany other areas in Puget Sound (Carrasquero-Verde et al. 2005).
Direct evidence to explain the decreases islacking and, therefore, I suggest a third possibleexplanation and present a hypothesis that can betested to evaluate its potential utility inexplaining the changes in Greater Yellowlegsabundance at Totten Inlet. It is related to findinga substantial decrease in abundance of GreaterYellowlegs at Totten Inlet at the same time thatincreasing trends in the region are indicated byCBC data. Of the eight CBC locations inWashington, none had significant decreases inabundance between the two periods.
I hypothesize that competition for food hasincreased between yellowlegs and salmon. Overa period from the early 1980s to the early 2000s,
CHANGES IN THE SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OF GREATER YELLOWLEGS AT TOTTEN INLET, WASHINGTON
[23]
TABLE 1. Changes in abundance of seasonal high counts and all seasonal counts of Greater Yellowlegs atTotten Inlet, Washington, between 1980-81 – 1988-89 and 1999-2000 – 2006-07.
1980-81 – 1988-89 1999-2000 – 2006-07______________________ _______________________Comparison mean SE n mean SE n df t P
Spring high counts 24.9 2.9 7 8.1 2.4 9 14 4.5 0.0005Spring all counts 13.5 0.8 44 2.9 0.4 136 178 11.9 <0.0001Autumn high counts 15.7 1.5 6 2.9 1.1 9 13 7.0 <0.0001Autumn all counts 8.5 0.5 43 0.6 0.2 168 209 17.4 <0.0001Winter high counts 15.7 2.0 7 5.5 1.9 8 13 3.7 0.0026Winter all counts 10.2 0.6 46 1.5 0.3 124 168 14.2 <0.0001
TABLE 2. Changes in abundance of Greater Yellowlegs observed in Christmas Bird Counts conducted in BritishColumbia (n = 7 count locations), Washington (n = 8), Oregon (n = 5) and California (n = 33) in 1980-81 – 1988-89 and 1999-2000 – 2006-07.
1980-81 – 1988-89 1999-2000 – 2006-07______________________ _______________________Comparison mean SE n mean SE n df t P
British Columbia 67.7 7.1 9 160.8 15.6 9 16 5.4 <0.0001Washington 80.3 9.8 9 149.7 17.2 9 16 3.5 0.003Oregon 70.7 12.8 9 187.7 18.3 9 16 5.2 <0.0001California 958.3 56.9 9 1412.1 55.1 9 16 5.7 <0.0001
the escapement of chum salmon (Oncorhynchusketa) increased dramatically at Totten Inlet inresponse to changes in fisheries management atthe site. Mean escapement between 1997 and2001 was >10 times higher than mean escape-ment between 1980 and 1984 (Kyle Adicks, pers.comm.). This increased escapement resulted inlarge numbers of spawned-out salmon carcassesdeposited on the tide flats and shores of upperTotten Inlet. This in turn resulted in increases innutrient levels on the tide flats (Jauquet et al.2003). Over this same period, the abundance ofBlack-bellied Plovers (Pluvialis squatarola)increased steadily at the site in all seasons, andit has been hypothesized that the increasednutrients produced a greater amount or qualityof prey for the plovers (Buchanan 2006). It wasnoteworthy that whereas escapement biomassof all salmon species, combined, increased atTotten Inlet, increases were not noted at anyother sites in Puget Sound that support plovers,nor were there increases in plover abundanceelsewhere (Buchanan 2006). In short, changes inabundance of both the plovers and the salmonare apparently unique to Totten Inlet.
Juvenile chum salmon leave freshwater verysoon after hatch and move directly to estuarineareas (Pedersen and Williams 2001). Thismovement occurs between January and July andsubsequent residence in estuaries may last up tothree months, a longer period than for mostother anadromous salmonids (Pearce et al. 1982,Johnson et al. 1997). In these estuaries, juvenilechum salmon feed on epibenthic harpacticoidcopepods, gammarid amphipods and aquaticinsect larvae (Emmett et al. 1991, Simenstad andCordell 2000). Food habits of Greater Yellowlegsare not known for most areas but it is likely thatthey use some of these food items (Elphick andTibbitts 1998). I hypothesize that the increase inchum salmon abundance at Totten Inlet hasresulted in the annual recruitment of a juvenilepopulation that is sufficiently large to effectivelyreduce resources that directly or indirectly aresuitable for Greater Yellowlegs at this site. Thishypothesis could be evaluated by determiningthe abundance of Greater Yellowlegs and theirprey in estuaries before and after fisheriesmanagement enhancement efforts are put inplace.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI thank David Ainley for making helpfulcomments that improved this manuscript.
REFERENCESBRENNAN, L. A., J. B. BUCHANAN, S. G. HERMAN, AND T.
M. JOHNSON. 1985. Interhabitat movements ofwintering Dunlins in western Washington.Murrelet 66:11-16.
BUCHANAN, J. B. 1988. Migration and winter popu-lations of Greater Yellowlegs, Tringa melanoleuca, inwestern Washington. Canadian Field-Naturalist102:611-616.
BUCHANAN, J. B. 2005. Greater Yellowlegs (Tringamelanoleuca). Pp. 140-141 in T.R. Wahl, B. Tweit,and S.G. Mlodinow, editors. Birds of Washington:status and distribution. Oregon State UniversityPress, Corvallis, Oregon.
BUCHANAN, J. B. 2006. The Black-bellied Plover atTotten Inlet: phenology of spring migration andchanges in winter, spring and autumn abundance.Washington Birds 9:24-34.
CAMPBELL, R. W., N. K. DAWE, I. MCTAGGART-COWAN, J.M. COOPER, G. W. KAISER, AND M. C. E. MCNALL.1990. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 2.Nonpasserines: diurnal birds of prey throughwoodpeckers. University of British ColumbiaPress, Vancouver, British Columbia.
CARRASQUERO-VERDE, J., T. ABBE, G. WARD, W. T. TRAIL,JR., S. TONKIN, AND D. MCCORMACK. 2005. Marineshoreline sediment survey and assessment,Thurston County, Washington. Thurston CountyRegional Planning Council, Olympia, Washington.
CONTRERAS, A. L. 2003. Greater Yellowlegs (Tringamelanoleuca). Pp. 214-215 in D.B. Marshall, M.G.Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, editors. Birds ofOregon: a general reference. Oregon StateUniversity Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
DIERSCHKE, V. 2003. Predation hazard duringmigratory stopover: are light or heavy birds underrisk? Journal of Avian Biology 34:24-29.
ELPHICK, C. S. AND T. L. TIBBITTS. 1998. GreaterYellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca). Pp. 1-24 in A.Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 355. The Academy of NaturalSciences, Philadelphia, and American Orni-thologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
EMMETT, R. L., S. A. HINTON, S. L. STONE, AND M. E.MONACO. 1991. Distribution and abundance offishes and invertebreates in west coast estuaries.Volume 2: species life history summaries. StrategicAssessment Branch, NOS/NOAA, Rockville,Maryland.
JOSEPH B. BUCHANAN
[24]
EVENSON, J. R., AND J. B. BUCHANAN. 1997. Seasonalabundance of shorebirds at Puget Sound estuaries.Washington Birds 6:34-62.
JAUQUET, J., N. PITTMAN, J. A. HEINIS, S. THOMPSON, N.TATYAMA, AND J. CEDERHOLM. 2003. Observations ofchum salmon consumption by wildlife andchanges in water chemistry at Kennedy Creekduring 1997-2000. American Fisheries SocietySymposium 34:71-88.
JOHNSON, O. W., W. S. GRANT, R. G. KOPE, K. NEELY, F.W. WAKNITZ, AND R. S. WAPLES. 1997. Status reviewof chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, andCalifornia. NOAA Technical MemorandumNMFS-NWFSC-32. U.S. Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration, Seattle, Washington.
LANK, D. B., R. W. BUTLER, J. IRELAND, AND R. C.YDENBERG. 2003. Effects of predation danger onmigration strategies of sandpipers. Oikos 103:303-319.
MORRISON, R. I. G., B. J. MCCAFFERY, R. E. GILL, S. K.SKAGEN, S. L. JONES, G. W. PAGE, C. L. GRATTO-TREVOR, AND B. A. ANDRES. 2006. Population esti-mates of North American shorebirds, 2006. WaderStudy Group Bulletin 111:67-85.
PEARCE, T. A., J. H. MEYER, AND R. S. BOOMER. 1982.Distribution and food habits of juvenile salmonidsin the Nisqually estuary, Washington, 1979-1980.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia,Washington.
PEDERSEN, M., AND T. WILLIAMS. 2001. Selected fishes.Pp. 8.1-8.47 in J. Brennan, editor. Reconnaissanceassessment of the state of the nearshore ecosystem:eastern shore of central Puget Sound includingVashon and Maury Islands. King County Depart-ment of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington.
POMEROY, A. C. 2006. Tradeoffs between food abun-dance and predation danger in spatial usage of astopover site by Western Sandpipers, Calidrismauri. Oikos 112:629-637.
SIMENSTAD, C. A., AND J. R. CORDELL. 2000. Ecologicalassessment criteria for restoring anadromoussalmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries.Ecological Engineering 15:283-302.
YDENBERG, R. C., R. W. BUTLER, D. B. LANK, B. D.SMITH, AND J. IRELAND. 2004. Western Sandpipershave altered migration tactics as Peregrine Falconpopulations have recovered. Proceedings of theRoyal Society Biological Sciences Series B271:1263-1269.
CHANGES IN THE SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OF GREATER YELLOWLEGS AT TOTTEN INLET, WASHINGTON
[25]
APPENDIX 1. Location of Christmas Bird Counts used in the analyses.
British ColumbiaComox, Deep Bay, Ladner, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Victoria, White Rock
CaliforniaBernicia, Centerville, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Hayward-Fremont, Lancaster, Los Angeles, Los Banos, Malibu,Marin County, Mendocino, Monterrey Peninsula, Morro Bay, Moss Landing, Oakland, Oceanside-Vista-Carlsbad, Orange County (coastal), Palo Alto, Palos Verde, Point Reyes Peninsula, Sacramento, Salton Sea(north), Salton Sea (south), San Bernardino Valley, San Diego, San Fernando Valley, San Jose, Santa Barbara,Santa Rosa, Stockton, Thousand Oaks, Ventura, Western Sonoma County
OregonCoos Bay, Eugene, Sauvie Island, Tillamook, Yaquina
WashingtonBellingham, Columbia River Estuary, Grays Harbor, Kitsap Peninsula, Leadbetter Point, Olympia, Padilla Bay,Sequim-Dungeness
[26]
INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORTS
The concept of integrated avian populationmonitoring (Baillie, S.R. 1990. Ibis 132:151-166)originated with researchers at the British Trustfor Ornithology (BTO) and formed the basis fortheir many volunteer-based monitoringprograms, the annual reports of which have longbeen reprinted in these pages. The basic idea ofintegrated monitoring is that the results fromsome programs complement and inform theinterpretation of results from other programs. Inparticular, monitoring of primary demographicparameters (i.e., vital rates, such as productivity,survival of adults, survival of young) providesinformation to explain the demographic causesof the changes in population size documentedfrom monitoring programs that provide countdata. In the British model, productivity datafrom the Nest Records and Constant Effort Sites(CES) programs and survival data from the CESand Ringing programs are used to explain countdata derived from the Breeding Bird Survey,Waterways Bird Survey, and WaterwaysBreeding Bird Survey. In the North Americanmodel, productivity and survival data fromMAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity andSurvivorship) are used to explain data from theNorth American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS).
Readers of the reports published or reprintedherein are well aware that the bird populationsbeing monitored by these programs changedramatically from year-to-year and over longertime periods, both at relatively smaller (Britain)and larger (United States and southern Canada)spatial scales, and that these annual changes andlonger-term trends vary dramatically from
region to region. It is this spatial and temporalvariation in population trends that provides thetemplate for determining proximate demo-graphic causes of population change. Indeed,one of the greatest strengths of demographicmonitoring programs, such as MAPS and thenetwork of CES programs that now extend overmost of Europe, is that they provide spatiallyexplicit data on bird populations over truly largescales. Yet our ability to harness this spatialinformation has heretofore been hindered by lackof appropriate analytical techniques. Recently,however, a collaboration of researchers at theUSGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center andThe Institute for Bird Populations are makinggreat strides in developing analytical methodsthat can provide visualizations of spatial patterns in demographic rates across entire species’ ranges, including areas where there are fewdemographic monitoring stations. Becausedemographic monitoring data, whether frommist nets or nest records, is always moreexpensive to obtain than count data, it willalways be relatively more sparse compared tocount data. Therefore, major advances in ourability to make robust inferences regardingdemographic causes of population trends willoccur with the creation of joint spatial modelsthrough which count data, such as that providedby either the North American or British BBS, canbe directly linked with demographic data fromMAPS or the CES programs. This is theanalytical “grail” that researchers in this field arecurrently seeking.
The best models in the world, however, are oflittle use without the monitoring data withwhich to populate them. Cleary, maintaining
BIRD POPULATIONSA journal of global avian demography and biogeography
Volume 8 2007 (2005-2006)
REPORTS OF AVIAN MONIOTORING PROGRAMS
DAVID F. DESANTE
[27]
these long-term, large-scale programs is critical,but it is not an easy task in a world of increas-ingly more limited resources and increasinglygreater demand for those resources. And yet, it isexactly this situation that creates the necessity togather and model these data. We do know that,in general, significantly more species or popu-lations of birds are decreasing than increasing.For the most part, however, we do not knowwith certainty the extent to which these declinesare being driven by processes operating duringthe breeding versus non-breeding season, or, formigratory species, on the breeding versuswintering range. Moreover, we do not knowwith any degree of confidence the extent towhich these declines are ultimately being drivenby habitat degradation and destruction, or byweather factors and climate change, or, as is mostlikely, by the interaction between both habitatand climate change. Because rates of both are
predicted to increase over the short term at least,there is a great urgency to gather and modeltruly integrated avian population monitoringdata.
A bright spot in all this is that birds are verycharismatic organisms and there seems to be anever increasing number of persons willing tovoluntarily contribute the relatively easy-to-collect count data. Without some amount ofaccompanying demographic data, however, thecount data alone will be inadequate to allowdetermination of the causes of populationchanges and the formulation of managementand conservation strategies to reverse declines.Thus, each of us engaged in demographicmonitoring are called on to spend some of ourlimited time and energy in recruiting andtraining new folks to continue and expand theimportant work that we are championing. –David F. DeSante
[28]
Bird Populations 8:28-45© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
THE 1999-2003 SUMMARY OF THE NORTH AMERICANBREEDING BIRD SURVEY1
KEITH L. PARDIECK2 AND JOHN R. SAUER
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center12100 Beech Forest RoadLaurel, MD 20708-4038
Abstract. Data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey were used to estimatecontinental and regional changes in bird populations for the 5-yr period 1999-2003 andthe 2-yr period 2002-2003. These short-term changes were placed in the context ofpopulation trends estimated over the 1966-2003 interval. During 1999-2003, 41% of allspecies exhibited positive trends over the entire survey area, while 64% of all speciesexhibited positive change between 2002-2003. The continental and regional percentagesof species with positive trends were also analyzed for 12 species groups having sharedlife-history traits. Survey-wide for the entire survey period, grassland birds exhibitedthe lowest percentage of increasing species (14%), with their sharpest declinesoccurring in the West during 1999-2003 (10% increasing). During 1999-2003, short-distance migrants experienced significant declines in all regions, where numbers ofspecies with increasing trends ranged from 22% - 34%. Most species fared well duringthe 2002-2003 period, with 64% (P < 0.05) increasing survey-wide. This was primarily aresult of increases in the Central and Western BBS regions where 21 of 24 speciesgroups exhibited significant increases in the number of species with positive trends.
Key Words: North American Breeding Bird Survey, population trends, roadsidesurveys, species group analysis.
RESUMEN DEL CONTEO DE AVES REPRODUCTIVAS (BBS) DE NORTEAMÉRICA DESDE 1999 Y 2003
Resumen. Utilizamos datos del Conteo de Aves Reproductivas (BBS) de Norteamérica paraestimar cambios en las poblaciones de aves durante los 5 años entre 1999 y 2003 y los 2 añosentre 2002 y 2003. Estos cambios a corto plazo fueron situados en el contexto de lastendencias poblacionales estimadas en el intervalo 1966-2003. Durante 1999-2003, el 41% delas especies mostró tendencias positivas en todo el área del conteo, mientras que 64% de lasespecies mostró tendencias positivas en el periodo 2002-2003. Los porcentajes de especiescon tendencias positivas a nivel regional y continental fueron analizados para 12 grupos deespecies que comparten características de historia de vida. Utilizando el periodo total deconteo, las aves de pradera mostraron el porcentaje más bajo de especies con tendenciaspositivas (14%), con los declives mas fuertes detectados en el occidente entre 1999-2003(10%). Durante 1999-2003, las migratorias de corta distancia sufrieron declives significativosen todas las regiones, donde los números de especies con tendencias positivas oscilaronentre 22% y 34%. A la mayoría de las especies les fue bien entre 2002 y 2003, con un 64% (P <0.05) mostrando tendencias positivas en todo el conteo. Esto se debe principalmente a losaumentos en las regiones Central y Oeste del BBS, donde 21 de los 24 grupos de especiesmostraron aumentos significativos en el número de especies con tendencias positivas.
Palabras clave: Conteo de Aves Reproductoras de Norteamérica, tendencias poblacionales,conteos en carreteras, análisis por grupos de especies.
____________________1 Received: 24 January 2008. Accepted 27 January 2008
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[29]
INTRODUCTIONInitiated in 1966, the North American BreedingBird Survey (BBS) is the primary source ofstandardized population data for breeding birdsin the U.S. and Canada. For most avian breedingspecies in North America, it is the only availablesource of long-term estimates of populationtrends and relative abundance at largegeographic scales. Implemented by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service and Canadian WildlifeService, the BBS is currently coordinated by theU.S. Geological Survey and Canadian WildlifeService. This summary presents estimates ofpopulation trends continent-wide for 421 birdspecies [plus four species groups: Western/Clark’s grebes (Aechmophorus clarkii/A.occidentalis), Willow/Alder flycatchers(Empidonax traillii/E. alnorum), and Pacific-slope/Cordilleran flycatchers (Empidonaxdifficilis/E. alnorum), Yellow-bellied/Red-naped/Red-breasted sapsuckers (Sphyrapicusvarius/S. nuchalis/S. ruber)] over the period 1966-2003. Although these four groups currentlyconsist of taxonomically distinct species, theirtaxonomic status changed after the BBS wasinitiated and we were unable to adequatelydiscriminate observations made in areas ofsympatry within the BBS database to conductrange-wide species-level analyses. The 5-yrtrends, 1999-2003, and 2-yr changes, 2002-2003,are discussed within the context of the long-termpatterns. Detailed analyses and discussion ofpopulation changes for individual species withinspecific regions, states, provinces, territories, andphysiographic strata are beyond the scope of thissummary. Also included in this summary are thecontinental and regional trends for 12 groups ofbirds sharing similar life-history traits. Analysesof group trends can provide insight into thebroad temporal and geographic patterns ofpopulation trends, especially when viewed in thecontext of previous BBS summaries (Pardieckand Sauer 2000, Peterjohn and Sauer 1993,Peterjohn et al. 1994, Peterjohn et al. 1996).
METHODSThe BBS consists of >4400 active survey routesrandomly located across the continental UnitedStates and Canada [See the North American Breed-ing Bird Survey web site (www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/) for maps depicting the approximate
locations of these routes]. Since 1996 the numberof routes surveyed has remained relativelyconstant around 3000 routes. A total of 2971routes were sampled in 1999, 2980 in 2000, 2997in 2001, 2883 in 2002 and 2968 in 2003.
The BBS methodology is described brieflyhere; see Robbins et al. (1986) for a detaileddescription. The BBS is a roadside surveyprogram consisting of 39.4-km (24.5 mi) routes,with stops placed at 0.8-km (0.5 mi) intervals fora total of 50 stops. Routes are randomlyestablished on suitable roads and surveyed onceper year during the height of the breeding season(June for most of the U.S. and Canada). At eachstop, a skilled amateur or professional orni-thologist records all birds seen within a 0.4-km(0.25 mi) radius and every bird heard, during a3-min point count. For each species, the totalnumber of individuals counted at all stops alonga route is used as an index of relative abundance.
ESTIMATION OF POPULATION TREND
Population change was estimated using theroute-regression procedure (Geissler and Sauer1990), modified to use estimating equationsinstead of linear regression analyses (Link andSauer 1994). These analyses produce a singlecomposite estimate of population change, ortrend, presented as mean percent change peryear. These trends are weighted means of lineartrends for individual routes. Trends wereestimated for the entire survey area and for theEastern, Central, and Western BBS regions(Bystrak 1981). Alaska, northern Canada(territories and northern portion of mostprovinces), Newfoundland, and northern Mexicowere excluded from the analyses because ofinsufficient data to estimate long-term trends inthese areas.
To assist in the trend-estimate evaluation pro-cess, we have incorporated a Trend Quality (TQ)score to identify trends that contain certain defi-ciencies. TQ is a ranked score ranging from 1 - 3,where a one indicates relatively reliable trend. A TQ-value of 3 indicates trend estimates thatcontain one or more of the following importantdeficiencies: (a) very low abundance — regionalabundance <0.1 birds/route; or (b) sample isbased on <5 routes for the long-term analysis or<3 routes for either subinterval (1966-1979 and1980-1999) [results of these two subintervals arenot provided here but are available on the
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[30]
North American Breeding Bird Survey Resultsand Analysis web site – http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs. gov/bbs/bbs.html]; or c) very impreciseresults — a 5%/year change would not bedetected over the long term (1966-1999). A TQ-value of 2 identifies trend estimates that containone of the following deficiencies: (a) lowabundance — regional abundance is <1.0bird/route; (b) fewer than 14 routes included inthe long-term analysis; c) imprecise results —results are so imprecise that a 3%/yr changewould not be detected over the long term (1966-1999), or d) sub-interval trends (1966-1979 and1980-1999) are significantly different from eachother (P < 0.05, based on a z-test), suggestinginconsistency in trend over time. A TQ-value of 1reflects data with at least 14 samples in the longterm, of moderate precision, and of moderateabundance on routes. See the BBS Analysis andSummary Website (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs.html) for additional discussion andrationales for these criteria.
SUMMARIES FOR GROUPS OF SPECIES
We estimate the median percentage of specieshaving increasing populations for each regionand time period using the hierarchical modelsdescribed by Sauer and Link (2002). Thisprocedure provides a group estimate of theproportion of species exhibiting positive trends,incorporating the sampling variation of thecomponent estimates. The summaries areconducted for all species and for groups ofspecies with similar life-history traits. Compo-sition of the species groups are described inPeterjohn and Sauer (1993), but have beenrevised as per the seventh edition of AOUchecklist (AOU 1998).
We note several constraints among thecomparisons presented. Data from the intervals
are not independent, as the subintervals arecontained within the longer interval.Consequently, we did not formally test fordifferences among intervals, and merely notedifferences among point estimates. All testsaddress the null hypothesis that the percentageof increasing species does not differ from 50%within an interval. We consider the result to besignificant if the 95% Credible Interval (BayesianConfidence Interval) does not include 50%.Sample sizes and precision of estimates differamong regions and time periods. Readers arecautioned that the underlying species groups ineach guild can differ among regions. For moredetailed analyses of species-group results fortime periods and regions, see Sauer et al. (2004).
RESULTSAmong the 200 species with significant (P < 0.05)trends over the entire survey period, 96 werepositive and 104 were negative (Table 1,Appendix 1). Among these significant trends, 79species had TQ = 1, while 111 species had TQ = 2,and 10 species had TQ = 3.
During 1966-2003, 48% of all species exhibitedincreasing population trends, while regionalpercentages scarcely differed (Fig. 1A). During1999-2003, 41% of all species exhibited positivetrends (P < 0.05) over the entire survey area.Similar significant results occurred in theWestern and Eastern BBS regions for all speciesduring this same time period. In contrast, 64% ofall species had increasing trends (P < 0.05)during 2002-2003 over the entire survey area,while 66% (P < 0.05) and 77% (P < 0.05) of allspecies exhibited increases in the Western andCentral regions, respectively.
Grassland birds fared comparatively wellduring 2002-2003 with increasing trends ranging
TABLE 1. Summary of Trend Quality (TQ) values for 1966-2003. Total number of species trends (N) in eachcategory as well as their significance (P < 0.05) and direction are presented. The TQ-values are defined asfollows: 1 = reliable, 2 = view with caution, 3 = not reliable.
Trend Number of Number of Number of Quality N Significant Trends Significant Increases Significant Decreases
1 141 79 34 452 241 111 53 583 43 10 9 1
Total 425 200 96 104
f.
from 47% in the Eastern region to 92% (P < 0.05)survey-wide; percentages in the two longer timeperiods ranged from 10% (P < 0.05) in theWestern region to 39% in the central region (Fig.1B). Although grassland birds did poorly duringthe 1999-2003 and 1966-2003 intervals, the 5-yearpercentages were greater than the long-termpercentages in all regions except the Western(10% vs. 16%). Moreover during 1999-2003, thenumber of species with increasing trends wasindistinguishable from 50% in the Central region.
Survey-wide, more wetland species haveincreased over the long-term than not (66%, P <0.05), a result that appears to be driven byincreases in the Western (66%, P < 0.05) andCentral (79%, P < 0.05) regions (Fig. 1C).Significantly fewer wetland species exhibitedincreasing trends during 1999-2003 survey-wide(34%), and only 20% (P < 0.05) increased in theCentral region. Similar to the long-term, wetlandbirds appear to have fared well during 2002-2003with all regional percentages >50%, significantlyso in the Western region (79%) and survey-wide(68%).
Scrub/successional species continue to farepoorly over the long-term, with significantly<50% of species exhibiting increasing trends inall regions (Fig. 1D). Survey-wide the 1999-2003result of 35% (P < 0.05) is similar to the long-termpercentage, and appears to be driven by declinesin the Western region (32%, P < 0.05) sincepercentages in the Eastern and Central BBSregions are indistinguishable from 50%. The 2-year time period appeared more favorable forscrub/successional species in the Western andCentral regions where 62% (P < 0.05) and 82% (P < 0.05) exhibited positive trends, respectively.However, in the Eastern region only 34% (P < 0.05) of bird species increased during 2002-2003.
During 1966-2003, woodland bird trends wereindistinguishable from 50% in all regions exceptthe Eastern region where 57% were positive (P <0.05; Fig. 1E). Significantly more bird speciestrends increased in the Western and Centralregions during 2002-2003, most likely driving thesurvey-wide increases that were exhibited; onlyin the Central region were increasing trendsdistinguishable from 50% during 1999-2003(74%, P < 0.05).
For the two longer time periods, percentagesfor urban species were <50% in all regions, but
only significantly so for 1966-2003 survey-wide(33%; Fig. 1F). During 2002-2003, results werevaried for urban birds. In the Western andCentral regions 91% (P < 0.05) and 100% (P <0.05) of urban species increased, respectively,while during the same 2-year time period only21% increased in the Eastern region.
Cavity-nesting birds fared relatively well withno significant decreases observed in any timeperiod or region (Fig 1G). This species group didparticularly well in the Western region, wheresignificant increases of 65% and 69% wereexhibited during 1966-2003 and 2002-2003,respectively. However, the Central region hadthe greatest number of increasing species during2002-2003 (83%, P < 0.05).
Significantly more open-cup nesting speciesexhibited population declines than increases inthe Eastern BBS region over the long-term (40%,P < 0.05; Fig. 1H). This declining patterncontinued into the more recent 5-yr period (39%,P < 0.05), but is not evident in 2002-2003 (47%).Percentages in the Western region are similar tothose in the Eastern region except for asignificant increase in positive trends during the2-yr time period (70%). However, the greatestincreases were evident in the Central regionduring 2002-2003 (82%, P < 0.05).
Short-distance migrants fared poorly over thelong-term with only 40% (P < 0.05) of speciesexhibiting positive trends survey-wide, a resultthat appears to be driven by the Western regionwhere only 36% (P < 0.05) of species increased(Fig. 1I). Significantly <50% of species exhibitedincreasing population trends in all regionsduring 1999-2003, when percentages rangedfrom 22% to 35% (all P < 0.05); species increasedduring 2002-2003 in the Western (80%, P < 0.05)and Central (78%, P < 0.05) regions.
During 1966-2003, increases in permanentresidents did not differ significantly from 50% inany region (Fig. 1J). Similar results were exhibit-ed during the 5-yr period except in the Centralregion where 67% (P < 0.05) of species showedpositive trends. The Central region increasesamong permanent residents are even moreapparent during 2002-2003, when 89% (P < 0.05)exhibited increasing trends, a pattern thatappears to be driving the significant survey-wide2-yr trend.
No significant deviations from 50% weredetected among Eastern neotropical migrants
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[31]
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[32]
FIGURE 1 (A-M). The percentages of species with increasing populations during 1966-2003, 1999-2003, and2002-2003, shown by species group. Statistical significance that percentages differ from 50% at the P < 0.05 levelindicated by *.
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[33]
FIGURE 1 (A-M). Continued.
(Fig. 1K) although, survey-wide, more neo-tropical migrant species had decreasing trendsthan increasing trends (42%, P < 0.05) during1966-2003, a result seemingly driven by thesignificant long-term declines in the Centralregion (41%, P < 0.05). Contrary to the long-termresults, the 2- and 5-yr percentages are morepositive with 70% and 90% (both P < 0.05) ofspecies increasing, respectively, in the Centralregion. Increases are also evident in the Westernregion during 2002-2003 (63%, P < 0.05).
Survey-wide, more ground-nesting speciesexhibited population declines than increasesover the long-term (28%, P < 0.05), owing tosignificant declines in all BBS regions (Fig. 1L). Inthe East and West, this declining patterncontinued into the more recent 5-yr time period,39% and 26%, respectively (both P < 0.05), whilein the Central BBS region recent years were morefavorable. During 2002-2003, ground-nestingspecies increased in the Central (86%, P < 0.05)and Western (67%, P < 0.05) regions, while in theEastern region the percent increasing wasindistinguishable from 50%.
Mid-story and canopy-nesting birds faredrelatively well in all regions and time periods,except the Eastern BBS region during 1999-2003when only 36% (P < 0.05) of species wereincreasing (Fig. 1M). Species in the Central BBSregion fared best with significant increasesduring all time periods ranging from 62% to83%. In addition, 69% (P < 0.05) of species in theWestern region experienced increases during2002-2003, while the longer-term percentageswere indistinguishable from 50%.
DISCUSSIONThe BBS is not designed to determine causalfactors of population changes. Therefore, wewere unable to identify specific factorsresponsible for the various temporal andregional patterns evident in this analysis.Nevertheless, it can be instructive to examine theoverall patterns within the context of previousanalyses and the long-term trends to determine ifgeneral trends are apparent that may provideinsight for future research and conservationefforts.
Most species did relatively well during the2002-2003 period with 64% (P < 0.05) increasingsurvey-wide (Fig. 1A). This was primarily
because of increases in the Central and WesternBBS regions, where 21 of 24 species groupsexhibited significant increases in the number ofspecies with positive trends, while the remainingthree groups’ percentages did not differ from50%. These results suggest that conditionsfavored species in the Central and Westernportions of the continent but less so in theEastern portion during 2002-2003.
The 2002-2003 results are similar to the 1991-1992 Western BBS regional results (Peterjohn etal. 1994) when 9 of 12 species groups exhibitedsignificant increases. As suggested by Peterjohnet al. (1994), El Niño Southern Oscillation(ENSO) may, in part, have driven these results inthe West. During ENSO above normal surfacewater temperatures characterize the easternPacific Ocean (Rasmussen and Carpenter 1982,Ropeleweski and Halpert 1986), often leading toextreme weather patterns that have beencorrelated to land bird population changes(Jaksic and Lazo 1999, Sillett et al. 2000, Nott etal. 2002). ENSO began in 2002 (McPhaden 2004)possibly producing favorable conditions that ledto increased numbers of birds detected in theWest by 2003. However, other atmosphericphenomena, such as the North AtlanticOscillation (Nott et al. 2002) and more localizedevents, are likely influencing bird populationchanges in North America as well.
As an example of these localized events, theemergence of West Nile virus (WNV) in NewYork City in 1999 (Nash et al. 2001) and itssubsequent spread across North America hasbeen shown to cause avian mortality (Komar etal. 2005; see Kilpatrick et al. 2007 for overview).Moreover, BBS data have been used to correlateobserved declines of numerous species with thespread of WNV (LaDeau et al. 2007). Thus, the2002-2003 declines exhibited in the Eastern BBSregion by scrub/successional, short-distancemigrant, and urban nesting groups may berelated to the presence of WNV in the East. Thedisease did not become prevalent throughout theWest until after 2003 (http://diseasemaps.usgs.gov/2003/us_bird.html). Further researchis warranted on the effects of WNV on birdpopulations at the species level. It is interestingto note that the urban nesting group includesseveral species, such as Blue Jay (Cyanocittacristata) and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus),both of which have high to moderate mortality
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[34]
rates when exposed to WNV (Komar et al. 2005).Compared to the previous 5-yr period, 1999-
2003 was generally less favorable for most birdspecies. Survey-wide during 1999-2003, only 41%of all species exhibited increasing trends (P <0.05) as compared to 44% (P > 0.10) during 1995-1999. The 1999-2003 declines are drivenprimarily by losses in the East and West (Fig.1A),although marked declines are also evident forwetland species in the Central BBS region (Fig.1C).
Among the migration status groups,neotropical migrants and permanent residentsfared well during 1999-2003 with no significantdeclines reported in any region. Moreover, bothgroups exhibited significant increases during this5-yr period in the Central BBS region. Short-distance migrants, however, exhibited signif-icantly fewer species with increasing trends(range 22% to 35%) in all BBS regions during1999-2003. This indicates that conditions forshort-distance migrants were considerably poorerduring this 5-yr interval in the Eastern andCentral regions than in the previous five years. Inaddition, 1999-2003 percentages are lower thanthe long-term percentages in all regions.
Despite gains in number of species withincreasing trends in every BBS region during2002-2003, grassland birds continued to farepoorly survey-wide with only 14% (P < 0.05)increasing during 1966-2003, and only doingslightly better (26%, P < 0.05) in 1999-2003 (Fig.1B). Thus the declining trend for these speciesfirst observed in 1991 (18%; Peterjohn and Sauer1993) continues a decade later. Moreover, theincreases observed in the West during 1995-1999(49%; Pardieck and Sauer 2000) were over-whelmingly reversed during the next five yearswhen only 10% (P < 0.05) of species increased.Grassland birds held their own, statisticallyspeaking, between 1999-2003 (39%, P > 0.05) aswell as during the previous 5-yr interval (36%, P > 0.05) in the Central region. In the East there was a rebound during 1999-2003, with 31%(P < 0.05) of species increasing as opposed to 6%in the previous five years.
The sharp decline (26% increasing) observedduring 1995-1999 (Pardieck and Sauer 2000) foreastern scrub/successional species is less evidentin 1999-2003 (35% increasing), suggesting a morefavorable time period for these species in theEast. Declines in the 2-yr results suggest this may
be a temporary respite. More intriguing is thatfor the first time since species group’s resultshave been reported, scrub/successional speciesdeclined in the West over the long-term as wellas during 1999-2005. Hints of this impendingdecline are apparent in the 1998-1999 results(Pardieck and Sauer 2000).
Eastern neotropical migrants fared relativelywell during 1999-2003, when 43% (P > 0.05) had increasing trends, offsetting significantdeclines reported during 1995-1999 (Pardieckand Sauer 2000). Moreover, the 2002-2003 resultof 57% (P > 0.05) brings this group back in linewith a series of relatively positive 2-yr intervalsbeginning in 1987 (Droege and Sauer 1990,Peterjohn and Sauer 1993, Peterjohn et al. 1994,Peterjohn et al. 1996). Although long-termdeclines are evident for neotropical migrants inthe Central BBS region, both the 5-yr and 2-yrresults indicate significant increases in numbersof species with increasing trends. Whether theseshort-term increases are indicative of a long-termrecovery is unclear.
Detailed analyses of regional patterns ofpopulation trends within individual species arebeyond the scope of this paper. Species-specifictrend and relative abundance data, as well asadditional information regarding the survey, areavailable at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife ResearchCenter web page (www.pwrc.usgs.gov).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank the thousands of volunteers who haveparticipated in the BBS program during 1999-2003, as well as those who participated in earlieryears. We are also grateful for the careful reviewand thoughtful comments provided by B.Peterjohn and C. Robbins on earlier drafts of thisreport.
LITERATURE CITEDAMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 1998. Check-list of
North American Birds. 7th edition. Am. Ornithol.Union, Washington, D.C.
BYSTRAK, D. 1981. The North American Breeding BirdSurvey. Pp. 34-41 in C.J. Ralph and J.M. Scott(eds.), Estimating Numbers of Terrestrial Birds.Studies in Avian Biology No. 6.
DROEGE, S., AND J. R. SAUER. 1990. North AmericanBreeding Bird Summary, 1989. U.S. Fish & WildlifeService, Biological Report 90(8).
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[35]
GEISSLER, P. H., AND J. R. SAUER. 1990. Topics in route-regression analysis. Pp. 53-56 in J.R. Sauer and S.Droege (eds.), Survey Design and StatisticalMethods for the Estimation of Avian PopulationTrends. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, BiologicalReport 90(1).
JAKSIC, F. M, AND I. LAZO. 1999. Response of a birdassemblage in semiarid Chile to the 1997 – 1998 ElNiño. Wilson Bulletin 111:527-535.
KILPATRICK, A. M., S. L. LADEAU, AND P. P. MARRA.2007. Ecology of West Nile virus transmission andits impact on birds in the Western Hemisphere.Auk 124:1121-1136.
KOMAR, N., N. A. PANELLA, S. A. LANGIVEN, A. C.BRAULT, M. AMADOR, E. EDWARDS, AND J. C. OWEN.2005. Avian hosts for West Nile virus in St.Tammany Parish, Louisiana, 2002. AmericanJournal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 73:1031-1037.
LADEAU, S. L., A. M. KILPATRICK, AND P. P. MARRA. 2007.West Nile virus emergence and large-scale declinesof North American bird populations. Nature447:710-713.
LINK, W. A., AND J. R. SAUER. 1994. Estimatingequations estimates of trends. Bird Populations2:23-32.
MCPHADEN, M. J. 2004. Evolution of the 2002/03 ElNiño. Bulletin of the American MeteorologicalSociety 85:677-695.
NASH, D., F. MOSTASHARI, A. FINE, J. MILLER, D.O’LEARY, K. MURRAY, A. HUANG, A. ROSENBERG, A.GREENBERG, M. SHERMAN, S. WONG, AND M. LAYTON.2001. The outbreak of West Nile virus infection inthe New York City area in 1999. New EnglandJournal of Medicine 344:1807-1814.
NOTT, P. M., D. F. DESANTE, R. B. SIEGEL, AND P. PYLE.2002. Influences of the El Niño/SouthernOscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation onavian productivity in forests of the Pacific
Northwest of North America. Global Ecology andBiogeography 11:333-342.
PARDIECK, K. L., AND J. R. SAUER. 2000. The 1995-1999summary of the North American Breeding BirdSurvey. Bird Populations 5:30-48.
PETERJOHN, B. G., AND J. R. SAUER. 1993. NorthAmerican Breeding Bird Survey annual summary1990-1991. Bird Populations 1:1-15.
PETERJOHN, B. G., J. R. SAUER, AND W. A. LINK. 1994. The1992 and 1993 summary of the North AmericanBreeding Bird Survey. Bird Populations 2:46-61.
PETERJOHN, B. G., J. R. SAUER, AND W. A. LINK. 1996. The1994 and 1995 summary of the North AmericanBreeding Bird Survey. Bird Populations 3:48-66.
RASMUSSEN, E. M., AND T. H. CARPENTER. 1982.Variations in Tropical Sea Surface Temperature andSurface Wind Fields Associated with the SouthernOscillation/El Niño. Monthly Weather Review110:354–384.
ROBBINS, C. S., D. BYSTRAK, AND P. H. GEISSLER. 1986.The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years,1965-1979. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Research.Publication 157. 196 pp.
ROPELEWSKI, C., AND M. HALPERT. 1986. NorthAmerican Precipitation and Temperature PatternsAssociated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation(ENSO). Monthly Weather Review 114:2352–2362.
SAUER, J. R., J. E. HINES, AND J. FALLON. 2004. The NorthAmerican Breeding Bird Survey, Results andAnalysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1, U.S.G.S.Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Md.
SAUER, J. R., AND W. A. LINK. 2002. Hierarchicalmodeling of population stability and speciesgroup attributes using Markov Chain Monte Carlomethods. Ecology 83:1743-1751.
SILLETT, T. S., R. T. HOLMES, AND T. W. SHERRY. 2000.Impacts of global climate cycle on populationsdynamics of migratory songbird. Science 288:2040-2042.
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[36]
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[37]
APPENDIX 1. Long-term (1966-2003) trends, 5-yr (1999-2003) trends, and 2-yr changes for all species detected onBBS routes, 1966-2003. For the three intervals, we present trends as average % change/yr, statistical significance(P) of the changes or trend (P < 0.05 is considered significant), and sample size (n of routes). For the long-termtrends, TQ-values, 95% confidence intervals, and relative abundance (mean number of individuals per BBS route)are also provided. A dash indicates insufficient data to calculate trends. Species names based on AOU (1998).
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
Common Loon 2 2.3 0.00 452 1.5 3.2 0.91 -1.3 0.59 219 10.8 0.47 174Pied-billed Grebe 2 1.2 0.22 479 -0.7 3.0 0.28 -15.4 0.00 160 19.2 0.15 145Horned Grebe 2 -3.2 0.03 83 -6.0 -0.4 0.35 -15.8 0.09 22 -0.7 0.97 25Red-necked Grebe 2 0.8 0.33 75 -0.8 2.3 0.42 7.7 0.26 39 -13.3 0.40 35Eared Grebe 2 6.8 0.01 130 2.1 11.5 1.04 30.1 0.00 47 95.1 0.14 47Western/Clark's Grebe 2 1.1 0.02 121 0.2 2.1 0.85 7.9 0.03 53 -7.1 0.84 44American White Pelican 2 2.9 0.01 172 0.7 5.2 1.93 15.7 0.01 94 6.0 0.66 69Brown Pelican 1 4.4 0.00 43 2.2 6.6 1.39 -11.3 0.01 24 53.0 0.19 21Double-crested Cormorant 2 8.8 0.00 467 3.9 13.8 0.72 4.7 0.10 215 27.5 0.18 204Pelagic Cormorant 3 1.2 0.73 15 -5.6 8.1 0.78 14.1 0.63 3 866.4 0.45 5Anhinga 2 1.1 0.57 107 -2.7 5.0 0.33 15.6 0.01 42 14.5 0.71 45American Bittern 2 -1.8 0.02 601 -3.3 -0.3 0.48 -10.1 0.00 191 2.2 0.86 147Least Bittern 3 -1.7 0.39 39 -5.5 2.1 0.09 9.0 0.58 11 -44.2 0.02 18Great Blue Heron 2 2.0 0.00 2371 1.4 2.7 0.82 0.7 0.62 1305 -5.9 0.30 1037Great Egret 1 1.9 0.01 567 0.4 3.4 1.64 2.7 0.36 317 58.1 0.03 269Snowy Egret 2 4.9 0.00 253 2.4 7.4 0.93 13.7 0.03 101 46.6 0.22 92Little Blue Heron 1 -2.5 0.03 413 -4.7 -0.2 1.85 -4.8 0.06 181 21.4 0.28 153Tricolored Heron 1 0.5 0.60 95 -1.5 2.6 1.07 5.7 0.36 40 -3.4 0.92 39Cattle Egret 2 0.3 0.56 533 -0.7 1.4 13.38 -4.7 0.16 280 13.4 0.36 211Green Heron 2 -0.9 0.00 1654 -1.4 -0.4 0.71 -3.6 0.05 675 -5.4 0.54 556Black-crowned Night-Heron 2 4.4 0.03 307 0.5 8.3 0.23 -8.2 0.05 93 73.5 0.00 85Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 2 -1.4 0.43 175 -4.8 2.0 0.31 -4.2 0.60 33 -5.1 0.80 40White Ibis 2 4.1 0.02 178 0.6 7.5 5.87 25.2 0.15 97 182.3 0.02 71Glossy Ibis 3 0.9 0.84 46 -7.3 9.0 0.93 12.8 0.66 14 329.5 0.03 17White-faced Ibis 3 12.2 0.01 67 3.0 21.4 15.27 10.2 0.60 30 -23.2 0.00 19Roseate Spoonbill 2 11.0 0.00 29 6.1 15.9 0.79 32.7 0.15 17 689.4 0.02 14Wood Stork 3 -2.8 0.37 73 -8.8 3.2 1.06 -5.6 0.65 31 288.6 0.22 27Black Vulture 1 3.0 0.00 620 1.2 4.8 1.82 0.1 0.96 345 29.5 0.06 275Turkey Vulture 1 1.6 0.00 2132 0.9 2.3 2.49 1.7 0.16 1335 2.7 0.56 1064Black-bellied Whistling-Duck 2 5.4 0.05 51 0.0 10.8 2.27 -11.6 0.02 30 -25.4 0.03 26Fulvous Whistling-Duck 3 1.7 0.75 30 -8.5 11.9 1.81 -14.2 0.17 17 100.3 0.45 10Canada Goose 2 9.6 0.00 1512 6.8 12.4 4.08 5.6 0.14 956 41.6 0.00 734Mute Swan 3 9.9 0.09 34 -1.0 20.8 0.39 7.8 0.59 15 -8.8 0.41 20Wood Duck 2 4.6 0.00 1180 3.2 6.0 0.30 0.3 0.92 386 10.5 0.40 390Gadwall 1 4.7 0.00 434 3.3 6.1 1.89 -4.5 0.16 233 -14.7 0.08 181American Wigeon 3 17.5 0.25 301 -12.1 47.0 0.85 -7.0 0.03 122 30.9 0.05 101American Black Duck 2 -0.8 0.51 268 -3.0 1.5 0.27 10.0 0.44 49 144.6 0.22 53Mallard 2 1.3 0.00 2255 0.5 2.1 5.12 -6.3 0.00 1262 -11.4 0.04 923Mottled Duck 2 -5.2 0.04 69 -10.1 -0.3 2.31 -1.5 0.77 35 36.6 0.61 30Blue-winged Teal 1 -0.6 0.29 637 -1.8 0.5 1.74 -2.2 0.45 235 -30.9 0.05 194Cinnamon Teal 2 -0.8 0.23 242 -2.2 0.5 0.55 -3.8 0.52 75 125.3 0.01 61Northern Shoveler 1 1.7 0.01 334 0.4 3.1 1.17 -8.9 0.01 147 -6.5 0.74 126Northern Pintail 1 -2.8 0.00 404 -4.6 -1.1 1.80 -2.9 0.52 121 68.5 0.00 101Green-winged Teal 3 32.0 0.00 327 23.9 40.1 0.32 -15.2 0.00 98 111.4 0.00 113
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[38]
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
Canvasback 2 -0.9 0.43 131 -3.2 1.3 0.66 9.1 0.08 42 108.9 0.01 44Redhead 1 2.1 0.04 228 0.1 4.1 1.00 -9.0 0.00 89 -6.4 0.72 63Ring-necked Duck 2 3.5 0.02 166 0.5 6.5 0.21 -2.1 0.75 62 53.7 0.05 63Lesser Scaup 1 -0.9 0.29 237 -2.5 0.7 1.85 -12.9 0.00 106 36.4 0.10 79Bufflehead 2 2.9 0.17 90 -1.3 7.1 0.27 9.2 0.40 38 -7.7 0.77 40Common Goldeneye 2 1.2 0.56 91 -2.7 5.1 0.18 -6.6 0.33 27 162.6 0.35 28Barrow's Goldeneye 2 4.4 0.02 49 0.8 8.0 0.31 -8.4 0.53 18 84.7 0.14 21Hooded Merganser 3 7.2 0.05 108 0.0 14.4 0.03 15.2 0.18 35 105.9 0.14 58Common Merganser 2 2.0 0.00 369 0.7 3.4 0.24 -0.4 0.92 135 43.6 0.10 142Red-breasted Merganser 3 -5.8 0.14 19 -12.7 1.2 0.03 -- -- -- -- -- --Ruddy Duck 2 1.3 0.27 224 -1.0 3.7 0.84 1.1 0.73 103 4.3 0.87 84Osprey 2 6.5 0.00 425 5.0 7.9 0.18 5.4 0.02 215 15.8 0.20 205Swallow-tailed Kite 2 3.4 0.01 47 1.1 5.6 0.20 3.7 0.56 27 30.9 0.48 35White-tailed Kite 2 1.8 0.29 61 -1.5 5.1 0.17 -3.3 0.68 19 -22.5 0.44 14Mississippi Kite 2 0.0 0.99 183 -2.2 2.2 0.69 1.9 0.66 84 76.8 0.03 84Bald Eagle 2 6.1 0.00 211 2.2 10.1 0.14 5.7 0.18 103 2.3 0.85 142Northern Harrier 2 -1.0 0.02 1024 -1.9 -0.1 0.45 -5.4 0.00 382 7.6 0.36 338Sharp-shinned Hawk 3 4.5 0.06 308 -0.1 9.0 0.02 2.5 0.50 53 21.2 0.19 120Cooper's Hawk 3 6.7 0.00 528 3.9 9.5 0.04 6.5 0.09 127 -23.5 0.00 253Northern Goshawk 3 -0.3 0.88 71 -4.1 3.5 0.02 -2.1 0.67 12 46.4 0.22 35Harris's Hawk 2 -5.6 0.00 43 -8.9 -2.2 0.78 -7.6 0.38 11 113.9 0.10 12Red-shouldered Hawk 2 2.6 0.00 896 1.5 3.7 0.51 5.2 0.00 461 8.9 0.22 419Broad-winged Hawk 2 1.8 0.02 744 0.3 3.2 0.13 3.2 0.34 174 5.5 0.75 214Swainson's Hawk 2 -0.4 0.48 697 -1.5 0.7 0.90 2.8 0.20 334 15.3 0.06 255Red-tailed Hawk 2 2.6 0.00 2960 2.2 3.0 1.05 -1.0 0.23 1696 1.8 0.63 1316Ferruginous Hawk 2 2.9 0.01 240 0.8 4.9 0.25 -4.7 0.08 104 22.8 0.21 95Golden Eagle 2 1.1 0.53 324 -2.2 4.4 0.20 2.5 0.65 99 10.6 0.51 118Crested Caracara 2 5.4 0.00 58 2.7 8.1 0.99 -3.2 0.65 32 -21.4 0.53 29American Kestrel 2 -0.5 0.09 2463 -1.0 0.1 0.87 -8.2 0.00 1116 -6.3 0.20 874Merlin 3 10.6 0.00 128 6.5 14.7 0.05 1.6 0.84 43 -22.5 0.13 56Peregrine Falcon 3 8.6 0.03 20 3.3 13.9 0.02 -- -- -- 53.2 0.20 8Prairie Falcon 3 1.0 0.56 182 -2.3 4.4 0.09 -5.5 0.44 44 -19.7 0.22 65Chukar 3 -1.1 0.85 74 -12.6 10.3 0.49 10.8 0.08 34 14.5 0.02 24Gray Partridge 2 -0.1 0.94 259 -1.8 1.7 0.45 -6.0 0.23 70 33.8 0.17 70Ring-necked Pheasant 1 -1.0 0.00 1334 -1.5 -0.4 7.14 2.5 0.02 703 20.4 0.00 535Ruffed Grouse 2 -2.2 0.03 559 -4.3 -0.2 0.33 2.0 0.61 144 -12.5 0.23 157Sage Grouse 2 0.1 0.97 72 -3.8 4.0 0.77 11.0 0.42 20 246.3 0.20 14Blue Grouse 2 -2.3 0.00 95 -3.8 -0.8 0.37 13.1 0.25 37 0.7 0.98 44Sharp-tailed Grouse 2 -1.6 0.17 159 -3.8 0.7 0.56 13.4 0.01 59 12.6 0.68 58Greater Prairie-Chicken 2 -4.1 0.05 43 -8.0 -0.2 0.73 -2.4 0.80 17 221.2 0.08 15Wild Turkey 2 13.8 0.00 950 11.3 16.3 0.31 9.4 0.00 576 36.3 0.00 608Mountain Quail 2 0.9 0.27 142 -0.7 2.4 2.72 10.6 0.00 87 48.0 0.09 67Scaled Quail 1 -1.5 0.12 153 -3.3 0.4 4.81 -3.1 0.26 79 37.3 0.01 56California Quail 1 1.0 0.23 328 -0.6 2.7 3.83 8.1 0.00 196 13.8 0.15 145Gambel's Quail 2 -0.4 0.59 107 -1.8 1.0 6.67 -1.3 0.47 59 28.8 0.02 38Northern Bobwhite 2 -3.0 0.00 1575 -3.3 -2.7 18.09 -1.8 0.01 945 4.7 0.13 689Clapper Rail 2 1.0 0.44 47 -1.5 3.6 0.24 4.4 0.28 19 -10.1 0.42 18King Rail 2 -7.7 0.01 39 -12.6 -2.8 0.22 16.8 0.29 7 -59.3 0.02 10
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[39]
Virginia Rail 3 2.2 0.02 99 0.4 4.1 0.03 -23.4 0.00 26 32.7 0.08 43Sora 2 -0.4 0.51 490 -1.5 0.7 0.85 -21.3 0.00 204 35.6 0.07 172Purple Gallinule 3 -4.0 0.59 24 -18.1 10.1 0.10 -- -- -- -- -- --Common Moorhen 2 0.3 0.86 120 -3.1 3.7 0.51 -13.2 0.02 35 91.9 0.25 42American Coot 1 -0.1 0.90 581 -1.8 1.6 2.15 -15.6 0.00 251 -17.8 0.34 175Sandhill Crane 1 7.1 0.00 347 4.4 9.8 1.16 4.8 0.11 232 47.4 0.08 192Killdeer 2 -0.5 0.00 3383 -0.9 -0.2 5.39 -3.9 0.00 2103 1.3 0.63 1530Mountain Plover 2 -1.9 0.27 43 -5.3 1.4 0.28 -18.8 0.02 15 71.8 0.29 10Black-necked Stilt 2 0.1 0.96 123 -5.1 5.4 1.82 -3.1 0.81 51 26.8 0.50 53American Avocet 2 0.7 0.67 230 -2.4 3.8 1.52 -2.5 0.81 80 19.8 0.05 72Greater Yellowlegs 3 11.7 0.06 20 0.5 22.8 0.28 38.4 0.11 11 211.8 0.29 10Lesser Yellowlegs 2 -9.3 0.00 32 -13.4 -5.2 0.19 7.9 0.58 5 186.0 0.37 10Solitary Sandpiper 3 -3.5 0.38 19 -10.8 3.9 0.04 36.1 0.26 8 -1.2 0.98 13Willet 2 -0.6 0.16 317 -1.5 0.2 1.44 -2.5 0.23 174 -11.6 0.12 124Spotted Sandpiper 2 -0.6 0.27 985 -1.8 0.5 0.43 1.2 0.51 321 5.4 0.50 304Upland Sandpiper 2 0.8 0.01 633 0.2 1.5 2.33 0.9 0.60 279 -4.9 0.48 217Long-billed Curlew 2 -1.8 0.06 250 -3.6 0.1 1.38 4.0 0.14 141 18.0 0.10 108Marbled Godwit 2 -0.8 0.19 220 -2.1 0.4 2.40 -4.1 0.09 120 2.8 0.80 81Common Snipe 2 -0.1 0.71 1176 -0.7 0.5 2.34 -4.7 0.00 653 3.4 0.56 444American Woodcock 3 0.8 0.68 158 -3.0 4.6 0.03 -8.1 0.09 20 -19.2 0.42 35Wilson's Phalarope 2 0.4 0.63 291 -1.3 2.1 0.95 -2.6 0.54 111 -21.3 0.20 84Laughing Gull 1 4.0 0.02 129 0.6 7.5 24.51 1.8 0.69 75 26.8 0.43 61Franklin's Gull 3 8.3 0.19 196 -4.0 20.5 12.17 0.9 0.94 75 106.8 0.17 56Ring-billed Gull 1 1.8 0.07 690 -0.2 3.8 4.66 7.1 0.18 311 -23.4 0.19 232California Gull 2 -0.7 0.74 199 -5.0 3.6 3.61 -19.7 0.02 71 -13.5 0.62 54Herring Gull 1 -3.2 0.00 353 -5.2 -1.3 4.05 10.4 0.22 119 -1.8 0.94 77Western Gull 2 -0.5 0.85 21 -6.0 4.9 4.33 -7.4 0.13 9 217.7 0.23 8Glaucous-winged Gull 2 0.2 0.93 40 -4.6 5.1 11.35 -7.4 0.27 15 -41.8 0.03 11Great Black-backed Gull 1 -2.2 0.05 94 -4.4 0.0 2.35 25.5 0.17 37 -45.8 0.02 24Gull-billed Tern 3 6.6 0.48 19 -11.1 24.2 0.44 46.5 0.37 10 589.0 0.11 9Caspian Tern 2 4.4 0.00 89 1.7 7.1 0.16 -2.7 0.18 28 12.3 0.48 34Royal Tern 2 0.9 0.74 31 -4.5 6.3 0.72 -8.9 0.37 16 24.1 0.35 13Common Tern 2 -6.2 0.03 114 -11.6 -0.8 0.25 -2.5 0.77 26 -16.5 0.61 22Forster's Tern 2 0.8 0.31 126 -0.7 2.2 0.33 12.9 0.06 50 10.7 0.52 54Least Tern 2 -0.8 0.75 63 -5.6 4.1 0.77 -7.9 0.38 22 8.9 0.84 26Black Tern 2 -1.5 0.30 328 -4.3 1.3 1.81 -4.2 0.39 117 57.7 0.20 94Black Skimmer 2 -2.3 0.32 33 -6.8 2.2 0.31 -17.5 0.00 11 -- -- --Rock Dove 2 0.0 0.95 2492 -0.5 0.5 4.86 -1.3 0.35 1373 13.6 0.01 985Band-tailed Pigeon 1 -2.2 0.01 217 -3.7 -0.6 1.70 -5.4 0.26 112 41.9 0.26 89Eurasian Collared-Dove 3 37.9 0.00 141 20.9 54.9 0.44 15.0 0.00 134 33.3 0.01 165White-winged Dove 1 1.1 0.39 128 -1.4 3.5 9.24 3.5 0.35 80 10.5 0.18 70Mourning Dove 2 -0.2 0.13 3643 -0.4 0.0 27.24 0.7 0.09 2611 7.3 0.00 1848Inca Dove 2 3.3 0.03 112 0.3 6.3 0.88 -7.6 0.03 72 5.2 0.67 61Common Ground-Dove 2 -1.2 0.18 220 -3.0 0.5 1.85 1.8 0.42 128 -8.0 0.47 109Black-billed Cuckoo 2 -1.6 0.00 1181 -2.4 -0.7 0.54 14.6 0.02 295 23.6 0.27 283Yellow-billed Cuckoo 2 -1.8 0.00 1826 -2.1 -1.5 3.95 1.8 0.04 1014 6.3 0.13 792Greater Roadrunner 2 0.8 0.41 272 -1.1 2.7 0.54 -7.6 0.16 108 39.9 0.05 104Groove-billed Ani 3 -3.4 0.66 16 -18.6 11.8 1.10 58.8 0.71 2 353.2 0.29 2
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[40]
Barn Owl 3 -2.3 0.48 33 -8.5 3.9 0.03 -- -- -- 231.0 0.09 11Western Screech-Owl 3 -7.2 0.17 18 -16.2 1.8 0.01 -- -- -- -30.4 0.20 7Eastern Screech-Owl 3 1.9 0.65 121 -6.1 9.9 0.02 -- -- -- 21.8 0.54 43Great Horned Owl 2 -0.1 0.89 1257 -1.1 1.0 0.19 -2.6 0.32 303 28.5 0.03 348Northern Pygmy-Owl 3 1.6 0.20 61 -0.8 4.0 0.04 45.5 0.02 9 15.7 0.73 25Burrowing Owl 2 -1.2 0.62 310 -6.0 3.6 0.51 10.9 0.09 85 35.0 0.14 81Barred Owl 2 2.4 0.00 648 1.0 3.8 0.13 5.6 0.12 192 2.2 0.83 239Short-eared Owl 2 -4.3 0.01 154 -7.6 -1.1 0.18 -21.7 0.00 24 60.5 0.28 22Lesser Nighthawk 2 2.4 0.06 132 0.0 4.8 1.86 -0.5 0.90 59 32.7 0.15 47Common Nighthawk 2 -1.7 0.00 1616 -2.4 -1.1 1.97 0.4 0.71 703 11.9 0.13 573Common Poorwill 2 1.7 0.42 154 -2.5 6.0 0.13 3.5 0.65 50 76.2 0.03 45Chuck-will's-widow 1 -1.7 0.00 574 -2.4 -1.0 1.42 -3.2 0.05 285 0.0 1.00 232Whip-poor-will 2 -2.3 0.00 479 -3.4 -1.2 0.28 -7.9 0.00 126 0.4 0.97 114Black Swift 3 -7.3 0.11 50 -16.0 1.4 1.31 -18.9 0.09 7 863.9 0.48 9Chimney Swift 1 -1.5 0.00 2114 -1.9 -1.2 6.15 -0.7 0.39 1310 -4.6 0.29 951Vaux's Swift 3 3.9 0.38 145 -4.8 12.6 0.47 11.3 0.13 61 167.9 0.35 46White-throated Swift 2 -1.4 0.39 191 -4.6 1.8 0.89 4.3 0.58 79 6.3 0.64 59Ruby-throated Hummingbird 2 2.4 0.00 1522 1.7 3.0 0.39 2.6 0.11 779 22.3 0.00 660Black-chinned Hummingbird 2 1.5 0.05 197 0.0 3.0 0.24 2.5 0.40 92 2.1 0.87 85Anna's Hummingbird 2 1.7 0.09 143 -0.3 3.7 0.66 2.6 0.63 66 -18.0 0.07 56Costa's Hummingbird 2 0.4 0.89 52 -4.5 5.2 0.60 -18.0 0.10 12 50.7 0.11 7Calliope Hummingbird 2 0.2 0.86 107 -2.4 2.9 0.28 6.0 0.34 47 21.0 0.41 44Broad-tailed Hummingbird 1 -0.4 0.38 187 -1.5 0.6 1.99 -2.2 0.18 126 -18.9 0.00 97Rufous Hummingbird 1 -2.6 0.00 217 -4.2 -1.0 1.36 -0.6 0.82 105 20.6 0.22 91Allen's Hummingbird 2 -2.4 0.27 36 -6.5 1.8 0.70 -4.1 0.36 13 -20.6 0.19 12Belted Kingfisher 2 -1.6 0.00 1985 -2.1 -1.1 0.31 -2.8 0.16 632 -2.4 0.74 621Lewis's Woodpecker 2 -1.4 0.43 83 -4.8 2.0 0.15 -10.2 0.00 33 2.1 0.86 25Red-headed Woodpecker 2 -2.6 0.00 1281 -3.3 -2.0 1.63 0.4 0.81 592 13.2 0.04 526Acorn Woodpecker 1 0.9 0.01 151 0.3 1.6 6.01 2.1 0.51 82 -8.0 0.15 66Gila Woodpecker 1 -1.4 0.32 34 -4.2 1.4 6.09 -0.3 0.95 22 -25.6 0.02 17Golden-fronted Woodpecker 1 -1.1 0.26 80 -3.1 0.8 4.32 5.2 0.07 46 29.6 0.01 34Red-bellied Woodpecker 1 0.7 0.00 1598 0.4 1.1 5.93 3.4 0.00 1180 7.9 0.00 905Williamson's Sapsucker 2 0.8 0.55 89 -1.8 3.4 0.24 -5.4 0.25 51 53.3 0.06 41Sapsucker (3 species) 2 0.2 0.58 1098 -0.6 1.1 1.64 0.8 0.62 647 21.4 0.01 508Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 2 0.1 0.79 678 -0.9 1.2 1.79 -0.5 0.80 402 31.8 0.00 294Red-naped Sapsucker 2 0.7 0.54 260 -1.5 2.9 0.91 5.1 0.12 158 28.9 0.06 137Red-breasted Sapsucker 2 -2.0 0.10 176 -4.4 0.4 1.08 -0.5 0.91 81 -6.5 0.80 78Ladder-backed Woodpecker 2 -1.4 0.04 216 -2.7 -0.1 0.98 3.2 0.16 115 13.4 0.13 98Nuttall's Woodpecker 1 0.4 0.71 88 -1.6 2.3 1.32 1.8 0.55 38 -21.4 0.01 31Downy Woodpecker 1 0.0 0.86 2581 -0.3 0.4 1.16 -1.3 0.09 1567 -11.5 0.00 1208Hairy Woodpecker 2 1.8 0.00 2171 1.0 2.5 0.49 0.9 0.51 965 8.2 0.19 824Red-cockaded Woodpecker 2 -2.2 0.17 24 -5.3 0.8 0.12 -13.9 0.25 9 426.1 0.47 6White-headed Woodpecker 2 1.9 0.06 69 0.0 3.7 0.45 4.3 0.47 36 -30.0 0.06 31Three-toed Woodpecker 3 8.9 0.22 33 -5.0 22.8 0.03 28.5 0.01 15 65.5 0.22 22Black-backed Woodpecker 3 -0.4 0.82 76 -3.8 3.0 0.07 -11.4 0.00 14 50.3 0.14 18Northern Flicker 2 -2.1 0.00 3303 -2.4 -1.8 2.75 -3.8 0.00 2103 2.4 0.47 1523Gilded Flicker 1 -0.9 0.54 28 -3.6 1.9 2.82 -8.9 0.32 14 47.3 0.15 10Pileated Woodpecker 2 1.9 0.00 1793 1.4 2.4 0.88 1.8 0.11 1050 7.7 0.11 855
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[41]
Olive-sided Flycatcher 1 -3.5 0.00 776 -4.3 -2.8 1.22 0.6 0.71 328 5.7 0.47 247Western Wood-Pewee 1 -1.3 0.00 856 -1.9 -0.7 3.08 1.4 0.27 522 3.9 0.40 396Eastern Wood-Pewee 1 -1.8 0.00 2061 -2.1 -1.5 3.05 -2.9 0.00 1366 -0.6 0.83 1012Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 2 2.2 0.01 211 0.6 3.9 1.11 0.2 0.95 101 55.3 0.00 68Acadian Flycatcher 2 -0.1 0.81 909 -0.5 0.4 1.62 2.1 0.01 547 3.5 0.36 432Alder Flycatcher 1 0.3 0.29 875 -0.2 0.7 5.51 5.5 0.00 526 -3.8 0.38 364Willow Flycatcher 1 -0.9 0.04 1193 -1.7 -0.1 1.26 3.5 0.00 637 17.1 0.00 533Willow/Alder Flycatcher 1 -0.1 0.56 1763 -0.5 0.3 3.82 4.7 0.00 1064 2.8 0.39 791Least Flycatcher 1 -1.1 0.00 1259 -1.6 -0.7 4.06 -4.2 0.00 726 -7.0 0.03 522Hammond's Flycatcher 1 1.1 0.18 328 -0.5 2.8 3.51 2.3 0.14 224 6.1 0.27 167Gray Flycatcher 2 4.8 0.02 131 1.0 8.7 1.38 4.7 0.17 81 3.2 0.81 77Dusky Flycatcher 2 -1.3 0.03 399 -2.5 -0.1 2.58 0.6 0.76 270 0.0 1.00 210Pacific-slope/
Cordilleran Flycatcher 1 -0.5 0.34 429 -1.6 0.6 2.94 -2.9 0.00 232 4.5 0.29 197Black Phoebe 2 2.1 0.00 157 0.7 3.5 0.47 3.2 0.22 77 7.9 0.41 67Eastern Phoebe 2 1.0 0.00 1940 0.6 1.4 1.90 -6.5 0.00 1314 -29.6 0.00 980Say's Phoebe 2 1.5 0.05 620 0.0 3.0 0.92 4.7 0.06 308 9.9 0.25 257Vermilion Flycatcher 2 -2.7 0.24 61 -7.2 1.8 0.74 -0.1 0.97 38 11.7 0.46 30Ash-throated Flycatcher 2 1.0 0.02 498 0.2 1.8 5.14 1.8 0.09 303 4.6 0.30 229Great Crested Flycatcher 1 0.0 0.76 2170 -0.3 0.4 3.46 1.7 0.02 1428 13.2 0.00 1084Brown-crested Flycatcher 1 4.5 0.00 61 3.0 6.1 2.67 6.5 0.10 32 28.8 0.06 27Couch's Kingbird 3 13.7 0.06 21 0.0 27.4 2.48 4.9 0.28 12 -33.1 0.03 9Cassin's Kingbird 1 -0.8 0.44 166 -2.8 1.2 1.77 1.7 0.50 77 12.1 0.48 65Western Kingbird 1 0.4 0.03 1167 0.0 0.9 6.23 6.1 0.00 689 6.2 0.07 515Eastern Kingbird 1 -1.0 0.00 2704 -1.3 -0.7 4.08 2.1 0.00 1716 5.8 0.03 1272Scissor-tailed Flycatcher 2 -0.2 0.60 330 -1.0 0.6 11.41 1.6 0.12 217 8.6 0.03 160Loggerhead Shrike 1 -3.9 0.00 1477 -4.6 -3.2 1.67 -2.4 0.05 615 19.3 0.01 506White-eyed Vireo 1 0.3 0.14 1090 -0.1 0.7 4.96 -0.1 0.89 698 -5.5 0.04 559Bell's Vireo 1 -2.9 0.00 280 -4.7 -1.1 1.22 -1.3 0.40 120 -8.5 0.13 103Gray Vireo 2 1.9 0.31 39 -1.7 5.6 0.40 -4.5 0.12 20 37.6 0.03 16Yellow-throated Vireo 2 1.1 0.00 1246 0.5 1.8 0.79 2.0 0.09 631 14.9 0.01 513Plumbeous Vireo 1 0.1 0.92 169 -1.6 1.8 1.07 1.7 0.55 100 10.4 0.28 85Cassin's Vireo 1 1.0 0.02 343 0.2 1.9 2.14 1.4 0.45 211 5.2 0.61 157Blue-headed Vireo 2 5.2 0.00 662 3.7 6.7 1.07 -0.1 0.97 384 12.9 0.09 289Hutton's Vireo 2 0.9 0.24 158 -0.6 2.5 0.89 -3.4 0.31 91 0.2 0.98 78Warbling Vireo 1 1.2 0.00 2055 0.8 1.7 3.49 0.8 0.29 1303 -3.1 0.24 1002Philadelphia Vireo 1 3.2 0.01 175 0.8 5.6 1.43 2.0 0.81 68 25.9 0.44 50Red-eyed Vireo 2 1.3 0.00 2423 0.9 1.7 10.70 1.2 0.02 1592 2.5 0.08 1177Gray Jay 2 1.0 0.40 390 -1.3 3.2 0.94 1.2 0.71 186 34.6 0.01 142Steller's Jay 1 0.3 0.36 479 -0.3 0.9 3.23 -0.4 0.71 328 -16.2 0.00 251Blue Jay 1 -1.1 0.00 2491 -1.4 -0.8 8.53 -1.3 0.01 1779 -6.5 0.00 1270Green Jay 3 1.4 0.86 15 -14.1 16.9 0.63 41.6 0.34 6 465.4 0.48 6Western Scrub-Jay 1 0.6 0.03 360 0.1 1.2 3.06 -1.5 0.21 232 -10.5 0.01 176Pinyon Jay 1 -4.6 0.00 181 -7.0 -2.2 4.75 -5.6 0.31 106 36.8 0.05 80Clark's Nutcracker 1 2.6 0.00 258 1.1 4.2 1.11 -6.7 0.07 156 32.8 0.15 117Black-billed Magpie 2 -0.4 0.18 798 -1.0 0.2 6.52 0.6 0.57 516 16.7 0.02 353Yellow-billed Magpie 1 0.0 0.97 41 -1.4 1.5 10.78 -1.1 0.73 24 25.5 0.18 19American Crow 1 1.0 0.00 3268 0.7 1.3 20.55 -0.9 0.01 2334 -2.6 0.08 1631
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[42]
Northwestern Crow 2 0.9 0.14 37 -0.3 2.1 12.80 0.8 0.90 19 -5.2 0.66 13Fish Crow 2 1.1 0.07 543 -0.1 2.2 3.28 -5.2 0.00 350 -2.5 0.74 286Chihuahuan Raven 2 -1.0 0.42 113 -3.3 1.4 3.53 12.1 0.05 55 -20.6 0.25 43Common Raven 1 2.6 0.00 1675 1.8 3.4 5.38 -0.9 0.38 1135 19.0 0.00 797Horned Lark 2 -2.2 0.00 2005 -2.6 -1.8 24.44 1.4 0.11 1101 11.8 0.00 826Purple Martin 2 -0.1 0.74 1688 -0.6 0.4 4.75 -1.9 0.10 848 -1.7 0.78 645Tree Swallow 2 0.1 0.80 2071 -0.6 0.7 4.48 -4.0 0.00 1338 6.0 0.15 978Violet-green Swallow 1 0.7 0.33 640 -0.7 2.1 4.24 -3.3 0.17 379 27.6 0.07 293Northern Rough-winged Swallow 2 -1.0 0.36 2170 -3.1 1.1 1.55 -5.6 0.00 962 20.0 0.18 748Bank Swallow 1 -0.6 0.52 1116 -2.2 1.1 2.76 1.5 0.57 339 32.9 0.08 288Cliff Swallow 2 0.7 0.04 1985 0.0 1.4 17.19 -1.2 0.52 1043 -5.3 0.34 777Cave Swallow 3 17.2 0.08 41 -1.7 36.1 6.60 -12.7 0.02 27 42.5 0.32 26Barn Swallow 2 -0.9 0.00 3426 -1.2 -0.7 12.54 -4.1 0.00 2356 9.4 0.00 1652Carolina Chickadee 1 -0.6 0.00 1087 -1.0 -0.2 6.33 0.8 0.36 781 -4.1 0.21 571Black-capped Chickadee 1 1.4 0.00 1741 1.0 1.8 3.41 1.6 0.07 1165 6.2 0.10 826Mountain Chickadee 1 -0.7 0.02 450 -1.4 -0.1 3.89 1.6 0.24 313 10.4 0.09 217Chestnut-backed Chickadee 1 -0.8 0.26 187 -2.1 0.6 4.28 1.7 0.48 111 -8.9 0.39 83Boreal Chickadee 2 -2.5 0.07 168 -5.2 0.2 0.36 -13.2 0.04 62 -27.4 0.11 42Oak Titmouse 1 -1.4 0.05 108 -2.9 0.0 4.65 0.7 0.82 51 -20.4 0.00 43Juniper Titmouse 2 0.1 0.96 100 -4.6 4.9 0.63 0.7 0.88 56 70.5 0.01 52Tufted Titmouse 2 1.0 0.00 1643 0.7 1.4 8.46 2.9 0.00 1206 8.2 0.00 902Verdin 2 -5.1 0.02 135 -9.3 -0.8 3.99 -5.8 0.01 67 -17.4 0.08 48Bushtit 1 -2.0 0.10 288 -4.3 0.4 1.44 0.9 0.78 128 14.5 0.32 108Red-breasted Nuthatch 1 1.6 0.00 1095 0.9 2.2 2.29 7.3 0.00 677 13.0 0.00 495White-breasted Nuthatch 2 1.9 0.00 1857 1.3 2.4 0.94 -3.4 0.01 1143 -0.5 0.92 887Pygmy Nuthatch 1 0.3 0.70 139 -1.4 2.0 1.05 -4.8 0.31 74 19.7 0.39 55Brown-headed Nuthatch 1 -1.6 0.07 337 -3.4 0.1 1.53 1.2 0.64 175 1.7 0.88 157Brown Creeper 2 0.4 0.66 578 -1.2 2.0 0.37 1.9 0.42 257 -0.6 0.95 234Cactus Wren 1 -2.5 0.00 179 -4.0 -0.9 6.34 -11.5 0.00 96 -5.0 0.47 68Rock Wren 2 -2.3 0.00 621 -3.0 -1.5 1.86 0.9 0.60 294 19.7 0.02 247Canyon Wren 2 -3.2 0.07 186 -6.7 0.3 0.22 -13.4 0.00 71 10.1 0.60 74Carolina Wren 2 0.8 0.00 1369 0.5 1.2 9.35 -0.4 0.50 958 1.3 0.55 738Bewick's Wren 2 0.0 0.94 660 -1.0 0.9 2.51 -1.0 0.46 308 9.0 0.17 241House Wren 2 0.7 0.00 2322 0.4 1.0 4.94 -3.0 0.00 1528 -0.3 0.89 1110Winter Wren 2 0.8 0.71 786 -3.4 5.0 7.34 -5.5 0.00 478 -7.8 0.10 331Sedge Wren 2 2.1 0.00 376 1.1 3.1 1.31 -13.2 0.00 197 -2.7 0.73 154Marsh Wren 2 2.9 0.00 396 1.4 4.4 0.73 -4.1 0.10 178 25.2 0.08 143American Dipper 2 -0.3 0.84 103 -3.4 2.7 0.11 0.5 0.94 32 13.8 0.53 37Golden-crowned Kinglet 2 -0.8 0.27 664 -2.1 0.6 2.39 -6.7 0.00 398 -22.2 0.00 266Ruby-crowned Kinglet 2 -0.9 0.03 722 -1.6 -0.1 6.48 3.4 0.06 361 -7.8 0.03 267Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 1 0.7 0.02 1485 0.1 1.3 2.18 3.0 0.00 944 13.9 0.02 763Black-tailed Gnatcatcher 2 -2.4 0.20 68 -6.1 1.3 1.58 -5.2 0.20 36 -0.7 0.97 24Eastern Bluebird 2 2.4 0.00 1965 2.0 2.8 3.55 -0.2 0.79 1355 -14.5 0.00 1023Western Bluebird 1 -1.1 0.16 277 -2.6 0.4 1.28 -1.8 0.50 139 -5.1 0.63 107Mountain Bluebird 1 1.5 0.01 580 0.3 2.6 2.16 1.2 0.48 332 6.6 0.49 244Townsend's Solitaire 2 -0.8 0.11 320 -1.7 0.2 0.66 -1.6 0.60 190 -4.7 0.60 160Veery 2 -1.4 0.00 1055 -1.9 -0.9 4.28 -4.6 0.00 639 5.9 0.31 437Swainson's Thrush 2 -0.5 0.07 789 -1.0 0.0 15.15 0.2 0.87 460 4.5 0.26 330
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[43]
Hermit Thrush 1 1.3 0.00 1093 0.6 2.1 5.04 -1.4 0.20 695 5.7 0.20 490Wood Thrush 2 -1.8 0.00 1756 -2.2 -1.4 4.88 -4.8 0.00 1126 -3.0 0.33 839American Robin 1 0.7 0.00 3408 0.5 0.8 26.95 -1.0 0.00 2454 -2.1 0.09 1717Varied Thrush 2 -0.2 0.59 197 -1.0 0.6 6.11 -5.0 0.02 109 -2.7 0.63 79Wrentit 1 -1.1 0.23 139 -3.0 0.7 6.04 -1.0 0.54 80 -4.6 0.34 61Gray Catbird 2 -0.1 0.40 2220 -0.4 0.2 2.63 0.8 0.14 1449 10.9 0.00 1072Northern Mockingbird 2 -0.6 0.00 2054 -0.8 -0.4 17.25 1.8 0.00 1312 0.0 0.99 1009Sage Thrasher 1 -0.8 0.07 319 -1.6 0.1 8.55 -5.3 0.00 175 7.3 0.21 122Brown Thrasher 1 -1.2 0.00 2262 -1.5 -0.9 3.03 -1.1 0.12 1387 9.0 0.01 1039Long-billed Thrasher 3 12.9 0.00 25 6.6 19.1 0.50 13.8 0.31 13 55.4 0.45 11Bendire's Thrasher 2 -5.2 0.03 43 -9.8 -0.6 0.37 -5.4 0.63 13 8.3 0.70 11Curve-billed Thrasher 2 -1.5 0.20 143 -3.7 0.8 1.54 0.6 0.80 76 17.8 0.37 56California Thrasher 1 -2.7 0.06 76 -5.5 0.1 1.56 -1.5 0.74 28 -11.9 0.41 22Crissal Thrasher 2 1.6 0.58 47 -3.9 7.0 0.26 -3.9 0.51 22 -46.3 0.04 14Le Conte's Thrasher 2 -0.2 0.92 38 -4.4 4.0 0.71 -10.3 0.01 9 12.4 0.75 6European Starling 1 -0.9 0.00 3460 -1.2 -0.7 30.29 -1.3 0.07 2306 9.3 0.02 1615Sprague's Pipit 1 -4.8 0.00 144 -6.5 -3.0 1.78 -3.3 0.37 60 21.2 0.28 57Cedar Waxwing 1 1.1 0.00 1974 0.6 1.6 3.83 -0.4 0.66 1331 -13.3 0.00 928Phainopepla 1 0.1 0.91 120 -2.0 2.3 1.63 -13.0 0.07 47 27.4 0.38 39Blue-winged Warbler 2 -0.6 0.23 467 -1.6 0.4 0.47 0.3 0.91 186 17.0 0.18 168Golden-winged Warbler 2 -2.4 0.00 269 -3.9 -0.9 0.39 11.2 0.04 63 -22.5 0.08 63Tennessee Warbler 2 0.1 0.96 312 -4.6 4.8 5.00 -0.5 0.91 106 -30.9 0.00 62Orange-crowned Warbler 1 -1.2 0.00 464 -2.0 -0.4 2.64 1.7 0.27 277 -1.0 0.88 229Nashville Warbler 1 1.6 0.13 789 -0.5 3.7 6.90 1.2 0.31 435 -2.5 0.50 312Virginia's Warbler 1 -1.0 0.28 90 -2.7 0.8 1.42 -3.3 0.26 68 9.8 0.38 53Lucy's Warbler 1 -0.5 0.59 41 -2.2 1.3 5.14 5.4 0.17 21 17.6 0.49 17Northern Parula 1 0.9 0.01 1092 0.2 1.5 1.39 -2.0 0.06 676 7.2 0.06 524Yellow Warbler 1 0.4 0.00 2536 0.1 0.7 4.33 1.0 0.08 1522 -0.8 0.71 1119Chestnut-sided Warbler 2 -0.6 0.08 871 -1.2 0.1 6.53 1.6 0.20 511 0.2 0.97 385Magnolia Warbler 1 1.5 0.00 574 0.6 2.5 5.90 1.9 0.24 330 13.2 0.17 235Cape May Warbler 2 0.6 0.61 194 -1.6 2.8 0.86 -11.4 0.04 54 -26.8 0.06 52Black-throated Blue Warbler 2 0.8 0.40 438 -1.1 2.6 1.02 1.0 0.74 229 2.6 0.75 163Yellow-rumped Warbler 1 0.4 0.14 1182 -0.1 1.0 6.11 0.0 0.96 774 -5.1 0.10 550Black-throated Gray Warbler 1 0.3 0.77 249 -1.5 2.0 1.44 0.1 0.93 154 -4.4 0.48 126Black-throated Green Warbler 1 -0.2 0.88 687 -2.2 1.9 2.82 -0.3 0.83 428 -6.4 0.15 305Townsend's Warbler 2 0.6 0.35 199 -0.7 1.9 5.79 1.4 0.61 119 -4.9 0.53 89Hermit Warbler 1 0.1 0.96 120 -2.3 2.4 5.73 1.7 0.23 84 3.0 0.67 69Blackburnian Warbler 1 1.0 0.03 529 0.1 1.8 1.31 1.7 0.33 268 5.0 0.51 185Yellow-throated Warbler 2 0.8 0.10 478 -0.1 1.8 0.66 3.3 0.04 228 18.6 0.01 213Grace's Warbler 2 -2.4 0.14 39 -5.5 0.7 1.56 2.9 0.48 27 21.0 0.26 20Pine Warbler 1 1.0 0.00 921 0.4 1.5 3.38 -5.2 0.00 607 -9.4 0.00 480Prairie Warbler 2 -2.0 0.00 825 -2.8 -1.3 1.87 -2.7 0.04 426 4.8 0.32 326Palm Warbler 2 3.9 0.00 68 1.5 6.2 0.11 -9.1 0.01 36 -45.7 0.00 25Bay-breasted Warbler 2 -2.4 0.15 197 -5.7 0.8 1.80 5.2 0.42 72 19.7 0.32 39Blackpoll Warbler 3 -2.6 0.60 76 -12.1 6.9 3.06 12.4 0.23 25 -5.2 0.80 14Cerulean Warbler 2 -4.2 0.00 236 -5.6 -2.9 0.31 9.8 0.01 72 42.9 0.06 70Black-and-white Warbler 1 -0.3 0.39 1178 -0.9 0.4 1.68 -3.0 0.05 654 3.2 0.48 487American Redstart 1 -0.5 0.27 1331 -1.5 0.4 3.05 -2.8 0.01 754 -1.5 0.76 552
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
KEITH L. PARDIECK AND JOHN R. SAUER
[44]
Prothonotary Warbler 2 -1.5 0.03 454 -2.7 -0.2 0.95 1.7 0.37 211 -0.3 0.97 180Worm-eating Warbler 2 0.5 0.45 375 -0.7 1.7 0.34 3.2 0.33 174 -6.2 0.58 152Swainson's Warbler 3 9.3 0.03 124 0.9 17.7 0.13 8.0 0.14 50 1.9 0.91 43Ovenbird 2 0.5 0.00 1438 0.2 0.9 6.89 1.8 0.00 931 1.4 0.49 679Northern Waterthrush 1 -0.1 0.90 602 -1.0 0.9 1.56 0.3 0.87 268 9.7 0.17 212Louisiana Waterthrush 2 0.8 0.04 559 0.0 1.6 0.24 4.0 0.18 213 4.1 0.68 198Kentucky Warbler 1 -1.0 0.00 728 -1.7 -0.3 1.33 -0.4 0.80 362 1.6 0.83 293Connecticut Warbler 2 -1.2 0.24 96 -3.1 0.8 0.42 6.1 0.11 34 79.4 0.09 23Mourning Warbler 2 -1.1 0.00 566 -1.8 -0.4 4.22 0.8 0.66 281 -10.1 0.04 219MacGillivray's Warbler 1 -0.5 0.32 456 -1.4 0.5 4.03 -2.6 0.08 305 -9.5 0.02 232Common Yellowthroat 2 -0.3 0.04 2912 -0.6 0.0 7.36 -2.1 0.00 1998 1.0 0.52 1437Hooded Warbler 1 0.8 0.37 655 -0.9 2.4 1.72 3.4 0.01 386 9.2 0.09 323Wilson's Warbler 1 -1.4 0.00 528 -2.4 -0.4 1.55 -6.1 0.01 232 -1.1 0.86 190Canada Warbler 2 -2.0 0.03 495 -3.8 -0.2 0.89 -3.0 0.41 169 12.5 0.25 126Yellow-breasted Chat 2 0.0 0.98 1376 -0.5 0.5 3.27 0.8 0.21 793 9.9 0.00 603Hepatic Tanager 2 4.3 0.14 32 -1.2 9.8 0.66 -7.3 0.15 24 57.9 0.35 19Summer Tanager 1 0.4 0.28 898 -0.3 1.1 2.75 1.7 0.08 565 -3.0 0.43 457Scarlet Tanager 2 -0.2 0.41 1313 -0.6 0.2 1.37 -0.9 0.38 746 -1.9 0.62 579Western Tanager 2 0.9 0.04 669 0.0 1.7 4.31 2.3 0.02 456 3.6 0.30 350Olive Sparrow 2 2.0 0.06 27 0.1 4.0 1.72 0.6 0.91 18 -14.4 0.25 14Green-tailed Towhee 1 -0.4 0.43 312 -1.3 0.6 3.19 -2.2 0.11 210 -0.4 0.95 153Spotted Towhee 1 0.3 0.30 698 -0.3 1.0 4.14 -2.2 0.01 447 -6.2 0.05 347Eastern Towhee 2 -1.8 0.00 1659 -2.1 -1.4 7.28 -1.1 0.08 1042 -3.3 0.10 784Canyon Towhee 1 -1.5 0.04 108 -3.0 -0.1 1.61 -7.1 0.01 61 -9.9 0.39 51California Towhee 1 -0.2 0.67 123 -1.4 0.9 6.64 -2.5 0.15 62 9.8 0.25 48Abert's Towhee 2 -1.1 0.42 25 -3.7 1.5 0.99 -4.1 0.59 14 50.9 0.49 13Cassin's Sparrow 1 -2.2 0.00 240 -3.0 -1.4 14.51 -6.0 0.00 141 18.1 0.09 100Bachman's Sparrow 2 -2.3 0.12 159 -5.2 0.6 0.59 -9.2 0.00 53 -17.9 0.11 50Rufous-crowned Sparrow 2 -0.7 0.54 116 -3.0 1.6 0.91 -3.0 0.42 57 23.6 0.14 45Chipping Sparrow 2 -0.2 0.27 2901 -0.4 0.1 7.87 -0.6 0.18 2010 1.1 0.54 1445Clay-colored Sparrow 2 -1.2 0.00 502 -1.7 -0.6 7.58 -1.1 0.24 310 3.8 0.37 228Brewer's Sparrow 1 -2.8 0.00 481 -3.9 -1.6 7.91 -4.0 0.00 298 16.9 0.02 211Field Sparrow 2 -3.1 0.00 1757 -3.4 -2.8 4.82 -3.6 0.00 1093 -3.3 0.18 820Black-chinned Sparrow 2 -5.1 0.01 56 -8.6 -1.6 0.77 -22.8 0.00 21 -0.4 0.99 13Vesper Sparrow 1 -1.1 0.00 1658 -1.6 -0.6 8.04 -0.9 0.23 865 3.7 0.18 630Lark Sparrow 2 -2.9 0.00 1098 -3.8 -1.9 3.97 3.8 0.00 597 4.6 0.34 460Black-throated Sparrow 1 -4.2 0.00 311 -6.6 -1.9 11.50 -8.3 0.00 166 -11.0 0.09 118Sage Sparrow 2 0.1 0.97 227 -3.2 3.3 5.45 -7.0 0.01 107 5.9 0.53 87Lark Bunting 1 -1.3 0.01 367 -2.2 -0.3 33.64 -1.4 0.63 186 72.8 0.00 120Savannah Sparrow 2 -0.8 0.00 1672 -1.2 -0.4 8.23 -4.1 0.00 1032 -0.1 0.95 740Grasshopper Sparrow 1 -3.9 0.00 1574 -4.8 -2.9 3.94 -5.7 0.00 740 10.4 0.11 576Baird's Sparrow 1 -3.5 0.00 135 -5.8 -1.2 1.74 -12.8 0.02 52 7.3 0.56 40Henslow's Sparrow 2 -8.6 0.00 170 -12.6 -4.6 0.14 -8.5 0.00 39 26.8 0.31 47Le Conte's Sparrow 2 -0.1 0.95 195 -1.7 1.6 0.67 -17.2 0.00 108 45.1 0.06 71Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow 2 2.7 0.25 80 -1.9 7.3 0.15 -7.4 0.13 39 2.0 0.94 34Seaside Sparrow 2 -0.1 0.89 29 -1.4 1.2 0.38 -4.2 0.33 12 -2.7 0.78 13Fox Sparrow 1 0.8 0.42 229 -1.2 2.9 2.14 -3.3 0.11 137 -6.6 0.44 107
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 1999-2003
[45]
Song Sparrow 2 -0.6 0.00 2618 -0.8 -0.4 11.05 -1.4 0.00 1822 -1.8 0.17 1274Lincoln's Sparrow 2 1.8 0.05 479 0.0 3.6 2.44 -1.9 0.24 249 7.8 0.31 173Swamp Sparrow 1 1.5 0.00 810 0.6 2.3 1.44 0.5 0.71 432 10.6 0.12 312White-throated Sparrow 1 -0.7 0.00 724 -1.1 -0.3 31.59 -1.7 0.11 428 5.5 0.04 272White-crowned Sparrow 1 -1.3 0.06 315 -2.7 0.1 2.05 0.2 0.93 191 10.0 0.22 139Dark-eyed Junco 1 -1.5 0.00 1131 -2.0 -0.9 7.50 -4.4 0.00 704 0.1 0.98 498McCown's Longspur 2 -2.6 0.23 69 -6.9 1.6 3.76 -10.1 0.00 29 -20.7 0.20 26Chestnut-collared Longspur 2 -2.6 0.00 154 -3.9 -1.3 9.20 -9.6 0.00 69 19.1 0.07 53Northern Cardinal 2 0.1 0.23 2030 -0.1 0.3 22.29 1.9 0.00 1508 -2.4 0.04 1105Pyrrhuloxia 1 -2.0 0.06 97 -4.0 0.0 6.09 -3.5 0.28 60 -13.4 0.15 40Rose-breasted Grosbeak 2 -0.7 0.02 1288 -1.3 -0.1 2.27 0.5 0.64 763 9.4 0.07 593Black-headed Grosbeak 2 0.7 0.20 669 -0.4 1.9 2.17 -0.4 0.68 431 7.8 0.07 331Blue Grosbeak 2 1.0 0.00 1232 0.4 1.6 2.68 1.8 0.02 781 -0.9 0.81 599Lazuli Bunting 2 0.6 0.35 484 -0.7 1.8 1.16 -1.0 0.58 282 2.0 0.73 221Indigo Bunting 2 -0.6 0.00 2030 -0.8 -0.4 11.76 -0.5 0.18 1411 0.8 0.57 1038Painted Bunting 1 -2.0 0.00 346 -3.1 -0.9 5.72 6.6 0.00 211 10.9 0.03 165Dickcissel 2 -1.2 0.00 922 -1.8 -0.6 15.69 2.5 0.03 575 12.2 0.02 420Bobolink 2 -1.7 0.00 1232 -2.2 -1.1 5.01 -0.3 0.74 712 1.7 0.65 538Red-winged Blackbird 2 -1.0 0.00 3581 -1.3 -0.7 52.75 -0.7 0.13 2493 0.4 0.88 1753Tricolored Blackbird 2 0.4 0.89 50 -5.4 6.2 28.69 9.3 0.37 13 -24.4 0.93 11Eastern Meadowlark 2 -2.9 0.00 2110 -3.3 -2.5 18.49 -2.2 0.00 1362 0.1 0.96 1004Western Meadowlark 1 -0.9 0.00 1634 -1.3 -0.5 43.37 -3.0 0.00 963 9.4 0.00 665Yellow-headed Blackbird 2 1.1 0.09 672 -0.2 2.5 9.55 -7.0 0.00 341 26.2 0.03 256Rusty Blackbird 3 -9.9 0.02 96 -17.9 -1.9 0.27 31.5 0.01 9 130.0 0.33 6Brewer's Blackbird 1 -1.3 0.00 1235 -1.9 -0.7 15.77 -1.1 0.28 776 10.1 0.02 529Common Grackle 1 -1.2 0.00 2765 -1.6 -0.8 31.07 1.5 0.03 1919 0.2 0.94 1351Boat-tailed Grackle 1 2.3 0.00 118 0.7 3.8 18.29 -3.8 0.26 71 -0.9 0.95 60Great-tailed Grackle 1 2.7 0.10 283 -0.6 5.9 7.30 -2.5 0.50 157 8.3 0.58 130Bronzed Cowbird 2 -0.3 0.89 70 -4.2 3.6 1.81 -9.7 0.24 33 0.1 1.00 27Brown-headed Cowbird 2 -1.2 0.00 3659 -1.4 -0.9 12.74 -1.2 0.05 2469 6.1 0.01 1752Orchard Oriole 2 -0.8 0.04 1498 -1.6 0.0 2.70 2.3 0.02 872 5.8 0.09 700Hooded Oriole 2 2.2 0.31 72 -2.0 6.3 0.37 12.9 0.01 26 -25.5 0.01 23Baltimore Oriole 2 -0.7 0.00 1794 -1.1 -0.4 2.73 0.3 0.77 1097 2.5 0.51 826Bullock's Oriole 1 -1.0 0.01 724 -1.7 -0.2 1.74 1.5 0.26 397 -5.8 0.25 303Scott's Oriole 1 1.1 0.26 136 -0.8 3.1 1.49 -3.8 0.10 76 -32.6 0.00 58Pine Grosbeak 2 -0.3 0.92 94 -5.1 4.6 0.18 -8.1 0.32 28 18.0 0.68 30Purple Finch 1 -1.6 0.00 960 -2.3 -0.9 2.06 0.7 0.72 484 24.1 0.01 367Cassin's Finch 1 -2.7 0.00 319 -4.3 -1.0 1.70 -10.1 0.00 165 4.5 0.70 126House Finch 1 1.5 0.05 2184 0.0 3.0 4.95 -1.7 0.05 1480 -2.3 0.43 1120Red Crossbill 1 -0.7 0.46 435 -2.4 1.1 1.91 4.5 0.28 217 20.3 0.40 160White-winged Crossbill 3 4.3 0.44 124 -6.6 15.2 1.98 -5.9 0.78 44 405.4 0.01 27Pine Siskin 1 -2.1 0.00 846 -3.2 -1.1 5.11 -8.5 0.00 421 28.7 0.12 267Lesser Goldfinch 1 -0.7 0.38 340 -2.3 0.9 1.84 1.8 0.51 180 1.6 0.84 152Lawrence's Goldfinch 2 -1.2 0.50 52 -4.6 2.3 0.60 -9.4 0.10 13 7.9 0.85 6American Goldfinch 2 0.0 0.80 2606 -0.4 0.3 5.67 -0.3 0.64 1774 1.2 0.62 1284Evening Grosbeak 1 -1.3 0.15 645 -3.0 0.4 3.93 -9.9 0.05 255 25.8 0.06 160House Sparrow 2 -2.5 0.00 3128 -2.8 -2.2 30.11 1.0 0.33 1960 6.3 0.29 1403
APPENDIX 1. Continued.
1966 - 2003 1999 - 2003 2002 - 2003––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––—––––– ––––—––––––––––
Species TQ Trend P n (95 % CI) RA Trend P n Trend P n
[46]
Bird Populations 8:46-115© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITYAND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) PROGRAM
2002 AND 2003 REPORT1
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
The Institute for Bird PopulationP.O. Box 1346
Point Reyes Station, CA 94956
Abstract. This report summarizes results of the Monitoring Avian Productivity andSurvivorship (MAPS) Program during 2002, when 505 stations were operated, and 2003,when 456 stations were operated. Changes in adult population size and productivity (i.e.,reproductive index, defined as young/adult) between 2001 and 2002 and between 2002and 2003 were derived from constant-effort data from 417 and 349 stations, respectively.Adult population sizes increased significantly in 2002 at the program-wide scale and, withvarying significance, in each of the seven MAPS regions except the Alaska/Boreal CanadaRegion. In contrast, productivity in 2002 decreased significantly at the program-wide scaleand in all regions except the Alaska/Boreal Canada and South-central regions, where ittended to increase. The patterns of changes in both adult population size and productivityin 2003 were nearly exactly reversed from those in 2002, with substantial and generallysignificant decreases in adult population size program-wide and in all regions except theAlaska/Boreal Canada and South-central regions; and a significant increase in productivityprogram-wide and increases of varying significance in five of the seven regions. Thesegenerally alternating, out-of-phase patterns in productivity and population size have beencharacteristic of MAPS data for many years and suggest density-dependent populationregulation in which (a) increased productivity in a given year leads to increasedpopulation sizes the following year through increased recruitment of young birds, and (b)the increased population sizes suppress productivity through increased competition forfood or other resources needed for reproduction. That these patterns of changes have notbeen consistent in all regions in all years suggests that density-independent factors mayalso drive changes in productivity and that other factors besides productivity (e.g.,survival of young and adult birds) also drive annual changes in adult population size. Weused modified Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) mark-recapture analyses, with ad-hoc between-and within-yr transient models, on 12 years (1992-2003) of data pooled from 550 stationsoperated for at least four consecutive years to estimate program-wide and regional annualadult apparent survival (�) and recapture probabilities and proportions of residentsamong newly captured adults for over 180 species. The mean number of stations perregion contributing data (79) and mean number of species per region for which survivalrates could be estimated (62) were 15% and 5.4% greater, respectively, than the analogousmeans (68 stations and 59 species) for the previous 10-yr (1992-2001) analyses. Theincreased number of stations and years of data resulted in continued increases in theprecision of survival estimates: the mean number of species per region with CV(�)<30%,<20%, and <10% increased by 11%, 11%, and 31%, respectively, using 12, rather than 10,years of data. As in previous years, a pattern was detected in which mean regional adultsurvival rates decreased with increasing latitude; they also were higher for the twowestern regions, lower for two eastern regions, and lowest for the two central regions. Foreach of the seven regions, survival estimates for species for which CV(�)<30% were lowerfor the 12-yr (1992-2003) than 10-yr (1992-2001) data set, continuing the pattern noted in
____________________1Received: 20 December 2007. Accepted: 15 January 2008.
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[47]
previous reports and suggesting that survival has been decreasing in each region. For allspecies pooled at the program-wide scale, we used (a) chain indices to estimate a highlysignificant 12-yr (1992-2003) decline in adult population size of -1.86% per year, and awidely fluctuating temporal pattern in productivity with a decreasing tendency of -1.02%per year; and (b) both time-dependent and linear trend CJS models to estimate a significant10-yr (1993-2002) decline in adult apparent survival of -0.83% per year. These declines invital rates will likely increase the difficulty of reversing the population declines in theselandbird species. Finally, we found a weak correlation between adult survival from year tto year t+1 and productivity in year t+1, a pattern indicating that some of the same factorsdriving annual variations in survival might also drive annual variations in productivity,and that these factors may act during the non-breeding season. This is consistent withprevious results from MAPS showing that annual variations in productivity of Neotropicalmigratory species breeding in the Pacific Northwest were driven by late-winter/early-spring weather conditions on their wintering grounds.
Key words: constant-effort mist netting and banding; landbird demographics; MAPSProgram; population trends; productivity indices; survival rates.
INFORME SOBRE EL PROGRAMA MONITOREO DE PRODUCTIVIDAD YSOBREVIVENCIA DE AVES (MAPS) EN 2002 Y 2003
Resumen. Este informe resume los resultados del programa MAPS durante los años 2002-2003, en los que MAPS alcanzó las 505 estaciones en 2002 y 456 en 2003. Obtuvimos loscambios poblacionales en adultos y productividad (es decir, índice de productividad,definido como la proporción de juveniles a adultos) entre 2001 y 2002 y entre 2002 y 2003, apartir de datos de esfuerzo constante de 417 y 349 estaciones respectivamente. Lostamaños poblacionales de adultos aumentaron significativamente en 2002 a escala delprograma completo y, con significatividad variable, en cada una de las siete regionesMAPS exceptuando la región Alaska/Canadá boreal. En cambio, la productividad en 2003descendió significativamente a la escala del programa completo y en todas las regionesexcepto en las regiones de Alaska/Canadá boreal y Centro-sur, donde tendió a aumentar.Los patrones de cambio tanto en tamaño poblacional adulto y productividad en 2003fueron casi exactamente opuestos a los de 2002, con descensos marcados y en generalsignificativos en tamaño poblacional de adultos en todo el programa y en todas lasregiones excepto Alaska/Canadá boreal y Centro-sur; un aumento significativo enproductividad fue detectado a nivel del programa completo y aumentos designificatividad variable en cinco de las siete regiones. Estos patrones generalmentealternantes y desfasados en productividad y tamaño poblacional han sido característicosen los datos de MAPS durante muchos años y sugieren una regulación poblacionaldensodependiente en la que (a) el aumento de productividad en un año lleva a unaumento poblacional al año siguiente debido al reclutamiento de jóvenes, y (b) el aumentopoblacional reduce la productividad debido al aumento de la competición por alimento yotros recursos necesarios para la reproducción. El hecho de que estos patrones no hayansido constantes entre regiones y entre años sugiere que factores densoindependientespueden también causar cambios en productividad y que otros factores aparte deproductividad (por ejemplo sobrevivencia de juveniles y adultos) pueden hacer variar loscambios anuales en tamaño poblacional de adultos. Utilizamos análisis de marcaje yrecaptura modificados de Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS), con modelos transitivos ad-hoc, entreaños y por año, en 12 años (1992-2003) de datos recabados de 550 estaciones que operaronal menos cuatro años consecutivos para estimar la sobrevivencia aparente (�) de adultos anivel del programa completo y a nivel regional, y probabilidades de recaptura yproporciones de residetes entre nuevos adultos capturados. El número promedio deestaciones por región que contribuyó datos (79) y el número de especies por región para lasque se pudo calcular tasas de sobrevivencia (62) fueron 15% y 5.4% mayores,respectivamente, que los promedios análogos (68 estaciones y 50 especies) en los 10 añosanteriores (1992-2001). El aumento de estaciones y años de datos resultaron en aumentos
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[48]
INTRODUCTIONThe Monitoring Avian Productivity and Sur-vivorship (MAPS) Program is a continent-wide,cooperative network of nearly 500 constant-effortmist-netting stations operated annually duringthe breeding season (May to August) (DeSante etal. 1995, DeSante and Kaschube 2006). MAPSwas patterned to some extent after the BritishConstant Effort Sites scheme (Baillie et al. 1986,Peach et al. 1996, 1998) and was established byThe Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) in 1989 tocollect long-term data on the vital rates (primarydemographic parameters such as productivityand survivorship) of North American landbirdsat multiple spatial scales ranging from station-specific and local-landscape to program-wide.MAPS now provides productivity indices fromyoung/adult ratios of captured birds, andestimates of adult apparent survival,recruitment, and population growth rates fromCormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) analyses of capture-mark-recapture data on adult birds for over 180landbird species.
The research goals of MAPS are to describetemporal and spatial patterns in these vital rates,and relationships between these patterns and (a)ecological characteristics and population trendsof species, (b) station-specific and landscape-scale habitat characteristics, and (c) spatially-explicit weather variables. The managementgoals of MAPS are to use these patterns andrelationships to (a) determine the proximatedemographic cause(s) of population change, (b)formulate management actions and conservationstrategies to reverse population declines andmaintain stable or increasing populations, and (c)evaluate the effectiveness of the managementactions and conservation strategies implemented.
Baillie (1990) was among the first to argue thatmonitoring vital rates must be a component ofany successful integrated avian populationmonitoring scheme. DeSante (1995), DeSante andRosenberg (1998), and DeSante et al. (2005)extended these ideas by arguing that effectiveavian management also must be based on vitalrates as well as population sizes and trends. Thereasons for this are manifold. First, abundance
continuados en la precisión de las estimas de sobrevivencia: el número promedio deespecies por región con CV(�) <30%, <20%, y <10% aumentaron un 11%, 11% y 31%respectivamente, utilizando 12 en lugar de 10 años de datos. Como en años anteriores,detectamos un descenso de las tasas de sobrevivencia de adultos con el aumento de lalatitud; también fueron más altas para las dos regiones del oeste, más bajas para dosregiones del este, y las más bajas se registraron en las dos regiones centrales. Para cada unade las siete regiones, las estimas de sobrevivencia por especie para las que CV(�)<30%fueron más bajas en el periodo de 12 años (1992-2003) que en el de 10 años (1992-2001),continuando el patrón ya documentado en informes anteriores y sugiriendo que lasobrevivencia ha descendido en cada región. Para todas las especies agrupadas a escala delprograma completo, utilizamos (a) índices en cadena para estimar un declive en tamañopoblacional adulto de -1.85% por año en 12 años (1992-2003) altamente significativo, y unpatrón temporal de productividad ampliamente fluctuante con tendencia al descenso del -1.02% por año; y (b) modelos de CJS de tendencias tempodependientes y lineales paraestimar el declive de 12 años en sobrevivencia aparente de adultos de -0.83% por año.Estos declives en tasas vitales aumentarán seguramente la dificultad de invertir losdeclives poblacionales en estas especies de aves terrestres. Por último, encontramos unacorrelación débil entre sobrevivencia entre los años t y t+1, y productividad en el año t+1,un patrón que indica que algunos de los mismos factores causantes de la variación anualen sobrevivencia podrían también influenciar la variación en productividad, y que estosfactores podrían actuar durante la temporada no reproductiva. Esto es consecuente conresultados previos de MAPS, que muestran que la variación anual en productividad de lasespecies migratorias neárticas-neotropicales que crían en el Noroeste Pacífico se deben alas condiciones meteorológicas de finales de invierno y principios de primavera en lasáreas de invernada.
Palabras clave: programa MAPS, redeo y anillamiento de esfuerzo constante, demografíade aves terrestres, tendencias poblacionales, indices de productividad, tasas desobrevivencia.
metrics and the trends derived from them maynot accurately reflect habitat quality (Van Horne1983) because of source-sink dynamics (Pulliam1988, Donovan et al. 1995) and evolutionary andecological traps (Schlaepfer et al. 2002). Second,populations of migratory species could belimited by processes acting at times other thanthose when abundance is measured, thus furtherobscuring the link between abundance andhabitat quality (Marra et al. 1998). Third andclosely related, vital rates provide crucialinformation about the stage of the life cycle atwhich population change is being effected(DeSante 1992). This information is particularlyimportant for migratory birds because it cansuggest whether management actions should bedirected toward a species' breeding grounds,wintering grounds, or both. Fourth, environ-mental stressors and management actions affectvital rates directly and usually without the timelags that often occur with population size(Temple and Wiens 1989, DeSante and George1994). And finally, demographic rate estimatescan be incorporated into predictive populationmodels to assess potential effects of a variety ofland use or climate factors (Noon and Sauer1992). Thus, demographic monitoring not onlycomplements abundance monitoring, but alsohas the potential to provide more timely andinsightful information for management andconservation applications.
In this report we present results of the MAPSProgram during 2002 and 2003 using data from497 and 444 stations, respectively. For all specieswith adequate data (and for all species pooled),we compare, in a constant-effort manner, theprogram-wide and regional indices of adultpopulation size and post-fledging productivityobtained during each of these two years withthe analogous indices obtained during theimmediately preceding year. Then, using datafrom 550 stations each operated for four or moreconsecutive years during the 12-yr period 1992-2003, we present program-wide and regionalestimates of time-constant annual adultapparent survival probability, recaptureprobability, and proportion of residents amongnewly captured adults, along with estimates ofthe extent of time-dependence in theseparameters. Finally, for all species pooled at theprogram-wide scale, we use chain indices toestimate 12-yr trends in adult population size
and productivity, and both time-dependent andlinear-trend CJS models to estimate a 10-yr trendin adult survival rate..
METHODSThe overall design of the MAPS Program and thegeneral field methods are described in DeSanteet al. (1996, 1998) and discussed in DeSante et al.(2004). Detailed, standardized methods andinstructions for the establishment and operationof MAPS stations are provided by DeSante et al.(2007). Briefly, MAPS stations were established in20-ha study areas at locations where long-termmist netting was practical and permissible. Ingeneral, the locations of MAPS stations werechosen by the station operators (often accordingto a hypothesis-driven strategy) and not by aprobability-based sampling design, althoughelements of a random sampling strategy weresometimes employed. Operators generallyadhered to MAPS site-selection criteria (DeSanteet al. 2007), but some aspects of site selectionwere dictated by logistical concerns.
DATA COLLECTION
Normally, 10 permanent net sites weredistributed rather uniformly throughout thecentral eight ha of each 20-ha study area, butwere placed at specific locations where birdscould be captured most efficiently. One mist net(typically 12-m length, 30-mm mesh) was erectedat each net site and the type and location of allnets were kept constant for the duration of thestudy. Typically, nets were operated for six hoursper day, beginning at local sunrise, for one dayper 10-d period, and for six to 10 consecutive 10-d periods beginning between May 1 and June 10(later at more northerly latitudes and higheraltitudes) and continuing through August 8. Tofacilitate constant-effort comparisons of data,nets were opened, checked, and closed in thesame order on all days of operation.
Each bird captured was marked with auniquely-numbered aluminum leg bandprovided by the Biological Resources Division ofthe U.S. Geological Survey or the CanadianWildlife Service. Band number, capture status,species, age, sex, ageing and sexing criteria (skullpneumaticization, breeding condition, featherwear, molt, molt limits, plumage characteristics),physical condition (mass, wing chord, fat
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[49]
content) date, time, station, and net number wererecorded for all birds captured, includingrecaptures. The times of opening and closing thenets and beginning each net run were recordedeach day so that effort could be calculated foreach 10-d period and standardized betweenyears. The breeding (summer residency) status ofeach species recorded at the station wasdetermined by the station operator usingmethods similar to those employed in breedingbird atlas projects.
DATA ENTRY AND VERIFICATION
Computer data entry and proofing wereconducted by MAPS operators or, in those caseswhere operators were unable to enter their owndata, by John W. Shipman of Zoological DataProcessing, Socorro, NM (entry) and by IBP staffbiologists (proofing). After computer entry andproofing, MAPS data were run through verifi-cation routines that: (1) checked the validity andranges of all data; (2) screened each bandingrecord by comparing the species, age, and sexdeterminations to the ageing and sexing criteriaused; (3) screened banding data for inconsistentspecies, age, or sex determinations for all recordsof each band number; and (4) screened banding,effort, and breeding status data for inconsis-tencies. These verification routines were con-ducted by IBP biologists or, increasingly in recentyears, by the MAPS operators themselvesthrough the use of MAPSPROG, a user-friendlyVisual dBASE data entry/import, verification/editing, and error-tracking program thatoperates on a Windows platform (Froehlich et al.2006).
DATA ANALYSES
Methods of data analysis have been described inDeSante and Burton (1994), DeSante et al. (1998),and DeSante and O’Grady (2000); discussed inDeSante et al. (2004); and are briefly sum-marized here. We divided North America northof Mexico into eight major geographic regionsbased on biogeographical and meteorologicalconsiderations and delineated along linesconsistent with physiographic strata establishedin conjunction with the North AmericanBreeding Bird Survey (BBS; Robbins et al. 1986).These eight MAPS regions are Northwest,Southwest, North-central, South-central,Northeast, Southeast, Alaska, and Boreal
Canada (see maps in DeSante et al. 1993a andDeSante and Burton 1994). Because of the smallnumber of station in the two northernmostregions, we pooled data from them into a singleAlaska/Boreal Canada region.
Throughout, we use an alpha level of P < 0.05to indicate statistical significance, and P < 0.01 toindicate highly significant differences orrelationships. In Tables 1-2, we also identifyspecies for which between-year differences werenearly significant at 0.05 < P < 0.10.
1. Population Size and Productivity Indices —The numbers of individual adult birds of eachspecies captured each year, pooled over allstations within each region (and over allregions) that were located within the breedingrange of the species, were used as annualregional (or program-wide) indices of adultpopulation size for the species. Similarly, foreach species in each region (and over allregions), the pooled numbers of individualyoung birds divided by the pooled numbers ofindividual adult birds (“reproductive indices”),were used as annual regional (or program-wide)indices of post-fledging productivity.Reproductive index (young/adult) is moreconsistent with other commonly-used measuresof reproductive success than “productivityindex,” which is defined as the proportion ofyoung in the catch [young/(young+adult)] andwas used in earlier MAPS reports. Data from agiven station in a given year were included inpopulation size and productivity analyses if thestation was operated for at least five periods thatyear, of which at least three periods occurredduring the earlier and at least two during thelater parts of the season [adult and youngsuperperiods, respectively; see DeSante et al.(2007) for definitions].
Year-to-year changes in the numbers of adultand young birds were calculated using net-opening and -closing times and net-run times ona net-by-net and period-by-period basis toexclude captures that occurred in a given net in agiven period in one year at a time when that netwas not operated in that period in the other year.This allowed captures during the two years to becompared in a rigorous, constant-effort manner.The statistical significance of annual changes inthe regional (or program-wide) indices of adultpopulation size and productivity were inferredfor each species from confidence intervals
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[50]
calculated from the standard errors of the meanpercentage changes. Changes were consideredsignificant if confidence intervals did not includezero. Formulae for these standard errors andconfidence intervals were given in Peach et al.(1996) and were derived from those given inCochran (1977). We also inferred, by means ofbinomial tests, the statistical significance ofregional (or program-wide) changes in adultpopulation size and productivity indices fromthe proportion of target species that increased ordecreased in each region. We included species inthese regional population size and productivityanalyses for which adults were captured at twoor more stations in the region and for which atleast 50 aged individuals were captured at allstations pooled in either of the two years beingcompared.
We estimated 12-yr (1992-2003) trends for theindices of adult population size and productivityfor all species pooled at the program-wide scaleby “chaining” the 11 constant-effort (as definedabove) year-to-year changes in these annualindices and calculating the slope of theregression of the “chain” indices. For the trend inadult population size, we used an arbitrarystarting index of 100 in 1992 and calculated chainindices in each subsequent year by firstmultiplying the proportional change between thetwo years times the index of the previous yearand then adding that amount to the index of theprevious year. Trends in productivity werecalculated in an analogous manner, except thatwe started with the actual reproductive index in1992 (0.702) and chained the annual proportionalchanges in the reproductive index over the 12years.
2. Survival Rate Estimates — We calculatedmaximum-likelihood estimates and standarderrors for annual adult apparent survivalprobabilities (�) and recapture probabilities (p)for all species in each region for which adequatedata were obtained. These survival estimates aretermed apparent survival because permanentemigration from the station is not distinguish-able from actual mortality. We used Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) capture-mark-recaptureanalyses (Clobert et al. 1987, Pollock et al. 1990,Lebreton et al. 1992) that incorporated abetween-year transient model (Pradel 1997), aswell as an ad-hoc length-of-stay within-yeartransient model (Nott and DeSante 2002, Hines
et al. 2003). These transient models also permitestimation of τ (the proportion of residentsamong those newly captured adults that werenot recaptured seven or more days later duringtheir first year of capture), and provide apparentsurvival rate estimates that are unbiased withrespect to transient individuals (Pradel 1997,Hines et al. 2003).
Parameter estimates were calculated from thecapture histories of all adult birds captured at allstations in the region at which the species was ausual breeder (i.e., attempted to breed duringmore than half of the years the station wasoperated). Data from a given station wereincluded in survivorship analyses if the stationwas operated for at least four consecutive yearsduring the 12-yr period 1992-2003, and wasoperated during each of those four or more yearsfor at least three periods during the adultsuperperiod (see above). Stations within 1 km ofeach other were merged into a single “super-station” and data from those stations werepooled prior to creating capture histories ofindividual birds. This prevented individualswhose home range encompassed parts of bothstations from being treated as two differentindividuals. We included species in thesesurvivorship analyses for which an average of atleast 2.5 individual adult birds were capturedduring each of the 12 years 1992-2003 (at least 30year-unique individuals) from all stationspooled, and for which there were at least tworeturns (between-year recaptures) from allstations pooled. We considered survivalprobability to be “better estimated” for speciesfor which: (1) � was based on at least five returnsover the 10 years; (2) τ (the estimate of theproportion of residents among those newlycaptured adults that were not recaptured sevenor more days later during their first year ofcapture) was <1.00; (3) SE(�)<0.20; and (4)CV(�)<30%.
We modeled all eight combinations of time-dependence (and -independence) for each of thethree parameters (survival probability - �,recapture probability - p, proportion of residents- τ) contained in the transient model usingTMSURVIV (Hines et al. 2003), a version of thecomputer program SURVIV (White 1983)modified by J. E. Hines. We used the AkaikeInformation Criterion (QAICC) to selectappropriate models for each species such that the
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[51]
selected model was the one with the lowestQAICC (Burnham and Anderson 1992). Weconsidered models having QAICC values withintwo QAICC units of each other to be equivalentmodels. QAICC was calculated as:
-2(log-likelihood) +2(number of estimableparameters)
with corrections for small sample sizes andoverdispersion of data.
We further estimated the relative likelihood ofeach of the eight models using QAICC weights(wi; Burnham and Anderson 1998). Statisticalsupport for time-dependence in survival andrecapture probabilities and in proportion ofresidents was assessed by summing the wi for allmodels in which time-dependence in theparameter of interest occurred. This method ofmulti-model inference enabled us to use theentire set of eight models to judge theimportance of time-dependence, rather thanbasing conclusions on a single best-fit model. Awi value > 0.5 indicates strong support for time-dependence in the given parameter, while 0.50 ≥wi > 0.25 suggests some support for time-dependence in that parameter.
Finally, in order to gain additional insight intothe issues of time-dependence and temporaltrend in survival, we used the ad-hoc transientmodel in Program MARK (White and Burnham1999) to model program-wide survival (�) andrecapture (p) probabilities for all species pooled as(a) time-constant, (b) time-dependent, and (c) asa linear function of time. We again used QAICC
(Burnham and Anderson 1992) and QAICC
weights (wi; Burnham and Anderson 1998) toselect among the nine possible models.
RESULTS
NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF STATIONS
A total of 505 MAPS stations was operatedduring 2002, a 1.4% increase over the 498operated during 2001. Of these, 50 (9.9%) werenew in 2002 while 450 were operated during2001 and five were not operated during 2001 butwere operated during several years prior to 2001.A total of 90.4% of the stations in operation in2001 continued to be operated in 2002. Wereceived data useable for productivity and/orsurvivorship analyses in time to be included inthis report from 497 of the 505 stations that were
operated during 2002. A total of 456 MAPSstations was operated during 2003, 49 (9.7%)fewer than were operated during 2002. Of these,52 (11.4%) were new in 2003 while 400 were inoperation during a previous year. A total of only79.2% of the stations in operation during 2002continued to be operated during 2003. Wereceived data useable for productivity and/orsurvivorship analysis in time to be included inthis report from 444 of the 456 stations that wereoperated during 2003. The principal operator,sponsoring organization, location, elevation, andhabitat(s) for each station newly established in2002 or 2003 (or that was established prior to2002 but not previously reported) are presentedin the Appendix. See previous annual reports(DeSante et al. 1993b, 1996, 1998, DeSante andBurton 1994, DeSante and Kaschube 2006, andDeSante and O’Grady 2000) for these data forstations established prior to 2002.
The proportions of stations located in each ofthe eight MAPS regions were very similarduring 2002 (Fig. 1) to analogous proportions inprevious years. The proportions during 2003(Fig. 1) were also virtually identical to thoseduring 2002 for the Boreal Canada, North-central, South-central, and Southwest regions.The proportions during 2003, however,increased somewhat compared to previousyears in the Northwest and Northeast regions(that together provided over 50% of the stationsin 2003), decreased in the Southeast Region, anddropped to zero in the Alaska Region. Thelocations of the 857 stations that were operatedfor one or more years between 1992 and 2003 aremapped in Figure 2.
ADULT POPULATION SIZE ANDPRODUCTIVITY
1. Changes between 2001 and 2002 — Constant-effort data on the numbers of adult and youngbirds captured and the reproductive index(young/adult) were obtained for 2001 and 2002from 417 MAPS stations across North Americathat were operated comparably in both years.The changes between 2001 and 2002 in thesenumbers and ratios are presented for the entirecontinent (program-wide) and for each MAPSregion in Table 1 for those species that met theproductivity selection criteria (see Methods –Data Analysis) and for all species pooled. Theseincluded 133 species program-wide, 65 species in
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[52]
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[53]
the Northwest, 37 in the Southwest, 24 in theNorth-central, 23 in the South-central, 40 in theNortheast, 30 in the Southeast, and 8 in thecombined Alaska/Boreal Canada region.
(a) Changes in adult populations — The index ofadult population size for all species pooled(number of adults captured) increased between2001 and 2002 in all regions except the
Alaska/Boreal Canada/ Region (where itdecreased by a non-significant 6.0%) by amountsranging from 1.6% (North-central) to 33.4%(Southwest). The increases for the Southwest andNorthwest were highly significant and nearlysignificant, respectively. The proportion ofincreasing species was >50% in four regions,equal to 50% in the Alaska/Boreal Canada
FIGURE 1. Proportion of MAPS stations in each of the seven major geographical regions (NW - Northwest;SW - Southwest; NC - North-central; SC - South-central; NE - Northeast; SE - Southeast; AK/BC -Alaska/Boreal Canada) during (a) 2002 and (b) 2003.
FIGURE 2. Locations of the 857 MAPS stations that were operated during one or more years between 1992 and2003. Some of the larger “individual” squares can represent as many as 11 stations.
(a) 2002 (b) 2003
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[54]
TAB
LE
1.
Prog
ram
-wid
e an
d r
egio
nal
chan
ges
betw
een
2001
and
200
2 in
the
num
bers
of
adul
t an
d y
oung
ind
ivid
uals
cap
ture
d a
nd i
n th
e re
prod
ucti
ve i
ndex
(you
ng/
adul
t) f
or 1
33 s
peci
es a
nd a
ll sp
ecie
s po
oled
(ex
clud
ing
galli
nace
ous
bird
s an
d h
umm
ingb
ird
s) a
t th
e 41
7 M
APS
sta
tion
s ru
n co
mpa
rabl
y d
urin
g bo
thye
ars.
For
eac
h sp
ecie
s, d
ata
wer
e in
clud
ed o
nly
from
sta
tion
s w
ithi
n th
e br
eed
ing
rang
e of
the
spe
cies
. Onl
y sp
ecie
s fo
r w
hich
ad
ults
wer
e ca
ptur
ed a
t tw
o or
mor
e st
atio
ns a
nd fo
r w
hich
50
or m
ore
aged
ind
ivid
uals
wer
e ca
ptur
ed in
eit
her
year
are
incl
uded
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
PRO
GR
AM
-WID
EC
omm
on G
roun
d-D
ove
1180
71-1
1.3
25.7
537
9-7
5.7
23.0
**11
0.46
30.
127
-0.3
360.
202
-72.
6R
ed-b
ellie
d W
ood
peck
er56
3961
56.4
36.7
*19
1112
9.1
40.2
620.
282
0.19
7-0
.085
0.11
6-3
0.3
Red
-nap
ed S
apsu
cker
3059
54-8
.513
.118
1816
-11.
125
.531
0.30
50.
296
-0.0
090.
102
-2.9
Red
-bre
aste
d S
apsu
cker
5712
913
43.
912
.736
8575
-11.
820
.258
0.65
90.
560
-0.0
990.
137
-15.
1N
utta
ll's
Woo
dpe
cker
2650
536.
018
.325
4736
-23.
418
.429
0.94
00.
679
-0.2
610.
228
-27.
7D
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
210
300
316
5.3
9.1
184
294
269
-8.5
8.1
253
0.98
00.
851
-0.1
290.
126
-13.
1H
airy
Woo
dpe
cker
143
107
120
12.2
15.0
6955
37-3
2.7
15.2
*17
00.
514
0.30
8-0
.206
0.10
7*
-40.
0N
orth
ern
Flic
ker
9570
8115
.719
.652
3338
15.2
30.7
117
0.47
10.
469
-0.0
020.
144
-0.5
Wes
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
9022
625
412
.410
.431
3922
-43.
615
.1**
920.
173
0.08
7-0
.086
0.04
0**
-49.
8E
aste
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee75
103
115
11.7
20.2
1111
8-2
7.3
35.7
780.
107
0.07
0-0
.037
0.05
3-3
4.9
Aca
dia
n Fl
ycat
cher
8341
538
6-7
.06.
235
2942
44.8
36.8
860.
070
0.10
90.
039
0.02
655
.7"T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er13
553
952
5-2
.68.
134
3129
-6.5
22.6
140
0.05
80.
055
-0.0
020.
016
-4.0
Lea
st F
lyca
tche
r32
8662
-27.
919
.315
207
-65.
018
.5*
330.
233
0.11
3-0
.120
0.07
3-5
1.5
Ham
mon
d's
Fly
catc
her
6513
315
415
.823
.432
4336
-16.
321
.071
0.32
30.
234
-0.0
890.
110
-27.
7D
usky
Fly
catc
her
7428
737
028
.916
.7*
2243
37-1
4.0
31.6
770.
150
0.10
0-0
.050
0.05
2-3
3.3
"Wes
tern
" Fl
ycat
cher
108
272
448
64.7
19.6
***
6913
811
9-1
3.8
13.6
118
0.50
70.
266
-0.2
420.
107
**-4
7.6
Bla
ck P
hoeb
e26
4826
-45.
813
.4**
3210
044
-56.
011
.3**
*38
2.08
31.
692
-0.3
910.
870
-18.
8E
aste
rn P
hoeb
e39
3847
23.7
25.2
3840
8210
5.0
63.3
*56
1.05
31.
745
0.69
20.
509
65.7
Ash
-thr
oate
d F
lyca
tche
r60
176
207
17.6
14.0
1214
6-5
7.1
32.5
600.
079
0.02
9-0
.051
0.03
7-6
3.6
Gre
at C
rest
ed F
lyca
tche
r59
6662
-6.1
17.4
32
1-5
0.0
75.0
600.
030
0.01
6-0
.014
0.02
7-4
6.8
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo82
436
457
4.8
9.4
6126
226
92.
711
.886
0.60
10.
589
-0.0
120.
147
-2.0
Bel
l's V
ireo
1576
74-2
.622
.512
2017
-15.
027
.316
0.26
30.
230
-0.0
330.
103
-12.
7C
assi
n's
Vir
eo44
6682
24.2
21.7
2826
273.
838
.549
0.39
40.
329
-0.0
650.
141
-16.
4H
utto
n's
Vir
eo28
2529
16.0
34.3
2227
18-3
3.3
17.8
371.
080
0.62
1-0
.459
0.41
0-4
2.5
War
blin
g V
ireo
131
541
658
21.6
10.7
**49
113
44-6
1.1
9.2
***
136
0.20
90.
067
-0.1
420.
053
***
-68.
0R
ed-e
yed
Vir
eo15
658
160
33.
87.
650
5034
-32.
017
.815
80.
086
0.05
6-0
.030
0.01
9-3
4.5
Blu
e Ja
y90
123
116
-5.7
12.8
2630
20-3
3.3
23.8
930.
244
0.17
2-0
.072
0.08
2-2
9.3
Wes
tern
Scr
ub-J
ay35
2939
34.5
33.5
2226
17-3
4.6
22.9
440.
897
0.43
6-0
.461
0.33
1-5
1.4
Tree
Sw
allo
w31
4559
31.1
33.9
53
433
.391
.333
0.06
70.
068
0.00
10.
061
1.7
Car
olin
a C
hick
adee
104
202
202
0.0
12.1
8519
316
7-1
3.5
13.2
113
0.95
50.
827
-0.1
290.
209
-13.
5B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee14
145
947
33.
18.
211
643
931
7-2
7.8
7.4
***
148
0.95
60.
670
-0.2
860.
137
**-2
9.9
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[55]
Mou
ntai
n C
hick
adee
4612
115
225
.619
.243
114
138
21.1
29.5
510.
942
0.90
8-0
.034
0.27
2-3
.6C
hest
nut-
back
ed C
hick
.58
166
172
3.6
14.8
4214
516
413
.122
.862
0.87
40.
953
0.08
00.
327
9.2
Oak
Tit
mou
se22
5249
-5.8
18.8
1860
37-3
8.3
20.7
241.
154
0.75
5-0
.399
0.40
4-3
4.6
Tuft
ed T
itm
ouse
141
348
366
5.2
7.6
134
398
363
-8.8
8.6
151
1.14
40.
992
-0.1
520.
134
-13.
3B
lack
-cre
sted
Tit
mou
se14
2831
10.7
33.1
1344
6240
.928
.0*
151.
571
2.00
00.
429
0.64
827
.3B
usht
it78
327
565
72.8
25.8
***
6531
727
9-1
2.0
17.2
830.
969
0.49
4-0
.476
0.20
8**
-49.
1R
ed-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h64
8093
16.3
21.2
4467
8526
.932
.874
0.83
80.
914
0.07
70.
364
9.1
Whi
te-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h70
6487
35.9
24.2
*49
4737
-21.
321
.295
0.73
40.
425
-0.3
090.
222
-42.
1B
row
n C
reep
er83
9589
-6.3
12.7
7096
94-2
.116
.910
11.
011
1.05
60.
046
0.22
34.
5C
arol
ina
Wre
n12
047
553
412
.47.
3*
118
440
518
17.7
10.3
*13
60.
926
0.97
00.
044
0.14
94.
7B
ewic
k's
Wre
n93
368
377
2.4
9.5
9051
235
3-3
1.1
8.8
***
100
1.39
10.
936
-0.4
550.
167
***
-32.
7H
ouse
Wre
n98
434
449
3.5
8.4
102
412
258
-37.
49.
0**
*11
90.
949
0.57
5-0
.375
0.13
7**
*-3
9.5
Win
ter
Wre
n44
134
89-3
3.6
9.3
**38
8757
-34.
517
.0**
560.
649
0.64
0-0
.009
0.29
0-1
.4G
old
en-c
row
ned
Kin
glet
5815
512
6-1
8.7
11.7
5133
422
2-3
3.5
14.4
**72
2.15
51.
762
-0.3
930.
743
-18.
2R
uby-
crow
ned
Kin
glet
3915
112
4-1
7.9
12.5
2187
62-2
8.7
15.2
410.
576
0.50
0-0
.076
0.17
6-1
3.2
Blu
e-gr
ay G
natc
atch
er60
8510
220
.016
.533
6035
-41.
715
.7*
650.
706
0.34
3-0
.363
0.16
0**
-51.
4E
aste
rn B
lueb
ird
3333
4433
.335
.421
3438
11.8
50.6
381.
030
0.86
4-0
.167
0.39
5-1
6.2
Vee
ry52
257
286
11.3
9.7
3044
35-2
0.5
18.8
530.
171
0.12
2-0
.049
0.03
6-2
8.5
Swai
nson
's T
hrus
h13
714
7716
229.
85.
9*
7730
225
7-1
4.9
10.9
140
0.20
50.
158
-0.0
460.
039
-22.
5H
erm
it T
hrus
h77
222
236
6.3
9.2
5610
210
52.
917
.887
0.46
00.
445
-0.0
150.
107
-3.2
Woo
d T
hrus
h12
070
185
922
.57.
1**
*83
197
189
-4.1
12.1
122
0.28
10.
220
-0.0
610.
044
-21.
7A
mer
ican
Rob
in24
110
6210
52-0
.94.
514
034
034
10.
310
.324
80.
320
0.32
40.
004
0.04
91.
2V
arie
d T
hrus
h29
5536
-34.
519
.820
3421
-38.
217
.535
0.61
80.
583
-0.0
350.
313
-5.6
Wre
ntit
5046
981
674
.018
.6**
*52
573
194
-66.
17.
5**
*52
1.22
20.
238
-0.9
840.
147
***
-80.
5G
ray
Cat
bird
133
1642
1645
0.2
4.8
8972
856
7-2
2.1
7.7
**14
00.
443
0.34
5-0
.099
0.06
6-2
2.3
Nor
ther
n M
ocki
ngbi
rd23
3143
38.7
43.0
1634
12-6
4.7
25.5
**28
1.09
70.
279
-0.8
180.
657
-74.
6B
row
n T
hras
her
5683
919.
617
.433
4231
-26.
219
.461
0.50
60.
341
-0.1
650.
134
-32.
7C
alif
orni
a T
hras
her
1827
6815
1.9
49.7
***
1343
2-9
5.3
3.7
***
181.
593
0.02
9-1
.563
0.33
1**
*-9
8.2
Ced
ar W
axw
ing
8742
950
718
.213
.214
1410
-28.
634
.188
0.03
30.
020
-0.0
130.
013
-39.
6B
lue-
win
ged
War
bler
3611
811
80.
011
.021
2830
7.1
47.2
380.
237
0.25
40.
017
0.11
57.
1Te
nnes
see
War
bler
1210
2313
0.0
100.
9*
56
2735
0.0
285.
313
0.60
01.
174
0.57
40.
758
95.7
Ora
nge-
crow
ned
War
bler
7933
942
425
.113
.7*
6025
123
3-7
.219
.088
0.74
00.
550
-0.1
910.
179
-25.
8N
ashv
ille
War
bler
4412
815
420
.315
.238
109
162
48.6
42.4
500.
852
1.05
20.
200
0.38
123
.5V
irgi
nia'
s W
arbl
er10
4559
31.1
37.6
612
3015
0.0
162.
710
0.26
70.
509
0.24
20.
164
90.7
Luc
y's
War
bler
950
7448
.044
.98
2717
-37.
036
.39
0.54
00.
230
-0.3
100.
158
*-5
7.5
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[56]
Nor
ther
n Pa
rula
3373
47-3
5.6
9.6
***
129
1788
.970
.137
0.12
30.
362
0.23
80.
142
*19
3.4
Yello
w W
arbl
er15
015
2916
206.
05.
296
452
454
0.4
12.8
157
0.29
60.
280
-0.0
150.
048
-5.2
Che
stnu
t-si
ded
War
bler
2445
5726
.728
.013
1710
-41.
220
.8*
250.
378
0.17
5-0
.202
0.10
7*
-53.
6M
agno
lia W
arbl
er20
8685
-1.2
11.7
1226
3015
.452
.720
0.30
20.
353
0.05
10.
128
16.7
Yello
w-r
umpe
d W
arbl
er10
447
257
722
.211
.5**
7131
948
451
.752
.811
20.
676
0.83
90.
163
0.43
124
.1B
lack
-thr
td. G
ray
War
bler
2725
3748
.047
.520
2120
-4.8
34.7
380.
840
0.54
1-0
.300
0.39
6-3
5.7
Bla
ck-t
hrtd
. Gre
en W
arb.
2363
59-6
.311
.610
138
-38.
538
.824
0.20
60.
136
-0.0
710.
107
-34.
3To
wns
end
's W
arbl
er27
114
113
-0.9
11.3
1758
6817
.239
.328
0.50
90.
602
0.09
30.
275
18.3
Her
mit
War
bler
3414
615
24.
116
.728
7215
411
3.9
81.2
*36
0.49
31.
013
0.52
00.
333
105.
4Pi
ne W
arbl
er19
3240
25.0
28.7
1118
3172
.253
.822
0.56
30.
775
0.21
30.
498
37.8
Prai
rie
War
bler
2410
079
-21.
015
.519
3621
-41.
716
.1*
260.
360
0.26
6-0
.094
0.09
6-2
6.2
Bla
ck-a
nd-w
hite
War
bler
8315
116
37.
915
.554
9871
-27.
615
.394
0.64
90.
436
-0.2
130.
129
*-3
2.9
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
8448
448
3-0
.27.
439
146
118
-19.
218
.888
0.30
20.
244
-0.0
570.
095
-19.
0Pr
otho
nota
ry W
arbl
er25
9511
217
.920
.916
2712
-55.
620
.1**
300.
284
0.10
7-0
.177
0.10
9-6
2.3
Wor
m-e
atin
g W
arbl
er57
155
132
-14.
813
.234
125
78-3
7.6
10.6
*62
0.80
70.
591
-0.2
160.
301
-26.
7O
venb
ird
136
601
573
-4.7
6.0
8928
026
8-4
.310
.414
60.
466
0.46
80.
002
0.08
60.
4N
orth
ern
Wat
erth
rush
1985
67-2
1.2
18.9
1436
19-4
7.2
8.8
***
260.
424
0.28
4-0
.140
0.16
5-3
3.0
Lou
isia
na W
ater
thru
sh61
9811
416
.313
.338
9872
-26.
516
.066
1.00
00.
632
-0.3
680.
292
-36.
8K
entu
cky
War
bler
6430
931
82.
98.
750
145
138
-4.8
13.1
690.
469
0.43
4-0
.035
0.07
8-7
.5M
acG
illiv
ray'
s W
arbl
er12
283
010
2623
.67.
4**
*86
499
282
-43.
56.
5**
*13
00.
601
0.27
5-0
.326
0.08
8**
*-5
4.3
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at20
514
5615
959.
55.
2*
130
809
435
-46.
29.
9**
*21
50.
556
0.27
3-0
.283
0.08
0**
*-5
0.9
Hoo
ded
War
bler
6220
721
11.
99.
936
6951
-26.
118
.267
0.33
30.
242
-0.0
920.
096
-27.
5W
ilson
's W
arbl
er13
286
510
6523
.117
.278
482
347
-28.
08.
9**
*13
50.
557
0.32
6-0
.231
0.12
6*
-41.
5C
anad
a W
arbl
er18
4734
-27.
715
.214
1414
0.0
40.6
240.
298
0.41
20.
114
0.20
238
.2Ye
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
8559
158
9-0
.36.
043
149
119
-20.
114
.087
0.25
20.
202
-0.0
500.
051
-19.
9Su
mm
er T
anag
er68
121
133
9.9
18.5
1916
13-1
8.8
39.3
710.
132
0.09
8-0
.035
0.05
4-2
6.1
Scar
let T
anag
er67
8386
3.6
16.3
1932
18-4
3.8
31.8
690.
386
0.20
9-0
.176
0.14
6-4
5.7
Wes
tern
Tan
ager
112
283
360
27.2
12.0
**48
107
116
8.4
31.3
117
0.37
80.
322
-0.0
560.
124
-14.
8G
reen
-tai
led
Tow
hee
2262
689.
720
.521
4448
9.1
24.8
280.
710
0.70
6-0
.004
0.28
9-0
.5Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e91
551
679
23.2
10.0
**83
414
307
-25.
815
.097
0.75
10.
452
-0.2
990.
132
**-3
9.8
Eas
tern
Tow
hee
7713
514
03.
710
.044
4943
-12.
218
.184
0.36
30.
307
-0.0
560.
081
-15.
4C
alif
orni
a To
whe
e33
139
177
27.3
21.3
2410
44
-96.
22.
2**
*35
0.74
80.
023
-0.7
260.
142
***
-97.
0R
ufou
s-cr
owne
d S
parr
ow19
3744
18.9
25.0
1856
11-8
0.4
14.4
**23
1.51
40.
250
-1.2
640.
477
***
-83.
5C
hipp
ing
Spar
row
8316
922
633
.716
.5**
4475
61-1
8.7
16.4
940.
444
0.27
0-0
.174
0.10
6-3
9.2
Cla
y-co
lore
d S
parr
ow3
5025
-50.
03.
0**
*3
1811
-38.
98.
44
0.36
00.
440
0.08
00.
064
22.2
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[57]
Bre
wer
's S
parr
ow26
3866
73.7
53.0
*20
3537
5.7
42.8
290.
921
0.56
1-0
.360
0.30
4-3
9.1
Fiel
d S
parr
ow48
182
180
-1.1
10.0
2910
540
-61.
910
.4**
480.
577
0.22
2-0
.355
0.13
8**
-61.
5L
ark
Spar
row
2874
58-2
1.6
26.0
129
1810
0.0
71.5
*28
0.12
20.
310
0.18
90.
121
155.
2Sa
ge S
parr
ow5
226
-72.
721
.7**
299
0-1
00.0
0.0
54.
500
0.00
0-4
.500
1.41
2**
-100
.0Sa
vann
ah S
parr
ow12
8499
17.9
9.4
1317
1911
.838
.517
0.20
20.
192
-0.0
110.
154
-5.2
Fox
Spar
row
4412
815
118
.012
.0*
2946
34-2
6.1
18.7
510.
359
0.22
5-0
.134
0.13
4-3
7.3
Song
Spa
rrow
192
2027
2006
-1.0
3.6
186
1822
1424
-21.
86.
2**
*20
90.
899
0.71
0-0
.189
0.08
6**
-21.
0L
inco
ln's
Spa
rrow
5227
929
86.
810
.345
161
146
-9.3
16.1
590.
577
0.49
0-0
.087
0.15
5-1
5.1
Swam
p Sp
arro
w12
4649
6.5
27.0
661
34-4
4.3
25.4
121.
326
0.69
4-0
.632
0.50
4-4
7.7
Whi
te-t
hroa
ted
Spa
rrow
2082
56-3
1.7
8.6
**16
3015
-50.
019
.6*
230.
366
0.26
8-0
.098
0.17
1-2
6.8
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
3211
710
5-1
0.3
14.3
1611
782
-29.
916
.032
1.00
00.
781
-0.2
190.
463
-21.
9D
ark-
eyed
Junc
o10
670
287
825
.17.
0**
*11
078
869
1-1
2.3
12.5
121
1.12
30.
787
-0.3
360.
207
-29.
9N
orth
ern
Car
din
al17
295
511
7623
.15.
8**
*14
260
450
4-1
6.6
8.0
*17
50.
633
0.42
9-0
.204
0.07
8**
*-3
2.2
Ros
e-br
east
ed G
rosb
eak
4412
393
-24.
411
.420
2415
-37.
516
.1*
460.
195
0.16
1-0
.034
0.07
6-1
7.3
Bla
ck-h
ead
ed G
rosb
eak
128
506
526
4.0
8.1
7519
010
8-4
3.2
10.7
***
132
0.37
60.
205
-0.1
700.
082
**-4
5.3
Blu
e G
rosb
eak
2953
49-7
.515
.77
93
-66.
739
.631
0.17
00.
061
-0.1
090.
090
-63.
9L
azul
i Bun
ting
8325
825
6-0
.813
.433
7953
-32.
919
.985
0.30
60.
207
-0.0
990.
083
-32.
4In
dig
o B
unti
ng11
261
960
0-3
.17.
056
8562
-27.
116
.811
20.
137
0.10
3-0
.034
0.03
1-2
4.7
Pain
ted
Bun
ting
2528
823
5-1
8.4
19.0
2286
142
65.1
44.6
*25
0.29
90.
604
0.30
60.
105
***1
02.4
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd63
327
260
-20.
514
.418
1827
50.0
55.3
640.
055
0.10
40.
049
0.04
288
.7C
omm
on G
rack
le45
104
101
-2.9
23.8
1424
12-5
0.0
25.9
*46
0.23
10.
119
-0.1
120.
114
-48.
5B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
167
312
316
1.3
9.7
5244
23-4
7.7
14.9
**18
40.
141
0.07
3-0
.068
0.03
1**
-48.
4O
rcha
rd O
riol
e19
5263
21.2
41.9
1131
12-6
1.3
14.1
***
190.
596
0.19
1-0
.406
0.13
5**
*-6
8.0
Bul
lock
's O
riol
e66
195
189
-3.1
14.0
3558
48-1
7.2
38.7
700.
297
0.25
4-0
.044
0.11
2-1
4.6
Bal
tim
ore
Ori
ole
4310
991
-16.
513
.017
3049
63.3
89.3
480.
275
0.53
90.
263
0.25
895
.6Pu
rple
Fin
ch64
402
262
-34.
810
.5**
*43
186
123
-33.
913
.5*
680.
463
0.47
00.
007
0.11
31.
5C
assi
n's
Finc
h33
5238
-26.
921
.416
1512
-20.
047
.037
0.28
90.
316
0.02
70.
142
9.5
Hou
se F
inch
6117
826
750
.029
.3*
4922
324
610
.333
.868
1.25
30.
921
-0.3
320.
469
-26.
5Pi
ne S
iski
n59
222
146
-34.
215
.0*
3110
010
11.
038
.862
0.45
10.
692
0.24
10.
343
53.6
Les
ser
Gol
dfi
nch
5729
621
9-2
6.0
13.2
3520
076
-62.
022
.0**
*60
0.67
60.
347
-0.3
290.
387
-48.
6A
mer
ican
Gol
dfi
nch
133
916
940
2.6
6.2
1517
14-1
7.6
50.0
133
0.01
90.
015
-0.0
040.
011
-19.
8E
veni
ng G
rosb
eak
1754
7742
.635
.05
54
-20.
088
.819
0.09
30.
052
-0.0
410.
072
-43.
9A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
417
3718
740
261
8.3
1.8
***
415
1915
415
432
-19.
43.
2**
*41
70.
515
0.38
3-0
.132
0.02
6**
*-2
5.6
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 8
4/13
3 (6
3%)*
**N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g 96
/13
3 (7
2%)*
**N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 1
04/
133
(78%
)***
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
PRO
GR
AM
-WID
E
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[58]
NO
RT
HW
EST
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Red
-nap
ed S
apsu
cker
3059
54-8
.513
.118
1816
-11.
125
.531
0.30
50.
296
-0.0
090.
102
-2.9
Red
-bre
aste
d S
apsu
cker
5712
913
43.
912
.736
8575
-11.
820
.258
0.65
90.
560
-0.0
990.
137
-15.
1D
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
5269
53-2
3.2
12.8
3730
4446
.735
.364
0.43
50.
830
0.39
50.
202
*90
.9H
airy
Woo
dpe
cker
6047
45-4
.317
.035
2919
-34.
521
.775
0.61
70.
422
-0.1
950.
192
-31.
6W
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee64
189
189
0.0
9.5
2837
20-4
5.9
14.9
**66
0.19
60.
106
-0.0
900.
046
*-4
5.9
"Tra
ill's
" Fl
ycat
cher
7832
928
7-1
2.8
9.6
1812
1741
.747
.981
0.03
70.
059
0.02
30.
019
62.4
Ham
mon
d's
Fly
catc
her
6013
013
64.
619
.032
4336
-16.
321
.066
0.33
10.
265
-0.0
660.
116
-20.
0D
usky
Fly
catc
her
6527
531
213
.514
.120
4134
-17.
132
.368
0.14
90.
109
-0.0
400.
055
-26.
9"W
este
rn"
Flyc
atch
er72
192
202
5.2
13.7
5094
73-2
2.3
15.3
800.
490
0.36
1-0
.128
0.13
0-2
6.2
Cas
sin'
s V
ireo
4266
8021
.221
.327
2527
8.0
40.6
470.
379
0.33
8-0
.041
0.14
2-1
0.9
War
blin
g V
ireo
9947
952
810
.29.
236
8930
-66.
39.
5**
100
0.18
60.
057
-0.1
290.
057
**-6
9.4
Bla
ck-c
appe
d C
hick
adee
5414
718
525
.913
.7**
4918
913
4-2
9.1
12.0
*59
1.28
60.
724
-0.5
610.
240
**-4
3.7
Mou
ntai
n C
hick
adee
4411
815
228
.819
.742
113
137
21.2
29.8
490.
958
0.90
1-0
.056
0.27
6-5
.9C
hest
nut-
back
ed C
hick
.51
145
157
8.3
16.5
3584
9310
.728
.855
0.57
90.
592
0.01
30.
196
2.3
Bus
htit
3361
6811
.529
.326
103
113
9.7
33.7
371.
689
1.66
2-0
.027
0.57
8-1
.6R
ed-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h55
7589
18.7
22.4
3962
8435
.535
.361
0.82
70.
944
0.11
70.
382
14.2
Bro
wn
Cre
eper
6381
80-1
.214
.159
8391
9.6
19.9
741.
025
1.13
80.
113
0.24
411
.0B
ewic
k's
Wre
n27
6156
-8.2
16.8
2695
73-2
3.2
14.6
311.
557
1.30
4-0
.254
0.39
2-1
6.3
Hou
se W
ren
2668
114
67.6
29.3
**35
9270
-23.
915
.238
1.35
30.
614
-0.7
390.
327
**-5
4.6
Win
ter
Wre
n35
129
82-3
6.4
9.1
***
3583
57-3
1.3
17.3
**44
0.64
30.
695
0.05
20.
306
8.0
Gol
den
-cro
wne
d K
ingl
et49
146
108
-26.
011
.2*
4432
021
9-3
1.6
14.9
*61
2.19
22.
028
-0.1
640.
826
-7.5
Rub
y-cr
owne
d K
ingl
et29
114
104
-8.8
15.4
1669
51-2
6.1
18.1
310.
605
0.49
0-0
.115
0.21
3-1
9.0
Swai
nson
's T
hrus
h97
1275
1277
0.2
4.7
5423
520
4-1
3.2
13.7
980.
184
0.16
0-0
.025
0.04
0-1
3.3
Her
mit
Thr
ush
4290
101
12.2
15.0
3045
5931
.131
.847
0.50
00.
584
0.08
40.
209
16.8
Am
eric
an R
obin
119
619
571
-7.8
5.3
7216
014
9-6
.913
.412
10.
259
0.26
10.
003
0.05
41.
0V
arie
d T
hrus
h24
4225
-40.
522
.917
3018
-40.
015
.3**
300.
714
0.72
00.
006
0.41
10.
8W
rent
it21
7790
16.9
23.2
2314
076
-45.
712
.0**
231.
818
0.84
4-0
.974
0.32
3**
*-5
3.6
Gra
y C
atbi
rd16
157
137
-12.
710
.310
3720
-45.
919
.816
0.23
60.
146
-0.0
900.
083
-38.
1C
edar
Wax
win
g40
209
264
26.3
15.0
*5
57
40.0
80.7
400.
024
0.02
70.
003
0.02
010
.8O
rang
e-cr
owne
d W
arbl
er48
169
205
21.3
13.6
*34
7812
459
.034
.1**
550.
462
0.60
50.
143
0.16
931
.1N
ashv
ille
War
bler
2895
121
27.4
19.0
*30
9412
836
.247
.034
0.98
91.
058
0.06
80.
445
6.9
Vir
gini
a's
War
bler
328
3939
.323
.22
520
300.
080
.03
0.17
90.
513
0.33
40.
224
187.
2Ye
llow
War
bler
7693
098
25.
66.
356
334
318
-4.8
13.8
800.
359
0.32
4-0
.035
0.06
9-9
.8Ye
llow
-rum
ped
War
bler
7339
849
624
.613
.2**
5228
846
160
.157
.678
0.72
40.
929
0.20
60.
500
28.4
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[59]
Tow
nsen
d's
War
bler
2510
710
91.
912
.015
5864
10.3
37.5
260.
542
0.58
70.
045
0.28
78.
3H
erm
it W
arbl
er34
146
152
4.1
16.7
2872
154
113.
981
.2*
360.
493
1.01
30.
520
0.33
310
5.4
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
1294
995.
39.
25
812
50.0
68.5
120.
085
0.12
10.
036
0.08
042
.4N
orth
ern
Wat
erth
rush
856
50-1
0.7
25.2
415
6-6
0.0
9.0
***
80.
268
0.12
0-0
.148
0.11
1-5
5.2
Mac
Gill
ivra
y's
War
bler
103
806
950
17.9
6.4
***
8449
728
0-4
3.7
6.5
***
110
0.61
70.
295
-0.3
220.
092
***
-52.
2C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
4527
128
03.
38.
427
105
130
23.8
11.5
470.
388
0.46
40.
077
0.15
119
.8W
ilson
's W
arbl
er10
871
675
65.
616
.361
270
169
-37.
411
.1**
*11
10.
377
0.22
4-0
.154
0.09
3*
-40.
7Ye
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
2114
012
1-1
3.6
8.4
1242
5121
.441
.522
0.30
00.
422
0.12
20.
147
40.5
Wes
tern
Tan
ager
9125
131
425
.112
.2**
4410
011
111
.034
.094
0.39
80.
354
-0.0
450.
139
-11.
3G
reen
-tai
led
Tow
hee
1759
601.
718
.820
4346
7.0
25.2
230.
729
0.76
70.
038
0.32
35.
2Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e48
216
257
19.0
12.1
*45
166
162
-2.4
10.8
540.
769
0.63
0-0
.138
0.18
1-1
8.0
Chi
ppin
g Sp
arro
w42
101
138
36.6
20.5
**24
4442
-4.5
22.9
500.
436
0.30
4-0
.131
0.15
8-3
0.1
Bre
wer
's S
parr
ow19
3456
64.7
54.6
1730
3516
.749
.422
0.88
20.
625
-0.2
570.
322
-29.
2Sa
vann
ah S
parr
ow7
7893
19.2
10.1
714
12-1
4.3
35.7
80.
180
0.12
9-0
.051
0.12
8-2
8.1
Fox
Spar
row
4110
612
820
.814
.7*
2439
27-3
0.8
20.6
460.
368
0.21
1-0
.157
0.14
9-4
2.7
Song
Spa
rrow
106
1176
1105
-6.0
4.6
110
1022
917
-10.
36.
411
90.
869
0.83
0-0
.039
0.10
4-4
.5L
inco
ln's
Spa
rrow
4726
928
24.
810
.340
155
142
-8.4
16.7
510.
576
0.50
4-0
.073
0.16
2-1
2.6
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
2481
821.
219
.011
3029
-3.3
50.8
240.
370
0.35
4-0
.017
0.16
8-4
.5D
ark-
eyed
Junc
o82
637
797
25.1
7.5
***
8667
955
5-1
8.3
12.4
911.
066
0.69
6-0
.370
0.21
1*
-34.
7B
lack
-hea
ded
Gro
sbea
k82
279
303
8.6
10.2
4813
377
-42.
112
.3**
840.
477
0.25
4-0
.223
0.13
0*
-46.
7L
azul
i Bun
ting
5919
621
17.
714
.528
6753
-20.
924
.360
0.34
20.
251
-0.0
910.
096
-26.
5R
ed-w
inge
d B
lack
bird
2618
311
9-3
5.0
18.2
79
1566
.776
.127
0.04
90.
126
0.07
70.
072
156.
3B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
6214
112
6-1
0.6
12.9
1920
5-7
5.0
13.7
***
660.
142
0.04
0-0
.102
0.04
2**
-72.
0B
ullo
ck's
Ori
ole
3211
211
63.
621
.821
3640
11.1
66.1
350.
321
0.34
50.
023
0.17
07.
3Pu
rple
Fin
ch44
363
226
-37.
710
.3**
*32
162
111
-31.
515
.446
0.44
60.
491
0.04
50.
122
10.1
Cas
sin'
s Fi
nch
3251
38-2
5.5
22.1
1615
12-2
0.0
47.0
360.
294
0.31
60.
022
0.14
47.
4H
ouse
Fin
ch12
1542
180.
089
.8*
1133
4227
.374
.015
2.20
01.
000
-1.2
001.
308
-54.
5Pi
ne S
iski
n54
209
142
-32.
115
.931
100
101
1.0
38.8
570.
479
0.71
10.
233
0.35
448
.7L
esse
r G
old
finc
h21
8760
-31.
017
.610
146
59-5
9.6
31.7
*22
1.67
80.
983
-0.6
951.
171
-41.
4A
mer
ican
Gol
dfi
nch
3120
718
9-8
.711
.68
137
-46.
244
.531
0.06
30.
037
-0.0
260.
048
-41.
0E
veni
ng G
rosb
eak
1754
7742
.635
.05
54
-20.
088
.819
0.09
30.
052
-0.0
410.
072
-43.
9A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
135
1485
015
484
4.3
2.6
*13
575
9867
60-1
1.0
5.1
**13
50.
512
0.43
7-0
.075
0.04
5*
-14.
7N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 42/
65 (6
5%)*
*N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 3
9/65
(60%
)*N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 4
0/65
(62%
)**
SOU
TH
WE
ST M
APS
RE
GIO
NN
utta
ll's
Woo
dpe
cker
2650
536.
018
.325
4736
-23.
418
.429
0.94
00.
679
-0.2
610.
228
-27.
7
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er19
4635
-23.
918
.716
2028
40.0
44.2
200.
435
0.80
00.
365
0.28
484
.0W
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee24
2660
130.
859
.6**
*3
22
0.0
150.
024
0.07
70.
033
-0.0
440.
086
-56.
7D
usky
Fly
catc
her
912
5838
3.3
216.
62
23
50.0
100.
09
0.16
70.
052
-0.1
150.
170
-69.
0"W
este
rn"
Flyc
atch
er36
8024
620
7.5
56.4
***
1944
464.
528
.938
0.55
00.
187
-0.3
630.
225
-66.
0B
lack
Pho
ebe
2143
23-4
6.5
14.6
**24
7229
-59.
713
.5**
*30
1.67
41.
261
-0.4
140.
768
-24.
7A
sh-t
hroa
ted
Fly
catc
her
5116
019
018
.814
.811
145
-64.
329
.851
0.08
80.
026
-0.0
610.
040
-69.
9W
arbl
ing
Vir
eo18
3311
324
2.4
129.
7*
821
7-6
6.7
15.7
*21
0.63
60.
062
-0.5
740.
212
***
-90.
3C
hest
nut-
back
ed C
hick
.7
2115
-28.
621
.27
6171
16.4
39.7
72.
905
4.73
31.
829
1.10
963
.0O
ak T
itm
ouse
2151
49-3
.919
.316
5134
-33.
324
.321
1.00
00.
694
-0.3
060.
368
-30.
6B
usht
it44
266
495
86.1
31.7
***
3921
416
6-2
2.4
21.0
450.
805
0.33
5-0
.469
0.18
4**
-58.
3B
ewic
k's
Wre
n50
256
262
2.3
12.4
5037
020
5-4
4.6
9.2
***
521.
445
0.78
2-0
.663
0.19
1**
*-4
5.9
Hou
se W
ren
3219
217
7-7
.89.
930
154
106
-31.
219
.633
0.80
20.
599
-0.2
030.
222
-25.
3Sw
ains
on's
Thr
ush
1611
724
110
6.0
47.1
***
950
35-3
0.0
12.2
160.
427
0.14
5-0
.282
0.16
9-6
6.0
Am
eric
an R
obin
2440
5127
.538
.98
63
-50.
039
.826
0.15
00.
059
-0.0
910.
068
-60.
8W
rent
it29
392
726
85.2
21.5
***
2943
311
8-7
2.7
8.7
***
291.
105
0.16
3-0
.942
0.14
6**
*-8
5.3
Cal
ifor
nia
Thr
ashe
r18
2768
151.
949
.7**
*13
432
-95.
33.
7**
*18
1.59
30.
029
-1.5
630.
331
***
-98.
2O
rang
e-cr
owne
d W
arbl
er25
126
170
34.9
29.7
2112
959
-54.
321
.0*
271.
024
0.34
7-0
.677
0.29
8**
-66.
1L
ucy'
s W
arbl
er9
5074
48.0
44.9
827
17-3
7.0
36.3
90.
540
0.23
0-0
.310
0.15
8*
-57.
5Ye
llow
War
bler
2912
620
361
.128
.5**
1128
11-6
0.7
17.3
*29
0.22
20.
054
-0.1
680.
066
**-7
5.6
Mac
Gill
ivra
y's
War
bler
1924
7621
6.7
139.
9*
22
20.
020
0.0
200.
083
0.02
6-0
.057
0.06
7-6
8.4
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at38
471
566
20.2
12.5
*30
432
107
-75.
27.
9**
400.
917
0.18
9-0
.728
0.16
0**
*-7
9.4
Wils
on's
War
bler
1377
247
220.
890
.4**
*9
103
94-8
.721
.813
1.33
80.
381
-0.9
570.
559
-71.
5Ye
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
2320
023
618
.012
.011
4216
-61.
914
.7**
*23
0.21
00.
068
-0.1
420.
049
***
-67.
7Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e43
335
422
26.0
14.7
**38
248
145
-41.
523
.3*
430.
740
0.34
4-0
.397
0.18
1**
-53.
6C
alif
orni
a To
whe
e31
136
173
27.2
21.7
2310
23
-97.
11.
9**
*33
0.75
00.
017
-0.7
330.
145
***
-97.
7R
ufou
s-cr
owne
d S
parr
ow14
3337
12.1
24.8
1556
1-9
8.2
1.9
***
181.
697
0.02
7-1
.670
0.50
8**
*-9
8.4
Lar
k Sp
arro
w14
4244
4.8
38.0
66
833
.360
.214
0.14
30.
182
0.03
90.
104
27.3
Sage
Spa
rrow
221
2-9
0.5
5.9
299
0-1
00.0
0.0
24.
714
0.00
0-4
.714
1.70
1-1
00.0
Song
Spa
rrow
3954
756
73.
76.
937
582
338
-41.
912
.8**
411.
064
0.59
6-0
.468
0.20
2**
-44.
0B
lack
-hea
ded
Gro
sbea
k45
215
216
0.5
13.4
2657
30-4
7.4
21.3
*47
0.26
50.
139
-0.1
260.
081
-47.
6L
azul
i Bun
ting
2462
45-2
7.4
28.2
512
0-1
00.0
0.0
250.
194
0.00
0-0
.194
0.11
0*
-100
.0B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
2774
751.
423
.45
62
-66.
737
.328
0.08
10.
027
-0.0
540.
061
-67.
1B
ullo
ck's
Ori
ole
2967
58-1
3.4
18.7
1017
6-6
4.7
21.2
**30
0.25
40.
103
-0.1
500.
125
-59.
2H
ouse
Fin
ch37
151
211
39.7
32.8
3018
419
87.
638
.739
1.21
90.
938
-0.2
800.
548
-23.
0L
esse
r G
old
finc
h34
202
159
-21.
318
.325
5417
-68.
516
.2**
360.
267
0.10
7-0
.160
0.07
4**
-60.
0
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[60]
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h18
106
146
37.7
24.0
52
620
0.0
379.
118
0.01
90.
041
0.02
20.
023
117.
8A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
5956
7175
6533
.46.
8**
*58
4151
2126
-48.
87.
7**
*59
0.73
20.
281
-0.4
510.
075
***
-61.
6N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 28/
37 (7
6%)*
**N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 2
8/37
(76%
)***
Num
ber
dec
reas
ing:
33/
37 (8
9%)*
**
NO
RT
H-C
EN
TR
AL
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er19
3135
12.9
29.5
1955
36-3
4.5
11.1
**22
1.77
41.
029
-0.7
460.
496
-42.
0"T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er11
5477
42.6
40.1
55
4-2
0.0
55.1
120.
093
0.05
2-0
.041
0.03
9-4
3.9
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
1544
7365
.938
.63
22
0.0
86.6
150.
046
0.02
7-0
.018
0.03
1-3
9.7
Bla
ck-c
appe
d C
hick
adee
2380
8911
.324
.419
109
71-3
4.9
14.8
*23
1.36
30.
798
-0.5
650.
368
-41.
4Tu
fted
Tit
mou
se9
2635
34.6
31.5
1127
23-1
4.8
25.6
121.
039
0.65
7-0
.381
0.29
5-3
6.7
Hou
se W
ren
1689
87-2
.218
.313
9844
-55.
19.
7**
*16
1.10
10.
506
-0.5
950.
278
**-5
4.1
Woo
d T
hrus
h13
6363
0.0
11.0
818
180.
035
.613
0.28
60.
286
0.00
00.
090
0.0
Am
eric
an R
obin
2166
8325
.818
.715
5446
-14.
819
.421
0.81
80.
554
-0.2
640.
277
-32.
3G
ray
Cat
bird
2136
232
9-9
.19.
618
185
108
-41.
67.
9**
*21
0.51
10.
328
-0.1
830.
143
-35.
8C
edar
Wax
win
g14
4355
27.9
61.6
21
10.
020
0.0
150.
023
0.01
8-0
.005
0.03
3-2
1.8
Yello
w W
arbl
er11
184
165
-10.
37.
78
2634
30.8
51.4
110.
141
0.20
60.
065
0.08
045
.8A
mer
ican
Red
star
t14
5558
5.5
16.4
49
5-4
4.4
19.4
140.
164
0.08
6-0
.077
0.08
4-4
7.3
Ove
nbir
d16
4944
-10.
215
.85
1319
46.2
57.6
160.
265
0.43
20.
167
0.20
262
.8C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
1621
020
4-2
.910
.412
107
90-1
5.9
10.7
160.
510
0.44
1-0
.068
0.10
7-1
3.4
Cla
y-co
lore
d S
parr
ow2
5024
-52.
01.
93
1811
-38.
98.
43
0.36
00.
458
0.09
80.
078
27.3
Fiel
d S
parr
ow9
5950
-15.
313
.78
4310
-76.
713
.0**
*9
0.72
90.
200
-0.5
290.
164
**-7
2.6
Song
Spa
rrow
1388
83-5
.711
.612
5247
-9.6
22.8
130.
591
0.56
6-0
.025
0.26
1-4
.2Sw
amp
Spar
row
420
16-2
0.0
7.8
141
12-7
0.7
42.
050
0.75
0-1
.300
0.31
9**
-63.
4N
orth
ern
Car
din
al17
5270
34.6
14.6
***
1424
13-4
5.8
21.5
*18
0.46
20.
186
-0.2
760.
133
*-5
9.8
Ros
e-br
east
ed G
rosb
eak
1674
49-3
3.8
13.7
*7
107
-30.
024
.616
0.13
50.
143
0.00
80.
103
5.7
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
1610
580
-23.
814
.58
152
-86.
710
.6**
*16
0.14
30.
025
-0.1
180.
056
*-8
2.5
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd6
4359
37.2
42.9
34
775
.020
0.5
60.
093
0.11
90.
026
0.09
227
.5B
alti
mor
e O
riol
e13
6040
-33.
316
.27
2413
-45.
823
.815
0.40
00.
325
-0.0
750.
184
-18.
8A
mer
ican
Gol
dfi
nch
1520
121
36.
012
.00
00
150.
000
0.00
00.
000
All
sp
ecie
s p
oole
d24
2565
2607
1.6
4.6
2311
0478
4-2
9.0
5.2
***
240.
430
0.30
1-0
.130
0.05
7**
-30.
1N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 11/
24 (4
6%)
Num
ber
dec
reas
ing:
17/
24 (7
1%)*
*N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 1
7/24
(71%
)**
SOU
TH
-CE
NT
RA
L M
APS
RE
GIO
NC
omm
on G
roun
d-D
ove
757
49-1
4.0
35.8
336
8-7
7.8
24.7
*7
0.63
20.
163
-0.4
680.
168
**-7
4.1
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er21
2643
65.4
44.9
**20
3731
-16.
224
.125
1.42
30.
721
-0.7
020.
391
*-4
9.3
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[61]
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Aca
dia
n Fl
ycat
cher
1285
73-1
4.1
8.6
56
1413
3.3
110.
413
0.07
10.
192
0.12
10.
052
**17
1.7
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo27
258
275
6.6
14.3
2518
720
811
.213
.727
0.72
50.
756
0.03
20.
221
4.4
Bel
l's V
ireo
850
34-3
2.0
19.3
713
130.
033
.29
0.26
00.
382
0.12
20.
167
47.1
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
2064
63-1
.618
.38
58
60.0
66.0
200.
078
0.12
70.
049
0.07
462
.5C
arol
ina
Chi
ckad
ee29
6364
1.6
23.8
2862
7114
.528
.533
0.98
41.
109
0.12
50.
457
12.7
Tuft
ed T
itm
ouse
2570
8217
.118
.824
7288
22.2
28.9
251.
029
1.07
30.
045
0.32
74.
3B
lack
-cre
sted
Tit
mou
se14
2831
10.7
33.1
1344
6240
.928
.0*
151.
571
2.00
00.
429
0.64
827
.3C
arol
ina
Wre
n29
8612
950
.019
.8**
*24
122
197
61.5
18.6
***
301.
419
1.52
70.
109
0.37
07.
6B
ewic
k's
Wre
n16
5159
15.7
25.7
1447
7559
.660
.317
0.92
21.
271
0.35
00.
492
37.9
Blu
e-gr
ay G
natc
atch
er16
3744
18.9
25.2
1221
20-4
.835
.419
0.56
80.
455
-0.1
130.
212
-19.
9G
ray
Cat
bird
987
69-2
0.7
8.3
**4
4122
-46.
317
.410
0.47
10.
319
-0.1
520.
092
-32.
3B
lack
-and
-whi
te W
arbl
er15
4016
-60.
013
.8**
1623
22-4
.333
.320
0.57
51.
375
0.80
00.
500
139.
1Pr
otho
nota
ry W
arbl
er8
6267
8.1
18.0
610
8-2
0.0
58.0
80.
161
0.11
9-0
.042
0.11
2-2
6.0
Ken
tuck
y W
arbl
er18
8784
-3.4
21.2
1535
4014
.329
.920
0.40
20.
476
0.07
40.
155
18.4
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at13
3838
0.0
31.2
712
9-2
5.0
45.5
130.
316
0.23
7-0
.079
0.24
0-2
5.0
Yello
w-b
reas
ted
Cha
t9
128
131
2.3
9.5
537
28-2
4.3
20.9
90.
289
0.21
4-0
.075
0.07
8-2
6.1
Fiel
d S
parr
ow15
6266
6.5
18.6
1150
20-6
0.0
13.8
***
150.
807
0.30
3-0
.503
0.27
9*
-62.
4N
orth
ern
Car
din
al42
299
461
54.2
10.8
***
4130
832
14.
211
.543
1.03
00.
696
-0.3
340.
151
**-3
2.4
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
2421
322
13.
812
.716
2323
0.0
31.8
240.
108
0.10
4-0
.004
0.04
2-3
.6Pa
inte
d B
unti
ng24
274
223
-18.
619
.921
8213
868
.347
.3*
240.
299
0.61
90.
320
0.11
0**
*106
.8B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
2634
5150
.036
.09
45
25.0
88.9
300.
118
0.09
8-0
.020
0.07
3-1
6.7
All
sp
ecie
s p
oole
d45
2947
3038
3.1
5.8
4515
1416
8811
.511
.645
0.51
40.
556
0.04
20.
077
8.2
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 1
4/23
(61%
)N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 12/
23 (5
2%)
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 1
2/23
(52%
)
NO
RT
HE
AST
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er52
6788
31.3
24.0
4868
702.
919
.563
1.01
50.
796
-0.2
200.
279
-21.
6"T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er18
9510
510
.519
.07
115
-54.
520
.218
0.11
60.
048
-0.0
680.
041
-58.
9E
aste
rn P
hoeb
e21
2633
26.9
30.3
2127
5188
.981
.131
1.03
91.
546
0.50
70.
631
48.8
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo12
3543
22.9
22.0
818
8-5
5.6
23.4
*13
0.51
40.
186
-0.3
280.
202
-63.
8R
ed-e
yed
Vir
eo53
167
186
11.4
14.8
1921
13-3
8.1
27.8
550.
126
0.07
0-0
.056
0.03
9-4
4.4
Blu
e Ja
y29
4544
-2.2
22.5
88
7-1
2.5
66.9
300.
178
0.15
9-0
.019
0.12
2-1
0.5
Car
olin
a C
hick
adee
1535
29-1
7.1
34.0
1219
7-6
3.2
20.7
*16
0.54
30.
241
-0.3
020.
236
-55.
5B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee53
210
178
-15.
210
.436
106
76-2
8.3
11.3
**53
0.50
50.
427
-0.0
780.
133
-15.
4Tu
fted
Tit
mou
se44
9067
-25.
610
.3**
4311
099
-10.
018
.150
1.22
21.
478
0.25
50.
394
20.9
Car
olin
a W
ren
2797
110
13.4
14.4
2443
7165
.140
.8*
320.
443
0.64
60.
202
0.19
745
.6
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[62]
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Hou
se W
ren
1456
51-8
.924
.719
4325
-41.
924
.821
0.76
80.
490
-0.2
780.
401
-36.
2V
eery
3918
621
817
.212
.621
3320
-39.
415
.7**
400.
177
0.09
2-0
.086
0.03
8**
-48.
3H
erm
it T
hrus
h23
8781
-6.9
12.9
1934
25-2
6.5
22.8
270.
391
0.30
9-0
.082
0.11
9-2
1.0
Woo
d T
hrus
h46
202
283
40.1
16.8
**27
5758
1.8
21.7
470.
282
0.20
5-0
.077
0.07
0-2
7.4
Am
eric
an R
obin
5026
228
27.
69.
430
7210
241
.723
.8*
510.
275
0.36
20.
087
0.08
631
.6G
ray
Cat
bird
5589
698
59.
97.
141
402
335
-16.
710
.756
0.44
90.
340
-0.1
090.
089
-24.
2C
edar
Wax
win
g26
171
165
-3.5
18.9
78
2-7
5.0
29.4
*26
0.04
70.
012
-0.0
350.
022
-74.
1Ye
llow
War
bler
2725
724
0-6
.610
.215
5288
69.2
39.4
280.
202
0.36
70.
164
0.10
581
.2M
agno
lia W
arbl
er15
7071
1.4
11.9
817
2652
.968
.115
0.24
30.
366
0.12
30.
133
50.8
Bla
ck-t
hrtd
. Gre
en W
arb.
1958
55-5
.210
.38
118
-27.
350
.920
0.19
00.
146
-0.0
440.
116
-23.
3B
lack
-and
-whi
te W
arbl
er36
6172
18.0
24.9
1841
26-3
6.6
17.6
*38
0.67
20.
361
-0.3
110.
162
*-4
6.3
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
3726
026
31.
211
.624
111
87-2
1.6
21.9
390.
427
0.33
1-0
.096
0.15
1-2
2.5
Wor
m-e
atin
g W
arbl
er21
7456
-24.
320
.610
9150
-45.
110
.8**
*21
1.23
00.
893
-0.3
370.
643
-27.
4O
venb
ird
5827
524
5-1
0.9
7.5
3310
373
-29.
111
.9*
590.
375
0.29
8-0
.077
0.09
4-2
0.4
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at46
258
300
16.3
9.5
*27
8250
-39.
016
.7*
470.
318
0.16
7-0
.151
0.07
5**
-47.
6H
ood
ed W
arbl
er14
7682
7.9
18.1
1230
14-5
3.3
19.3
*17
0.39
50.
171
-0.2
240.
161
-56.
7Sc
arle
t Tan
ager
2639
402.
624
.87
1910
-47.
450
.227
0.48
70.
250
-0.2
370.
260
-48.
7E
aste
rn T
owhe
e31
8375
-9.6
10.1
2029
27-6
.921
.233
0.34
90.
360
0.01
10.
109
3.0
Chi
ppin
g Sp
arro
w20
4541
-8.9
17.5
1121
10-5
2.4
22.7
**22
0.46
70.
244
-0.2
230.
130
*-4
7.7
Song
Spa
rrow
3020
022
512
.513
.825
159
109
-31.
415
.831
0.79
50.
484
-0.3
110.
181
*-3
9.1
Swam
p Sp
arro
w8
2633
26.9
45.3
520
2210
.059
.08
0.76
90.
667
-0.1
030.
445
-13.
3W
hite
-thr
oate
d S
parr
ow13
4932
-34.
712
.210
1813
-27.
835
.214
0.36
70.
406
0.03
90.
254
10.6
Dar
k-ey
ed Ju
nco
1441
447.
316
.512
7178
9.9
49.2
151.
732
1.77
30.
041
1.28
12.
4N
orth
ern
Car
din
al45
162
185
14.2
12.3
3165
34-4
7.7
13.5
***
460.
401
0.18
4-0
.218
0.07
4**
*-5
4.2
Ros
e-br
east
ed G
rosb
eak
2541
36-1
2.2
22.3
1112
8-3
3.3
25.7
260.
293
0.22
2-0
.071
0.11
8-2
4.1
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
2779
71-1
0.1
19.9
1119
11-4
2.1
34.4
270.
241
0.15
5-0
.086
0.14
5-3
5.6
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd16
5437
-31.
513
.4*
32
20.
015
0.0
160.
037
0.05
40.
017
0.06
245
.9C
omm
on G
rack
le18
4441
-6.8
27.1
66
716
.740
.418
0.13
60.
171
0.03
40.
106
25.2
Bal
tim
ore
Ori
ole
2329
4141
.439
.6*
73
1230
0.0
216.
024
0.10
30.
293
0.18
90.
152
182.
9A
mer
ican
Gol
dfi
nch
3928
826
6-7
.610
.31
01
++
++
39
0.00
00.
004
0.00
40.
003
++
++
A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
7359
4862
354.
83.
873
2273
1885
-17.
15.
7**
*73
0.38
20.
302
-0.0
800.
034
**-2
0.9
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 2
1/40
(52%
)N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 2
7/40
(68%
)**
Num
ber
dec
reas
ing:
27/
40 (6
8%)*
*
SOU
TH
EA
ST M
APS
RE
GIO
ND
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
4559
613.
420
.344
8460
-28.
613
.1**
571.
424
0.98
4-0
.440
0.32
4-3
0.9
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[63]
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Aca
dia
n Fl
ycat
cher
5330
527
4-1
0.2
7.5
2219
2110
.537
.253
0.06
20.
077
0.01
40.
027
23.0
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo42
141
139
-1.4
11.8
2857
53-7
.021
.545
0.40
40.
381
-0.0
230.
141
-5.7
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
5426
825
6-4
.510
.819
2111
-47.
625
.254
0.07
80.
043
-0.0
350.
028
-45.
2B
lue
Jay
4251
39-2
3.5
15.9
118
912
.566
.143
0.15
70.
231
0.07
40.
123
47.1
Car
olin
a C
hick
adee
6010
410
94.
815
.145
112
89-2
0.5
16.5
641.
077
0.81
6-0
.260
0.29
5-2
4.2
Tuft
ed T
itm
ouse
6316
218
212
.311
.956
189
153
-19.
010
.1*
641.
167
0.84
1-0
.326
0.16
5**
-27.
9C
arol
ina
Wre
n61
290
290
0.0
9.1
6426
123
4-1
0.3
11.0
680.
900
0.80
7-0
.093
0.17
4-1
0.3
Woo
d T
hrus
h55
419
507
21.0
8.3
***
4511
911
0-7
.615
.955
0.28
40.
217
-0.0
670.
063
-23.
6A
mer
ican
Rob
in18
6056
-6.7
19.6
1345
38-1
5.6
38.0
200.
750
0.67
9-0
.071
0.45
6-9
.5G
ray
Cat
bird
3113
912
5-1
0.1
11.1
1663
8230
.230
.436
0.45
30.
656
0.20
30.
326
44.7
Bro
wn
Thr
ashe
r26
3448
41.2
33.7
1724
14-4
1.7
16.8
**28
0.70
60.
292
-0.4
140.
211
**-5
8.7
Blu
e-w
inge
d W
arbl
er10
3433
-2.9
22.0
918
16-1
1.1
61.5
110.
529
0.48
5-0
.045
0.36
3-8
.4N
orth
ern
Paru
la16
4436
-18.
213
.07
614
133.
393
.718
0.13
60.
389
0.25
30.
184
185.
2Pr
airi
e W
arbl
er17
7460
-18.
918
.915
3214
-56.
314
.5**
190.
432
0.23
3-0
.199
0.11
7-4
6.0
Bla
ck-a
nd-w
hite
War
bler
2433
5566
.737
.2**
1516
1918
.852
.628
0.48
50.
346
-0.1
390.
215
-28.
8W
orm
-eat
ing
War
bler
2868
62-8
.816
.820
2726
-3.7
29.5
320.
397
0.41
90.
022
0.11
85.
6O
venb
ird
5224
025
56.
311
.743
153
164
7.2
16.0
560.
638
0.64
30.
006
0.16
20.
9L
ouis
iana
Wat
erth
rush
3356
7025
.016
.824
5743
-24.
620
.438
1.01
80.
614
-0.4
040.
269
-39.
6K
entu
cky
War
bler
3719
419
71.
59.
030
106
87-1
7.9
13.0
380.
546
0.44
2-0
.105
0.09
6-1
9.2
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at45
207
205
-1.0
10.4
2670
49-3
0.0
14.2
490.
338
0.23
9-0
.099
0.07
8-2
9.3
Hoo
ded
War
bler
3910
298
-3.9
8.9
2029
20-3
1.0
22.8
410.
284
0.20
4-0
.080
0.09
9-2
8.2
Yello
w-b
reas
ted
Cha
t25
101
84-1
6.8
9.4
1123
230.
043
.726
0.22
80.
274
0.04
60.
101
20.2
Sum
mer
Tan
ager
3644
4911
.423
.96
61
-83.
320
.2**
370.
136
0.02
0-0
.116
0.07
4-8
5.0
Eas
tern
Tow
hee
3441
5431
.722
.320
1913
-31.
628
.938
0.46
30.
241
-0.2
230.
147
-48.
1Fi
eld
Spa
rrow
1245
41-8
.915
.77
87
-12.
557
.712
0.17
80.
171
-0.0
070.
096
-4.0
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
6643
245
14.
48.
054
202
136
-32.
713
.1*
660.
468
0.30
2-0
.166
0.10
0*
-35.
5In
dig
o B
unti
ng44
221
228
3.2
12.2
2128
26-7
.136
.644
0.12
70.
114
-0.0
130.
049
-10.
0C
omm
on G
rack
le17
3742
13.5
42.6
617
3-8
2.4
14.5
***
180.
460
0.07
1-0
.388
0.27
2-8
4.5
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h20
9696
0.0
16.6
12
0-1
00.0
200.
021
0.00
0-0
.021
0.02
3-1
00.0
All
sp
ecie
s p
oole
d69
4494
4663
3.8
2.5
6920
0816
89-1
5.9
5.0
***
690.
447
0.36
2-0
.085
0.03
8**
-18.
9N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 14/
30 (4
7%)
Num
ber
dec
reas
ing:
23/
30 (7
7%)*
**N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 2
3/30
(77%
)***
AL
ASK
A A
ND
BO
RE
AL
CA
NA
DA
MA
PS R
EG
ION
SR
uby-
crow
ned
Kin
glet
633
16-5
1.5
14.1
417
11-3
5.3
31.2
60.
515
0.68
80.
172
0.29
733
.5Sw
ains
on's
Thr
ush
944
476.
820
.08
1313
0.0
49.3
110.
296
0.27
7-0
.019
0.11
5-6
.4
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[64]
TAB
LE
1. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0120
02%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0120
02%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0120
02ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Ora
nge-
crow
ned
War
bler
644
4911
.439
.85
4450
13.6
15.1
61.
000
1.02
00.
020
0.88
52.
0Ye
llow
-rum
ped
War
bler
1138
4210
.533
.511
2217
-22.
740
.312
0.57
90.
405
-0.1
740.
188
-30.
1A
mer
ican
Red
star
t5
4342
-2.3
29.8
310
1330
.013
9.4
50.
233
0.31
00.
077
0.19
633
.1W
ilson
's W
arbl
er7
6958
-15.
920
.67
108
83-2
3.1
20.7
71.
565
1.43
1-0
.134
0.84
2-8
.6W
hite
-cro
wne
d S
parr
ow3
3321
-36.
412
.53
8451
-39.
316
.33
2.54
62.
429
-0.1
170.
887
-4.6
Dar
k-ey
ed Ju
nco
522
2827
.350
.57
3045
50.0
92.0
71.
364
1.60
70.
244
1.10
717
.9A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
1271
266
9-6
.010
.812
506
500
-1.2
20.7
120.
711
0.74
70.
037
0.34
05.
2N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 4
/8
(50%
)N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 4
/8
(50%
)N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 4/
8 (5
0%)
a N
umbe
r of
sta
tion
s at
whi
ch a
t lea
st o
ne in
div
idua
l ad
ult b
ird
of t
he s
peci
es w
as c
aptu
red
in e
ithe
r ye
ar.
bSt
and
ard
err
or o
f the
per
cent
cha
nge
in th
e nu
mbe
r of
ad
ult b
ird
s ca
ptur
ed.
cN
umbe
r of
sta
tion
s at
whi
ch a
t lea
st o
ne in
div
idua
l you
ng b
ird
of t
he s
peci
es w
as c
aptu
red
in e
ithe
r ye
ar.
dSt
and
ard
err
or o
f the
per
cent
cha
nge
in th
e nu
mbe
r of
you
ng b
ird
s ca
ptur
ed.
eN
umbe
r of
sta
tion
s at
whi
ch a
t lea
st o
ne in
div
idua
l age
d b
ird
of t
he s
peci
es w
as c
aptu
red
in e
ithe
r ye
ar.
fSt
and
ard
err
or o
f the
cha
nge
in th
e re
prod
ucti
ve in
dex
.+
++
+ P
erce
nt c
hang
e un
def
ined
bec
ause
no
youn
g w
ere
capt
ured
dur
ing
the
firs
t yea
r of
the
com
pari
son.
*0.0
5�
P
< 0
.10;
**
0.01
�P
< 0
.05;
***
P <
0.0
1
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[65]
Region, and <50% in North-central andSoutheast regions; the proportions for theSouthwest (76%) and Northwest (65%) regionswere highly significantly and significantly >50%,respectively. Summing over these two regions, 16species had significant increases in numbers ofadults and another nine species had nearlysignificant increases, while only four speciesshowed significant or nearly significantdecreases. Summing over the remaining fiveregions, nine species had significant or nearlysignificant increases in numbers of adults, whilefive species showed significant or nearly signif-icant decreases in numbers of adults.
Program-wide, the index for adult populationsize for all species pooled increased by a highlysignificant 8.3%. The program-wide proportionof increasing species (63%) was also highly signi-ficantly >50%. Program-wide, 13 species hadsignificant increases in numbers of adults andanother 11 species had nearly significantincreases, while only eight species showedsignificant or nearly significant decreases.
(b) Changes in productivity — Overall,productivity decreased dramatically between2001 and 2002 in five of the seven regions. Thenumbers of young birds of all species pooledshowed a significant decrease of -11.0% in theNorthwest, highly significant decreases rangingfrom -15.9% and -17.1% in the Southeast andNortheast, respectively, to -29.0% and -48.8% inthe North-central and Southwest, respectively,and a non-significant decrease of 1.2% inAlaska/Boreal Canada. The only increase innumbers of young birds of all species pooledwas a non-significant increase of 11.5% in theSouth-central Region. Changes in reproductiveindex for all species pooled generally paralleledchanges in numbers of young with a highlysignificant -61.6% decrease in the Southwest,significant -30.1%, -20.9%, and -18.9% decreasesin the North-Central, Northeast, and Southeastregions, respectively, and a nearly significant -14.7% decrease in the Northwest. Only theSouth-central and Alaska/Boreal Canada regionssaw increases in reproductive index for allspecies pooled (of 8.2% and 5.2%, respectively)and these were both non-significant. Proportionsof species with decreasing numbers of youngranged from 48% (South-central) to 77%(Southeast) for the seven regions and werehighly significantly >50% for the Southeast and
Southwest regions, significantly >50% for theNorth-central and Northeast regions, and nearlysignificantly >50% for the Northwest region.Similarly, proportions of species with decreasingreproductive indices ranged from 48% (South-central) to 89% (Southwest) for the seven regionsand were highly significantly >50% for theSoutheast and Southwest regions, significantly>50% for the North-central, Northeast, andNorthwest regions. Summing over the sevenregions, 37 species showed significant regionaldecreases in numbers of young and another 20species had nearly significant decreases, whileonly seven species showed significant or nearlysignificant increases. Similarly, again summingover the seven regions, 30 species showedsignificant regional decreases in reproductiveindex and another 14 species had nearlysignificant decreases, while only three speciesshowed significant or nearly significantincreases.
Program-wide, the number of young for allspecies pooled decreased by a highly significant -19.4% while the reproductive index for allspecies pooled decreased by a highly significant -25.6% from 0.515 in 2001 to 0.383 in 2002. Theprogram-wide proportions of species withdecreasing numbers of young (72%) anddecreasing reproductive indices (78%) were bothalso highly significantly >50%. Program-wide, 26species had significant decreases in numbers ofyoung and another 11 species had nearlysignificant decreases, while no species had asignificant increase and only six showed nearlysignificant increases. Similarly, and againprogram-wide, 22 species had significantdecreases in numbers of young and another fivespecies had nearly significant decreases, whileonly two species showed significant or nearlysignificant increases.
2. Changes between 2002 and 2003 — Constant-effort data on the numbers of adult and youngbirds captured and the proportion of young inthe catch were obtained for 2002 and 2003 from349 MAPS stations that were operatedcomparably in both years. The changes between2002 and 2003 in these numbers and proportionsare presented for the entire continent (program-wide) and for each region in Table 2 for thosespecies that met the productivity selectioncriteria (see Methods – Data Analysis) and for allspecies pooled. These included 128 species
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[66]
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[67]
TAB
LE
2.
Prog
ram
-wid
e an
d r
egio
nal
chan
ges
betw
een
2002
and
200
3 in
the
num
bers
of
adul
t an
d y
oung
ind
ivid
uals
cap
ture
d a
nd i
n th
e re
prod
ucti
ve i
ndex
(you
ng/
adul
t) f
or 1
28 s
peci
es a
nd a
ll sp
ecie
s po
oled
(ex
clud
ing
galli
nace
ous
bird
s an
d h
umm
ingb
ird
s) a
t th
e 34
9 M
APS
sta
tion
s ru
n co
mpa
rabl
y d
urin
g bo
thye
ars.
For
eac
h sp
ecie
s, d
ata
wer
e in
clud
ed o
nly
from
sta
tion
s w
ithi
n th
e br
eed
ing
rang
e of
the
spe
cies
. Onl
y sp
ecie
s fo
r w
hich
ad
ults
wer
e ca
ptur
ed a
t tw
o or
mor
e st
atio
ns a
nd fo
r w
hich
50
or m
ore
aged
ind
ivid
uals
wer
e ca
ptur
ed in
eit
her
year
are
incl
uded
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
PRO
GR
AM
-WID
EC
omm
on G
roun
d-D
ove
1048
5718
.843
.83
212
500.
075
5.0
100.
042
0.21
10.
169
0.07
2**
405.
3R
ed-b
ellie
d W
ood
peck
er43
4328
-34.
913
.9*
139
4-5
5.6
27.8
480.
209
0.14
3-0
.066
0.10
1-3
1.7
Red
-nap
ed S
apsu
cker
3453
6420
.813
.1*
2116
4316
8.8
63.3
***
360.
302
0.67
20.
370
0.15
8**
122.
6R
ed-b
reas
ted
Sap
suck
er51
126
137
8.7
12.6
3273
47-3
5.6
16.2
*52
0.57
90.
343
-0.2
360.
110
**-4
0.8
Nut
tall'
s W
ood
peck
er23
4240
-4.8
27.4
2137
382.
723
.325
0.88
10.
950
0.06
90.
403
7.8
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er17
824
123
1-4
.110
.014
425
321
9-1
3.4
8.7
199
1.05
00.
948
-0.1
020.
152
-9.7
Hai
ry W
ood
peck
er11
810
580
-23.
811
.4*
5030
313.
326
.714
20.
286
0.38
80.
102
0.10
835
.6N
orth
ern
Flic
ker
9081
78-3
.716
.752
4237
-11.
922
.111
00.
519
0.47
4-0
.044
0.14
7-8
.5W
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee91
249
254
2.0
10.9
4132
4746
.936
.894
0.12
90.
185
0.05
70.
046
44.0
Eas
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
5586
68-2
0.9
11.1
*11
815
87.5
111.
457
0.09
30.
221
0.12
80.
158
137.
1A
cad
ian
Flyc
atch
er49
206
199
-3.4
10.6
1626
9-6
5.4
9.3
***
520.
126
0.04
5-0
.081
0.03
8**
-64.
2"T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er12
345
940
3-1
2.2
8.3
3722
4811
8.2
68.0
**12
30.
048
0.11
90.
071
0.02
6**
*148
.5L
east
Fly
catc
her
2882
61-2
5.6
14.9
1311
1427
.372
.331
0.13
40.
230
0.09
50.
092
71.1
Ham
mon
d's
Fly
catc
her
6614
313
0-9
.116
.227
2942
44.8
58.1
680.
203
0.32
30.
120
0.12
659
.3D
usky
Fly
catc
her
7536
630
5-1
6.7
8.4
*28
3948
23.1
35.9
760.
107
0.15
70.
051
0.03
947
.7"W
este
rn"
Flyc
atch
er93
324
264
-18.
58.
9*
6211
010
3-6
.414
.310
00.
340
0.39
00.
051
0.09
414
.9B
lack
Pho
ebe
2737
4213
.525
.336
5169
35.3
38.2
381.
378
1.64
30.
265
0.60
119
.2E
aste
rn P
hoeb
e43
5541
-25.
519
.335
9433
-64.
99.
4**
*56
1.70
90.
805
-0.9
040.
441
**-5
2.9
Ash
-thr
oate
d F
lyca
tche
r46
162
134
-17.
312
.413
824
200.
015
6.1
470.
049
0.17
90.
130
0.04
5**
*262
.7W
hite
-eye
d V
ireo
5729
127
3-6
.28.
342
7682
7.9
21.8
610.
261
0.30
00.
039
0.06
415
.0B
ell's
Vir
eo12
4049
22.5
18.3
89
1788
.975
.213
0.22
50.
347
0.12
20.
162
54.2
Cas
sin'
s V
ireo
4576
839.
216
.725
1934
78.9
50.1
**53
0.25
00.
410
0.16
00.
109
63.9
War
blin
g V
ireo
136
615
577
-6.2
7.4
5756
8551
.834
.8*
142
0.09
10.
147
0.05
60.
031
*61
.8R
ed-e
yed
Vir
eo11
440
737
7-7
.47.
925
2318
-21.
727
.511
40.
057
0.04
8-0
.009
0.02
2-1
5.5
Blu
e Ja
y65
8392
10.8
20.2
2822
3872
.766
.370
0.26
50.
413
0.14
80.
123
55.8
Tree
Sw
allo
w29
4451
15.9
25.7
94
775
.012
4.0
320.
091
0.13
70.
046
0.08
551
.0C
liff S
wal
low
1047
38-1
9.1
48.3
23
0-1
00.0
0.0
110.
064
0.00
0-0
.064
0.04
4-1
00.0
Car
olin
a C
hick
adee
6615
410
7-3
0.5
11.3
**50
120
62-4
8.3
11.0
***
730.
779
0.57
9-0
.200
0.17
9-2
5.6
Bla
ck-c
appe
d C
hick
adee
116
437
450
3.0
8.3
101
317
391
23.3
15.0
*12
70.
725
0.86
90.
144
0.14
019
.8M
ount
ain
Chi
ckad
ee50
161
188
16.8
14.0
4014
610
9-2
5.3
20.5
550.
907
0.58
0-0
.327
0.23
0-3
6.1
Che
stnu
t-ba
cked
Chi
ck.
5316
514
4-1
2.7
9.8
4014
715
44.
827
.455
0.89
11.
069
0.17
90.
327
20.0
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Oak
Tit
mou
se15
3932
-17.
924
.211
3927
-30.
823
.916
1.00
00.
844
-0.1
560.
380
-15.
6Tu
fted
Tit
mou
se10
425
020
0-2
0.0
8.1
**87
271
163
-39.
98.
2**
*11
11.
084
0.81
5-0
.269
0.16
9-2
4.8
Bla
ck-c
rest
ed T
itm
ouse
925
22-1
2.0
33.4
746
25-4
5.7
17.7
**9
1.84
01.
136
-0.7
040.
692
-38.
2B
usht
it64
353
182
-48.
49.
9**
*54
270
168
-37.
815
.2*
700.
765
0.92
30.
158
0.27
620
.7R
ed-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h63
8870
-20.
513
.344
7397
32.9
48.2
740.
830
1.38
60.
556
0.45
067
.0W
hite
-bre
aste
d N
utha
tch
6080
58-2
7.5
14.5
*36
2519
-24.
025
.979
0.31
30.
328
0.01
50.
124
4.8
Bro
wn
Cre
eper
6172
8923
.617
.268
8010
126
.319
.986
1.11
11.
135
0.02
40.
287
2.1
Car
olin
a W
ren
8439
728
5-2
8.2
5.9
***
7935
720
9-4
1.5
7.6
***
930.
899
0.73
3-0
.166
0.15
8-1
8.5
Bew
ick'
s W
ren
7534
836
24.
08.
976
443
461
4.1
13.1
831.
273
1.27
40.
001
0.26
30.
0H
ouse
Wre
n94
463
488
5.4
7.7
9336
637
01.
111
.710
90.
791
0.75
8-0
.032
0.15
5-4
.1W
inte
r W
ren
3266
8427
.316
.431
2773
170.
480
.2**
*43
0.40
90.
869
0.46
00.
248
*11
2.4
Mar
sh W
ren
88
5-3
7.5
43.8
1015
4520
0.0
71.7
**13
1.87
59.
000
7.12
52.
402
**38
0.0
Gol
den
-cro
wne
d K
ingl
et49
124
113
-8.9
15.5
3619
827
940
.947
.259
1.59
72.
469
0.87
21.
086
54.6
Rub
y-cr
owne
d K
ingl
et32
8715
780
.540
.3**
2043
6346
.532
.634
0.49
40.
401
-0.0
930.
239
-18.
8B
lue-
gray
Gna
tcat
cher
3960
52-1
3.3
17.3
2417
4415
8.8
84.7
**49
0.28
30.
846
0.56
30.
310
*19
8.6
Eas
tern
Blu
ebir
d25
3924
-38.
516
.5*
1541
17-5
8.5
19.7
291.
051
0.70
8-0
.343
0.44
5-3
2.6
Vee
ry54
304
260
-14.
57.
1*
3238
4723
.736
.654
0.12
50.
181
0.05
60.
048
44.6
Swai
nson
's T
hrus
h11
613
5311
85-1
2.4
5.3
**73
175
210
20.0
16.3
118
0.12
90.
177
0.04
80.
030
37.0
Her
mit
Thr
ush
6915
212
3-1
9.1
9.0
*47
5447
-13.
021
.981
0.35
50.
382
0.02
70.
092
7.6
Woo
d T
hrus
h84
506
391
-22.
75.
7**
*60
110
121
10.0
16.6
860.
217
0.31
00.
092
0.04
8*
42.4
Am
eric
an R
obin
221
949
963
1.5
6.3
139
337
398
18.1
15.3
231
0.35
50.
413
0.05
80.
064
16.4
Wre
ntit
4146
029
3-3
6.3
8.2
**40
174
406
133.
365
.4**
*43
0.37
81.
386
1.00
70.
271
***2
66.3
Gra
y C
atbi
rd11
616
1415
05-6
.84.
580
591
752
27.2
14.9
**12
00.
366
0.50
00.
134
0.07
8*
36.5
Bro
wn
Thr
ashe
r43
6863
-7.4
18.7
2928
26-7
.130
.551
0.41
20.
413
0.00
10.
146
0.2
Ced
ar W
axw
ing
8647
841
7-1
2.8
9.7
1411
3118
1.8
160.
187
0.02
30.
074
0.05
10.
025
**22
3.0
Blu
e-w
inge
d W
arbl
er24
7956
-29.
113
.9**
1112
11-8
.336
.824
0.15
20.
196
0.04
50.
071
29.3
Tenn
esse
e W
arbl
er14
2957
96.6
116.
86
2651
96.2
16.3
*14
0.89
70.
895
-0.0
021.
132
-0.2
Ora
nge-
crow
ned
War
bler
6827
224
2-1
1.0
15.0
5114
419
938
.243
.974
0.52
90.
822
0.29
30.
276
55.3
Nas
hvill
e W
arbl
er38
112
109
-2.7
18.7
2612
147
-61.
213
.7**
421.
080
0.43
1-0
.649
0.37
9*
-60.
1V
irgi
nia'
s W
arbl
er12
7181
14.1
25.6
838
380.
025
.813
0.53
50.
469
-0.0
660.
229
-12.
3L
ucy'
s W
arbl
er13
115
103
-10.
419
.510
2346
100.
010
6.9
130.
200
0.44
70.
247
0.15
312
3.3
Nor
ther
n Pa
rula
2322
4395
.563
.3*
1310
1550
.085
.228
0.45
50.
349
-0.1
060.
276
-23.
3Ye
llow
War
bler
150
1549
1429
-7.7
5.0
9743
059
939
.317
.8**
155
0.27
80.
419
0.14
20.
052
***
51.0
Che
stnu
t-si
ded
War
bler
2272
731.
417
.67
2515
-40.
016
.3**
220.
347
0.20
6-0
.142
0.16
7-4
0.8
Mag
nolia
War
bler
1645
474.
430
.38
1810
-44.
432
.116
0.40
00.
213
-0.1
870.
163
-46.
8
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[68]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Yello
w-r
umpe
d W
arbl
er95
522
428
-18.
07.
3**
5447
327
1-4
2.7
30.8
960.
906
0.63
3-0
.273
0.46
7-3
0.1
Bla
ck-t
hrtd
Gre
en W
arb.
1942
27-3
5.7
14.6
*9
1210
-16.
731
.723
0.28
60.
370
0.08
50.
281
29.6
Tow
nsen
d's
War
bler
2311
188
-20.
712
.813
6513
010
0.0
79.2
230.
586
1.47
70.
892
0.65
815
2.3
Her
mit
War
bler
3514
013
5-3
.619
.024
128
36-7
1.9
13.9
***
370.
914
0.26
7-0
.648
0.31
4**
-70.
8Pr
airi
e W
arbl
er17
7056
-20.
014
.113
2128
33.3
32.3
200.
300
0.50
00.
200
0.15
166
.7B
lack
-and
-whi
te W
arbl
er68
127
134
5.5
14.7
4051
5915
.730
.178
0.40
20.
440
0.03
90.
120
9.6
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
7337
634
8-7
.411
.934
9192
1.1
18.8
780.
242
0.26
40.
022
0.07
29.
2Pr
otho
nota
ry W
arbl
er18
107
110
2.8
18.4
923
244.
376
.818
0.21
50.
218
0.00
30.
137
1.5
Wor
m-e
atin
g W
arbl
er50
111
124
11.7
16.3
2663
56-1
1.1
19.3
530.
568
0.45
2-0
.116
0.23
7-2
0.4
Ove
nbir
d10
240
534
1-1
5.8
7.2
**65
135
151
11.9
18.7
108
0.33
30.
443
0.11
00.
082
32.8
Nor
ther
n W
ater
thru
sh21
3639
8.3
27.0
1410
1440
.063
.728
0.27
80.
359
0.08
10.
199
29.2
Lou
isia
na W
ater
thru
sh43
8083
3.8
14.4
2749
45-8
.218
.846
0.61
20.
542
-0.0
700.
192
-11.
5K
entu
cky
War
bler
3214
515
03.
413
.822
5439
-27.
821
.034
0.37
20.
260
-0.1
120.
100
-30.
2M
acG
illiv
ray'
s W
arbl
er11
796
579
7-1
7.4
4.8
***
8224
834
739
.914
.9**
*12
40.
257
0.43
50.
178
0.05
5**
*69
.4C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
174
1370
1173
-14.
44.
3**
*10
341
559
342
.925
.1*
179
0.30
30.
506
0.20
30.
107
*66
.9H
ood
ed W
arbl
er40
167
154
-7.8
10.5
2445
44-2
.218
.942
0.27
00.
286
0.01
60.
118
6.0
Wils
on's
War
bler
102
854
687
-19.
68.
5**
5722
331
239
.919
.3**
105
0.26
10.
454
0.19
30.
110
*73
.9C
anad
a W
arbl
er15
3342
27.3
33.6
1312
2066
.743
.8*
200.
364
0.47
60.
113
0.19
031
.0Ye
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
7148
038
6-1
9.6
6.7
**37
9572
-24.
215
.073
0.19
80.
187
-0.0
110.
062
-5.8
Sum
mer
Tan
ager
4812
813
77.
015
.915
814
75.0
82.0
490.
063
0.10
20.
040
0.04
163
.5Sc
arle
t Tan
ager
4557
570.
019
.110
1311
-15.
460
.349
0.22
80.
193
-0.0
350.
171
-15.
4W
este
rn T
anag
er10
634
727
6-2
0.5
8.4
**47
115
162
40.9
49.9
111
0.33
10.
587
0.25
60.
186
77.1
Gre
en-t
aile
d T
owhe
e26
6960
-13.
015
.619
4732
-31.
923
.431
0.68
10.
533
-0.1
480.
271
-21.
7Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e83
510
451
-11.
67.
172
285
301
5.6
23.6
900.
559
0.66
70.
109
0.15
319
.4E
aste
rn T
owhe
e66
123
118
-4.1
12.5
3540
36-1
0.0
23.2
710.
325
0.30
5-0
.020
0.09
4-6
.2C
alif
orni
a To
whe
e26
122
65-4
6.7
12.6
**18
767
857.
151
8.8
280.
057
1.03
10.
973
0.23
6**
*169
6.5
Ruf
ous-
crow
ned
Spa
rrow
1538
25-3
4.2
19.6
1014
2810
0.0
127.
816
0.36
81.
120
0.75
20.
575
204.
0C
hipp
ing
Spar
row
9723
922
5-5
.910
.551
7011
158
.631
.7**
105
0.29
30.
493
0.20
00.
116
*68
.4C
lay-
colo
red
Spa
rrow
466
58-1
2.1
3.1
*3
1541
173.
350
.7*
50.
227
0.70
70.
480
0.28
321
1.0
Bre
wer
's S
parr
ow21
6145
-26.
222
.019
4633
-28.
326
.826
0.75
40.
733
-0.0
210.
300
-2.8
Fiel
d S
parr
ow41
169
139
-17.
811
.425
3950
28.2
29.0
420.
231
0.36
00.
129
0.13
455
.9Sa
vann
ah S
parr
ow13
9860
-38.
85.
7**
*7
1211
-8.3
60.6
140.
122
0.18
30.
061
0.15
149
.7G
rass
hopp
er S
parr
ow6
4843
-10.
433
.35
7837
-52.
622
.37
1.62
50.
860
-0.7
650.
647
-47.
0Fo
x Sp
arro
w38
105
83-2
1.0
12.0
1515
1713
.359
.341
0.14
30.
205
0.06
20.
089
43.4
Song
Spa
rrow
191
1867
1672
-10.
43.
9**
191
1319
1573
19.3
9.6
**20
60.
707
0.94
10.
234
0.08
8**
*33
.2
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[69]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Lin
coln
's S
parr
ow51
268
236
-11.
97.
841
109
104
-4.6
23.7
560.
407
0.44
10.
034
0.11
88.
3Sw
amp
Spar
row
1660
42-3
0.0
13.8
939
5028
.236
.519
0.65
01.
191
0.54
10.
364
83.1
Whi
te-t
hroa
ted
Spa
rrow
1555
7027
.326
.010
1618
12.5
52.5
150.
291
0.25
7-0
.034
0.14
3-1
1.6
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
2180
75-6
.312
.115
3553
51.4
51.5
240.
438
0.70
70.
269
0.21
761
.5D
ark-
eyed
Junc
o96
819
590
-28.
03.
7**
*93
560
547
-2.3
15.4
108
0.68
40.
927
0.24
30.
168
35.6
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
129
882
797
-9.6
6.1
9736
732
6-1
1.2
11.2
130
0.41
60.
409
-0.0
070.
065
-1.7
Ros
e-br
east
ed G
rosb
eak
3179
69-1
2.7
15.4
1315
14-6
.734
.234
0.19
00.
203
0.01
30.
113
6.9
Bla
ck-h
ead
ed G
rosb
eak
122
495
455
-8.1
8.4
7511
716
944
.431
.412
90.
236
0.37
10.
135
0.10
257
.1B
lue
Gro
sbea
k31
9411
118
.122
.06
311
266.
724
7.7
310.
032
0.09
90.
067
0.03
6*
210.
5L
azul
i Bun
ting
8323
722
5-5
.111
.930
5359
11.3
31.0
850.
224
0.26
20.
039
0.08
617
.3In
dig
o B
unti
ng84
418
387
-7.4
9.4
3249
29-4
0.8
19.1
860.
117
0.07
5-0
.042
0.03
3-3
6.1
Pain
ted
Bun
ting
2015
015
42.
79.
316
7437
-50.
09.
2**
*21
0.49
30.
240
-0.2
530.
091
***
-51.
3D
ickc
isse
l6
8166
-18.
542
.23
05
++
++
6
0.00
00.
076
0.07
60.
027
**+
++
+
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd70
284
316
11.3
12.0
2228
3214
.368
.172
0.09
90.
101
0.00
30.
051
2.7
Com
mon
Gra
ckle
5093
930.
022
.214
1317
30.8
66.8
510.
140
0.18
30.
043
0.08
330
.8B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
155
287
284
-1.0
9.9
5223
5212
6.1
61.7
***
166
0.08
00.
183
0.10
30.
042
**12
8.5
Orc
hard
Ori
ole
1541
5124
.423
.76
65
-16.
791
.416
0.14
60.
098
-0.0
480.
101
-33.
0B
ullo
ck's
Ori
ole
6018
317
6-3
.812
.927
5154
5.9
42.8
640.
279
0.30
70.
028
0.11
510
.1B
alti
mor
e O
riol
e41
7464
-13.
520
.119
3428
-17.
664
.044
0.46
00.
438
-0.0
220.
338
-4.8
Purp
le F
inch
4922
123
77.
213
.233
100
54-4
6.0
9.6
***
540.
453
0.22
8-0
.225
0.07
7**
*-4
9.6
Cas
sin'
s Fi
nch
3447
8070
.253
.313
1117
54.5
61.2
340.
234
0.21
3-0
.022
0.11
6-9
.2H
ouse
Fin
ch61
259
194
-25.
111
.0*
4524
517
8-2
7.3
15.9
700.
946
0.91
8-0
.028
0.28
5-3
.0Pi
ne S
iski
n48
132
172
30.3
25.5
2393
167
79.6
88.2
500.
705
0.97
10.
266
0.47
737
.8L
esse
r G
old
finc
h42
187
156
-16.
619
.928
4785
80.9
43.2
**46
0.25
10.
545
0.29
40.
199
116.
8A
mer
ican
Gol
dfi
nch
132
964
755
-21.
75.
2**
*18
1724
41.2
53.9
133
0.01
80.
032
0.01
40.
013
80.3
Eve
ning
Gro
sbea
k14
8913
652
.822
.15
47
75.0
125.
014
0.04
50.
052
0.00
70.
027
14.5
Hou
se S
parr
ow13
1835
94.4
46.9
*4
2916
-44.
819
.614
1.61
10.
457
-1.1
540.
488
**-7
1.6
All
sp
ecie
s p
oole
d34
934
130
3062
4-1
0.3
1.6
***
348
1333
114
547
9.1
5.4
*34
90.
391
0.47
50.
084
0.02
8**
*21
.6N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g:86
/12
8 (6
7%)*
**N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 78/
128
(61%
)***
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 8
4/12
8 (6
6%)*
**
NO
RT
HW
EST
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Red
-nap
ed S
apsu
cker
3453
6420
.813
.1*
2116
4316
8.8
63.3
***
360.
302
0.67
20.
370
0.15
8**
122.
6R
ed-b
reas
ted
Sap
suck
er51
126
137
8.7
12.6
3273
47-3
5.6
16.2
*52
0.57
90.
343
-0.2
360.
110
**-4
0.8
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er52
5367
26.4
23.4
3338
380.
024
.856
0.71
70.
567
-0.1
500.
206
-20.
9H
airy
Woo
dpe
cker
5240
32-2
0.0
17.9
2518
11-3
8.9
23.2
630.
450
0.34
4-0
.106
0.17
6-2
3.6
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[70]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Nor
ther
n Fl
icke
r36
3140
29.0
36.9
2719
2215
.837
.649
0.61
30.
550
-0.0
630.
265
-10.
3W
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee65
184
201
9.2
14.2
3528
4353
.642
.067
0.15
20.
214
0.06
20.
056
40.6
"Tra
ill's
" Fl
ycat
cher
6925
223
9-5
.210
.721
1527
80.0
78.7
690.
060
0.11
30.
053
0.03
789
.8H
amm
ond
's F
lyca
tche
r63
125
130
4.0
15.0
2729
4244
.858
.165
0.23
20.
323
0.09
10.
130
39.3
Dus
ky F
lyca
tche
r67
306
280
-8.5
7.8
2533
4639
.443
.768
0.10
80.
164
0.05
60.
043
52.3
"Wes
tern
" Fl
ycat
cher
5915
616
02.
613
.243
6355
-12.
718
.065
0.40
40.
344
-0.0
600.
108
-14.
9C
assi
n's
Vir
eo44
7483
12.2
17.0
2519
3478
.950
.1**
520.
257
0.41
00.
153
0.11
059
.5W
arbl
ing
Vir
eo96
498
472
-5.2
8.2
3738
5236
.838
.197
0.07
60.
110
0.03
40.
028
44.4
Bla
ck-c
appe
d C
hick
adee
4317
316
2-6
.410
.643
130
193
48.5
27.1
**48
0.75
11.
191
0.44
00.
236
*58
.5M
ount
ain
Chi
ckad
ee48
160
187
16.9
14.1
3814
210
9-2
3.2
21.4
530.
888
0.58
3-0
.305
0.23
0-3
4.3
Che
stnu
t-ba
cked
Chi
ck.
4412
911
9-7
.811
.731
7393
27.4
39.6
460.
566
0.78
10.
216
0.24
538
.1B
usht
it26
6261
-1.6
31.4
2110
246
-54.
925
.730
1.64
50.
754
-0.8
910.
365
**-5
4.2
Red
-bre
aste
d N
utha
tch
5885
66-2
2.4
13.4
4272
9430
.648
.368
0.84
71.
424
0.57
70.
471
68.1
Bro
wn
Cre
eper
5163
8230
.219
.1*
6077
9624
.720
.171
1.22
21.
171
-0.0
520.
319
-4.2
Bew
ick'
s W
ren
2065
49-2
4.6
14.7
2195
86-9
.517
.225
1.46
21.
755
0.29
40.
665
20.1
Hou
se W
ren
2715
414
3-7
.110
.833
128
141
10.2
19.3
360.
831
0.98
60.
155
0.24
818
.6W
inte
r W
ren
2662
8029
.016
.6*
2627
6815
1.9
76.6
***
340.
436
0.85
00.
415
0.25
895
.2G
old
en-c
row
ned
Kin
glet
4211
010
5-4
.517
.034
196
279
42.3
47.7
511.
782
2.65
70.
875
1.15
649
.1R
uby-
crow
ned
Kin
glet
2884
155
84.5
42.0
**18
4360
39.5
30.2
*29
0.51
20.
387
-0.1
250.
244
-24.
4Sw
ains
on's
Thr
ush
8310
1994
1-7
.75.
356
116
143
23.3
23.6
840.
114
0.15
20.
038
0.03
233
.5H
erm
it T
hrus
h37
6362
-1.6
16.3
2622
2827
.337
.944
0.34
90.
452
0.10
20.
137
29.3
Am
eric
an R
obin
114
516
537
4.1
7.1
6613
017
635
.427
.011
80.
252
0.32
80.
076
0.06
930
.1W
rent
it17
5465
20.4
20.9
1758
615.
224
.319
1.07
40.
939
-0.1
360.
260
-12.
6G
ray
Cat
bird
1716
622
434
.920
.713
4987
77.6
45.5
170.
295
0.38
80.
093
0.13
531
.6C
edar
Wax
win
g38
243
200
-17.
711
.010
824
200.
020
0.7
390.
033
0.12
00.
087
0.03
9**
264.
5O
rang
e-cr
owne
d W
arbl
er45
156
153
-1.9
20.1
3094
92-2
.120
.450
0.60
30.
601
-0.0
010.
262
-0.2
Nas
hvill
e W
arbl
er26
8974
-16.
912
.221
9024
-73.
38.
0**
*29
1.01
10.
324
-0.6
870.
367
*-6
7.9
Vir
gini
a's
War
bler
541
5739
.046
.24
2331
34.8
28.8
60.
561
0.54
4-0
.017
0.33
2-3
.1Ye
llow
War
bler
7195
794
3-1
.57.
653
306
404
32.0
18.2
*73
0.32
00.
428
0.10
90.
066
*34
.0Ye
llow
-rum
ped
War
bler
7548
339
4-1
8.4
7.6
**47
465
191
-58.
920
.4**
*76
0.96
30.
485
-0.4
780.
480
-49.
6To
wns
end
's W
arbl
er22
110
88-2
0.0
12.9
1365
130
100.
079
.222
0.59
11.
477
0.88
60.
659
150.
0H
erm
it W
arbl
er35
140
135
-3.6
19.0
2412
836
-71.
913
.9**
*37
0.91
40.
267
-0.6
480.
314
**-7
0.8
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
1279
64-1
9.0
16.7
912
1958
.311
2.1
130.
152
0.29
70.
145
0.13
395
.4M
acG
illiv
ray'
s W
arbl
er99
900
767
-14.
84.
7**
*79
246
342
39.0
14.8
***
104
0.27
30.
446
0.17
30.
057
***
63.1
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at39
265
233
-12.
110
.621
137
200
46.0
55.2
400.
517
0.85
80.
341
0.44
966
.0
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[71]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Wils
on's
War
bler
8563
754
1-1
5.1
10.4
4799
147
48.5
36.0
880.
155
0.27
20.
116
0.07
174
.8Ye
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
2199
111
12.1
13.3
1243
26-3
9.5
23.6
220.
434
0.23
4-0
.200
0.18
8-4
6.1
Wes
tern
Tan
ager
9029
624
5-1
7.2
8.8
*44
110
118
7.3
33.7
940.
372
0.48
20.
110
0.14
429
.6G
reen
-tai
led
Tow
hee
2262
59-4
.817
.118
4527
-40.
021
.127
0.72
60.
458
-0.2
680.
280
-36.
9Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e42
204
198
-2.9
9.4
4113
214
610
.616
.149
0.64
70.
737
0.09
00.
196
14.0
Chi
ppin
g Sp
arro
w51
153
149
-2.6
14.2
2853
8458
.537
.8*
550.
346
0.56
40.
217
0.15
762
.7B
rew
er's
Spa
rrow
1755
43-2
1.8
24.2
1746
31-3
2.6
25.9
220.
836
0.72
1-0
.115
0.31
9-1
3.8
Sava
nnah
Spa
rrow
1094
57-3
9.4
5.6
***
611
110.
069
.010
0.11
70.
193
0.07
60.
165
64.9
Fox
Spar
row
3710
582
-21.
911
.915
1517
13.3
59.3
400.
143
0.20
70.
064
0.09
045
.1So
ng S
parr
ow98
953
942
-1.2
5.0
9972
688
121
.412
.9*
106
0.76
20.
935
0.17
30.
126
22.8
Lin
coln
's S
parr
ow45
264
229
-13.
37.
738
109
99-9
.223
.049
0.41
30.
432
0.01
90.
120
4.7
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
1876
74-2
.612
.712
3351
54.5
55.7
190.
434
0.68
90.
255
0.22
458
.7D
ark-
eyed
Junc
o79
766
553
-27.
83.
9**
*76
491
425
-13.
413
.085
0.64
10.
769
0.12
80.
137
19.9
Bla
ck-h
ead
ed G
rosb
eak
8327
627
91.
112
.051
8210
831
.731
.289
0.29
70.
387
0.09
00.
153
30.3
Laz
uli B
unti
ng60
197
183
-7.1
12.7
2453
41-2
2.6
17.7
620.
269
0.22
4-0
.045
0.09
3-1
6.7
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd24
124
129
4.0
15.9
913
11-1
5.4
71.4
260.
105
0.08
5-0
.020
0.07
8-1
8.7
Bro
wn-
head
ed C
owbi
rd60
113
133
17.7
16.4
227
3032
8.6
178.
5**
*63
0.06
20.
226
0.16
40.
074
**26
4.1
Bul
lock
's O
riol
e29
120
96-2
0.0
13.6
1543
34-2
0.9
37.6
320.
358
0.35
4-0
.004
0.17
3-1
.2Pu
rple
Fin
ch33
176
208
18.2
13.8
2379
44-4
4.3
11.0
**36
0.44
90.
212
-0.2
370.
080
***
-52.
9C
assi
n's
Finc
h34
4780
70.2
53.3
1311
1754
.561
.234
0.23
40.
213
-0.0
220.
116
-9.2
Hou
se F
inch
1777
44-4
2.9
12.9
***
1691
47-4
8.4
15.6
***
211.
182
1.06
8-0
.114
0.27
2-9
.6Pi
ne S
iski
n47
131
171
30.5
25.7
2293
166
78.5
88.0
490.
710
0.97
10.
261
0.48
036
.7L
esse
r G
old
finc
h17
5086
72.0
37.7
*12
3154
74.2
34.5
*18
0.62
00.
628
0.00
80.
415
1.3
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h30
183
221
20.8
12.5
*9
1116
45.5
73.2
300.
060
0.07
20.
012
0.04
620
.4E
veni
ng G
rosb
eak
1489
136
52.8
22.1
54
775
.012
5.0
140.
045
0.05
20.
007
0.02
714
.5A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
126
1416
113
597
-4.0
2.2
*12
660
7665
477.
88.
912
60.
429
0.48
20.
052
0.04
812
.2N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 3
8/64
(59%
)*N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 42/
64 (6
6%)*
**N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 40/
64 (6
3%)*
*
SOU
TH
WE
ST M
APS
RE
GIO
NN
utta
ll's
Woo
dpe
cker
2342
40-4
.827
.421
3738
2.7
23.3
250.
881
0.95
00.
069
0.40
37.
8D
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
2333
30-9
.125
.019
3832
-15.
828
.523
1.15
21.
067
-0.0
850.
481
-7.4
Wes
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
2460
47-2
1.7
17.1
54
3-2
5.0
57.6
250.
067
0.06
4-0
.003
0.05
9-4
.3D
usky
Fly
catc
her
860
25-5
8.3
24.0
*3
62
-66.
725
.58
0.10
00.
080
-0.0
200.
079
-20.
0"W
este
rn"
Flyc
atch
er34
168
104
-38.
111
.1**
1947
482.
123
.435
0.28
00.
462
0.18
20.
173
65.0
Bla
ck P
hoeb
e19
3130
-3.2
22.0
2829
5279
.358
.1**
290.
936
1.73
30.
798
0.55
585
.3
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[72]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[73]
Ash
-thr
oate
d F
lyca
tche
r39
151
121
-19.
912
.911
820
150.
012
7.8
400.
053
0.16
50.
112
0.04
5**
212.
0W
arbl
ing
Vir
eo26
102
88-1
3.7
19.0
1215
2566
.775
.929
0.14
70.
284
0.13
70.
134
93.2
Che
stnu
t-ba
cked
Chi
ck.
936
25-3
0.6
18.9
974
61-1
7.6
33.2
92.
056
2.44
00.
384
1.39
618
.7O
ak T
itm
ouse
1539
32-1
7.9
24.2
1139
27-3
0.8
23.9
161.
000
0.84
4-0
.156
0.38
0-1
5.6
Bus
htit
3729
111
8-5
9.5
7.8
***
3316
812
2-2
7.4
19.0
390.
577
1.03
40.
457
0.31
979
.1B
ewic
k's
Wre
n47
254
277
9.1
11.1
4729
931
96.
718
.749
1.17
71.
152
-0.0
260.
306
-2.2
Hou
se W
ren
2916
418
814
.613
.526
154
129
-16.
214
.431
0.93
90.
686
-0.2
530.
267
-26.
9Sw
ains
on's
Thr
ush
1828
620
7-2
7.6
13.7
*11
5054
8.0
17.3
180.
175
0.26
10.
086
0.07
449
.2A
mer
ican
Rob
in22
6967
-2.9
17.3
115
2642
0.0
365.
924
0.07
30.
388
0.31
60.
142
**43
5.5
Wre
ntit
2440
622
8-4
3.8
7.5
***
2311
634
519
7.4
105.
8**
*24
0.28
61.
513
1.22
70.
338
***4
29.6
Ora
nge-
crow
ned
War
bler
2211
285
-24.
121
.420
5010
611
2.0
129.
723
0.44
61.
247
0.80
10.
590
179.
3L
ucy'
s W
arbl
er13
115
103
-10.
419
.510
2346
100.
010
6.9
130.
200
0.44
70.
247
0.15
312
3.3
Yello
w W
arbl
er32
162
122
-24.
78.
3**
1213
3617
6.9
100.
432
0.08
00.
295
0.21
50.
098
**26
7.7
Mac
Gill
ivra
y's
War
bler
1865
30-5
3.8
17.4
***
32
515
0.0
377.
520
0.03
10.
167
0.13
60.
111
441.
7C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
3646
631
1-3
3.3
5.5
***
2291
149
63.7
50.3
360.
195
0.47
90.
284
0.12
7**
145.
3W
ilson
's W
arbl
er15
217
140
-35.
512
.0**
1012
416
533
.121
.215
0.57
11.
179
0.60
70.
309
*10
6.3
Yello
w-b
reas
ted
Cha
t23
240
155
-35.
48.
6**
1118
195.
640
.123
0.07
50.
123
0.04
80.
059
63.4
Sum
mer
Tan
ager
968
680.
021
.55
17
600.
075
8.3
90.
015
0.10
30.
088
0.04
5*
600.
0W
este
rn T
anag
er15
5031
-38.
026
.82
444
1000
.050
.015
0.08
01.
419
1.33
90.
942
1674
.2Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e40
305
251
-17.
710
.0*
3115
315
51.
340
.740
0.50
20.
617
0.11
60.
222
23.1
Cal
ifor
nia
Tow
hee
2512
165
-46.
312
.8**
187
6785
7.1
518.
827
0.05
81.
031
0.97
30.
236
***1
681.
8So
ng S
parr
ow41
556
417
-25.
05.
9**
*39
414
442
6.8
18.1
420.
745
1.06
00.
315
0.17
6*
42.4
Bla
ck-h
ead
ed G
rosb
eak
3821
216
6-2
1.7
11.8
*23
3450
47.1
71.5
390.
160
0.30
10.
141
0.11
287
.8B
lue
Gro
sbea
k22
8810
418
.223
.36
311
266.
724
7.7
220.
034
0.10
60.
072
0.03
9*
210.
3L
azul
i Bun
ting
2240
412.
532
.56
018
++
++
22
0.00
00.
439
0.43
90.
209
**+
++
+
Bro
wn-
head
ed C
owbi
rd32
8551
-40.
011
.9**
64
3-2
5.0
69.1
330.
047
0.05
90.
012
0.04
725
.0B
ullo
ck's
Ori
ole
2750
6530
.024
.19
310
233.
325
8.2
280.
060
0.15
40.
094
0.06
915
6.4
Purp
le F
inch
1035
24-3
1.4
20.7
617
8-5
2.9
24.5
*10
0.48
60.
333
-0.1
520.
284
-31.
4H
ouse
Fin
ch32
164
142
-13.
415
.022
147
124
-15.
623
.634
0.89
60.
873
-0.0
230.
393
-2.6
Les
ser
Gol
dfi
nch
2513
770
-48.
914
.5**
1616
3193
.811
4.4
280.
117
0.44
30.
326
0.13
5**
279.
2A
mer
ican
Gol
dfi
nch
1913
076
-41.
58.
7**
*5
46
50.0
123.
419
0.03
10.
079
0.04
80.
044
156.
6A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
5264
0247
40-2
6.0
4.2
***
5223
9131
3030
.918
.9**
520.
374
0.66
00.
287
0.08
6**
*76
.8N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 3
1/37
(84%
)***
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 2
7/37
(73%
)***
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 2
9/37
(78%
)***
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
NO
RT
H-C
EN
TR
AL
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er16
2231
40.9
32.5
1531
336.
523
.119
1.40
91.
065
-0.3
450.
491
-24.
5"T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er14
8664
-25.
624
.14
49
125.
017
9.1
140.
047
0.14
10.
094
0.07
020
2.3
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
1155
52-5
.521
.23
22
0.0
150.
011
0.03
60.
039
0.00
20.
042
5.8
Bla
ck-c
appe
d C
hick
adee
1975
9628
.023
.015
6278
25.8
41.8
200.
827
0.81
3-0
.014
0.33
6-1
.7H
ouse
Wre
n14
8910
214
.616
.313
4569
53.3
44.7
150.
506
0.67
70.
171
0.33
133
.8A
mer
ican
Rob
in20
9669
-28.
118
.014
4752
10.6
21.3
200.
490
0.75
40.
264
0.24
853
.9G
ray
Cat
bird
1835
330
2-1
4.4
6.5
**17
114
151
32.5
24.5
180.
323
0.50
00.
177
0.14
254
.8C
edar
Wax
win
g16
6854
-20.
627
.22
12
100.
040
0.0
160.
015
0.03
70.
022
0.04
415
1.9
Tenn
esse
e W
arbl
er5
1149
345.
515
7.5
*3
15
400.
045
8.3
50.
091
0.10
20.
011
0.08
112
.2Ye
llow
War
bler
1420
918
5-1
1.5
7.6
1335
8313
7.1
82.0
*15
0.16
80.
449
0.28
10.
106
**16
7.9
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
1269
68-1
.424
.13
53
-40.
036
.012
0.07
30.
044
-0.0
280.
041
-39.
1O
venb
ird
1341
4714
.622
.55
197
-63.
217
.8**
130.
463
0.14
9-0
.315
0.21
4-6
7.9
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at19
223
216
-3.1
7.7
1597
120
23.7
55.2
200.
435
0.55
60.
121
0.20
927
.7C
lay-
colo
red
Spa
rrow
264
58-9
.40.
83
1541
173.
350
.7*
30.
234
0.70
70.
473
0.31
220
1.6
Fiel
d S
parr
ow12
6154
-11.
525
.07
1113
18.2
68.0
120.
180
0.24
10.
060
0.12
833
.5G
rass
hopp
er S
parr
ow3
3622
-38.
924
.12
5210
-80.
86.
43
1.44
40.
455
-0.9
900.
816
-68.
5So
ng S
parr
ow18
119
143
20.2
15.7
1954
9270
.436
.8*
200.
454
0.64
30.
190
0.20
641
.8N
orth
ern
Car
din
al14
5665
16.1
19.9
917
14-1
7.6
37.2
140.
304
0.21
5-0
.088
0.12
1-2
9.1
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
1459
613.
417
.83
13
200.
045
8.3
140.
017
0.04
90.
032
0.04
219
0.2
Dic
kcis
sel
363
21-6
6.7
6.0
***
10
1+
++
+
30.
000
0.04
80.
048
0.06
5+
++
+
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd12
8679
-8.1
14.0
610
5-5
0.0
49.0
120.
116
0.06
3-0
.053
0.06
0-4
5.6
Bal
tim
ore
Ori
ole
1439
32-1
7.9
23.3
813
2376
.919
9.0
140.
333
0.71
90.
385
0.71
211
5.6
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h19
241
159
-34.
09.
6**
00
019
0.00
00.
000
0.00
0A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
2428
0926
11-7
.04.
523
819
975
19.0
18.1
240.
292
0.37
30.
082
0.06
328
.1N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 1
5/23
(65%
)N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 16/
23 (7
0%)*
*N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 16/
23 (7
0%)*
*
SOU
TH
-CE
NT
RA
L M
APS
RE
GIO
NC
omm
on G
roun
d-D
ove
631
4751
.645
.52
112
1100
.020
00.0
60.
032
0.25
50.
223
0.06
3**
691.
5D
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
1125
18-2
8.0
31.1
1127
24-1
1.1
20.3
121.
080
1.33
30.
253
0.57
123
.5A
cad
ian
Flyc
atch
er11
6868
0.0
22.9
415
6-6
0.0
9.5
**12
0.22
10.
088
-0.1
320.
061
*-6
0.0
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo22
176
174
-1.1
11.9
1840
5640
.037
.522
0.22
70.
322
0.09
50.
081
41.6
Car
olin
a C
hick
adee
2355
6110
.925
.621
5022
-56.
016
.4**
*25
0.90
90.
361
-0.5
480.
292
*-6
0.3
Tuft
ed T
itm
ouse
1867
54-1
9.4
17.9
1764
53-1
7.2
17.5
190.
955
0.98
10.
026
0.32
82.
7B
lack
-cre
sted
Tit
mou
se9
2522
-12.
033
.47
4625
-45.
717
.7**
91.
840
1.13
6-0
.704
0.69
2-3
8.2
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[74]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Car
olin
a W
ren
2110
411
510
.616
.219
116
80-3
1.0
14.8
211.
115
0.69
6-0
.420
0.31
1-3
7.6
Bew
ick'
s W
ren
829
3624
.118
.08
4956
14.3
22.5
91.
690
1.55
6-0
.134
1.10
0-7
.9Pr
otho
nota
ry W
arbl
er8
7079
12.9
28.0
89
2315
5.6
118.
98
0.12
90.
291
0.16
30.
132
126.
4K
entu
cky
War
bler
1274
8818
.921
.313
3528
-20.
028
.014
0.47
30.
318
-0.1
550.
154
-32.
7H
ood
ed W
arbl
er4
3128
-9.7
14.4
419
15-2
1.1
7.8
40.
613
0.53
6-0
.077
0.25
8-1
2.6
Yello
w-b
reas
ted
Cha
t7
7056
-20.
013
.96
1713
-23.
530
.28
0.24
30.
232
-0.0
110.
104
-4.4
Fiel
d S
parr
ow10
4244
4.8
20.9
619
2321
.131
.710
0.45
20.
523
0.07
00.
352
15.6
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
2933
028
1-1
4.8
11.6
2720
214
9-2
6.2
14.5
290.
612
0.53
0-0
.082
0.13
7-1
3.4
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
1316
615
4-7
.214
.87
165
-68.
821
.213
0.09
60.
033
-0.0
640.
044
-66.
3Pa
inte
d B
unti
ng19
138
148
7.2
9.0
1570
37-4
7.1
9.5
***
200.
507
0.25
0-0
.257
0.09
6**
-50.
7B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
2044
31-2
9.5
16.3
56
0-1
00.0
0.0
200.
136
0.00
0-0
.136
0.06
0**
-100
.0A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
3120
3321
435.
45.
431
980
822
-16.
18.
5*
310.
482
0.38
4-0
.099
0.07
4-2
0.4
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 8
/18
(44%
)N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 1
3/18
(72%
)**
Num
ber
dec
reas
ing:
12/
18 (6
7%)
NO
RT
HE
AST
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er52
7953
-32.
914
.2*
5082
64-2
2.0
13.4
621.
038
1.20
80.
170
0.31
316
.3"T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er22
8366
-20.
516
.510
28
300.
033
3.3
220.
024
0.12
10.
097
0.03
9**
403.
0E
aste
rn P
hoeb
e27
4129
-29.
322
.618
6518
-72.
39.
7**
*31
1.58
50.
621
-0.9
650.
487
**-6
0.8
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
5417
512
7-2
7.4
8.7
***
1314
9-3
5.7
28.2
540.
080
0.07
1-0
.009
0.03
9-1
1.4
Blu
e Ja
y35
4747
0.0
22.8
1310
2313
0.0
149.
936
0.21
30.
489
0.27
70.
195
130.
0B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee50
180
185
2.8
13.9
3811
810
9-7
.616
.754
0.65
60.
589
-0.0
660.
196
-10.
1Tu
fted
Tit
mou
se43
6155
-9.8
15.1
4111
157
-48.
69.
6**
*49
1.82
01.
036
-0.7
830.
459
*-4
3.0
Car
olin
a W
ren
2692
42-5
4.3
10.6
***
2581
34-5
8.0
13.6
***
330.
880
0.81
0-0
.071
0.28
4-8
.1H
ouse
Wre
n19
5448
-11.
126
.819
3526
-25.
729
.822
0.64
80.
542
-0.1
070.
304
-16.
4V
eery
4023
519
7-1
6.2
8.5
*24
2334
47.8
46.9
400.
098
0.17
30.
075
0.04
1*
76.3
Her
mit
Thr
ush
1864
29-5
4.7
6.9
***
1520
12-4
0.0
37.9
220.
313
0.41
40.
101
0.20
032
.4W
ood
Thr
ush
4626
618
8-2
9.3
6.7
***
3463
699.
525
.847
0.23
70.
367
0.13
00.
074
*55
.0A
mer
ican
Rob
in53
243
266
9.5
16.7
3913
311
3-1
5.0
14.6
560.
547
0.42
5-0
.123
0.14
6-2
2.4
Gra
y C
atbi
rd61
1030
937
-9.0
5.2
*45
372
476
28.0
20.5
630.
361
0.50
80.
147
0.10
240
.7C
edar
Wax
win
g29
163
159
-2.5
20.5
22
515
0.0
500.
029
0.01
20.
031
0.01
90.
028
156.
3Ye
llow
War
bler
2821
116
6-2
1.3
6.1
***
1774
740.
038
.530
0.35
10.
446
0.09
50.
193
27.1
Che
stnu
t-si
ded
War
bler
1851
48-5
.921
.75
2011
-45.
016
.9*
180.
392
0.22
9-0
.163
0.22
4-4
1.6
Mag
nolia
War
bler
1438
405.
336
.36
155
-66.
722
.3**
140.
395
0.12
5-0
.270
0.16
9-6
8.3
Bla
ck-t
hrtd
. Gre
en W
arb.
1539
26-3
3.3
15.5
*8
129
-25.
027
.518
0.30
80.
346
0.03
90.
294
12.5
Bla
ck-a
nd-w
hite
War
bler
3474
61-1
7.6
14.2
2021
3566
.753
.639
0.28
40.
574
0.29
00.
164
*10
2.2
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[75]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
3718
817
9-4
.820
.518
6159
-3.3
21.0
400.
325
0.33
00.
005
0.11
11.
6W
orm
-eat
ing
War
bler
2554
7233
.327
.812
4646
0.0
22.5
270.
852
0.63
9-0
.213
0.40
9-2
5.0
Ove
nbir
d59
231
194
-16.
09.
339
7010
144
.330
.162
0.30
30.
521
0.21
80.
105
**71
.8L
ouis
iana
Wat
erth
rush
1627
24-1
1.1
23.5
1225
22-1
2.0
22.6
180.
926
0.91
7-0
.009
0.49
2-1
.0C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
4730
030
41.
39.
728
5175
47.1
32.1
*48
0.17
00.
247
0.07
70.
055
45.1
Hoo
ded
War
bler
1864
58-9
.419
.28
1520
33.3
36.2
190.
234
0.34
50.
111
0.19
147
.1E
aste
rn T
owhe
e34
7562
-17.
316
.920
3222
-31.
320
.436
0.42
70.
355
-0.0
720.
132
-16.
8C
hipp
ing
Spar
row
2344
38-1
3.6
15.9
129
1566
.791
.926
0.20
50.
395
0.19
00.
196
93.0
Song
Spa
rrow
3321
616
7-2
2.7
10.2
**32
114
149
30.7
21.6
360.
528
0.89
20.
364
0.16
0**
69.1
Swam
p Sp
arro
w11
4333
-23.
320
.47
2638
46.2
55.7
130.
605
1.15
20.
547
0.46
590
.4D
ark-
eyed
Junc
o12
4732
-31.
98.
4**
1151
103
102.
010
5.1
141.
085
3.21
92.
134
1.46
119
6.6
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
4817
316
8-2
.99.
531
3158
87.1
49.8
***
490.
179
0.34
50.
166
0.08
2**
92.7
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
3081
67-1
7.3
16.4
1018
14-2
2.2
36.9
310.
222
0.20
9-0
.013
0.08
3-6
.0R
ed-w
inge
d B
lack
bird
1949
8267
.342
.2*
22
1250
0.0
1200
.019
0.04
10.
146
0.10
60.
120
258.
5C
omm
on G
rack
le25
5061
22.0
26.9
67
4-4
2.9
36.6
250.
140
0.06
6-0
.074
0.08
1-5
3.2
Bal
tim
ore
Ori
ole
2533
31-6
.136
.411
215
-76.
215
.0**
*28
0.63
60.
161
-0.4
750.
195
**-7
4.7
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h44
299
239
-20.
16.
3**
22
0-1
00.0
0.0
440.
007
0.00
0-0
.007
0.00
4-1
00.0
All
sp
ecie
s p
oole
d76
5953
5225
-12.
22.
5**
*76
2042
2132
4.4
7.1
760.
343
0.40
80.
065
0.04
019
.0N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 2
9/37
(78%
)***
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 1
6/37
(43%
)N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 21/
37 (5
7%)
SOU
TH
EA
ST M
APS
RE
GIO
ND
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
2329
316.
927
.416
3728
-24.
325
.226
1.27
60.
903
-0.3
730.
470
-29.
2A
cad
ian
Flyc
atch
er24
109
111
1.8
14.2
75
3-4
0.0
41.0
250.
046
0.02
7-0
.019
0.02
6-4
1.1
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo24
7965
-17.
710
.518
3220
-37.
517
.2*
270.
405
0.30
8-0
.097
0.14
4-2
4.0
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
2612
814
09.
414
.35
26
200.
019
3.6
260.
016
0.04
30.
027
0.02
917
4.3
Car
olin
a C
hick
adee
2979
29-6
3.3
11.6
***
2261
36-4
1.0
17.1
*33
0.77
21.
241
0.46
90.
440
60.8
Tuft
ed T
itm
ouse
3711
183
-25.
212
.1*
2588
51-4
2.0
15.8
**37
0.79
30.
614
-0.1
780.
191
-22.
5C
arol
ina
Wre
n36
200
122
-39.
06.
4**
*33
152
94-3
8.2
12.2
**37
0.76
00.
771
0.01
10.
252
1.4
Woo
d T
hrus
h27
214
162
-24.
39.
7**
1937
4213
.521
.727
0.17
30.
259
0.08
60.
068
50.0
Am
eric
an R
obin
922
234.
532
.28
2031
55.0
141.
110
0.90
91.
348
0.43
90.
909
48.3
Gra
y C
atbi
rd15
5834
-41.
48.
2**
*5
5638
-32.
12.
5**
*17
0.96
61.
118
0.15
20.
655
15.8
Prai
rie
War
bler
1048
40-1
6.7
19.3
812
1850
.051
.212
0.25
00.
450
0.20
00.
128
80.0
Prot
hono
tary
War
bler
937
28-2
4.3
16.0
114
1-9
2.9
90.
378
0.03
6-0
.343
0.19
9-9
0.6
Wor
m-e
atin
g W
arbl
er18
4738
-19.
111
.913
168
-50.
025
.219
0.34
00.
211
-0.1
300.
099
-38.
2O
venb
ird
2411
678
-32.
812
.8**
1634
30-1
1.8
26.7
260.
293
0.38
50.
092
0.17
331
.2
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[76]
TAB
LE
2. C
onti
nued
.
AD
ULT
SY
OU
NG
RE
PRO
DU
CT
IVE
IND
EX
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Spec
ies
na20
0220
03%
chg.
SEb
nc20
0220
03%
chg.
SEd
ne20
0220
03ch
ange
SEf
%ch
g.
Lou
isia
na W
ater
thru
sh20
4249
16.7
22.9
1218
17-5
.641
.521
0.42
90.
347
-0.0
820.
155
-19.
0K
entu
cky
War
bler
1562
55-1
1.3
16.8
818
11-3
8.9
33.3
150.
290
0.20
0-0
.090
0.14
7-3
1.1
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at24
100
80-2
0.0
10.0
1333
4021
.242
.626
0.33
00.
500
0.17
00.
141
51.5
Hoo
ded
War
bler
1872
68-5
.616
.512
119
-18.
239
.819
0.15
30.
132
-0.0
200.
075
-13.
4Ye
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
1054
43-2
0.4
16.7
616
12-2
5.0
21.0
100.
296
0.27
9-0
.017
0.09
7-5
.8E
aste
rn T
owhe
e21
4240
-4.8
17.7
107
1042
.967
.323
0.16
70.
250
0.08
30.
132
50.0
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
3330
726
4-1
4.0
9.9
2911
710
3-1
2.0
18.4
330.
381
0.39
00.
009
0.09
52.
4In
dig
o B
unti
ng24
109
98-1
0.1
23.9
1114
5-6
4.3
25.3
**25
0.12
80.
051
-0.0
770.
065
-60.
3A
mer
ican
Gol
dfi
nch
1490
47-4
7.8
12.9
***
20
2+
++
+
150.
000
0.04
30.
043
0.03
7+
++
+
All
sp
ecie
s p
oole
d37
2609
2131
-18.
33.
4**
*37
942
748
-20.
68.
1**
370.
361
0.35
1-0
.010
0.05
6-2
.8N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 1
8/23
(78%
)***
Num
ber
dec
reas
ing:
16/
23 (7
0%)*
*N
umbe
r d
ecre
asin
g: 1
1/23
(48%
)
AL
ASK
A A
ND
BO
RE
AL
CA
NA
DA
MA
PS R
EG
ION
STe
nnes
see
War
bler
313
5-6
1.5
9.9
**3
2546
84.0
11.7
31.
923
9.20
07.
277
6.87
437
8.4
Yello
w-r
umpe
d W
arbl
er3
1414
0.0
61.9
35
7714
40.0
915.
03
0.35
75.
500
5.14
33.
016
1440
.0A
ll s
pec
ies
poo
led
316
317
78.
622
.23
8119
313
8.3
19.2
**3
0.49
71.
090
0.59
40.
477
119.
4N
umbe
r in
crea
sing
: 0/
2 (0
%)
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 2
/2
(100
%)
Num
ber
incr
easi
ng: 2
/2
(100
%)
a N
umbe
r of
sta
tion
s at
whi
ch a
t lea
st o
ne in
div
idua
l ad
ult b
ird
of t
he s
peci
es w
as c
aptu
red
in e
ithe
r ye
ar.
bSt
and
ard
err
or o
f the
per
cent
cha
nge
in th
e nu
mbe
r of
ad
ult b
ird
s ca
ptur
ed.
cN
umbe
r of
sta
tion
s at
whi
ch a
t lea
st o
ne in
div
idua
l you
ng b
ird
of t
he s
peci
es w
as c
aptu
red
in e
ithe
r ye
ar.
dSt
and
ard
err
or o
f the
per
cent
cha
nge
in th
e nu
mbe
r of
you
ng b
ird
s ca
ptur
ed.
eN
umbe
r of
sta
tion
s at
whi
ch a
t lea
st o
ne in
div
idua
l age
d b
ird
of t
he s
peci
es w
as c
aptu
red
in e
ithe
r ye
ar.
fSt
and
ard
err
or o
f the
cha
nge
in th
e re
prod
ucti
ve in
dex
.+
++
+ P
erce
nt c
hang
e un
def
ined
bec
ause
no
youn
g w
ere
capt
ured
dur
ing
the
firs
t yea
r of
the
com
pari
son.
*0.0
5�
P <
0.1
0; *
* 0.
01�
P <
0.0
5; *
** P
< 0
.01
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[77]
program-wide, 64 species in the Northwest, 37 inthe Southwest, 23 in the North-central, 18 in theSouth-central, 37 in the Northeast, 23 in theSoutheast, and 2 in the combined Alaska andBoreal Canada regions.
(a) Changes in adult populations — Overall, theindex of adult population size for all speciespooled decreased substantially in 2003 in thoseregions where productivity was dramaticallyreduced during 2002. Indeed, the number ofadults captured decreased between 2002 and2003 in all regions except the South-central andAlaska/Boreal Canada regions (where itincreased by non-significant 5.4% and 8.6%,respectively). The decreases in the Southwest(26.0%), Southeast (18.3%), and Northeast(12.2%) regions were highly significant, while thedecreases in the Northwest (4.0%) and North-central (7.0%) regions were nearly significant andnon-significant, respectively. Likewise, theproportions of decreasing species were highlysignificantly >50% in the Southwest (84%),Southeast (78%), and Northeast (78%) regions,and were nearly significantly and non-significantly >50% in the Northwest (59%) andNorth-central (65%) regions, respectively. Thisproportion was non significantly different from50% in either the South-central or Alaska/BorealCanada regions. Summing over these latter tworegions, only one species showed a significantdecrease in adult population size while nospecies showed a significant or nearly significantincrease. In contrast, summing over the otherfive regions, 35 species had significant decreasesin numbers of adults and an additional 10species showed nearly significant decreases,while only eight species showed significant ornearly significant increases in numbers of adults.
Program-wide, the index for adult populationsize for all species pooled decreased by a highlysignificant 10.3%. The program-wide proportionof decreasing species (67%) was also highlysignificantly >50%. Program-wide, 20 specieshad significant decreases in numbers of adultsand another 12 species had nearly significantdecreases, while only four species showedsignificant or nearly significant increases.
(b) Changes in productivity — Overall,productivity generally increased in 2003 com-pared to 2002 in five of seven regions, but theonly significant increase (30.9%) in number ofyoung birds of all species pooled was in the
Southwest Region. Non-significant increases innumbers of young birds of all species pooled inthe other four regions ranged from 19.2% and19.0% in the Alaska/Boreal Canada and North-central regions, respectively, to 7.8% and 4.4% inthe Northwest and Northeast regions, respec-tively. In contrast, numbers of young birds of allspecies pooled showed significant and nearlysignificant decreases of 20.6% in the Southeastand 16.1% in the South-central regions, respec-tively. Changes in reproductive index for allspecies pooled generally paralleled changes innumbers of young with a highly significant76.8% increase in the Southwest, non-significantincreases in four other regions ranging from12.2% in the Northwest to 28.1% in the North-central Region (and 119.4% in Alaska/BorealCanada Region, which is based on only threestations in Boreal Canad(a), and non-significantdecreases of 2.8% in the Southeast and 28.1% inthe South-central regions, respectively. Althoughincreases between 2002 and 2003 in the numbersof young and the reproductive index weregenerally not significant, the proportion ofspecies with increasing numbers of young andthe proportion of species with increasingreproductive indices were more oftensignificantly >50%. Indeed, both proportionswere highly significantly >50% for the Southwest(73% and 78% respectively), highly significantlyand significantly greater for the Northwest (66%and 63%, respectively), nearly significantly andsignificantly greater, respectively, for the North-central region (both 70%), and non-significantlydifferent than 50% for the Northeast (43% and57%, respectively). Paralleling the decreases innumbers of young in the Southeast and South-central, the proportions of decreasing speciesthere were significantly >50% (70% and 72%respectively). The proportions of species withdecreasing reproductive indices in those regions,however, were not significantly different from50%. Summing over the seven regions, 18 specieshad significant or nearly significant regionalincreases in numbers of young while 19 specieshad significant or nearly significant decreases. Incontrast, again summing over the seven regions,27 species had significant or nearly significantregional increases in reproductive index whileonly 12 species had significant or nearly signifi-cant decreases.
Program-wide, the number of young for all
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[78]
species pooled increased by a nearly significant9.1% while the reproductive index for all speciespooled increased by a highly significant 21.6%from 0.391 in 2002 to 0.475 in 2003. The program-wide proportions of species with increasingnumbers of young (61%) and increasingreproductive indices (66%) were both highlysignificantly >50%. Program-wide, 21 specieshad significant or nearly significant increases innumbers of young, while 13 species had signi-ficant or nearly significant decreases. Similarly,and again program-wide, 22 species had signi-ficant or nearly significant increases in repro-ductive indices, while only eight showed signifi-cant or nearly significant decreases.
3. Twelve-year (1992-2003) program-wide trends— Chained indices of adult population size (Fig.3a) and productivity (Fig. 3b) for all speciespooled at the program-wide scale showed ahighly significant (P < 0.001) decreasing trend inadult population size of -1.86% per year, and awidely fluctuating temporal pattern inreproductive index with a decreasing tendencyof -1.02% per year. Interestingly, all five decreasesin productivity were followed by decreases inadult population size the next year, while threeof the five increases in productivity werefollowed by increases in adult population sizethe next year. Moreover, seven of the eightsignificant or nearly significant changes inproductivity were followed the next year bychanges of adult population size of the samesign, while only one of two non-significantchanges in productivity was followed the nextyear by a change of adult population size of thesame sign.
SURVIVAL-RATE ESTIMATES
Maximum-likelihood estimates of time-constantannual adult apparent survival rates, recaptureprobabilities, and proportions of residentsamong the newly captured adults that were notrecaptured seven or more days later during theirfirst year of capture are presented in Table 3 forspecies that met survivorship selection criteria(see Methods - Data Analysis) for each of theseven MAPS regions and program-wide. Theseestimates were derived from 12 years (1992-2003)of mark-recapture data pooled over all stationsin each region (or program-wide) that wereoperated for four or more consecutive yearsduring this period. Data were thus pooled from
550 stations program-wide, and from 151stations in the Northwest, 83 in the Southwest, 44in the North-central, 71 in the South-central, 91in the Northeast, 79 in the Southeast, and 31 inthe Alaska/Boreal Canada region, for an averageof 79 stations per region (Table 4). The regionalincreases for the 12-yr period (1992-2003) overthe 10-yr period (1992-2001) in the number ofstations contributing data to survivorshipanalyses ranged from 7% in the Alaska/BorealCanada Region to 25% in the Northeast andaveraged 15%, which was also the program-wideincrease.
Tables 3 and 4 show that 184 species fulfilledselection criteria for survivorship analysesprogram-wide, while 81 species fulfilled thesecriteria in the Northwest Region, 86 in theSouthwest, 54 in the North-central, 62 in theSouth-central, 75 in the Northeast, 45 in theSoutheast, and 34 in the Alaska/Boreal CanadaRegion, for an average of 62 species per region.Changes in the number of species per region thatfulfilled selection criteria for survivorshipanalyses ranged from -5.6% in the Alaska/BorealCanada Region to 19.4% in the Southwest andaveraged 5.4%; the program-wide change was anincrease of 2.2%.
Also included in Table 3 for each species ineach region are the number of stations fromwhich data were pooled and the total number ofindividual adult birds captured during the 10years, as well as the total number of captures andtotal number of returns of those individuals. Themean number of individual adult birds capturedper station per species during the 12 years (1992-2003) was lowest for the Northeast (22.7) andSoutheast (23.8) regions, higher for the South-central Region (32.2), higher still for theSouthwest (35.4), North-central (36.7), andNorthwest (36.8) regions, and highest for theAlaska/Boreal Canada Region (51.0). Altogether,the 550 stations included in these survivorshipanalysis were operated for an average of 7.70years each (67 stations for four years, 109 for five,44 for six, 58 for seven, 40 for eight, 66 for nine,56 for 10, 40 for 11, and 70 for12 years) andproduced an average capture rate of 4.23 adultindividuals per station per species per year.
As in past years, the average total number ofadult captures per individual per species (forspecies that met survivorship selection criteria)was remarkably constant over the seven regions,
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[79]
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[80]
FIGURE 3. Program-wide 12-yr (1992-2003) trends for all species pooled for a) adult population size and b)productivity (reproductive index: young/adult) from chain indices of constant-effort year-to-year changesderived from the analysis of >722,000 captures of >527,000 aged individuals, and c) the program-wide 10-yrtrend for all species pooled for adult annual apparent survival rate from the fully time-dependent CJS mark-recapture model applied to >319,000 capture histories of individual adult birds.
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
2002-2003
2001-2002
2000-2001
1999-2000
1998-1999
1997-1998
1996-1997
1995-1996
1994-1995
1993-1994
1992-1993
Interval
Year
Year
Inde
x of
adu
lt po
pula
tion
size
Rep
rodu
ctiv
e in
dex
(you
ng/a
dult)
Adu
lt ap
pare
nt s
urvi
val r
ate
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[81]
TAB
LE
3.
Prog
ram
-wid
e an
d r
egio
nal
tim
e-co
nsta
nt e
stim
ates
of
annu
al a
dul
t ap
pare
nt s
urvi
val
prob
abili
ty,
reca
ptur
e pr
obab
ility
, an
d p
ropo
rtio
n of
res
iden
tsfr
om m
odif
ied
Cor
mac
k-Jo
lly-S
eber
mar
k-re
capt
ure
anal
yses
a(u
sing
tra
nsie
nt m
odel
sb ),
and
sel
ecte
d a
nd e
quiv
alen
t ti
me-
dep
end
ent
mod
els
from
tw
elve
yea
rs(1
992-
2003
) of M
APS
dat
a.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
PRO
GR
AM
-WID
EC
omm
on G
roun
d-D
ove†
1047
953
612
0.45
30.
154
34.0
0.00
30.
042
0.04
310
1.2
0.00
21.
000
0.95
295
.20.
001
...Ye
llow
-bill
ed C
ucko
o95
603
648
180.
480
0.09
820
.40.
028
0.18
70.
093
49.8
0.25
30.
200
0.10
753
.50.
004
...B
elte
d K
ingf
ishe
r*†
928
435
0.29
90.
174
58.2
0.00
00.
435
0.34
779
.70.
000
1.00
00.
993
99.3
0.00
0...
Aco
rn W
ood
peck
er11
7084
80.
463
0.17
738
.10.
000
0.72
70.
229
31.5
0.00
00.
234
0.14
662
.70.
000
...G
olde
n-fr
onte
d W
oodp
ecke
r*†
714
518
08
0.17
90.
115
64.4
0.01
20.
343
0.30
187
.80.
002
1.00
00.
886
88.6
0.00
1...
Red
-bel
lied
Woo
dpe
cker
101
429
481
290.
423
0.07
918
.60.
001
0.14
70.
073
49.7
0.02
20.
754
0.38
751
.30.
002
...W
illia
mso
n's
Saps
ucke
r14
189
248
170.
382
0.09
524
.90.
006
0.26
00.
119
45.6
0.77
40.
560
0.26
747
.70.
002
.t.Ye
llow
-bel
lied
Sap
suck
er16
143
197
190.
486
0.09
820
.20.
017
0.33
50.
124
37.0
0.01
10.
522
0.23
344
.60.
042
...R
ed-n
aped
Sap
suck
er34
614
1090
155
0.47
90.
032
6.8
0.00
10.
537
0.05
09.
30.
011
0.50
50.
072
14.2
0.00
1...
R.-n
aped
x R
.-bre
aste
d H
ybri
d6
6211
816
0.53
70.
110
20.4
0.01
20.
399
0.13
634
.00.
027
0.64
80.
280
43.2
0.02
3...
Red
-bre
aste
d S
apsu
cker
5289
814
4815
60.
456
0.03
37.
30.
007
0.41
00.
047
11.5
0.01
80.
561
0.08
114
.40.
011
...L
add
er-b
acke
d W
ood
peck
er22
147
193
270.
610
0.09
014
.70.
000
0.32
40.
096
29.4
0.00
20.
519
0.18
435
.50.
001
...N
utta
ll's
Woo
dpe
cker
2631
948
369
0.59
60.
052
8.7
0.00
00.
374
0.06
116
.40.
001
0.47
60.
099
20.9
0.02
9...
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er26
425
0832
3931
60.
509
0.02
44.
70.
000
0.35
40.
030
8.5
0.00
10.
376
0.03
910
.40.
001
...H
airy
Woo
dpe
cker
171
800
1006
127
0.66
60.
035
5.3
0.02
70.
199
0.03
115
.30.
006
0.52
00.
088
17.0
0.07
3...
Thr
ee-t
oed
Woo
dpe
cker
428
406
0.77
50.
120
15.5
0.00
00.
335
0.15
646
.70.
000
0.10
10.
104
102.
20.
000
...N
orth
ern
Flic
ker
166
684
783
360.
433
0.07
216
.60.
000
0.12
90.
055
42.4
0.00
20.
627
0.27
043
.00.
003
...O
live-
sid
ed F
lyca
tche
r20
125
164
170.
708
0.08
311
.70.
002
0.38
80.
107
27.6
0.00
20.
086
0.04
553
.10.
001
...W
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee84
1859
2511
281
0.50
00.
025
5.1
0.03
60.
346
0.03
29.
20.
214
0.50
80.
056
11.0
0.76
6..t
Eas
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
115
811
1005
860.
524
0.04
68.
80.
000
0.35
60.
057
16.0
0.03
10.
298
0.05
919
.90.
009
...A
cad
ian
Flyc
atch
er82
3205
4648
592
0.49
10.
017
3.5
0.01
40.
529
0.02
64.
80.
020
0.37
50.
027
7.2
0.37
4...
..t"T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er88
3790
5444
498
0.48
20.
018
3.8
0.01
10.
501
0.02
75.
50.
002
0.27
10.
022
8.0
0.01
8...
Lea
st F
lyca
tche
r31
1414
1891
150
0.40
00.
034
8.4
0.01
30.
433
0.05
312
.30.
271
0.37
40.
057
15.2
0.00
2...
.t.H
amm
ond
's F
lyca
tche
r56
1353
1940
219
0.44
20.
027
6.2
0.13
20.
412
0.04
19.
80.
025
0.50
90.
063
12.3
0.00
1...
Dus
ky F
lyca
tche
r50
2527
3758
358
0.49
90.
021
4.2
0.99
80.
417
0.02
97.
00.
008
0.30
70.
029
9.6
0.00
4t..
"Wes
tern
" Fl
ycat
cher
7532
0940
5930
70.
503
0.02
34.
70.
769
0.32
50.
029
8.9
0.18
90.
299
0.03
210
.60.
284
t..t.t
Bla
ck P
hoeb
e26
268
325
270.
486
0.08
116
.70.
002
0.41
10.
113
27.6
0.03
10.
278
0.09
835
.10.
001
...E
aste
rn P
hoeb
e46
391
511
300.
457
0.07
315
.90.
109
0.38
80.
102
26.2
0.07
00.
208
0.07
033
.70.
051
...V
erm
ilion
Fly
catc
her†
510
212
110
0.36
80.
154
42.0
0.00
00.
227
0.18
481
.40.
000
1.00
00.
862
86.2
0.00
0...
Ash
-thr
oate
d F
lyca
tche
r54
1172
1353
109
0.64
50.
045
7.0
0.00
60.
205
0.03
818
.60.
002
0.37
30.
075
20.2
0.18
2...
Gre
at C
rest
ed F
lyca
tche
r11
469
979
664
0.64
40.
050
7.8
0.45
30.
188
0.04
423
.10.
040
0.33
20.
084
25.3
0.06
2...
t..
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[82]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Bro
wn-
cres
ted
Fly
catc
her
929
437
547
0.49
60.
066
13.4
0.00
50.
296
0.08
328
.00.
015
0.73
60.
243
33.1
0.00
4...
Eas
tern
Kin
gbir
d39
251
288
160.
459
0.10
823
.50.
270
0.43
50.
159
36.5
0.00
30.
200
0.09
648
.20.
027
...t..
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo89
3572
6343
808
0.50
40.
014
2.8
0.07
70.
513
0.02
14.
10.
270
0.42
70.
027
6.3
0.00
5...
.t.B
ell's
Vir
eo18
650
1017
141
0.56
70.
033
5.9
0.00
40.
402
0.04
411
.00.
487
0.44
80.
066
14.6
0.02
5...
.t.Ye
llow
-thr
oate
d V
ireo
1860
686
0.61
70.
173
28.1
0.00
00.
161
0.14
489
.00.
000
0.49
40.
488
98.9
0.00
0...
Plum
beou
s V
ireo
1095
129
190.
616
0.10
316
.70.
002
0.44
10.
126
28.7
0.00
10.
354
0.14
039
.60.
000
...C
assi
n's
Vir
eo32
573
681
400.
566
0.06
411
.30.
002
0.15
10.
049
32.5
0.00
70.
422
0.14
434
.00.
007
...B
lue-
head
ed V
ireo
1515
118
713
0.39
30.
115
29.3
0.00
10.
205
0.12
561
.00.
004
0.71
20.
443
62.2
0.00
1...
Hut
ton'
s V
ireo
2013
318
520
0.56
80.
096
16.9
0.00
10.
282
0.10
035
.50.
018
0.45
70.
188
41.3
0.02
4...
War
blin
g V
ireo
133
6243
8817
877
0.49
00.
014
2.8
0.00
30.
414
0.01
94.
60.
003
0.35
20.
021
6.1
1.00
0..t
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
182
5774
7534
850
0.57
80.
014
2.4
0.50
80.
257
0.01
55.
70.
348
0.49
50.
032
6.5
0.01
6t..
....t.
Gra
y Ja
y†21
105
153
350.
626
0.06
410
.20.
076
0.26
20.
069
26.2
0.00
21.
000
0.29
529
.50.
002
...St
elle
r's Ja
y63
365
429
450.
713
0.05
57.
80.
001
0.16
60.
044
26.8
0.49
90.
413
0.11
928
.80.
002
....t.
Blu
e Ja
y15
810
6211
6472
0.64
50.
049
7.6
0.00
40.
111
0.03
229
.20.
018
0.44
10.
134
30.5
0.49
8...
..tG
reen
Jay*
†3
2832
30.
940
0.26
828
.50.
000
0.03
40.
083
247.
90.
000
1.00
02.
428
242.
80.
000
...W
este
rn S
crub
-Jay
3618
121
021
0.55
40.
090
16.3
0.00
20.
225
0.09
441
.80.
000
0.50
10.
231
46.1
0.10
0...
Mex
ican
Jay*
338
463
0.36
60.
223
60.9
0.00
00.
289
0.31
210
8.0
0.00
00.
486
0.56
011
5.1
0.00
0...
Tree
Sw
allo
w48
815
1053
650.
392
0.05
012
.80.
003
0.27
60.
066
23.8
0.00
10.
517
0.13
425
.90.
004
...V
iole
t-gr
een
Swal
low
918
923
816
0.46
00.
101
22.0
0.04
40.
213
0.10
147
.50.
601
0.44
20.
223
50.4
0.07
8.t.
...N
. Rou
gh-w
inge
d S
wal
low
2012
613
67
0.38
40.
175
45.5
0.00
00.
645
0.28
343
.80.
001
0.15
80.
117
74.0
0.00
0...
Bar
n Sw
allo
w15
406
492
370.
478
0.06
313
.20.
329
0.18
60.
061
32.7
0.32
90.
543
0.18
834
.60.
017
...t..
.t.C
arol
ina
Chi
ckad
ee13
516
7719
7213
70.
491
0.03
77.
40.
001
0.19
80.
035
17.6
0.00
40.
502
0.09
418
.80.
000
...B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee16
839
3155
5061
90.
471
0.01
73.
60.
029
0.36
60.
023
6.2
0.00
40.
559
0.04
17.
40.
007
...M
ount
ain
Chi
ckad
ee53
1484
1888
168
0.43
70.
032
7.4
0.05
20.
330
0.04
313
.00.
034
0.51
20.
077
15.0
0.00
4...
Che
stnu
t-ba
cked
Chi
ckad
ee52
1375
1801
174
0.42
10.
033
7.8
0.00
80.
378
0.04
712
.40.
050
0.52
50.
077
14.7
0.01
7...
Bor
eal C
hick
adee
1113
520
229
0.44
60.
075
16.9
0.07
30.
336
0.10
230
.30.
120
0.88
10.
307
34.9
0.00
4...
Bri
dle
d T
itm
ouse
640
5610
0.64
20.
161
25.2
0.00
00.
256
0.14
355
.90.
000
0.84
50.
498
58.9
0.00
0...
Oak
Tit
mou
se20
278
418
500.
529
0.05
811
.00.
000
0.39
50.
076
19.2
0.00
10.
423
0.10
725
.30.
029
...Ju
nipe
r Ti
tmou
se4
5193
190.
586
0.09
516
.30.
000
0.48
20.
130
26.8
0.00
00.
630
0.24
338
.50.
000
...Tu
fted
Tit
mou
se16
125
5735
2245
00.
465
0.02
04.
30.
997
0.40
50.
028
7.0
0.01
80.
574
0.05
08.
70.
003
t..B
lack
-cre
sted
Tit
mou
se19
312
407
450.
498
0.06
312
.60.
004
0.21
40.
062
29.0
0.00
20.
821
0.25
330
.80.
007
...V
erd
in*
571
885
0.52
20.
221
42.3
0.00
00.
126
0.13
710
8.7
0.00
00.
658
0.69
510
5.5
0.00
0...
Bus
htit
5719
4523
2012
20.
359
0.04
111
.30.
965
0.20
90.
045
21.3
0.13
30.
660
0.14
321
.70.
041
t..R
ed-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h87
728
808
310.
337
0.07
722
.90.
002
0.11
70.
069
58.5
0.00
20.
835
0.49
359
.10.
008
...
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[83]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Whi
te-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h10
748
558
243
0.44
20.
066
15.0
0.00
20.
303
0.08
528
.00.
003
0.43
60.
140
32.0
0.00
1...
Bro
wn
Cre
eper
6683
910
4561
0.31
30.
052
16.7
0.00
70.
259
0.07
629
.20.
018
0.75
70.
232
30.6
0.00
1...
Car
olin
a W
ren
138
3726
6075
664
0.37
90.
015
3.9
1.00
00.
595
0.02
74.
60.
018
0.47
00.
033
7.0
0.00
7t..
Bew
ick'
s W
ren
9524
8540
7150
30.
428
0.01
84.
30.
179
0.56
00.
030
5.4
0.02
70.
528
0.04
27.
90.
167
...H
ouse
Wre
n11
637
9355
1738
80.
341
0.02
05.
70.
072
0.40
60.
034
8.3
0.04
40.
501
0.04
89.
60.
016
...W
inte
r W
ren
4611
0117
7714
50.
362
0.03
18.
40.
333
0.51
60.
058
11.2
0.12
10.
388
0.06
015
.40.
016
...t..
Gol
den
-cro
wne
d K
ingl
et*
6911
8814
9018
0.14
90.
075
50.5
0.07
90.
235
0.15
063
.80.
009
0.31
40.
150
47.6
0.04
4...
Rub
y-cr
owne
d K
ingl
et34
1058
1322
510.
302
0.05
518
.40.
733
0.25
20.
076
30.2
0.18
00.
480
0.14
430
.10.
023
t..A
rcti
c W
arbl
er2
259
481
520.
324
0.05
015
.60.
029
0.63
00.
104
16.5
0.00
30.
648
0.16
325
.20.
001
...B
lue-
gray
Gna
tcat
cher
100
767
847
260.
401
0.08
721
.70.
010
0.11
10.
065
59.0
0.37
10.
557
0.33
359
.70.
042
....t.
Eas
tern
Blu
ebir
d40
255
352
170.
404
0.09
623
.80.
014
0.27
40.
115
42.2
0.08
10.
323
0.14
846
.00.
018
...W
este
rn B
lueb
ird
1714
820
113
0.32
10.
095
29.5
0.00
10.
570
0.20
536
.00.
004
0.27
90.
145
51.9
0.01
5...
Tow
nsen
d's
Sol
itai
re*†
429
333
0.57
10.
214
37.5
0.00
00.
090
0.15
417
1.4
0.00
01.
000
1.77
117
7.1
0.00
0...
Vee
ry61
2709
5246
1011
0.58
70.
013
2.2
0.01
70.
563
0.01
83.
20.
029
0.49
90.
026
5.3
0.01
1...
Gra
y-ch
eeke
d T
hrus
h6
253
539
740.
441
0.04
410
.10.
000
0.70
50.
072
10.2
0.00
00.
527
0.10
820
.40.
001
...B
ickn
ell's
Thr
ush
128
4510
0.61
30.
124
20.3
0.00
00.
318
0.15
047
.20.
000
0.84
00.
479
57.0
0.00
0...
Swai
nson
's T
hrus
h11
512
214
2619
542
450.
585
0.00
61.
10.
000
0.62
10.
009
1.4
0.00
00.
366
0.01
02.
80.
998
..tH
erm
it T
hrus
h82
2513
4428
629
0.46
70.
016
3.4
0.28
00.
609
0.02
64.
20.
074
0.46
80.
033
7.0
0.03
2...
t..W
ood
Thr
ush
138
6057
1015
310
000.
435
0.01
22.
80.
995
0.49
40.
020
4.1
0.99
30.
409
0.02
35.
70.
001
tt.
Am
eric
an R
obin
307
9936
1280
412
060.
508
0.01
22.
40.
998
0.26
70.
013
5.0
0.00
30.
516
0.02
95.
60.
002
t..V
arie
d T
hrus
h41
551
718
570.
431
0.05
212
.10.
122
0.37
50.
076
20.2
0.54
70.
356
0.08
724
.60.
001
.t....
Wre
ntit
4622
3245
2172
20.
594
0.01
52.
60.
973
0.53
80.
021
3.9
0.89
70.
412
0.02
86.
80.
198
tt.
Gra
y C
atbi
rd13
712
026
1927
224
100.
511
0.00
81.
70.
007
0.45
50.
012
2.6
0.00
40.
450
0.01
63.
60.
002
...N
orth
ern
Moc
king
bird
3453
965
818
0.28
60.
088
31.0
0.07
70.
197
0.10
653
.80.
015
0.41
80.
213
51.0
0.06
6...
Bro
wn
Thr
ashe
r60
756
974
940.
572
0.04
17.
20.
001
0.23
50.
041
17.6
0.04
90.
462
0.09
119
.80.
001
...L
ong-
bille
d T
hras
her
417
623
734
0.58
20.
083
14.2
0.00
40.
381
0.09
725
.30.
141
0.62
60.
204
32.6
0.00
0...
Cal
ifor
nia
Thr
ashe
r†15
134
173
210.
690
0.10
815
.70.
007
0.12
10.
061
50.0
0.00
51.
000
0.49
849
.80.
000
...E
urop
ean
Star
ling*
†31
207
215
30.
299
0.24
882
.90.
001
0.04
90.
143
293.
50.
001
1.00
02.
897
289.
70.
000
...C
edar
Wax
win
g92
4167
4582
230.
530
0.09
317
.50.
001
0.02
40.
013
53.2
0.00
20.
231
0.11
650
.10.
015
...B
lue-
win
ged
War
bler
3511
2816
4618
90.
523
0.02
95.
60.
001
0.38
20.
039
10.1
0.00
70.
402
0.05
213
.00.
001
...O
rang
e-cr
owne
d W
arbl
er77
4652
6475
552
0.42
30.
017
4.0
0.23
20.
459
0.02
75.
90.
379
0.35
70.
028
7.8
0.02
4...
.t.t..
Nas
hvill
e W
arbl
er34
1305
1575
700.
339
0.04
713
.90.
077
0.35
40.
075
21.3
0.56
20.
301
0.07
123
.70.
034
.t....
Vir
gini
a's
War
bler
1360
974
452
0.44
00.
058
13.1
0.00
20.
317
0.07
624
.10.
817
0.40
10.
110
27.5
0.00
1.t.
Luc
y's
War
bler
840
150
548
0.46
60.
065
13.9
0.00
40.
317
0.08
025
.10.
000
0.56
70.
160
28.3
0.00
2...
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[84]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Nor
ther
n Pa
rula
4547
554
232
0.35
80.
073
20.3
0.00
20.
515
0.13
125
.50.
007
0.24
70.
084
34.1
0.02
3...
Yello
w W
arbl
er15
112
139
1926
224
450.
534
0.00
91.
60.
001
0.47
40.
012
2.5
0.00
20.
401
0.01
43.
50.
120
...C
hest
nut-
sid
ed W
arbl
er22
929
1551
189
0.44
80.
029
6.4
0.11
00.
506
0.04
69.
00.
019
0.51
80.
067
12.9
0.11
9...
Mag
nolia
War
bler
1765
510
3910
10.
391
0.03
910
.00.
995
0.65
90.
071
10.8
0.00
80.
320
0.05
818
.10.
000
t..B
lack
-thr
oate
d B
lue
War
bler
813
418
422
0.49
20.
089
18.1
0.00
10.
451
0.12
728
.20.
000
0.40
90.
155
38.0
0.00
7...
Yello
w-r
umpe
d W
arbl
er99
5162
6340
466
0.45
30.
020
4.3
0.00
10.
263
0.02
38.
60.
077
0.46
40.
044
9.5
0.00
1...
Bla
ck-t
hroa
ted
Gra
y W
arbl
er20
174
200
70.
441
0.16
537
.50.
006
0.06
60.
072
108.
80.
004
0.91
10.
960
105.
40.
001
...Bl
ack-
thro
ated
Gre
en W
arbl
er23
486
730
850.
391
0.04
511
.50.
002
0.54
60.
078
14.3
0.01
70.
515
0.10
119
.60.
047
...To
wns
end
's W
arbl
er29
1191
1482
109
0.43
70.
040
9.2
0.00
20.
205
0.04
220
.50.
004
0.66
50.
144
21.6
0.00
4...
Her
mit
War
bler
3212
7513
9943
0.59
70.
063
10.6
0.01
80.
099
0.03
333
.70.
004
0.27
10.
093
34.4
0.00
4...
Bla
ckbu
rnia
n W
arbl
er5
4657
50.
566
0.18
933
.50.
000
0.10
60.
111
104.
40.
000
0.89
90.
946
105.
20.
000
...Pi
ne W
arbl
er35
245
287
120.
345
0.12
837
.10.
001
0.29
20.
175
59.7
0.00
80.
363
0.22
862
.90.
001
...Pr
airi
e W
arbl
er28
676
908
820.
457
0.04
810
.50.
007
0.29
90.
057
19.0
0.04
70.
526
0.11
221
.40.
001
...B
lack
poll
War
bler
818
428
023
0.30
20.
068
22.4
0.00
00.
733
0.15
220
.70.
000
0.32
00.
124
38.8
0.00
3...
Bla
ck-a
nd-w
hite
War
bler
8213
4617
5817
90.
530
0.03
25.
90.
170
0.31
20.
037
11.9
0.01
80.
436
0.06
114
.10.
064
...A
mer
ican
Red
star
t69
3913
5666
569
0.50
20.
017
3.4
0.22
10.
346
0.02
26.
30.
093
0.44
50.
034
7.7
0.76
9..t
...t.t
Prot
hono
tary
War
bler
2371
192
374
0.45
70.
048
10.5
0.01
10.
237
0.05
322
.20.
004
0.61
30.
147
23.9
0.00
2...
Wor
m-e
atin
g W
arbl
er31
946
1339
148
0.54
70.
034
6.3
0.00
40.
421
0.04
510
.80.
029
0.33
70.
049
14.5
0.00
2...
Swai
nson
's W
arbl
er9
149
249
220.
525
0.09
017
.10.
029
0.30
50.
102
33.4
0.85
50.
529
0.20
839
.40.
018
.t.O
venb
ird
126
4655
6833
866
0.55
20.
014
2.5
0.00
40.
426
0.01
94.
40.
004
0.38
00.
023
6.0
0.00
3...
Nor
ther
n W
ater
thru
sh23
615
936
107
0.50
30.
039
7.8
0.25
40.
581
0.05
910
.10.
058
0.28
20.
049
17.2
0.02
5...
t..L
ouis
iana
Wat
erth
rush
3869
712
1815
20.
505
0.03
46.
70.
004
0.60
80.
050
8.3
0.03
20.
353
0.05
014
.30.
002
...K
entu
cky
War
bler
6022
6640
5162
90.
537
0.01
63.
00.
011
0.57
10.
024
4.1
0.00
40.
415
0.02
97.
00.
004
...M
ourn
ing
War
bler
927
246
059
0.44
50.
052
11.6
0.05
30.
439
0.07
918
.00.
023
0.70
10.
163
23.2
0.00
1...
Mac
Gill
ivra
y's
War
bler
9974
3114
402
1787
0.48
30.
010
2.0
0.85
70.
600
0.01
52.
50.
005
0.40
40.
017
4.2
0.11
8t..
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at21
311
335
1908
220
690.
478
0.00
91.
80.
022
0.50
40.
014
2.7
0.00
20.
382
0.01
53.
90.
263
.....t
Hoo
ded
War
bler
5315
5626
8730
50.
470
0.02
34.
90.
016
0.53
70.
036
6.7
0.00
20.
390
0.04
010
.20.
118
...W
ilson
's W
arbl
er85
1086
116
282
1278
0.40
50.
011
2.6
0.02
60.
532
0.01
93.
50.
116
0.27
70.
014
5.1
1.00
0..t
Can
ada
War
bler
1138
057
158
0.45
60.
053
11.6
0.09
10.
531
0.08
415
.70.
003
0.32
90.
077
23.5
0.24
5...
..tYe
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
8040
0367
4289
30.
489
0.01
42.
80.
900
0.48
20.
020
4.2
0.12
00.
492
0.02
95.
90.
146
t..Su
mm
er T
anag
er69
883
1179
138
0.53
50.
038
7.1
0.07
10.
355
0.04
512
.80.
028
0.47
40.
074
15.6
0.06
9...
Scar
let T
anag
er93
750
855
440.
557
0.06
311
.20.
007
0.09
00.
035
39.1
0.00
70.
625
0.24
639
.30.
048
...W
este
rn T
anag
er89
2296
2528
134
0.52
10.
038
7.3
0.00
00.
136
0.03
022
.30.
001
0.51
00.
119
23.4
0.00
0...
Oliv
e Sp
arro
w4
241
465
750.
511
0.04
89.
40.
002
0.75
70.
065
8.6
0.00
40.
503
0.09
919
.80.
007
...
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[85]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Gre
en-t
aile
d T
owhe
e18
431
639
810.
616
0.04
87.
80.
007
0.30
70.
051
16.5
0.00
70.
477
0.09
419
.70.
002
...Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e10
034
7451
9670
70.
500
0.01
63.
20.
071
0.43
50.
022
5.2
0.17
80.
560
0.03
76.
60.
002
...E
aste
rn T
owhe
e11
411
4016
1219
70.
469
0.03
06.
40.
002
0.35
50.
040
11.1
0.00
30.
623
0.08
313
.30.
001
...C
anyo
n To
whe
e*†
456
693
0.92
60.
290
31.3
0.00
00.
025
0.03
614
3.5
0.00
01.
000
1.39
213
9.2
0.00
0...
Cal
ifor
nia
Tow
hee
3271
399
114
20.
562
0.03
76.
60.
006
0.32
90.
042
12.9
0.00
50.
607
0.09
215
.10.
878
..tA
bert
's T
owhe
e5
131
173
160.
486
0.12
625
.90.
000
0.39
00.
157
40.3
0.00
00.
389
0.18
948
.70.
001
...R
ufou
s-cr
owne
d S
parr
ow19
269
402
430.
528
0.06
512
.30.
076
0.32
00.
076
23.7
0.00
20.
508
0.13
927
.50.
003
...A
mer
ican
Tre
e Sp
arro
w7
203
338
350.
460
0.06
313
.80.
001
0.54
80.
104
19.0
0.00
10.
335
0.10
330
.60.
002
...C
hipp
ing
Spar
row
9318
0222
7315
90.
427
0.03
37.
70.
018
0.21
60.
036
16.5
0.01
80.
645
0.11
217
.40.
011
...C
lay-
colo
red
Spa
rrow
736
544
621
0.46
50.
101
21.7
0.01
10.
340
0.12
035
.40.
041
0.20
90.
087
41.6
0.00
4...
Fiel
d S
parr
ow76
2365
3409
377
0.44
30.
021
4.6
0.01
00.
346
0.02
88.
10.
810
0.62
10.
059
9.6
0.00
1.t.
Ves
per
Spar
row
567
8713
0.73
60.
098
13.3
0.00
30.
263
0.10
439
.50.
003
0.33
10.
158
47.8
0.00
1...
Lar
k Sp
arro
w18
482
523
230.
453
0.09
019
.90.
018
0.25
90.
104
40.2
0.01
90.
242
0.10
744
.00.
006
...B
lack
-thr
oate
d S
parr
ow*
1117
518
65
0.59
70.
202
33.7
0.00
20.
087
0.09
210
6.1
0.00
50.
291
0.30
910
6.3
0.00
4...
Sage
Spa
rrow
*†2
9910
43
0.49
60.
277
55.8
0.00
10.
037
0.09
325
4.1
0.00
01.
000
2.48
524
8.5
0.00
0...
Sava
nnah
Spa
rrow
1560
983
812
00.
574
0.04
37.
40.
018
0.37
20.
048
13.0
0.01
10.
486
0.08
016
.50.
000
...G
rass
hopp
er S
parr
ow9
236
350
350.
438
0.06
915
.70.
068
0.36
00.
096
26.6
0.47
10.
564
0.17
631
.30.
003
....t.
Fox
Spar
row
4211
5719
5623
90.
523
0.02
64.
90.
432
0.48
90.
037
7.6
0.23
50.
375
0.04
311
.60.
577
t.t.t.
..t...
Song
Spa
rrow
217
1379
926
064
3314
0.47
80.
007
1.5
0.26
60.
540
0.01
12.
00.
075
0.48
50.
015
3.1
0.01
2...
t..L
inco
ln's
Spa
rrow
5429
1267
5281
90.
428
0.01
33.
10.
119
0.61
00.
023
3.8
0.01
20.
581
0.03
76.
30.
010
...Sw
amp
Spar
row
1644
078
488
0.44
70.
042
9.3
0.90
40.
677
0.06
810
.10.
027
0.30
90.
061
19.7
0.09
7t..
Whi
te-t
hroa
ted
Spa
rrow
2211
7619
6515
90.
342
0.02
98.
50.
009
0.50
40.
056
11.1
0.33
50.
509
0.07
414
.60.
127
....t.
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
3114
1623
7729
40.
450
0.02
35.
00.
004
0.46
40.
035
7.6
0.00
70.
557
0.05
810
.40.
029
...G
old
en-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
528
153
976
0.49
80.
043
8.6
0.00
60.
522
0.06
712
.90.
118
0.52
20.
107
20.4
0.00
1...
Dar
k-ey
ed Ju
nco
127
7781
1319
216
220.
436
0.01
02.
30.
923
0.50
50.
016
3.2
0.08
50.
536
0.02
44.
40.
002
t..N
orth
ern
Car
din
al20
579
9011
797
1684
0.54
60.
010
1.9
0.57
70.
380
0.01
33.
40.
084
0.54
30.
023
4.3
0.00
3t..
...Py
rrhu
loxi
a*2
129
134
30.
955
0.25
226
.40.
000
0.23
00.
206
89.7
0.00
00.
035
0.03
291
.90.
000
...R
ose-
brea
sted
Gro
sbea
k54
859
1013
600.
448
0.05
612
.50.
006
0.23
80.
062
25.9
0.61
70.
414
0.11
828
.40.
009
.t....
Bla
ck-h
ead
ed G
rosb
eak
119
4824
6191
636
0.53
90.
017
3.1
0.34
00.
290
0.01
96.
50.
031
0.44
10.
033
7.5
0.07
6...
t..B
lue
Gro
sbea
k31
405
481
360.
431
0.07
617
.70.
025
0.28
10.
093
33.1
0.00
20.
554
0.20
537
.00.
009
...L
azul
i Bun
ting
5221
1126
6017
90.
489
0.03
16.
30.
007
0.28
40.
035
12.3
0.00
90.
310
0.04
414
.10.
271
.....t
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
130
4927
6958
774
0.47
50.
015
3.1
0.42
00.
384
0.02
05.
30.
182
0.48
80.
032
6.5
0.00
7...
t..V
arie
d B
unti
ng*†
269
805
0.36
50.
282
77.4
0.00
00.
208
0.31
515
1.6
0.00
01.
000
1.63
016
3.0
0.00
0...
Pain
ted
Bun
ting
3420
1327
4533
10.
548
0.02
44.
30.
028
0.45
60.
032
7.0
0.04
40.
330
0.03
29.
60.
171
...
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[86]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Dic
kcis
sel
1569
778
429
0.43
80.
073
16.6
0.00
40.
230
0.08
436
.70.
007
0.28
50.
116
40.6
0.02
8...
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd94
2647
2950
161
0.58
60.
036
6.2
0.66
60.
166
0.02
816
.70.
303
0.33
10.
058
17.6
0.25
2t..
Eas
tern
Mea
dow
lark
1255
655
0.59
00.
168
28.4
0.00
00.
347
0.21
361
.40.
000
0.21
90.
175
80.2
0.00
0...
Com
mon
Gra
ckle
5711
9212
3626
0.42
60.
085
19.9
0.01
10.
098
0.06
768
.60.
053
0.34
90.
249
71.4
0.02
5...
Bro
nzed
Cow
bird
484
104
100.
444
0.14
131
.70.
000
0.31
90.
190
59.7
0.00
00.
614
0.44
071
.60.
000
...B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
254
2766
3844
451
0.48
90.
020
4.1
0.00
60.
413
0.02
76.
60.
029
0.47
20.
040
8.5
0.01
8...
Orc
hard
Ori
ole
2333
039
024
0.43
30.
085
19.7
0.02
70.
158
0.07
950
.20.
002
0.75
00.
389
51.9
0.17
7...
Bul
lock
's O
riol
e51
1500
1892
130
0.44
20.
037
8.4
0.01
10.
333
0.04
914
.60.
018
0.35
50.
060
16.8
0.00
1...
Bal
tim
ore
Ori
ole
5587
610
7679
0.48
20.
047
9.8
0.03
20.
275
0.05
520
.10.
859
0.40
00.
091
22.6
0.00
4.t.
Pine
Gro
sbea
k10
144
172
110.
401
0.13
032
.30.
002
0.28
40.
178
62.6
0.01
60.
489
0.35
472
.30.
002
...Pu
rple
Fin
ch57
4029
5075
448
0.46
10.
020
4.3
0.11
80.
324
0.02
67.
90.
004
0.42
40.
039
9.2
0.01
0...
Cas
sin'
s Fi
nch
2566
771
419
0.46
80.
093
19.9
0.00
10.
070
0.05
172
.60.
130
0.51
60.
375
72.7
0.02
3...
Hou
se F
inch
6115
1415
9831
0.50
80.
081
16.0
0.00
20.
090
0.04
651
.50.
004
0.28
30.
147
51.8
0.00
6...
Com
mon
Red
poll
1416
3120
3518
0.38
50.
098
25.4
0.00
30.
026
0.01
868
.70.
006
0.78
00.
489
62.8
0.00
0...
Pine
Sis
kin
5226
5228
3220
0.39
40.
095
24.1
0.02
30.
015
0.01
610
5.0
0.00
60.
870
0.88
910
2.2
0.01
5...
Les
ser
Gol
dfi
nch
4416
2517
5851
0.38
50.
063
16.4
0.00
60.
092
0.04
346
.20.
002
0.65
30.
300
45.8
0.04
7...
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h16
588
5010
720
736
0.43
20.
016
3.6
0.20
40.
263
0.01
87.
00.
125
0.46
30.
035
7.6
0.12
5...
t..
Mea
n (1
84 s
peci
es)m
5517
3225
9027
70.
487
0.06
915
.00.
118
0.34
00.
075
33.7
0.09
30.
500
0.22
837
.70.
065
Mea
n(1
59be
tter-e
stim
ated
sp.)m
,n62
1976
2964
319
0.48
70.
052
10.8
0.13
50.
359
0.06
122
.10.
107
0.46
60.
125
26.1
0.07
4
NO
RT
HW
EST
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Will
iam
son'
s Sa
psuc
ker
993
126
90.
292
0.12
141
.50.
002
0.34
80.
218
62.5
0.02
80.
679
0.45
366
.60.
003
...R
ed-n
aped
Sap
suck
er30
465
798
920.
422
0.04
29.
90.
004
0.50
60.
068
13.5
0.00
10.
546
0.10
218
.60.
001
...R
.-nap
ed x
R.-b
reas
ted
Hyb
rid
662
118
160.
537
0.11
020
.40.
012
0.39
90.
136
34.0
0.02
70.
648
0.28
043
.20.
023
...R
ed-b
reas
ted
Sap
suck
er50
868
1409
151
0.44
90.
034
7.5
0.00
40.
413
0.04
911
.80.
011
0.57
10.
084
14.7
0.01
8...
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er46
435
547
450.
340
0.06
118
.00.
017
0.40
60.
104
25.6
0.86
70.
542
0.16
229
.90.
001
.t.H
airy
Woo
dpe
cker
6031
139
258
0.61
10.
055
9.1
0.12
20.
238
0.05
422
.70.
011
0.63
50.
164
25.9
0.33
0...
..tN
orth
ern
Flic
ker†
5823
025
38
0.41
40.
158
38.2
0.00
10.
062
0.07
612
2.8
0.00
11.
000
1.21
012
1.0
0.00
1...
Oliv
e-si
ded
Fly
catc
her*
†15
5972
30.
830
0.20
224
.30.
000
0.01
70.
025
150.
00.
000
1.00
01.
455
145.
50.
000
...W
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee62
1354
1803
199
0.50
90.
031
6.0
0.07
70.
344
0.03
710
.90.
100
0.47
50.
062
13.1
0.80
4..t
"Tra
ill's
" Fl
ycat
cher
3414
4621
7124
10.
527
0.02
75.
10.
094
0.48
60.
038
7.9
0.01
00.
312
0.03
611
.50.
860
..tL
east
Fly
catc
her
343
646
0.58
70.
168
28.6
0.00
00.
716
0.23
432
.70.
000
0.13
90.
107
76.9
0.00
0...
Ham
mon
d's
Fly
catc
her
5513
4519
3221
90.
442
0.02
76.
20.
194
0.41
20.
041
9.9
0.02
00.
512
0.06
312
.30.
001
...
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[87]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Dus
ky F
lyca
tche
r43
2355
3561
349
0.50
00.
021
4.2
0.99
80.
413
0.02
97.
10.
008
0.32
10.
031
9.7
0.00
7t..
"Wes
tern
" Fl
ycat
cher
5118
8925
3223
50.
496
0.02
65.
30.
083
0.33
10.
033
10.0
0.02
80.
386
0.04
712
.10.
021
...C
assi
n's
Vir
eo32
573
681
400.
566
0.06
411
.30.
002
0.15
10.
049
32.5
0.00
70.
422
0.14
434
.00.
007
...H
utto
n's
Vir
eo8
3348
80.
607
0.15
325
.20.
000
0.36
80.
178
48.4
0.00
00.
515
0.31
661
.40.
000
...W
arbl
ing
Vir
eo92
4473
6635
743
0.48
90.
015
3.1
0.02
90.
407
0.02
15.
10.
002
0.43
90.
029
6.6
0.79
8..t
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
714
221
420
0.64
60.
089
13.8
0.07
80.
210
0.07
334
.80.
019
0.36
00.
147
40.8
0.00
2...
Gra
y Ja
y9
5174
190.
727
0.08
011
.10.
002
0.22
20.
078
35.2
0.00
20.
799
0.31
038
.90.
000
...St
elle
r's Ja
y54
244
266
180.
667
0.09
514
.20.
000
0.11
60.
065
55.7
0.00
10.
433
0.25
157
.90.
002
...W
este
rn S
crub
-Jay
1148
566
0.62
20.
145
23.3
0.00
00.
204
0.14
470
.30.
000
0.40
50.
314
77.6
0.00
0...
Tree
Sw
allo
w19
468
652
500.
424
0.05
813
.70.
004
0.28
30.
073
25.8
0.00
20.
645
0.18
428
.50.
003
...V
iole
t-gr
een
Swal
low
*†4
7686
30.
307
0.24
078
.30.
001
0.09
70.
184
190.
70.
000
1.00
01.
874
187.
40.
000
...N
. Rou
gh-w
inge
d S
wal
low
*10
7883
30.
525
0.26
149
.60.
000
0.46
00.
360
78.1
0.00
00.
095
0.10
210
7.3
0.00
0...
Bar
n Sw
allo
w5
322
402
350.
498
0.06
513
.00.
273
0.19
10.
062
32.6
0.27
30.
582
0.20
234
.70.
003
...t..
.t.B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee52
1111
1611
202
0.48
00.
030
6.3
0.30
90.
402
0.04
110
.30.
492
0.58
80.
075
12.7
0.00
5...
tt.
.t.M
ount
ain
Chi
ckad
ee43
1189
1499
132
0.45
40.
037
8.2
0.02
90.
340
0.04
814
.20.
121
0.45
40.
076
16.7
0.00
4...
Che
stnu
t-ba
cked
Chi
ckad
ee45
1026
1203
820.
333
0.04
814
.50.
002
0.20
30.
060
29.4
0.04
80.
959
0.29
730
.90.
002
...B
usht
it†
1321
025
111
0.42
00.
140
33.4
0.00
70.
094
0.08
287
.40.
023
1.00
00.
854
85.4
0.00
4...
Red
-bre
aste
d N
utha
tch
6762
970
528
0.36
10.
081
22.6
0.00
10.
113
0.06
758
.80.
003
0.80
70.
479
59.3
0.00
5...
Bro
wn
Cre
eper
4860
376
354
0.33
20.
056
17.0
0.00
20.
269
0.08
029
.90.
011
0.79
80.
255
31.9
0.00
0...
Bew
ick'
s W
ren
1827
746
360
0.42
30.
051
12.1
0.00
70.
521
0.08
616
.60.
011
0.61
40.
141
22.9
0.00
2...
Hou
se W
ren
2779
611
5485
0.33
90.
043
12.7
0.00
10.
371
0.07
119
.10.
000
0.61
90.
132
21.3
0.00
0...
Win
ter
Wre
n35
1053
1721
144
0.36
10.
031
8.5
0.42
60.
527
0.05
811
.00.
151
0.39
50.
061
15.4
0.04
1...
t...t.
Gol
den
-cro
wne
d K
ingl
et*
5610
5713
1514
0.11
10.
072
64.7
0.00
60.
322
0.24
375
.40.
004
0.26
00.
138
53.3
0.01
3...
Rub
y-cr
owne
d K
ingl
et18
829
1061
470.
329
0.05
917
.80.
694
0.26
30.
078
29.8
0.27
70.
475
0.14
530
.40.
015
t...t.
Vee
ry6
181
404
760.
570
0.04
98.
70.
001
0.72
60.
067
9.3
0.08
60.
414
0.08
721
.10.
085
...Sw
ains
on's
Thr
ush
8187
8420
182
3545
0.59
20.
007
1.1
0.00
20.
625
0.01
01.
50.
000
0.42
20.
013
3.0
0.26
9...
..tH
erm
it T
hrus
h36
927
1430
173
0.43
30.
030
6.9
0.00
10.
551
0.05
09.
10.
029
0.42
80.
058
13.5
0.00
3...
Am
eric
an R
obin
130
5092
6840
761
0.54
40.
015
2.8
0.99
80.
258
0.01
66.
20.
002
0.58
80.
041
6.9
0.01
3t..
Var
ied
Thr
ush
3143
658
252
0.45
30.
054
12.0
0.17
10.
385
0.07
820
.30.
766
0.34
60.
088
25.4
0.00
1.t.
Wre
ntit
2161
314
4024
10.
550
0.02
54.
60.
895
0.63
80.
038
5.9
0.14
30.
428
0.05
412
.60.
103
t..G
ray
Cat
bird
1484
113
1517
00.
556
0.03
56.
40.
009
0.39
00.
042
10.8
0.00
10.
545
0.07
313
.50.
267
.....t
Ced
ar W
axw
ing
3219
6722
7319
0.48
00.
105
22.0
0.00
50.
039
0.02
255
.40.
001
0.28
80.
148
51.5
0.02
8...
Ora
nge-
crow
ned
War
bler
3816
1722
7222
90.
449
0.02
76.
10.
020
0.47
00.
042
8.9
0.02
00.
382
0.04
611
.90.
007
...N
ashv
ille
War
bler
2182
910
0950
0.33
20.
056
16.7
0.00
40.
428
0.09
923
.20.
007
0.27
90.
076
27.3
0.01
8...
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[88]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Vir
gini
a's
War
bler
†2
265
300
200.
407
0.10
425
.50.
005
0.15
70.
103
65.3
0.58
41.
000
0.68
568
.50.
001
.t....
Yello
w W
arbl
er64
6225
1029
813
880.
561
0.01
12.
00.
402
0.49
60.
016
3.2
0.02
80.
389
0.01
84.
70.
761
..tt..
t.tYe
llow
-rum
ped
War
bler
6236
8944
1529
90.
482
0.02
55.
20.
041
0.20
80.
024
11.6
0.78
60.
484
0.06
012
.30.
003
.t.B
lack
-thr
oate
d G
ray
War
bler
1814
316
55
0.45
40.
189
41.6
0.00
70.
077
0.08
711
2.2
0.00
20.
612
0.66
510
8.7
0.00
1...
Tow
nsen
d's
War
bler
2510
3212
8310
10.
457
0.04
29.
20.
002
0.19
80.
042
21.4
0.00
30.
689
0.15
522
.50.
003
...H
erm
it W
arbl
er32
1275
1399
430.
597
0.06
310
.60.
018
0.09
90.
033
33.7
0.00
40.
271
0.09
334
.40.
004
...A
mer
ican
Red
star
t7
366
629
650.
452
0.04
810
.60.
006
0.51
90.
078
14.9
0.11
60.
357
0.08
122
.70.
026
...N
orth
ern
Wat
erth
rush
717
726
229
0.62
10.
083
13.4
0.90
90.
443
0.09
822
.20.
012
0.20
50.
070
34.3
0.00
7t..
Mac
Gill
ivra
y's
War
bler
9172
5814
191
1776
0.48
50.
010
2.0
0.89
80.
601
0.01
52.
50.
005
0.40
90.
017
4.2
0.07
6t..
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at31
2000
3831
480
0.50
10.
018
3.6
0.00
40.
543
0.02
85.
10.
004
0.39
50.
033
8.3
0.07
6...
Wils
on's
War
bler
5743
8669
5167
90.
428
0.01
53.
50.
023
0.53
50.
025
4.7
0.00
20.
345
0.02
47.
00.
715
..t...
Yello
w-b
reas
ted
Cha
t18
1092
2033
278
0.50
50.
023
4.6
0.89
50.
520
0.03
66.
90.
071
0.42
30.
047
11.1
0.17
4t..
Wes
tern
Tan
ager
7618
4220
2210
80.
516
0.04
38.
40.
000
0.12
10.
033
27.0
0.00
40.
594
0.16
728
.10.
000
...G
reen
-tai
led
Tow
hee
1235
054
677
0.65
70.
050
7.6
0.00
20.
305
0.05
116
.60.
002
0.50
30.
099
19.8
0.00
3...
Spot
ted
Tow
hee
5214
3621
8128
60.
492
0.02
55.
10.
822
0.45
10.
036
7.9
0.04
00.
522
0.05
410
.40.
009
t..C
hipp
ing
Spar
row
4010
2712
7684
0.43
20.
046
10.6
0.01
00.
201
0.04
723
.40.
016
0.62
60.
154
24.5
0.11
6...
Ves
per
Spar
row
356
7311
0.75
40.
110
14.6
0.00
00.
265
0.11
443
.10.
002
0.32
80.
170
51.7
0.00
0...
Sava
nnah
Spa
rrow
442
159
110
00.
621
0.04
97.
90.
011
0.33
30.
050
14.9
0.00
40.
585
0.10
718
.20.
001
...Fo
x Sp
arro
w27
662
1152
136
0.53
50.
035
6.6
0.56
60.
437
0.04
810
.90.
071
0.39
50.
061
15.4
0.08
9t..
...So
ng S
parr
ow10
974
7815
446
2036
0.47
70.
009
1.8
0.92
80.
579
0.01
42.
40.
859
0.50
00.
020
4.0
0.00
1tt
.L
inco
ln's
Spa
rrow
3724
2857
0174
40.
433
0.01
43.
30.
333
0.61
00.
024
4.0
0.01
60.
641
0.04
26.
50.
121
...t..
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
1570
412
1516
70.
463
0.03
06.
60.
007
0.53
40.
048
9.1
0.00
20.
495
0.06
813
.70.
007
...D
ark-
eyed
Junc
o88
6308
1083
613
960.
453
0.01
12.
40.
996
0.50
20.
017
3.4
0.00
60.
525
0.02
54.
70.
018
t..B
lack
-hea
ded
Gro
sbea
k75
2622
3416
371
0.55
40.
022
3.9
0.00
30.
263
0.02
38.
80.
002
0.51
20.
051
10.0
0.01
1...
Laz
uli B
unti
ng31
1479
1901
143
0.51
70.
035
6.7
0.00
10.
263
0.03
713
.90.
001
0.35
90.
056
15.7
0.07
6...
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd28
1064
1192
770.
676
0.05
98.
70.
068
0.13
90.
035
24.9
0.06
80.
372
0.09
425
.20.
042
...B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
7299
914
7919
60.
485
0.03
06.
20.
004
0.45
70.
044
9.6
0.04
70.
514
0.06
512
.60.
007
...B
ullo
ck's
Ori
ole
2484
110
8696
0.46
20.
044
9.5
0.00
70.
391
0.06
115
.60.
011
0.38
70.
074
19.1
0.00
1...
Pine
Gro
sbea
k*†
357
633
0.32
50.
251
77.2
0.00
00.
131
0.26
920
4.8
0.00
01.
000
2.15
721
5.7
0.00
0...
Purp
le F
inch
3627
9534
7328
70.
437
0.02
55.
60.
011
0.33
40.
033
10.0
0.02
00.
414
0.04
811
.60.
005
...C
assi
n's
Finc
h22
548
584
140.
524
0.10
920
.90.
001
0.07
80.
058
73.6
0.10
50.
330
0.24
373
.60.
007
...H
ouse
Fin
ch†
532
836
815
0.43
60.
109
24.9
0.02
80.
070
0.06
693
.30.
017
1.00
00.
940
94.0
0.00
3...
Pine
Sis
kin
4525
2927
0420
0.26
80.
093
34.7
0.04
60.
027
0.02
910
7.1
0.01
10.
828
0.84
710
2.2
0.02
9...
Les
ser
Gol
dfi
nch†
734
336
99
0.38
90.
153
39.4
0.00
00.
056
0.07
513
4.4
0.00
01.
000
1.32
313
2.3
0.00
1...
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[89]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h22
1855
2485
227
0.47
60.
027
5.7
0.38
00.
326
0.03
410
.60.
988
0.44
00.
054
12.4
0.01
2.t.
tt.
Mea
n (8
1 sp
ecie
s)m
3514
0322
2725
30.
485
0.06
715
.30.
161
0.33
30.
070
35.0
0.09
30.
531
0.25
138
.30.
076
Mea
n(6
8 be
tter-
estim
ated
sp.)m
,n38
1590
2562
300
0.50
10.
049
9.7
0.19
00.
369
0.05
619
.90.
101
0.47
80.
112
23.8
0.09
0
SOU
TH
WE
ST M
APS
RE
GIO
NC
omm
on G
roun
d-D
ove*
†3
8193
20.
697
0.69
810
0.1
0.00
00.
024
0.05
824
8.3
0.00
01.
000
2.12
621
2.6
0.00
0...
Aco
rn W
ood
peck
er8
5872
80.
464
0.17
738
.10.
000
0.72
60.
230
31.6
0.00
00.
279
0.17
462
.40.
000
...W
illia
mso
n's
Saps
ucke
r5
9612
28
0.46
90.
142
30.3
0.00
10.
208
0.13
665
.40.
004
0.45
60.
312
68.5
0.00
0...
Red
-nap
ed S
apsu
cker
414
929
263
0.57
60.
050
8.8
0.00
20.
583
0.07
212
.30.
018
0.52
60.
116
22.1
0.00
2...
Red
-bre
aste
d S
apsu
cker
230
395
0.68
80.
178
25.9
0.00
00.
454
0.22
048
.40.
000
0.26
10.
192
73.5
0.00
0...
Lad
der
-bac
ked
Woo
dpe
cker
*†9
4863
70.
512
0.20
540
.00.
000
0.22
20.
185
83.5
0.00
01.
000
0.89
989
.90.
000
...N
utta
ll's
Woo
dpe
cker
2631
948
369
0.59
60.
052
8.7
0.00
00.
374
0.06
116
.40.
001
0.47
60.
099
20.9
0.02
9...
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er27
332
507
650.
623
0.05
28.
30.
000
0.37
30.
061
16.3
0.00
30.
355
0.07
721
.70.
003
...H
airy
Woo
dpe
cker
1110
214
419
0.79
40.
082
10.3
0.00
10.
184
0.06
234
.00.
017
0.35
70.
143
40.1
0.00
1...
Nor
ther
n Fl
icke
r25
175
206
150.
412
0.11
327
.40.
011
0.15
30.
105
68.6
0.04
00.
909
0.65
972
.50.
009
...O
live-
sid
ed F
lyca
tche
r2
5985
140.
832
0.08
310
.00.
000
0.70
60.
121
17.2
0.00
10.
025
0.02
599
.90.
000
...W
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee18
332
445
450.
516
0.06
111
.80.
006
0.28
60.
070
24.5
0.00
40.
564
0.15
828
.00.
075
..."T
raill
's"
Flyc
atch
er5
6375
60.
483
0.19
640
.50.
000
0.32
80.
237
72.3
0.00
00.
427
0.33
378
.10.
000
...D
usky
Fly
catc
her
717
219
79
0.42
80.
154
36.0
0.00
10.
701
0.23
633
.70.
003
0.10
80.
065
60.2
0.00
1...
"Wes
tern
" Fl
ycat
cher
2413
2015
2772
0.52
00.
051
9.8
0.25
80.
308
0.05
818
.90.
980
0.17
70.
040
22.5
0.04
0.t.
tt.
Bla
ck P
hoeb
e23
208
249
200.
545
0.09
617
.60.
001
0.32
30.
112
34.5
0.00
30.
282
0.11
641
.00.
000
...V
erm
ilion
Fly
catc
her*
†3
5667
70.
476
0.20
543
.00.
000
0.19
90.
193
96.8
0.00
01.
000
1.07
910
7.9
0.00
0...
Ash
-thr
oate
d F
lyca
tche
r48
1089
1268
107
0.64
40.
045
7.0
0.00
30.
206
0.03
818
.60.
002
0.39
10.
079
20.3
0.26
9...
..tB
row
n-cr
este
d F
lyca
tche
r*5
4249
40.
621
0.24
138
.80.
000
0.61
40.
309
50.3
0.00
00.
163
0.14
086
.00.
000
...B
ell's
Vir
eo6
163
269
350.
574
0.07
212
.50.
001
0.47
30.
097
20.6
0.00
00.
415
0.12
229
.50.
003
...Pl
umbe
ous
Vir
eo7
6296
190.
621
0.10
416
.80.
001
0.43
20.
127
29.5
0.00
00.
603
0.23
238
.50.
000
...H
utto
n's
Vir
eo12
100
137
120.
560
0.12
522
.40.
001
0.24
20.
117
48.5
0.05
40.
424
0.23
154
.40.
005
...W
arbl
ing
Vir
eo18
1507
1876
114
0.52
60.
039
7.3
0.00
10.
458
0.05
411
.80.
004
0.14
40.
024
16.8
1.00
0..t
Stel
ler's
Jay
912
116
327
0.73
80.
067
9.0
0.00
10.
189
0.05
830
.50.
817
0.58
60.
197
33.6
0.00
0.t.
Wes
tern
Scr
ub-J
ay†
2311
312
910
0.49
40.
143
28.9
0.00
30.
114
0.10
793
.30.
001
1.00
00.
960
96.0
0.01
0...
Mex
ican
Jay*
338
463
0.36
60.
223
60.9
0.00
00.
289
0.31
210
8.0
0.00
00.
486
0.56
011
5.1
0.00
0...
Tree
Sw
allo
w11
104
123
60.
520
0.15
930
.70.
005
0.28
60.
182
63.7
0.00
20.
150
0.11
476
.00.
006
...V
iole
t-gr
een
Swal
low
511
315
213
0.50
00.
110
22.0
0.00
20.
247
0.11
747
.20.
973
0.41
60.
218
52.5
0.00
0.t.
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[90]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Bla
ck-c
appe
d C
hick
adee
510
517
521
0.40
00.
087
21.8
0.00
10.
574
0.15
026
.10.
000
0.67
60.
261
38.6
0.00
0...
Mou
ntai
n C
hick
adee
1029
538
936
0.38
10.
066
17.5
0.45
10.
292
0.09
231
.60.
451
0.79
80.
275
34.4
0.00
1t..
.t.C
hest
nut-
back
ed C
hick
adee
734
959
892
0.49
40.
044
8.9
0.08
70.
477
0.06
313
.30.
885
0.63
30.
114
18.0
0.00
0.t.
Bri
dle
d T
itm
ouse
640
5610
0.64
20.
161
25.2
0.00
00.
256
0.14
355
.90.
000
0.84
50.
498
58.9
0.00
0...
Oak
Tit
mou
se19
272
412
500.
530
0.05
811
.00.
000
0.39
50.
076
19.3
0.00
10.
435
0.11
025
.30.
018
...Ju
nipe
r Ti
tmou
se4
5193
190.
586
0.09
516
.30.
000
0.48
20.
130
26.8
0.00
00.
630
0.24
338
.50.
000
...V
erd
in*†
342
552
0.42
20.
334
79.3
0.00
00.
092
0.18
620
0.7
0.00
01.
000
1.91
019
1.0
0.00
0...
Bus
htit
4417
3520
6911
10.
358
0.04
211
.80.
884
0.23
70.
050
21.2
0.23
90.
588
0.12
921
.90.
302
t..tt
.t.t
Whi
te-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h20
155
200
200.
459
0.10
322
.40.
060
0.38
40.
139
36.1
0.00
70.
507
0.22
143
.50.
054
...B
row
n C
reep
er*
718
822
95
0.23
10.
170
73.6
0.05
40.
191
0.22
711
9.0
0.01
30.
614
0.66
910
9.0
0.00
5...
Bew
ick'
s W
ren
5516
3027
3833
60.
438
0.02
35.
20.
796
0.55
90.
037
6.6
0.03
20.
532
0.05
19.
60.
715
t.tt..
Hou
se W
ren
3413
5819
7414
40.
384
0.03
48.
70.
003
0.40
10.
053
13.2
0.00
30.
457
0.07
115
.50.
001
...G
old
en-c
row
ned
Kin
glet
*5
4970
40.
312
0.19
462
.10.
000
0.31
50.
320
101.
50.
000
0.69
50.
755
108.
60.
000
...B
lue-
gray
Gna
tcat
cher
*†11
117
142
40.
254
0.20
580
.80.
001
0.12
30.
217
176.
60.
001
1.00
01.
739
173.
90.
000
...W
este
rn B
lueb
ird
1211
315
49
0.31
80.
119
37.3
0.00
00.
409
0.22
154
.10.
004
0.41
90.
264
63.0
0.00
2...
Swai
nson
's T
hrus
h10
2354
4226
437
0.58
80.
020
3.3
0.79
10.
612
0.02
74.
50.
061
0.17
10.
015
9.0
1.00
0t.t
Her
mit
Thr
ush
749
476
712
30.
477
0.03
88.
00.
115
0.40
30.
053
13.2
0.04
30.
828
0.13
516
.40.
001
...A
mer
ican
Rob
in30
785
1008
114
0.49
00.
040
8.2
0.58
50.
265
0.04
617
.30.
053
0.68
50.
132
19.2
0.36
2t..
..tW
rent
it25
1619
3081
481
0.61
80.
019
3.1
0.43
10.
494
0.02
55.
10.
377
0.40
80.
033
8.1
0.65
4..t
tt.
Cal
ifor
nia
Thr
ashe
r†15
134
173
210.
690
0.10
815
.70.
007
0.12
10.
061
50.0
0.00
51.
000
0.49
849
.80.
000
...O
rang
e-cr
owne
d W
arbl
er22
1651
2072
130
0.42
20.
038
8.9
0.14
90.
346
0.05
214
.90.
055
0.35
20.
061
17.4
0.14
9...
Vir
gini
a's
War
bler
1134
444
432
0.45
10.
069
15.3
0.00
70.
388
0.10
125
.90.
396
0.28
10.
092
32.6
0.00
7...
.t.L
ucy'
s W
arbl
er8
401
505
480.
466
0.06
513
.90.
004
0.31
70.
080
25.1
0.00
00.
567
0.16
028
.30.
002
...Ye
llow
War
bler
1910
0913
7812
70.
513
0.03
77.
20.
813
0.41
20.
050
12.2
0.00
50.
305
0.04
915
.90.
211
t..Ye
llow
-rum
ped
War
bler
†6
360
417
220.
392
0.09
123
.30.
592
0.12
40.
083
66.5
0.10
51.
000
0.68
968
.90.
254
t....t
Bla
ck-t
hroa
ted
Gra
y W
arbl
er*†
231
352
0.44
70.
351
78.6
0.00
00.
091
0.19
221
2.4
0.00
01.
000
2.05
020
5.0
0.00
0...
Mac
Gill
ivra
y's
War
bler
817
321
111
0.36
90.
121
32.7
0.00
30.
334
0.17
953
.50.
032
0.33
40.
196
58.7
0.00
5...
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at32
2445
3821
388
0.51
20.
023
4.4
0.94
30.
435
0.03
07.
00.
002
0.39
30.
036
9.1
0.03
0t..
Wils
on's
War
bler
1235
5445
7124
90.
441
0.02
55.
70.
011
0.46
00.
039
8.5
0.94
20.
178
0.02
111
.61.
000
.ttYe
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
1810
2017
8324
80.
518
0.02
85.
30.
136
0.49
70.
039
7.8
0.05
00.
509
0.05
611
.10.
015
...Su
mm
er T
anag
er9
236
392
690.
562
0.05
810
.30.
076
0.43
50.
070
16.1
0.00
20.
763
0.15
620
.40.
001
...W
este
rn T
anag
er11
449
501
260.
537
0.08
014
.90.
002
0.18
50.
073
39.7
0.00
30.
325
0.14
043
.10.
000
...Sp
otte
d T
owhe
e48
2038
3015
421
0.50
40.
021
4.2
0.02
40.
425
0.02
96.
80.
170
0.58
50.
050
8.6
0.06
3...
Cal
ifor
nia
Tow
hee
3170
497
914
00.
563
0.03
76.
60.
004
0.33
20.
043
12.9
0.00
70.
596
0.09
115
.20.
923
..t
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[91]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Abe
rt's
Tow
hee
513
117
316
0.48
60.
126
25.9
0.00
00.
390
0.15
740
.30.
000
0.38
90.
189
48.7
0.00
1...
Ruf
ous-
crow
ned
Spa
rrow
1217
926
326
0.58
10.
090
15.6
0.00
20.
254
0.08
432
.90.
005
0.51
30.
183
35.7
0.00
0...
Chi
ppin
g Sp
arro
w†
714
516
610
0.49
30.
134
27.3
0.00
10.
087
0.08
810
0.3
0.00
11.
000
1.02
510
2.5
0.00
1...
Lar
k Sp
arro
w8
304
332
170.
427
0.10
223
.90.
009
0.34
20.
143
41.8
0.00
70.
229
0.11
248
.90.
004
...B
lack
-thr
oate
d S
parr
ow*
1013
614
54
0.59
30.
220
37.1
0.00
00.
114
0.12
010
5.1
0.00
10.
217
0.23
610
8.8
0.00
2...
Sage
Spa
rrow
*†2
9910
43
0.49
60.
277
55.8
0.00
10.
037
0.09
325
4.1
0.00
01.
000
2.48
524
8.5
0.00
0...
Fox
Spar
row
284
140
190.
531
0.08
215
.50.
000
0.54
80.
128
23.4
0.00
00.
327
0.14
444
.00.
000
...So
ng S
parr
ow36
3195
5377
759
0.53
70.
016
2.9
0.88
70.
474
0.02
24.
50.
275
0.47
70.
030
6.3
0.28
3t..
t.ttt
.L
inco
ln's
Spa
rrow
211
038
035
0.43
70.
057
13.0
0.00
00.
876
0.08
09.
10.
000
0.17
60.
101
57.3
0.00
0...
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
363
838
0.66
80.
118
17.6
0.00
00.
162
0.09
860
.30.
000
0.48
30.
317
65.6
0.00
0...
Dar
k-ey
ed Ju
nco
842
865
069
0.35
60.
047
13.2
0.00
20.
532
0.08
816
.61.
000
0.62
10.
137
22.1
0.00
1.t.
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
247
738
0.39
40.
151
38.5
0.00
00.
637
0.27
242
.70.
000
0.46
00.
290
63.0
0.00
0...
Bla
ck-h
ead
ed G
rosb
eak
4321
3326
8125
80.
517
0.02
65.
10.
084
0.33
80.
032
9.6
0.01
90.
357
0.04
111
.50.
923
..tB
lue
Gro
sbea
k21
324
391
330.
467
0.08
317
.80.
002
0.31
10.
100
32.0
0.00
00.
505
0.18
636
.90.
002
...L
azul
i Bun
ting
2062
975
636
0.37
20.
063
17.0
0.16
80.
418
0.10
825
.80.
557
0.20
00.
063
31.5
0.01
5.t.
...V
arie
d B
unti
ng*†
269
805
0.36
50.
282
77.4
0.00
00.
208
0.31
515
1.6
0.00
01.
000
1.63
016
3.0
0.00
0...
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd†
1332
635
917
0.71
40.
150
21.0
0.00
50.
035
0.03
290
.40.
004
1.00
00.
869
86.9
0.00
5...
Bro
wn-
head
ed C
owbi
rd39
452
678
930.
530
0.04
58.
60.
002
0.46
20.
061
13.3
0.00
40.
454
0.08
218
.10.
001
...B
ullo
ck's
Ori
ole
2556
869
830
0.39
10.
075
19.2
0.00
10.
280
0.09
433
.60.
000
0.29
40.
105
35.7
0.00
0...
Purp
le F
inch
910
8214
1114
50.
522
0.03
66.
80.
347
0.30
70.
041
13.3
0.57
10.
430
0.06
715
.60.
016
.t.t..
Cas
sin'
s Fi
nch*
†3
119
130
50.
318
0.17
153
.80.
000
0.09
80.
157
159.
30.
000
1.00
01.
621
162.
10.
000
...H
ouse
Fin
ch40
994
1027
140.
660
0.14
421
.80.
028
0.13
60.
078
57.4
0.01
00.
085
0.05
261
.70.
066
...L
esse
r G
old
finc
h36
1270
1377
420.
389
0.06
917
.80.
012
0.11
30.
052
46.2
0.00
10.
532
0.24
646
.10.
373
.....t
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h19
961
1061
430.
495
0.07
114
.40.
002
0.13
90.
051
36.4
0.01
50.
403
0.15
137
.30.
011
...
Mea
n (8
6 sp
ecie
s)15
549
770
750.
504
0.11
123
.70.
103
0.33
60.
112
50.5
0.10
90.
526
0.37
056
.90.
104
Mea
n(5
9 be
tter-
estim
ated
sp.)n
1974
910
6210
60.
525
0.06
712
.90.
139
0.37
50.
079
24.8
0.15
50.
448
0.13
831
.90.
146
NO
RT
H-C
EN
TR
AL
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Red
-bel
lied
Woo
dpe
cker
1054
605
0.42
40.
187
44.1
0.00
00.
273
0.24
890
.90.
000
0.60
70.
624
102.
90.
000
...D
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
†26
354
460
450.
382
0.06
216
.30.
000
0.25
10.
081
32.1
0.00
11.
000
0.34
734
.70.
001
...H
airy
Woo
dpe
cker
1879
9110
0.42
70.
144
33.8
0.01
20.
769
0.20
126
.10.
000
0.22
90.
128
55.9
0.00
0...
Nor
ther
n Fl
icke
r*20
8911
14
0.32
10.
185
57.7
0.00
10.
313
0.27
788
.50.
001
0.23
60.
227
95.9
0.00
0...
Wes
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
†2
8915
325
0.44
50.
083
18.7
0.16
60.
392
0.11
930
.40.
675
1.00
00.
362
36.2
0.00
1.t.
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[92]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Eas
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
1617
921
612
0.47
80.
117
24.6
0.01
80.
309
0.14
246
.10.
026
0.22
60.
122
54.0
0.00
4...
"Tra
ill's
" Fl
ycat
cher
1479
512
0811
50.
476
0.03
77.
80.
007
0.49
50.
057
11.5
0.02
90.
341
0.05
616
.60.
018
...L
east
Fly
catc
her
1510
9915
2613
90.
397
0.03
58.
80.
002
0.44
80.
056
12.5
0.88
00.
438
0.06
915
.70.
001
.t.G
reat
Cre
sted
Fly
catc
her
1711
413
619
0.84
00.
079
9.4
0.00
00.
234
0.07
431
.50.
001
0.23
40.
088
37.7
0.00
0...
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo2
3274
110.
509
0.10
420
.40.
000
0.57
80.
172
29.7
0.00
00.
334
0.23
871
.20.
000
...W
arbl
ing
Vir
eo9
126
138
80.
505
0.15
029
.80.
005
0.27
50.
174
63.3
0.03
90.
243
0.18
174
.30.
001
...R
ed-e
yed
Vir
eo26
761
1010
980.
542
0.04
17.
50.
071
0.40
10.
054
13.5
0.90
00.
306
0.05
518
.00.
291
.t..tt
Blu
e Ja
y†23
215
239
170.
524
0.10
119
.40.
004
0.08
70.
068
78.2
0.00
51.
000
0.80
580
.50.
001
...B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee33
872
1152
107
0.41
30.
040
9.6
0.00
20.
461
0.06
313
.70.
004
0.41
80.
074
17.8
0.01
1...
Tuft
ed T
itm
ouse
1120
128
245
0.52
40.
062
11.8
0.00
30.
456
0.08
719
.00.
001
0.49
80.
129
25.9
0.00
7...
Whi
te-b
reas
ted
Nut
hatc
h17
8910
26
0.53
70.
163
30.4
0.00
00.
187
0.14
175
.40.
001
0.31
20.
251
80.6
0.00
0...
Car
olin
a W
ren
791
135
150.
339
0.09
026
.50.
231
0.65
10.
186
28.5
0.04
00.
418
0.19
747
.10.
000
...H
ouse
Wre
n22
1065
1610
113
0.29
80.
033
11.2
0.63
20.
459
0.06
814
.90.
088
0.51
60.
091
17.7
0.23
9t..
..tV
eery
1247
683
615
30.
602
0.03
45.
60.
002
0.55
50.
045
8.1
0.02
90.
489
0.06
513
.20.
002
...W
ood
Thr
ush
1336
657
864
0.41
70.
052
12.5
0.00
10.
402
0.07
819
.30.
002
0.73
10.
167
22.9
0.00
7...
Am
eric
an R
obin
3197
811
9272
0.42
00.
049
11.5
0.10
40.
395
0.07
118
.00.
103
0.25
40.
057
22.2
0.03
9...
Gra
y C
atbi
rd28
2859
4737
573
0.50
30.
017
3.4
0.08
70.
474
0.02
55.
20.
808
0.43
80.
032
7.4
0.13
7.t.
Bro
wn
Thr
ashe
r6
107
142
200.
672
0.08
612
.80.
000
0.18
70.
073
38.8
0.00
20.
652
0.28
042
.90.
060
...B
lue-
win
ged
War
bler
516
629
530
0.62
00.
074
12.0
0.00
20.
327
0.08
124
.90.
029
0.36
60.
119
32.4
0.00
7...
Nas
hvill
e W
arbl
er4
208
240
90.
401
0.12
932
.30.
003
0.35
20.
193
54.9
0.00
10.
210
0.13
865
.50.
004
...Ye
llow
War
bler
2017
2027
2837
40.
549
0.02
13.
90.
000
0.40
20.
028
6.9
0.00
10.
484
0.04
49.
00.
003
...C
hest
nut-
sid
ed W
arbl
er5
413
720
840.
385
0.04
211
.00.
047
0.61
40.
076
12.3
0.00
60.
621
0.12
019
.30.
004
...Ye
llow
-rum
ped
War
bler
*†1
3745
20.
374
0.27
774
.10.
000
0.10
20.
242
238.
30.
000
1.00
02.
453
245.
30.
000
...B
lack
-and
-whi
te W
arbl
er7
131
170
190.
485
0.09
118
.80.
031
0.54
30.
141
26.0
0.00
30.
237
0.09
741
.10.
001
...A
mer
ican
Red
star
t13
722
1020
700.
441
0.04
810
.80.
001
0.31
20.
061
19.4
0.07
50.
412
0.09
322
.50.
017
...O
venb
ird
1046
260
961
0.57
70.
053
9.2
0.19
50.
339
0.06
318
.60.
067
0.34
50.
080
23.2
0.33
1...
..tt..
Nor
ther
n W
ater
thru
sh†
265
847
0.31
40.
147
46.7
0.00
00.
270
0.22
884
.60.
000
1.00
00.
912
91.2
0.00
0...
Ken
tuck
y W
arbl
er2
104
204
460.
604
0.06
210
.30.
007
0.58
40.
083
14.3
0.00
70.
599
0.14
123
.60.
018
...M
ourn
ing
War
bler
313
624
937
0.46
00.
068
14.8
0.03
10.
585
0.10
618
.10.
006
0.63
80.
180
28.1
0.00
1...
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at30
1887
3303
324
0.45
10.
022
5.0
0.03
00.
520
0.03
66.
80.
048
0.40
70.
041
10.0
0.99
4..t
Scar
let T
anag
er*
1275
844
0.34
10.
197
57.8
0.00
00.
387
0.34
589
.10.
000
0.26
90.
288
107.
30.
000
...E
aste
rn T
owhe
e10
7311
012
0.40
80.
119
29.2
0.02
70.
579
0.20
234
.90.
029
0.46
00.
237
51.6
0.00
1...
Chi
ppin
g Sp
arro
w†
1018
923
613
0.38
00.
110
28.9
0.00
50.
134
0.09
872
.80.
026
1.00
00.
733
73.3
0.00
1...
Cla
y-co
lore
d S
parr
ow7
365
446
210.
465
0.10
121
.70.
011
0.34
00.
120
35.4
0.04
10.
209
0.08
741
.60.
004
...
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[93]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Fiel
d S
parr
ow11
716
1060
112
0.43
00.
038
8.8
0.01
60.
331
0.05
115
.40.
073
0.66
30.
116
17.6
0.02
7...
Sava
nnah
Spa
rrow
*3
3949
30.
466
0.20
343
.60.
000
0.46
00.
326
70.9
0.00
00.
113
0.13
011
5.1
0.00
0...
Song
Spa
rrow
2914
1723
7226
90.
441
0.02
45.
40.
143
0.51
20.
039
7.6
0.62
60.
482
0.05
210
.90.
007
.t....
Lin
coln
's S
parr
ow2
4890
100.
426
0.11
526
.90.
000
0.78
60.
183
23.3
0.00
00.
233
0.14
662
.80.
000
...Sw
amp
Spar
row
724
845
442
0.41
10.
056
13.5
0.00
10.
774
0.09
512
.30.
000
0.21
30.
067
31.4
0.00
2...
Whi
te-t
hroa
ted
Spa
rrow
332
064
760
0.38
00.
045
11.8
0.05
80.
623
0.08
713
.90.
026
0.49
60.
119
23.9
0.00
5...
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
2273
698
411
80.
499
0.03
87.
60.
002
0.36
60.
050
13.7
0.00
70.
498
0.08
416
.80.
011
...R
ose-
brea
sted
Gro
sbea
k22
400
463
240.
341
0.08
926
.00.
007
0.24
90.
120
48.0
0.54
10.
548
0.28
552
.00.
013
.t....
Bla
ck-h
ead
ed G
rosb
eak
169
947
0.45
40.
169
37.1
0.00
60.
221
0.16
574
.60.
000
0.67
30.
525
78.0
0.00
1...
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
2197
213
1913
00.
481
0.03
67.
50.
628
0.30
30.
044
14.4
0.23
20.
507
0.08
316
.40.
007
t...t.
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd†
1451
454
713
0.45
40.
124
27.4
0.00
20.
038
0.05
213
7.5
0.00
11.
000
1.38
713
8.7
0.00
1...
Bro
wn-
head
ed C
owbi
rd26
296
402
400.
488
0.06
413
.10.
007
0.41
20.
090
21.9
0.00
30.
351
0.10
028
.50.
029
...B
ullo
ck's
Ori
ole*
158
754
0.60
50.
208
34.4
0.00
00.
057
0.06
411
2.7
0.00
00.
936
1.04
311
1.5
0.00
0...
Bal
tim
ore
Ori
ole
1736
744
943
0.55
40.
065
11.7
0.00
90.
175
0.05
732
.20.
810
0.64
40.
222
34.4
0.00
1.t.
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h26
2198
2764
226
0.35
80.
028
7.7
0.62
10.
326
0.04
112
.60.
026
0.64
60.
090
13.9
0.39
0t..
..t
Mea
n (5
4 sp
ecie
s)13
486
713
720.
464
0.08
920
.40.
060
0.39
00.
113
40.1
0.11
70.
503
0.27
548
.70.
050
Mea
n(3
8 be
tter-
estim
ated
sp.)n
1563
294
398
0.47
90.
061
13.2
0.08
00.
442
0.08
621
.20.
148
0.43
70.
119
29.4
0.07
1
SOU
TH
-CE
NT
RA
L M
APS
RE
GIO
NC
omm
on G
roun
d-D
ove
739
844
310
0.43
30.
160
36.9
0.00
10.
048
0.05
210
9.6
0.00
10.
936
0.96
910
3.6
0.00
1...
Yello
w-b
illed
Cuc
koo
5249
253
417
0.50
50.
101
20.0
0.02
20.
196
0.09
649
.10.
107
0.20
70.
111
53.6
0.00
3...
Gol
den
-fro
nted
Woo
dpe
cker
*†7
145
180
80.
179
0.11
564
.40.
012
0.34
30.
301
87.8
0.00
21.
000
0.88
688
.60.
001
...R
ed-b
ellie
d W
ood
peck
er19
116
127
50.
535
0.17
933
.40.
002
0.10
00.
107
106.
50.
003
0.40
70.
434
106.
60.
000
...L
add
er-b
acke
d W
ood
peck
er13
9913
020
0.64
20.
099
15.4
0.00
00.
361
0.11
130
.60.
001
0.42
00.
165
39.3
0.00
1...
Dow
ny W
ood
peck
er34
370
457
490.
585
0.05
89.
80.
018
0.25
40.
060
23.7
0.01
80.
444
0.12
027
.10.
004
...E
aste
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee18
151
172
120.
702
0.13
018
.50.
002
0.34
40.
135
39.1
0.00
10.
151
0.07
851
.70.
002
...A
cad
ian
Flyc
atch
er13
844
1255
180
0.50
20.
031
6.1
0.00
10.
546
0.04
68.
40.
003
0.39
90.
052
13.0
0.00
4...
Gre
at C
rest
ed F
lyca
tche
r22
163
192
180.
529
0.09
818
.60.
094
0.18
50.
098
53.1
0.28
30.
606
0.35
258
.00.
024
....t.
Bro
wn-
cres
ted
Fly
catc
her
425
232
643
0.47
80.
068
14.3
0.00
20.
264
0.08
532
.10.
008
0.89
70.
334
37.2
0.00
1...
Eas
tern
Kin
gbir
d*
1170
762
0.73
30.
247
33.7
0.00
00.
218
0.22
310
2.5
0.00
00.
050
0.06
412
7.1
0.00
0...
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo31
2024
3548
461
0.53
90.
019
3.5
0.01
50.
513
0.02
75.
30.
078
0.38
60.
032
8.3
0.05
6...
Bel
l's V
ireo
1248
774
810
60.
564
0.03
86.
70.
008
0.38
00.
049
13.0
0.99
40.
464
0.07
816
.90.
005
.t.R
ed-e
yed
Vir
eo21
468
559
560.
554
0.05
610
.10.
003
0.16
60.
048
29.1
0.01
10.
758
0.23
430
.80.
011
...
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[94]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Gre
en Ja
y*†
328
323
0.94
00.
268
28.5
0.00
00.
034
0.08
324
7.9
0.00
01.
000
2.42
824
2.8
0.00
0...
Car
olin
a C
hick
adee
4475
286
443
0.48
90.
063
12.9
0.00
40.
122
0.04
536
.90.
075
0.59
30.
221
37.3
0.00
2...
Bla
ck-c
appe
d C
hick
adee
613
816
912
0.40
70.
117
28.7
0.22
90.
232
0.13
859
.50.
023
0.55
70.
348
62.5
0.06
2...
Tuft
ed T
itm
ouse
2959
178
610
10.
430
0.04
310
.10.
543
0.34
80.
060
17.3
0.01
00.
793
0.16
120
.30.
124
t.....
Bla
ck-c
rest
ed T
itm
ouse
1931
240
745
0.49
80.
063
12.6
0.00
40.
214
0.06
229
.00.
002
0.82
10.
253
30.8
0.00
7...
Ver
din
*2
2933
30.
658
0.28
343
.00.
000
0.21
10.
225
106.
70.
000
0.29
80.
324
108.
70.
000
...C
arol
ina
Wre
n37
1406
2395
310
0.40
70.
022
5.3
0.76
40.
624
0.03
86.
20.
152
0.49
50.
050
10.2
0.08
8t..
Bew
ick'
s W
ren
2257
887
010
70.
406
0.03
89.
30.
491
0.58
20.
066
11.4
0.96
60.
479
0.08
317
.20.
500
tt.
.ttH
ouse
Wre
n5
162
207
180.
350
0.09
226
.30.
000
0.56
90.
177
31.1
0.00
10.
369
0.16
243
.90.
004
...B
lue-
gray
Gna
tcat
cher
3233
336
012
0.59
70.
120
20.1
0.00
90.
088
0.06
573
.80.
041
0.35
00.
260
74.3
0.00
2...
Woo
d T
hrus
h†8
137
200
190.
325
0.08
927
.30.
001
0.32
80.
146
44.4
0.00
51.
000
0.48
348
.30.
000
...G
ray
Cat
bird
879
511
8516
80.
559
0.03
15.
50.
010
0.46
60.
043
9.3
0.98
20.
373
0.05
013
.30.
815
.ttN
orth
ern
Moc
king
bird
1837
746
916
0.31
60.
092
29.3
0.02
40.
223
0.11
652
.00.
009
0.39
20.
203
51.9
0.03
1...
Bro
wn
Thr
ashe
r15
312
394
310.
377
0.07
118
.80.
014
0.55
30.
127
23.0
0.05
40.
300
0.10
033
.30.
005
...L
ong-
bille
d T
hras
her
417
623
734
0.58
20.
083
14.2
0.00
40.
381
0.09
725
.30.
141
0.62
60.
204
32.6
0.00
0...
Blu
e-w
inge
d W
arbl
er4
280
420
610.
549
0.05
39.
60.
002
0.51
90.
075
14.4
0.00
20.
328
0.07
422
.40.
000
...N
orth
ern
Paru
la*†
1061
673
0.31
50.
240
76.3
0.00
00.
127
0.23
018
1.1
0.00
01.
000
1.81
118
1.1
0.00
0...
Yello
w W
arbl
er3
108
156
280.
502
0.07
915
.60.
003
0.37
50.
107
28.5
0.02
90.
754
0.26
435
.00.
002
...Pr
airi
e W
arbl
er3
155
204
220.
550
0.09
717
.60.
220
0.19
30.
078
40.4
0.08
50.
737
0.32
444
.00.
001
...B
lack
-and
-whi
te W
arbl
er13
214
239
120.
607
0.11
919
.60.
004
0.23
20.
113
48.6
0.00
40.
187
0.10
355
.10.
083
...A
mer
ican
Red
star
t1
7391
100.
582
0.12
721
.80.
000
0.25
80.
133
51.4
0.00
00.
440
0.25
457
.80.
000
...Pr
otho
nota
ry W
arbl
er8
313
413
270.
415
0.08
119
.50.
005
0.19
30.
080
41.2
0.00
10.
766
0.31
741
.50.
021
...W
orm
-eat
ing
War
bler
280
103
90.
535
0.13
324
.80.
001
0.49
70.
192
38.6
0.00
10.
177
0.10
760
.30.
001
...Sw
ains
on's
War
bler
379
153
150.
405
0.10
726
.40.
006
0.55
10.
181
32.8
0.04
50.
586
0.27
146
.20.
001
...O
venb
ird
588
124
170.
593
0.09
415
.80.
000
0.36
00.
117
32.4
0.00
10.
365
0.15
742
.90.
000
...L
ouis
iana
Wat
erth
rush
586
130
150.
456
0.10
923
.80.
029
0.47
80.
163
34.1
0.63
70.
446
0.20
746
.50.
002
.t....
Ken
tuck
y W
arbl
er17
696
1129
173
0.59
60.
030
5.1
0.00
00.
506
0.04
28.
30.
000
0.33
80.
045
13.3
0.02
9...
Com
mon
Yel
low
thro
at16
519
804
880.
453
0.04
19.
00.
024
0.46
80.
064
13.8
0.26
50.
413
0.07
919
.10.
007
....t.
Hoo
ded
War
bler
619
627
320
0.37
60.
090
24.0
0.00
10.
391
0.14
035
.90.
004
0.48
20.
203
42.2
0.00
3...
Yello
w-b
reas
ted
Cha
t10
993
1612
231
0.51
00.
027
5.3
0.04
70.
414
0.03
78.
90.
926
0.59
90.
069
11.5
0.01
1.t.
Sum
mer
Tan
ager
2434
442
245
0.54
60.
062
11.4
0.00
20.
255
0.06
626
.10.
011
0.50
10.
148
29.5
0.00
2...
Oliv
e Sp
arro
w4
241
465
750.
511
0.04
89.
40.
002
0.75
70.
065
8.6
0.00
40.
503
0.09
919
.80.
007
...E
aste
rn T
owhe
e†13
6987
80.
484
0.14
429
.80.
000
0.15
40.
123
80.0
0.00
11.
000
0.83
283
.20.
000
...R
ufou
s-cr
owne
d S
parr
ow7
9013
917
0.45
40.
096
21.1
0.27
80.
454
0.14
732
.40.
002
0.50
90.
220
43.2
0.00
0...
t..
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[95]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Fiel
d S
parr
ow32
1210
1750
207
0.48
40.
027
5.6
0.00
70.
331
0.03
510
.70.
874
0.60
70.
077
12.7
0.01
5.t.
Lar
k Sp
arro
w*†
714
215
24
0.53
20.
236
44.3
0.00
00.
033
0.07
221
4.8
0.00
01.
000
2.13
921
3.9
0.00
0...
Gra
ssho
pper
Spa
rrow
622
433
735
0.43
90.
069
15.7
0.04
00.
358
0.09
526
.70.
333
0.60
70.
189
31.2
0.00
1...
.t.N
orth
ern
Car
din
al56
3416
5052
735
0.54
70.
015
2.8
0.93
20.
376
0.01
95.
10.
715
0.55
10.
036
6.5
0.00
1tt
.t..
Pyrr
hulo
xia*
212
913
43
0.95
50.
252
26.4
0.00
00.
230
0.20
689
.70.
000
0.03
50.
032
91.9
0.00
0...
Blu
e G
rosb
eak*
†7
7281
30.
299
0.22
675
.60.
001
0.13
10.
218
166.
20.
000
1.00
01.
615
161.
50.
000
...In
dig
o B
unti
ng28
1826
2665
313
0.46
40.
023
5.0
0.04
00.
441
0.03
47.
70.
002
0.48
00.
049
10.1
0.17
6...
Pain
ted
Bun
ting
3219
4926
4431
20.
541
0.02
44.
40.
046
0.45
90.
033
7.2
0.04
50.
324
0.03
29.
90.
770
..tD
ickc
isse
l15
697
784
290.
438
0.07
316
.60.
004
0.23
00.
084
36.7
0.00
70.
285
0.11
640
.60.
028
...E
aste
rn M
ead
owla
rk11
5464
50.
589
0.16
728
.40.
000
0.34
90.
214
61.2
0.00
00.
223
0.17
980
.10.
000
...B
ronz
ed C
owbi
rd2
7392
100.
454
0.14
331
.40.
000
0.35
00.
197
56.3
0.00
00.
639
0.45
170
.70.
000
...B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
4263
082
892
0.49
10.
043
8.7
0.00
30.
275
0.05
018
.40.
815
0.65
80.
137
20.9
0.00
4.t.
Orc
hard
Ori
ole
1522
627
017
0.39
00.
099
25.3
0.02
30.
288
0.13
747
.40.
002
0.49
60.
263
53.1
0.22
6...
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h19
561
658
390.
360
0.06
417
.70.
107
0.18
80.
072
38.5
0.10
60.
732
0.29
139
.80.
006
...
Mea
n (6
2 sp
ecie
s)15
453
644
740.
504
0.09
920
.60.
066
0.32
40.
106
48.5
0.14
30.
538
0.33
053
.70.
051
Mea
n(4
9 be
tter
-est
imat
ed s
p.)n
1754
377
992
0.49
80.
072
14.8
0.08
30.
363
0.08
928
.90.
181
0.48
90.
162
34.7
0.06
4
NO
RT
HE
AST
MA
PS R
EG
ION
Red
-bel
lied
Woo
dpe
cker
†19
7081
70.
547
0.15
828
.80.
000
0.11
20.
115
102.
70.
001
1.00
01.
046
104.
60.
000
...Ye
llow
-bel
lied
Sap
suck
er12
119
161
160.
467
0.10
823
.20.
005
0.37
00.
145
39.3
0.01
20.
502
0.24
448
.70.
011
...D
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
6254
771
467
0.44
30.
050
11.4
0.00
70.
529
0.08
115
.20.
007
0.28
30.
062
22.0
0.00
2...
Hai
ry W
ood
peck
er38
170
218
240.
807
0.07
39.
00.
000
0.09
80.
039
39.8
0.00
40.
598
0.23
939
.90.
002
...N
orth
ern
Flic
ker
3612
614
59
0.55
30.
140
25.3
0.00
00.
164
0.11
771
.20.
001
0.44
60.
337
75.4
0.00
4...
Eas
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
3521
227
525
0.49
70.
081
16.3
0.00
20.
313
0.09
831
.30.
168
0.39
90.
148
37.1
0.01
0...
Aca
dia
n Fl
ycat
cher
1316
721
613
0.59
20.
112
19.0
0.00
00.
286
0.11
841
.10.
016
0.21
50.
110
51.4
0.00
1...
"Tra
ill's
" Fl
ycat
cher
2080
810
7484
0.45
70.
044
9.6
0.01
40.
549
0.07
012
.80.
061
0.18
90.
037
19.9
0.19
7...
Lea
st F
lyca
tche
r*†
1122
224
53
0.55
50.
227
40.9
0.00
30.
014
0.03
524
4.5
0.00
01.
000
2.43
824
3.8
0.00
4...
Eas
tern
Pho
ebe
2727
237
628
0.50
70.
075
14.8
0.04
70.
426
0.10
524
.70.
018
0.21
50.
073
34.2
0.00
1...
Gre
at C
rest
ed F
lyca
tche
r35
181
202
140.
654
0.10
616
.20.
002
0.12
40.
071
57.6
0.00
70.
434
0.26
060
.00.
015
...E
aste
rn K
ingb
ird
950
709
0.52
80.
136
25.7
0.00
00.
511
0.19
638
.40.
000
0.36
70.
212
57.7
0.00
0...
Whi
te-e
yed
Vir
eo13
342
551
710.
457
0.04
910
.70.
002
0.41
50.
070
17.0
0.00
10.
646
0.13
721
.20.
000
...Ye
llow
-thr
oate
d V
ireo
*4
3439
40.
566
0.22
639
.90.
000
0.31
40.
255
81.4
0.00
00.
372
0.37
410
0.5
0.00
0...
Blu
e-he
aded
Vir
eo15
151
187
130.
393
0.11
529
.30.
001
0.20
50.
125
61.0
0.00
40.
712
0.44
362
.20.
001
...
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[96]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
War
blin
g V
ireo
1010
012
810
0.36
80.
121
32.9
0.00
00.
528
0.22
342
.30.
005
0.32
20.
189
58.8
0.00
0...
Red
-eye
d V
ireo
6417
7723
3825
20.
555
0.02
74.
80.
069
0.27
00.
028
10.5
0.11
20.
505
0.06
112
.00.
002
...B
lue
Jay
5537
540
723
0.77
00.
085
11.0
0.00
00.
174
0.06
436
.60.
001
0.17
00.
071
41.9
0.62
2..t
...C
arol
ina
Chi
ckad
ee20
230
267
230.
517
0.10
019
.30.
002
0.31
00.
117
37.9
0.01
20.
385
0.17
445
.20.
006
...B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee61
1454
2048
232
0.51
30.
028
5.4
0.71
20.
298
0.03
210
.70.
014
0.59
40.
073
12.3
0.01
4t..
...Tu
fted
Tit
mou
se49
561
754
760.
378
0.04
912
.90.
029
0.29
80.
067
22.4
0.00
40.
901
0.22
124
.50.
001
...W
hite
-bre
aste
d N
utha
tch
2912
615
914
0.41
40.
115
27.8
0.00
30.
280
0.15
053
.70.
009
0.67
50.
405
60.0
0.00
1...
Car
olin
a W
ren
2448
866
746
0.36
50.
061
16.6
0.26
90.
447
0.10
122
.70.
014
0.33
40.
092
27.4
0.00
7...
t..H
ouse
Wre
n24
345
477
230.
276
0.07
828
.30.
010
0.37
60.
147
39.1
0.00
60.
455
0.18
540
.60.
019
...E
aste
rn B
lueb
ird
1296
158
110.
465
0.12
025
.90.
002
0.24
50.
126
51.3
0.00
60.
547
0.30
856
.20.
001
...V
eery
4320
5240
0678
20.
581
0.01
42.
50.
091
0.55
80.
020
3.6
0.15
00.
508
0.03
16.
00.
091
...B
ickn
ell's
Thr
ush
128
4510
0.61
30.
124
20.3
0.00
00.
318
0.15
047
.20.
000
0.84
00.
479
57.0
0.00
0...
Swai
nson
's T
hrus
h6
124
249
570.
602
0.06
210
.40.
174
0.62
80.
080
12.8
0.00
90.
625
0.13
020
.90.
039
...H
erm
it T
hrus
h29
449
848
142
0.47
50.
036
7.5
0.45
70.
644
0.05
58.
60.
742
0.54
10.
079
14.6
0.15
2.t.
t..tt
..tt
Woo
d T
hrus
h59
2340
3571
303
0.42
60.
022
5.3
0.11
70.
401
0.03
48.
40.
105
0.40
50.
043
10.5
0.23
3...
..tA
mer
ican
Rob
in67
2022
2570
202
0.46
10.
031
6.7
0.00
90.
293
0.03
712
.50.
007
0.46
90.
066
14.1
0.00
7...
Gra
y C
atbi
rd62
6331
1026
513
370.
516
0.01
12.
20.
008
0.45
50.
016
3.5
0.97
30.
470
0.02
34.
80.
007
.t.B
row
n T
hras
her
1512
016
717
0.50
00.
102
20.3
0.00
20.
180
0.09
150
.60.
007
0.99
70.
529
53.1
0.01
7...
Ced
ar W
axw
ing*
†38
1537
1595
20.
715
0.28
239
.40.
002
0.00
10.
004
477.
20.
002
1.00
04.
735
473.
50.
001
...B
lue-
win
ged
War
bler
1736
946
542
0.40
30.
062
15.4
0.01
60.
382
0.09
524
.90.
099
0.45
40.
138
30.4
0.16
6...
Nas
hvill
e W
arbl
er8
257
312
110.
348
0.12
736
.50.
010
0.13
40.
104
78.0
0.25
70.
659
0.49
975
.70.
001
...N
orth
ern
Paru
la7
136
174
150.
484
0.10
722
.10.
003
0.51
80.
162
31.2
0.07
50.
212
0.09
946
.80.
011
...Ye
llow
War
bler
3318
4227
7335
80.
500
0.02
34.
50.
001
0.48
60.
032
6.6
0.00
20.
432
0.04
09.
30.
999
..tC
hest
nut-
sid
ed W
arbl
er17
516
831
105
0.49
50.
039
7.8
0.04
50.
444
0.05
612
.60.
047
0.44
90.
078
17.3
0.00
9...
Mag
nolia
War
bler
1251
781
083
0.40
90.
045
11.0
0.97
80.
605
0.07
712
.80.
024
0.35
00.
069
19.7
0.00
1t..
Bla
ck-t
hroa
ted
Blu
e W
arbl
er7
124
172
220.
500
0.09
017
.90.
000
0.45
70.
127
27.9
0.00
00.
423
0.16
037
.70.
003
...Ye
llow
-rum
ped
War
bler
1233
149
564
0.45
50.
052
11.4
0.00
70.
461
0.07
817
.00.
001
0.51
00.
114
22.4
0.00
2...
Bla
ck-t
hroa
ted
Gre
en W
arbl
er19
445
683
840.
395
0.04
611
.50.
004
0.56
80.
079
13.9
0.07
10.
533
0.10
419
.50.
071
...B
lack
burn
ian
War
bler
546
575
0.56
60.
189
33.5
0.00
00.
106
0.11
110
4.4
0.00
00.
899
0.94
610
5.2
0.00
0...
Pine
War
bler
*8
107
141
90.
222
0.13
058
.40.
000
0.40
40.
301
74.4
0.00
00.
913
0.69
476
.00.
000
...B
lack
poll
War
bler
280
109
60.
338
0.12
837
.90.
000
0.57
70.
281
48.7
0.00
00.
076
0.08
110
6.6
0.00
0...
Bla
ck-a
nd-w
hite
War
bler
4074
610
4212
60.
518
0.03
77.
20.
139
0.33
00.
046
13.9
0.13
60.
536
0.09
016
.70.
174
...A
mer
ican
Red
star
t40
2325
3326
352
0.51
10.
022
4.4
0.00
70.
340
0.02
88.
10.
004
0.45
90.
045
9.8
0.98
1..t
Wor
m-e
atin
g W
arbl
er12
499
699
660.
501
0.05
110
.20.
011
0.39
40.
069
17.6
0.01
10.
364
0.08
222
.40.
011
...
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[97]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Ove
nbir
d61
2134
3147
433
0.57
00.
020
3.5
0.00
10.
414
0.02
66.
20.
001
0.40
30.
034
8.4
0.11
9...
Nor
ther
n W
ater
thru
sh4
9612
712
0.40
00.
110
27.4
0.00
00.
500
0.18
837
.70.
000
0.38
40.
203
52.8
0.00
2...
Lou
isia
na W
ater
thru
sh12
222
394
370.
468
0.06
113
.00.
005
0.67
90.
101
14.9
0.00
00.
186
0.06
334
.10.
109
...K
entu
cky
War
bler
463
9513
0.55
80.
114
20.4
0.00
00.
423
0.15
336
.20.
000
0.34
70.
170
49.1
0.00
1...
Mou
rnin
g W
arbl
er3
5891
70.
637
0.14
723
.10.
000
0.11
00.
079
71.2
0.00
00.
748
0.53
271
.20.
000
...C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
5827
6843
9052
20.
493
0.01
83.
60.
001
0.50
40.
026
5.2
0.00
20.
376
0.02
97.
70.
001
...H
ood
ed W
arbl
er15
601
1034
121
0.43
00.
037
8.6
0.01
70.
645
0.06
19.
50.
001
0.39
50.
064
16.1
0.04
7...
Can
ada
War
bler
713
116
312
0.37
40.
116
31.0
0.00
10.
576
0.20
936
.30.
003
0.23
90.
127
53.2
0.00
2...
Yello
w-b
reas
ted
Cha
t6
233
332
410.
462
0.06
313
.70.
002
0.39
70.
091
22.9
0.00
10.
520
0.14
728
.20.
004
...Sc
arle
t Tan
ager
4236
041
018
0.56
40.
098
17.5
0.00
20.
052
0.03
873
.70.
012
0.92
70.
676
73.0
0.00
4...
Eas
tern
Tow
hee
4466
293
812
00.
483
0.03
98.
00.
002
0.37
20.
051
13.7
0.00
10.
575
0.09
616
.70.
001
...C
hipp
ing
Spar
row
2431
742
837
0.41
30.
070
16.9
0.00
00.
310
0.09
129
.20.
001
0.62
90.
203
32.3
0.00
0...
Song
Spa
rrow
4015
1825
6121
70.
369
0.02
67.
20.
692
0.47
80.
046
9.7
0.08
20.
527
0.06
512
.40.
728
t.tt..
..tSw
amp
Spar
row
919
233
046
0.48
30.
061
12.7
0.97
80.
601
0.09
415
.60.
002
0.41
50.
107
25.8
0.00
5t..
Whi
te-t
hroa
ted
Spa
rrow
1559
592
375
0.26
30.
040
15.0
0.06
40.
604
0.09
716
.10.
068
0.57
30.
125
21.8
0.77
1..t
Dar
k-ey
ed Ju
nco
1639
156
444
0.39
90.
061
15.3
0.00
30.
346
0.08
625
.00.
044
0.52
20.
147
28.2
0.10
0...
Nor
ther
n C
ard
inal
5111
2315
9222
70.
610
0.02
94.
70.
801
0.37
10.
033
9.0
0.18
60.
457
0.05
311
.50.
011
t..R
ose-
brea
sted
Gro
sbea
k28
433
518
330.
488
0.07
315
.00.
001
0.25
40.
079
31.0
0.07
60.
336
0.11
734
.90.
001
...In
dig
o B
unti
ng31
596
834
870.
427
0.04
310
.20.
362
0.55
60.
072
13.0
0.05
50.
346
0.06
619
.20.
004
...t..
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rd24
604
698
500.
552
0.06
010
.90.
156
0.31
40.
071
22.5
0.24
50.
257
0.06
927
.00.
003
....t.
Com
mon
Gra
ckle
2440
242
614
0.33
80.
117
34.5
0.00
50.
257
0.16
765
.10.
004
0.30
90.
224
72.4
0.07
9...
Bro
wn-
head
ed C
owbi
rd39
223
262
180.
315
0.10
232
.50.
003
0.35
60.
177
49.8
0.00
00.
583
0.34
659
.30.
063
...O
rcha
rd O
riol
e*†
231
363
0.52
20.
277
53.0
0.00
00.
100
0.16
916
8.8
0.00
01.
000
1.68
416
8.4
0.00
0...
Bal
tim
ore
Ori
ole
2940
451
132
0.37
30.
070
18.7
0.12
90.
470
0.12
226
.00.
217
0.28
80.
096
33.5
0.03
5...
Purp
le F
inch
†10
128
167
160.
319
0.10
031
.20.
354
0.34
00.
174
51.1
0.05
61.
000
0.59
459
.40.
008
...t..
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h54
2409
2761
138
0.41
60.
037
8.9
0.01
90.
211
0.03
918
.50.
101
0.43
60.
086
19.7
0.79
7..t
Mea
n (7
5 sp
ecie
s)25
654
948
102
0.47
90.
084
18.2
0.09
10.
368
0.09
842
.70.
058
0.50
90.
312
48.9
0.09
1M
ean
(61
bett
er-e
stim
ated
sp.
)n28
749
1104
124
0.48
90.
066
13.7
0.10
60.
390
0.08
325
.80.
066
0.47
20.
155
31.3
0.10
9
SOU
TH
EA
ST M
APS
RE
GIO
NR
ed-b
ellie
d W
ood
peck
er53
189
213
120.
312
0.12
038
.40.
005
0.28
20.
189
67.0
0.05
90.
570
0.41
873
.40.
010
...D
owny
Woo
dpe
cker
6746
154
545
0.62
10.
062
10.0
0.00
10.
331
0.07
021
.10.
000
0.20
40.
054
26.7
0.01
1...
Hai
ry W
ood
peck
er35
121
143
150.
524
0.11
321
.50.
001
0.14
10.
095
67.0
0.00
10.
991
0.70
170
.80.
000
...
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[98]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Eas
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
4626
934
237
0.52
20.
075
14.4
0.00
20.
442
0.09
822
.20.
018
0.33
30.
100
30.0
0.00
0...
Aca
dia
n Fl
ycat
cher
5321
6331
4439
80.
483
0.02
14.
30.
005
0.53
50.
032
5.9
0.00
30.
380
0.03
38.
80.
268
.....t
Gre
at C
rest
ed F
lyca
tche
r40
241
266
130.
459
0.12
026
.20.
001
0.22
40.
127
56.7
0.00
70.
311
0.19
161
.30.
002
...W
hite
-eye
d V
ireo
4311
7421
7026
50.
461
0.02
45.
20.
018
0.53
70.
039
7.2
0.00
30.
456
0.05
011
.00.
007
...R
ed-e
yed
Vir
eo61
2592
3373
422
0.59
90.
020
3.3
0.29
00.
238
0.02
08.
20.
034
0.53
20.
049
9.2
0.01
4...
t..B
lue
Jay
6039
644
031
0.67
20.
075
11.1
0.00
10.
105
0.04
643
.90.
093
0.48
70.
219
44.9
0.38
8...
..tC
arol
ina
Chi
ckad
ee71
695
841
710.
499
0.05
110
.30.
000
0.22
80.
052
22.8
0.00
10.
511
0.12
624
.60.
000
...Tu
fted
Tit
mou
se72
1204
1700
228
0.49
80.
028
5.6
0.99
60.
447
0.03
98.
80.
004
0.46
90.
055
11.7
0.00
2t..
Car
olin
a W
ren
7017
4128
7829
30.
358
0.02
26.
10.
999
0.58
90.
043
7.2
0.00
10.
507
0.05
410
.60.
030
t..H
ouse
Wre
n4
6795
50.
478
0.17
737
.00.
000
0.15
10.
129
85.8
0.00
00.
536
0.46
586
.70.
000
...W
ood
Thr
ush
5832
1458
0461
40.
449
0.01
63.
50.
071
0.55
80.
026
4.7
0.07
10.
392
0.02
97.
30.
017
...A
mer
ican
Rob
in20
560
602
210.
431
0.09
321
.50.
048
0.12
30.
072
58.9
0.58
10.
472
0.28
360
.00.
002
.t....
Gra
y C
atbi
rd24
1187
1745
161
0.42
10.
031
7.3
0.48
40.
451
0.04
910
.90.
025
0.38
10.
055
14.3
0.00
9...
t..B
row
n T
hras
her
2421
727
126
0.71
30.
077
10.8
0.00
10.
159
0.05
635
.30.
076
0.41
00.
151
36.9
0.00
1...
Blu
e-w
inge
d W
arbl
er9
313
466
560.
540
0.05
39.
90.
004
0.28
50.
060
21.0
0.00
70.
565
0.13
724
.30.
000
...N
orth
ern
Paru
la24
270
293
140.
220
0.09
844
.80.
001
0.67
00.
258
38.5
0.00
20.
308
0.18
760
.60.
001
...Ye
llow
War
bler
†1
5976
80.
418
0.15
537
.10.
000
0.23
50.
179
76.2
0.00
11.
000
0.80
380
.30.
000
...Pi
ne W
arbl
er*
2413
314
13
0.65
00.
281
43.3
0.00
00.
230
0.22
095
.80.
000
0.06
50.
073
111.
70.
000
...Pr
airi
e W
arbl
er20
492
671
590.
421
0.05
513
.10.
004
0.35
30.
076
21.5
0.02
90.
497
0.12
424
.90.
002
...B
lack
-and
-whi
te W
arbl
er18
189
227
180.
654
0.11
016
.80.
001
0.11
40.
065
57.1
0.00
10.
723
0.42
859
.10.
001
...A
mer
ican
Red
star
t*†
351
595
0.48
50.
201
41.4
0.00
00.
123
0.16
713
6.1
0.00
01.
000
1.40
714
0.7
0.00
0...
Prot
hono
tary
War
bler
1438
549
546
0.48
70.
061
12.5
0.01
10.
282
0.07
225
.50.
002
0.51
80.
151
29.2
0.00
2...
Wor
m-e
atin
g W
arbl
er17
367
537
730.
594
0.05
08.
30.
004
0.43
60.
063
14.4
0.00
30.
355
0.07
220
.20.
011
...Sw
ains
on's
War
bler
670
967
0.67
80.
146
21.5
0.00
00.
119
0.08
974
.90.
000
0.54
90.
426
77.5
0.00
0...
Ove
nbir
d47
1847
2791
346
0.52
50.
022
4.2
0.00
10.
467
0.03
16.
70.
003
0.37
40.
035
9.5
0.00
4...
Lou
isia
na W
ater
thru
sh20
379
670
940.
531
0.04
58.
50.
014
0.60
00.
063
10.6
0.05
00.
404
0.07
117
.70.
006
...K
entu
cky
War
bler
3714
0326
2339
70.
503
0.02
04.
00.
002
0.61
40.
031
5.0
0.04
70.
444
0.03
98.
80.
002
...C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
4416
9128
7526
40.
420
0.02
35.
50.
617
0.53
20.
040
7.5
0.03
00.
340
0.03
911
.40.
101
t.....
Hoo
ded
War
bler
3275
913
8016
40.
508
0.03
16.
00.
011
0.49
50.
046
9.3
0.00
20.
387
0.05
514
.10.
007
...Ye
llow
-bre
aste
d C
hat
2664
095
395
0.33
50.
039
11.5
0.62
30.
565
0.07
713
.70.
380
0.51
60.
097
18.8
0.00
1t..
.t.Su
mm
er T
anag
er32
276
334
220.
441
0.09
421
.20.
099
0.29
90.
116
38.8
0.00
50.
412
0.18
143
.90.
012
...Sc
arle
t Tan
ager
3931
536
122
0.58
80.
088
15.0
0.00
00.
105
0.05
451
.10.
003
0.57
40.
299
52.0
0.00
1...
Eas
tern
Tow
hee
4733
647
757
0.45
10.
055
12.3
0.00
40.
322
0.07
222
.50.
047
0.73
90.
190
25.7
0.00
1...
Chi
ppin
g Sp
arro
w*
644
492
0.88
70.
286
32.2
0.00
00.
157
0.17
210
9.6
0.00
00.
078
0.10
413
2.4
0.00
0...
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[99]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Fiel
d S
parr
ow18
264
380
450.
351
0.06
117
.30.
001
0.52
20.
110
21.1
0.81
70.
633
0.17
627
.80.
001
.t.So
ng S
parr
ow2
189
305
320.
380
0.06
617
.40.
408
0.52
90.
120
22.7
0.22
60.
412
0.13
432
.60.
005
t.....
.t.N
orth
ern
Car
din
al74
2668
4096
596
0.53
20.
017
3.2
0.00
30.
391
0.02
25.
70.
011
0.58
70.
042
7.2
0.00
1...
Ind
igo
Bun
ting
5015
3321
4024
40.
501
0.02
75.
30.
499
0.31
90.
032
10.2
0.50
00.
565
0.06
711
.90.
002
...tt
.Pa
inte
d B
unti
ng2
6410
119
0.70
90.
127
17.9
0.00
00.
384
0.12
131
.30.
000
0.46
00.
176
38.2
0.00
0...
Com
mon
Gra
ckle
†20
632
651
110.
257
0.12
649
.00.
007
0.05
20.
109
210.
60.
026
1.00
02.
148
214.
80.
007
...B
row
n-he
aded
Cow
bird
3616
619
512
0.39
40.
118
30.1
0.03
60.
457
0.19
342
.20.
125
0.33
40.
185
55.6
0.00
2...
Am
eric
an G
old
finc
h25
866
991
630.
528
0.05
310
.10.
003
0.15
00.
042
27.9
0.00
30.
498
0.14
529
.20.
001
...
Mea
n (4
5 sp
ecie
s)33
731
1089
121
0.50
00.
081
16.8
0.11
70.
341
0.08
638
.70.
073
0.49
50.
245
43.7
0.02
1M
ean
(36
bett
er-e
stim
ated
sp.
)n37
869
1312
149
0.51
10.
058
11.2
0.14
50.
361
0.06
324
.40.
086
0.48
30.
145
28.1
0.02
5
AL
ASK
A A
ND
BO
RE
AL
CA
NA
DA
MA
PS R
EG
ION
SW
este
rn W
ood
-Pew
ee2
8411
012
0.43
00.
122
28.5
0.00
00.
664
0.19
028
.60.
000
0.32
30.
165
51.1
0.00
0...
"Tra
ill's
" Fl
ycat
cher
1458
582
050
0.37
50.
050
13.5
0.00
70.
517
0.09
418
.20.
002
0.23
60.
062
26.2
0.00
5...
Gra
y Ja
y†11
5378
160.
522
0.09
818
.80.
000
0.40
00.
135
33.8
0.00
01.
000
0.42
442
.40.
000
...Tr
ee S
wal
low
*†1
7791
60.
213
0.14
367
.20.
000
0.32
60.
334
102.
30.
000
1.00
01.
145
114.
50.
000
...B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
ee11
251
395
450.
412
0.05
613
.50.
125
0.38
40.
086
22.4
0.32
40.
805
0.21
827
.10.
043
....t.
Bor
eal C
hick
adee
1013
320
029
0.44
50.
075
16.9
0.05
60.
337
0.10
230
.30.
107
0.89
70.
313
34.9
0.00
3...
Arc
tic
War
bler
225
948
152
0.32
40.
050
15.6
0.02
90.
630
0.10
416
.50.
003
0.64
80.
163
25.2
0.00
1...
Gra
y-ch
eeke
d T
hrus
h6
253
539
740.
441
0.04
410
.10.
000
0.70
50.
072
10.2
0.00
00.
527
0.10
820
.40.
001
...Sw
ains
on's
Thr
ush
1790
014
8320
60.
457
0.02
86.
00.
061
0.58
30.
044
7.6
0.10
10.
492
0.06
012
.10.
101
...H
erm
it T
hrus
h10
643
1383
191
0.48
70.
028
5.7
0.49
90.
777
0.04
05.
20.
004
0.34
20.
047
13.8
0.01
1...
t..A
mer
ican
Rob
in†
1639
246
929
0.30
50.
073
24.1
0.02
70.
192
0.09
650
.00.
002
1.00
00.
517
51.7
0.00
0...
Var
ied
Thr
ush*
†10
115
136
50.
218
0.16
675
.90.
001
0.20
20.
290
143.
30.
001
1.00
01.
478
147.
80.
000
...O
rang
e-cr
owne
d W
arbl
er16
1377
2123
193
0.39
30.
026
6.7
0.04
00.
529
0.04
89.
00.
176
0.37
40.
049
13.1
0.00
2...
Yello
w W
arbl
er11
1176
1853
162
0.41
30.
030
7.2
0.12
10.
501
0.05
010
.10.
009
0.38
50.
055
14.2
0.01
1...
Yello
w-r
umpe
d W
arbl
er18
745
968
790.
364
0.04
412
.20.
001
0.44
60.
077
17.3
0.00
40.
445
0.09
721
.90.
004
...To
wns
end
's W
arbl
er*
415
919
98
0.19
70.
112
56.7
0.00
00.
430
0.30
971
.70.
000
0.49
20.
385
78.2
0.00
1...
Bla
ckpo
ll W
arbl
er5
9816
417
0.30
00.
084
28.2
0.00
10.
814
0.16
320
.00.
000
0.51
30.
223
43.5
0.00
1...
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
437
353
565
0.56
10.
051
9.1
0.00
80.
313
0.06
019
.10.
993
0.53
40.
120
22.5
0.00
2.t.
Ove
nbir
d3
124
162
90.
423
0.14
434
.10.
000
0.48
40.
226
46.8
0.00
00.
211
0.13
061
.50.
000
...N
orth
ern
Wat
erth
rush
1027
746
359
0.50
90.
052
10.3
0.00
40.
710
0.07
610
.60.
002
0.28
00.
065
23.3
0.00
0...
Mou
rnin
g W
arbl
er3
7812
015
0.33
50.
100
29.7
0.00
00.
478
0.18
739
.10.
000
0.90
90.
449
49.4
0.00
0...
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[100]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
Wils
on's
War
bler
1529
1947
5835
00.
344
0.01
85.
30.
019
0.59
50.
038
6.4
0.86
00.
297
0.03
010
.10.
664
.tt.t.
Can
ada
War
bler
319
534
041
0.48
20.
063
13.2
0.00
20.
483
0.09
419
.50.
000
0.51
40.
141
27.5
0.01
1...
Am
eric
an T
ree
Spar
row
720
333
835
0.46
00.
063
13.8
0.00
10.
548
0.10
419
.00.
001
0.33
50.
103
30.6
0.00
2...
Chi
ppin
g Sp
arro
w5
6799
90.
328
0.12
738
.80.
000
0.39
10.
226
57.7
0.00
00.
789
0.51
565
.30.
000
...Sa
vann
ah S
parr
ow6
130
166
120.
294
0.11
137
.60.
000
0.73
80.
218
29.6
0.00
00.
340
0.18
855
.30.
000
...Fo
x Sp
arro
w13
411
664
840.
511
0.04
28.
30.
179
0.56
80.
065
11.5
0.02
10.
353
0.06
819
.30.
802
..tL
inco
ln's
Spa
rrow
1232
057
530
0.40
10.
066
16.4
0.00
00.
315
0.09
128
.80.
004
0.38
70.
134
34.7
0.00
1...
Whi
te-t
hroa
ted
Spa
rrow
426
139
524
0.47
00.
085
18.0
0.17
40.
198
0.07
437
.40.
006
0.57
60.
225
39.0
0.00
3...
Whi
te-c
row
ned
Spa
rrow
1364
910
7911
90.
411
0.03
58.
50.
049
0.41
70.
056
13.3
0.59
20.
678
0.11
316
.60.
001
.t....
Gol
den
-cro
wne
d S
parr
ow5
281
539
760.
498
0.04
38.
60.
006
0.52
20.
067
12.9
0.11
80.
522
0.10
720
.40.
001
...D
ark-
eyed
Junc
o15
654
1142
113
0.30
20.
032
10.6
0.00
20.
632
0.07
211
.40.
001
0.69
40.
118
17.0
0.00
1...
Pine
Gro
sbea
k7
8710
98
0.44
50.
150
33.8
0.00
10.
362
0.21
459
.20.
004
0.38
90.
286
73.5
0.00
0...
Com
mon
Red
poll
1416
3120
3518
0.38
50.
098
25.4
0.00
30.
026
0.01
868
.70.
006
0.78
00.
489
62.8
0.00
0...
Mea
n (3
4 sp
ecie
s)9
469
736
660.
396
0.07
421
.40.
042
0.47
70.
121
32.0
0.09
80.
561
0.25
940
.20.
049
Mea
n(2
5 be
tter
-est
imat
ed s
p.)n
1059
094
086
0.42
00.
055
13.7
0.05
50.
508
0.08
319
.70.
133
0.51
40.
149
27.1
0.06
7
aU
sing
the
com
pute
r pr
ogra
m T
MSU
RV
IV (H
ines
et a
l. 20
03),
a m
odif
icat
ion
of S
UR
VIV
(Whi
te 1
983)
to a
ccom
mod
ate
tran
sien
t mod
els.
bT
hese
mod
els,
dev
elop
ed b
y Pr
adel
et.
al (1
997)
, mod
ifie
d b
y N
ott a
nd D
eSan
te (2
002)
, and
fully
form
ulat
ed b
y H
ines
et a
l. (2
003)
, inc
lud
e bo
th b
etw
een-
and
wit
hin-
year
info
rmat
ion
on tr
ansi
ents
and
per
mit
the
esti
mat
ion
of th
ree
para
met
ers:
app
aren
t sur
viva
l pro
babi
lity
(ϕ),
reca
ptur
e pr
obab
ility
(p),
and
pro
port
ion
of r
esid
ents
am
ong
thos
e ne
wly
-ban
ded
ad
ults
that
wer
e no
t rec
aptu
red
at l
east
sev
en d
ays
late
r d
urin
g th
eir
firs
t yea
r of
cap
ture
(τ).
In th
e ti
me-
cons
tant
mod
el,
each
of t
hese
thre
e pa
ram
eter
s is
con
stra
ined
to b
e co
nsta
nt o
ver
all y
ears
.c
Spec
ies
incl
uded
are
thos
e fo
r w
hich
(a) a
n av
erag
e of
at l
east
2.5
ind
ivid
ual a
dul
t bir
ds
wer
e ca
ptur
ed p
er y
ear
over
the
twel
ve y
ears
199
2-20
03 (3
0 ye
ar-u
niqu
ere
cord
s), (
b) a
t lea
st tw
o re
turn
s w
ere
reco
rded
dur
ing
the
twel
ve y
ears
from
all
stat
ions
poo
led
, and
(c) s
urvi
val a
nd r
ecap
ture
pro
babi
litie
s w
ere
neit
her
1.00
0no
r 0.
000.
Dat
a fo
r an
y gi
ven
spec
ies
wer
e on
ly in
clud
ed fr
om s
tati
ons
whe
re th
e sp
ecie
s w
as a
reg
ular
or
usua
l bre
eder
and
sum
mer
res
iden
t (i.e
., at
tem
pted
tobr
eed
dur
ing
all o
r m
ore
than
hal
f of t
he y
ears
, res
pect
ivel
y, th
at th
e st
atio
n w
as o
pera
ted
).d
Num
ber
of s
uper
-sta
tion
s th
at w
ere
oper
ated
for
a le
ast f
our
cons
ecut
ive
year
s d
urin
g th
e tw
elve
-yea
r pe
riod
199
2-20
03 a
t whi
ch (a
) at l
east
one
ad
ult i
ndiv
idua
lof
the
spec
ies
was
cap
ture
d a
nd (b
) the
spe
cies
was
a r
egul
ar o
r us
ual b
reed
er. A
sup
er-s
tati
on in
clud
es a
ll st
atio
ns w
ithi
n on
e km
of e
ach
othe
r.e
Tota
l num
ber
of in
div
idua
l ad
ult b
ird
s ca
ptur
ed d
urin
g th
e tw
elve
yea
rs 1
992-
2003
at s
tati
ons
whe
re th
e sp
ecie
s w
as a
reg
ular
or
usua
l bre
eder
; thu
s th
e nu
mbe
rof
cap
ture
his
tori
es u
pon
whi
ch th
e es
tim
ates
of s
urvi
val p
roba
bilit
y, r
ecap
ture
pro
babi
lity,
and
pro
port
ion
of r
esid
ents
wer
e ba
sed
.fTo
tal n
umbe
r of
cap
ture
s of
ad
ults
of t
he s
peci
es d
urin
g th
e tw
elve
yea
rs 1
992-
2003
at s
tati
ons
whe
re th
e sp
ecie
s w
as a
reg
ular
or
usua
l bre
eder
.g
Tota
l num
ber
of r
etur
ns d
urin
g th
e tw
elve
yea
rs 1
992-
2003
at s
tati
ons
whe
re th
e sp
ecie
s w
as a
reg
ular
or
usua
l bre
eder
. A
ret
urn
is d
efin
ed a
s th
e fi
rst c
aptu
re o
fan
ind
ivid
ual a
dul
t bir
ds
in a
ny y
ear
othe
r th
an th
e ye
ar d
urin
g w
hich
it w
as in
itia
lly b
and
ed.
hD
efin
ed a
s th
e pr
obab
ility
of a
n ad
ult b
ird
sur
vivi
ng to
and
ret
urni
ng in
a p
arti
cula
r ye
ar (b
reed
ing
seas
on) t
o th
e ar
ea w
here
it w
as p
rese
nt in
the
prev
ious
yea
r(b
reed
ing
seas
on).
The
est
imat
ed p
roba
bilit
y (ϕ
), st
and
ard
err
or o
f the
est
imat
e (S
E(ϕ
)), a
nd c
oeff
icie
nt o
f var
iati
on (C
V(ϕ
)=10
0*SE
(ϕ)/
ϕ) a
re p
rese
nted
.iT
he a
mou
nt o
f sup
port
for
tim
e-d
epen
den
ce fo
r ea
ch o
f the
thre
e pa
ram
eter
s is
pro
vid
ed b
y su
mm
ing
the
wifo
r al
l mod
els
in w
hich
tim
e d
epen
den
ce o
f the
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[101]
TAB
LE
3. C
onti
nued
.
No.
Surv
ival
Rec
aptu
rePr
opor
tion
of
btw
n.Su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
yh
Rec
aptu
re p
roba
bilit
yj
Prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
tsk
Mod
els
sele
cted
l
No.
No.
No.
year
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
__Sp
ecie
scst
n.d
ind
v.e
capt
.fre
cap.
gϕ
SE(ϕ
) C
V(ϕ
)w
(ϕt)i
pSE
(p)
CV
(p)
w(p
t)iτ
SE(τ
)C
V(τ
)w
(τt)i
12
34
para
met
er o
f int
eres
t occ
urre
d (w
i; B
urnh
am a
nd A
nder
son
1998
). w
i={e
xp(-
∆QA
ICC/
2)}/
Σ{ex
p(-∆
QA
ICC/
2)} w
here
QA
ICC
is th
e A
kaik
e In
form
atio
n C
rite
rion
for
mod
el i,
mod
ifie
d fo
r sm
all s
ampl
e si
zes
and
ove
rdis
pers
ion
of d
ata,
and
∆Q
AIC
Cis
the
dif
fere
nce
betw
een
the
QA
ICC
of m
odel
ian
d th
e m
odel
wit
h th
elo
wes
t QA
ICC. V
alue
s of
wigr
eate
r th
an 0
.50
ind
icat
e st
rong
sup
port
for
tim
e d
epen
den
ce in
the
para
met
er, w
hile
0.5
>w
i>0.
25 s
ugge
st s
ome
supp
ort f
or ti
me
dep
end
ence
in th
e pa
ram
eter
. Des
pite
sub
stan
tial
sup
port
for
tim
e-d
epen
den
ce in
one
or
mor
e pa
ram
eter
s, a
ll pa
ram
eter
est
imat
es p
rese
nted
in th
is ta
ble
are
for
the
tim
e-co
nsta
nt m
odel
.jD
efin
ed a
s th
e co
ndit
iona
l pro
babi
lity
of r
ecap
turi
ng a
n ad
ult b
ird
at l
east
onc
e in
a p
arti
cula
r ye
ar (b
reed
ing
seas
on),
give
n th
at it
did
sur
vive
and
ret
urn
to th
ear
ea w
here
it w
as p
rese
nt in
the
prev
ious
yea
r (b
reed
ing
seas
on).
Aga
in, t
he e
stim
ated
pro
babi
lity
(p),
stan
dar
d e
rror
of t
he e
stim
ate
(SE
(p))
, and
coe
ffic
ient
of
vari
atio
n (C
V(p
)) a
re p
rese
nted
.k
The
est
imat
ed p
ropo
rtio
n of
res
iden
ts a
mon
g th
ose
new
ly-b
and
ed a
dul
ts th
at w
ere
not r
ecap
ture
d s
even
or
mor
e d
ays
late
r d
urin
g th
eir
firs
t yea
r of
cap
ture
.A
gain
, the
est
imat
ed p
ropo
rtio
n (τ
), st
and
ard
err
or o
f the
est
imat
e (S
E(τ
)), a
nd c
oeff
icie
nt o
f var
iati
on (C
V(τ
)) a
re p
rese
nted
.lM
odel
s in
volv
ing
tim
e d
epen
den
ce w
ere
sele
cted
acc
ord
ing
to m
odif
ied
Aka
ike’
s In
form
atio
n C
rite
rion
( Q
AIC
C),
wit
h th
e se
lect
ed m
odel
(Mod
el 1
) bei
ng th
eon
e w
ith
the
low
est Q
AIC
C. A
ll eq
uiva
lent
mod
els
(mod
els
wit
h a
QA
ICC
wit
hin
2.0
unit
s of
the
sele
cted
mod
el) a
re s
how
n an
d li
sted
in o
rder
(Mod
els
2-5)
of
incr
easi
ng Q
AIC
C. D
espi
te ti
me-
dep
end
ence
in o
ne o
r m
ore
para
met
ers
(e.g
., ϕ t
) bei
ng s
elec
ted
for
a nu
mbe
r of
spe
cies
, all
para
met
er e
stim
ates
pre
sent
ed in
this
sum
mar
y ar
e fo
r th
e ti
me-
cons
tant
mod
el. M
odel
s ar
e d
esig
nate
d a
s fo
llow
s: .
..=ϕp
τ; t
..=ϕ t
pτ;
.t.=
ϕptτ;
..t
=ϕp
τ t;
tt.=
ϕ tp t
τ;
t.t=
ϕ tpτ
t; .
tt=
ϕptτ t
; t
tt=
ϕ tp t
τ t,w
here
ϕis
the
surv
ival
pro
babi
lity,
pis
the
reca
ptur
e pr
obab
ility
, and
τis
the
prop
orti
on o
f res
iden
ts a
mon
g th
ose
new
ly-c
aptu
red
ad
ults
that
wer
e no
tre
capt
ured
sev
en o
r m
ore
day
s la
ter
dur
ing
thei
r fi
rst y
ear
of c
aptu
re.
mIn
clud
es R
ed-n
aped
x R
ed-b
reas
ted
Sap
suck
er h
ybri
d.
nB
ette
r-es
tim
ated
spe
cies
are
thos
e fo
r w
hich
CV
(ϕ)<
30.0
% a
nd ϕ
is n
ot q
ualif
ied
by
the
use
of *
or
†.*
The
est
imat
e fo
r su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
y sh
ould
be
view
ed w
ith
caut
ion
beca
use
it is
bas
ed o
n fe
wer
than
five
bet
wee
n-ye
ar r
ecap
ture
s or
the
esti
mat
e is
ver
yim
prec
ise
(SE
(ϕ)�
0.2
00 o
r C
V(ϕ
)�50
.0%
)†
The
est
imat
e fo
r su
rviv
al p
roba
bilit
y, r
ecap
ture
pro
babi
lity,
or
both
may
be
bias
ed lo
w b
ecau
se th
e es
tim
ate
for
τwas
1.0
0.
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[102]
TAB
LE
4.
Com
pari
son
of n
umbe
rs o
f st
atio
ns c
ontr
ibut
ing
dat
a to
sur
vivo
rshi
p an
alys
es,
num
bers
of
spec
ies
for
whi
ch s
urvi
vors
hip
coul
d b
e es
tim
ated
, an
dpr
ecis
ion
of th
e su
rviv
orsh
ip e
stim
ates
usi
ng d
ata
from
the
ten
year
s, 1
992-
2001
, and
the
twel
ve y
ears
, 199
2-20
03.
Num
ber
(pro
port
ion)
of s
peci
es w
ith
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
__N
o. s
tati
ons
No.
spe
cies
Mea
n C
V(�
)C
V(�
)<30
%C
V(�
)<20
%C
V(�
)<10
%__
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
___
Reg
ion
10-Y
R12
-YR
10-Y
R12
-YR
10-Y
R12
-YR
10-Y
R12
-YR
10-Y
R12
-YR
10-Y
R12
-YR
PRO
GR
AM
-WID
E47
955
018
018
417
.1%
15.0
%14
6 (0
.811
)16
3 (0
.886
)12
2 (0
.678
)14
0 (0
.761
)75
(0.4
17)
86 (0
.467
)
NO
RT
HW
EST
136
151
7781
16.4
%15
.3%
67 (0
.870
)71
(0.8
77)
58 (0
.753
)61
(0.7
53)
34 (0
.442
)42
(0.5
19)
SOU
TH
WE
ST68
8372
8622
.3%
23.7
%57
(0.7
92)
64 (0
.744
)40
(0.5
56)
50 (0
.581
)17
(0.2
36)
25 (0
.291
)
NO
RT
H-C
EN
TR
AL
3844
5454
23.0
%20
.4%
38 (0
.704
)43
(0.7
96)
32 (0
.593
)33
(0.6
11)
10 (0
.185
)15
(0.2
78)
SOU
TH
-CE
NT
RA
L62
7160
6223
.4%
20.6
%44
(0.7
33)
53 (0
.855
)28
(0.4
67)
36 (0
.581
)12
(0.2
00)
17 (0
.274
)
NO
RT
HE
AST
7391
7175
19.2
%18
.3%
55 (0
.775
)62
(0.8
27)
45 (0
.634
)48
(0.6
40)
16 (0
.225
)20
(0.2
67)
SOU
TH
EA
ST73
7941
4518
.7%
16.8
%34
(0.8
29)
36 (0
.800
)27
(0.6
59)
31 (0
.689
)13
(0.3
17)
16 (0
.356
)
AL
ASK
A/
BO
RE
AL
2931
3634
22.8
%21
.4%
27 (0
.750
)27
(0.7
94)
20 (0
.556
)22
(0.6
47)
8 (0
.222
)9
(0.2
65)
CA
NA
DA
Mea
n of
reg
ions
6879
5962
20.8
%19
.5%
46 (0
.779
)51
(0.8
13)
36 (0
.603
)40
(0.6
43)
16 (0
.261
)21
(0.3
21)
ranging from 1.33±0.20 in the South-centralRegion to 1.54±0.25 in the Alaska/Boreal CanadaRegion, and averaging 1.38±0.25 overall.Similarly, the average total number of returns perindividual per species also remained remarkablyconstant over the seven regions, ranging from0.132±0.069 in the South-central Region to0.154±0.074 in the Alaska/Boreal CanadaRegion, and averaging 0.135±0.077 overall.
The precision of the estimates of annual adultsurvival rate using 12 years of data (1992-2003)from a total of 550 stations increased over thatobtained from 10 years of data (1992-2001) froma total of 479 stations (Table 4). The meancoefficient of variation in survival probability,CV(�), for all species in each region ranged from15.3% in the Northwest Region to 23.7% in theSouthwest Region and averaged 19.5±2.9% overthe seven regions; the mean program-wideCV(�) was 15.0%. These figures compare to arange from 16.4% in the Northwest Region to23.4% in the South-central Region, an average of20.8±2.7% over the seven regions, and 17.1%program-wide for 1992-2001 data, and representonly a 6% average improvement going from 10to 12 years of data (Table 4), compared to an 8%average improvement going from seven to 10years of data and a 28% average improvementgoing from five to seven years of data. Anothermeasure of the increased precision provided by12, rather than 10, years of data is the meannumbers of species over the seven regionshaving CV(�)<30%, which increased by 11%from 46 species with 10 years of data to 51species with 12 years of data. Similarly, the meannumber of species per region having CV(�)<20%also increased by 11% from 36 to 40 species; andthe mean number having CV(�)<10% increasedby 31% from 16 to 21 species (Table 4). Theanalogous program-wide increases in thenumbers of species were 11%, 15%, and 15%. Themean proportions of species over the sevenregions having CV(�)<30%, <20%, and <10%also increased with 12, rather than 10, years ofdata (by 4%, 7%, and 23%, respectively; Table 4).The analogous program-wide increases in theproportions of species were 9%, 12%, and 12%.
Mean regional survival probabilities for allspecies in each region (Table 3) ranged from0.396 (Alaska/Boreal Canada) to 0.504 (bothSouthwest and South-central) and averaged0.476±0.038 for the seven regions; the mean
program-wide survival probability was 0.487.Mean recapture probabilities ranged from 0.324(South-central) to 0.477 (Alaska/Boreal Canada)and averaged 0.367±0.054; the mean program-wide recapture probability was 0.340. The meanproportion of residents among newly-capturedadults ranged from 0.495 (Southeast) to 0.561(Alaska/Boreal Canada) and averaged0.522±0.023; the mean program-wide proportionof residents was 0.500.
As in previous years, mean regional survivaland recapture probabilities increased and meanregional proportion of residents decreased whenconsideration was limited in each region tospecies for which survival was “better esti-mated” (see Methods). Indeed, when consid-eration was limited to these better-estimatedspecies, mean regional survival probabilitiesranged from 0.420 (Alaska/Boreal Canada) to0.525 (Southwest) and averaged 0.488±0.037 forthe seven regions; the mean program-widesurvival probability was 0.487. Mean recaptureprobabilities ranged from 0.361 (Southeast) to0.508 (Alaska/Boreal Canada) and averaged0.401±0.055; the mean program-wide recaptureprobability was 0.359. The mean proportion ofresidents among newly-captured adults rangedfrom 0.437 (North-central) to 0.514 (Alaska/Boreal Canada) and averaged 0.474±0.026; themean program-wide proportion of residents was0.466.
Again, as in previous years, mean regionalsurvival rates for better-estimated species were higher for the three more southerly regions (Southwest: 0.525±0.067; Southeast:0.511±0.058; South-central: 0.498±0.072) than forthe three more northerly regions (Northwest:0.501±0.049; Northeast: 0.489±0.066; North-central: 0.479±0.061), and were lowest for the farnorthern Alaska/Boreal Canada region(0.420±0.055). Moreover, mean regional survivalrates for better-estimated species were higher forthe two western regions, lower for two easternregions, and lowest for the two central regions.In contrast, mean regional recapture probabilitiesfor these same species tended to show theopposite pattern with respect to latitude, beinglower in the Southeast (0.361±0.063) and South-central (0.363±0.089) regions than in theNortheast (0.390±0.083) and North-central(0.442±0.086) regions, and highest of all in theAlaska/Boreal Canada region (0.508±0.083).
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[103]
Breaking this pattern, however, were the westernregions, where recapture probabilities wereslightly lower in the Northwest (0.369±0.056)than Southwest Region (0.375±0.079). Meanregional proportion of residents among newlycaptured adults for these same species showedrelatively little variation and no distinct pattern,being lowest for the North-central andSouthwest regions (0.437±0.119 and 0.448±0.138,respectively), and highest for the Alaska/BorealCanada region (0.514±0.149).
In general, mean regional survival proba-bilities from 12 years of data (1992-2003) werelower than those from 10 years of data (1992-2001), both for all species for which survival wasestimated [by an average of 0.008 (1.84%)] andfor better-estimated species [by an average of0.009 (1.86%)]. The only exceptions to this rulewere the Northwest and Southeast regions for allspecies for which survival was estimated, andthe Southwest Region for the better-estimatedspecies. To control for potential differences in thespecies being compared, we ran matched-pairs t-tests between survival estimates from 12 and 10years of data for those species-regioncombinations for which survival for the specieswas estimated with CV(�)<30% for both sets ofdata. We found that regional survival estimateswere lower for 12 than for 10 years of data foreach of the seven regions, significantly so by0.017 (3.9%) for the Alaska & Boreal Canada (t =3.99, n = 26, P = 0.001), by 0.019 (3.6%) for theSouth-central (t = 2.46, n = 44, P = 0.018), and by0.015 (2.9%) for the Northeast (t = 2.62, n = 55, P= 0.012) regions. For all 318 species-regioncombinations with CV(�)<30% for both sets ofdata, survival estimates were highly significantly(t = 3.26, n = 318, P = 0.001) lower by 0.008 (1.6%)for 12 than for 10 years of data.
For each species in each region, we alsomodeled all possible combinations of timedependence in the three parameters, �, p, τ. Theselected model (the one having the lowestQAICC) and up to four equivalent models (thosehaving a QAICC within 2.0 QAICC units of theQAICC of the selected model) are presented foreach species in each region in Table 3. Thenumbers and proportions of species in eachregion having time-dependent survival orshowing time-dependence in any of the threeparameters are presented in Table 5. We detectedtime-dependence in at least one parameter (by
having a time-dependent model that was at leastan equivalent model) for 114 (26.1%) of the 437species-region combinations and for 56 (30.4%)of the 184 species program-wide. We found thattime-dependence in at least one parameter wasthe selected model (by having a QAICC that wasat least 2.0 QAICC units lower than the QAICC ofthe fully time-independent model) for 73 (16.7%)of the 437 species-region combinations and for 25(13.6%) of the 184 species program-wide. Timedependence in survival rate was detected for 56(12.8%) of the 437 species-region combinationsand for 30 (16.3%) of the 184 species program-wide, and was found to be the selected model for22 (5.0%) of the species-region combinations andfor 15 (8.2%) of the 184 species program-wide. Ingeneral, these proportions were slightly higherthan analogous proportions using 10 years ofdata (Table 5 in this report versus Table 6 inDeSante and Kaschube 2006).
Finally, we examined all nine combinations oftime-constant, time-dependent, and linear trendmodels for program-wide survival (�) andrecapture (p) probabilities for all species pooled.The selected model, which had 100% of theQAICC weight (wi), was the one whereby bothsurvival and recapture probabilities varied withtime, suggesting that survival varied substan-tially over the study period (Fig. 3c; note thatsurvival probability from 2002-2003 andrecapture probability in 2003 are confounded inthe fully time-dependent model, so only 10survival estimates were available over the 12-yrperiod). Although we found little statisticalsupport for linear trend models compared to themore general time-varying models, the estimatedslope for the best linear trend model wassignificantly negative (Beta = -0.021, P < 0.05),and suggested an annual decline in survival of -0.62%. A negative trend in survival wassupported by a regression fit to annual survivalestimates derived from the best time-varyingmodel (P = 0.095). This model suggested asimilar annual decline in survival (-0.83%). Offurther interest was that seven of nine annualchanges in survival rate (Fig.3c) were associatedwith annual changes in productivity of the samesign (Fig. 3b); indeed, annual survival from yearst to t+1 tended to be correlated with thereproductive index in year t+1 (Fig. 4; r = 0.54, P= 0.10).
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[104]
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[105]
TAB
LE
5.
Num
ber
(pro
port
ion)
of
spec
ies
in e
ach
regi
on f
or w
hich
tim
e-d
epen
den
ce i
n su
rviv
al r
ate,
�t,
or t
ime-
dep
end
ence
in
any
para
met
er, �
t, � t
,or
� tw
asd
etec
ted
usi
ng m
odif
ied
Cor
mac
k-Jo
lly-S
eber
mar
k-re
capt
ure
anal
yses
from
twel
ve y
ears
(199
2-20
03) o
f MA
PS d
ata.
Num
ber
(pro
port
ion)
of s
peci
es
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Mod
elPr
ogra
m-w
ide
Nor
thw
est
Sout
hwes
tN
orth
-cen
tral
Sout
h-ce
ntra
lN
orth
east
Sout
heas
tA
k/Bo
r.Can
.A
ll re
gion
s
�tse
lect
eda
15 (0
.082
)9
(0.1
11)
6 (0
.070
)0
(0.0
00)
2 (0
.032
)3
(0.0
40)
2 (0
.044
)0
(0.0
00)
22 (0
.050
)
�teq
uiva
lent
b15
(0.0
82)
8 (0
.099
)6
(0.0
70)
4 (0
.074
)3
(0.0
48)
6 (0
.080
)6
(0.1
33)
1 (0
.029
)34
(0.0
77)
�td
etec
ted
c30
(0.1
63)
17 (0
.210
)12
(0.1
40)
4 (0
.074
)5
(0.0
81)
9 (0
.120
)8
(0.1
78)
1 (0
.029
)56
(0.1
28)
�ttim
e-in
depe
nden
td15
4 (0
.867
)64
(0.7
90)
74 (0
.860
)50
(0.9
26)
57 (0
.919
)66
(0.8
80)
37 (0
.822
)33
(0.9
71)
381
(0.8
72)
Tota
l18
481
8654
6275
4534
437
�t,
� t,o
r � t
sele
cted
e25
(0.1
36)
18 (0
.222
)20
(0.2
33)
9 (0
.167
)9
(0.1
45)
10 (0
.133
)4
(0.0
89)
3 (0
.088
)73
(0.1
67)
�t,
� t,o
r � t
equi
vale
nte
31 (0
.168
)10
(0.1
23)
4 (0
.047
)3
(0.0
56)
6 (0
.097
)7
(0.0
933)
8 (0
.178
)3
(0.0
88)
41 (0
.094
)
�t,
� t,o
r � t
dete
cted
e56
(0.3
04)
28 (0
.346
)24
(0.2
79)
12 (0
.222
)15
(0.2
42)
17 (0
.227
)12
(0.2
67)
6 (0
.176
)11
4 (0
.261
)
�, �
, and
�ea
ch ti
me-
inde
pend
ente
128
(0.6
96)
53 (0
.654
)62
(0.7
21)
42 (0
.778
)47
(0.7
58)
58 (0
.773
)33
(0.7
33)
28 (0
.824
)32
3 (0
.739
)
Tota
l18
481
8654
6275
4534
437
aO
ne o
r m
ore
mod
els
wit
h ti
me-
dep
end
ent s
urvi
val h
ad Q
AIC
Cm
ore
than
2.0
uni
ts lo
wer
than
all
mod
els
wit
h ti
me-
ind
epen
den
t sur
viva
l.b
One
or
mor
e m
odel
s w
ith
tim
e-d
epen
den
t sur
viva
l had
QA
ICC
wit
hin
2.0
unit
s of
the
tim
e-in
dep
end
ent s
urvi
val m
odel
wit
h th
e lo
wes
t QA
ICC.
cA
ll m
odel
s th
at fu
lfill
ed e
ithe
r of
the
abov
e tw
o co
ndit
ions
.d
All
tim
e-d
epen
den
t sur
viva
l mod
els
had
QA
ICC
mor
e th
an 2
.0 u
nits
hig
her
than
the
mod
el w
ith
the
low
est Q
AIC
C.
eSa
me
as c
orre
spon
din
g cr
iter
ia a
bove
but
app
lied
to a
ny p
aram
eter
,�t,
� t,o
r � t
.
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[106]
DISCUSSIONUseable MAPS data from 2002 and 2003 werereceived in time to be included in this reportfrom 497 and 444 stations, respectively.Continuity of station operation remained highduring 2002 (90.4%) but dropped during 2003(79.2%). The sharp decrease in stations thatoccurred in 2003 (the first year ever duringwhich the number of MAPS stations decreased)resulted primarily from the completion of several8- to 10-yr contracts between IBP and variousfederal agencies; the number of independentstations (those not operated by IBP under federalcontracts) decreased in 2003 by only sevenstations. Although coverage of North Americanorth of Mexico during 2002 and 2003 wasgenerally widespread, there still were gaps, mostnotably in the Great Plains, Great Basin,southwest deserts, and most of Canada.
PATTERNS OF POPULATION SIZE ANDPRODUCTIVITY
Adult population sizes for all species pooled andfor many individual species increased substan-tially and significantly between 2001 and 2002 at
the program-wide scale and in both theNorthwest and Southwest regions. Similar, butgenerally non-significant increases were found inall of the remaining regions except the Alaska/Boreal Canada Region, where adult populationsizes generally showed non-significantdecreases. In sharp contrast, productivity for allspecies pooled and for many individual speciesdecreased substantially and significantly between2001 and 2002 at the program-wide scale and inall regions except the Alaska/Boreal Canada andSouth-central regions, where it tended toincrease non-significantly.
The patterns of changes in both adult popu-lation size and productivity between 2002 and2003 were nearly exactly reversed from thosebetween 2001 and 2002. Thus, there weresubstantial and generally significant decreases inadult population size program-wide and in allregions except the Alaska/Boreal Canada andSouth-central regions, where adult populationstended to increase non-significantly. And, againin contrast to adult populations, there weresubstantial and significant increases in produc-tivity program-wide and in the Southwest
FIGURE 4. Scatterplot of the program-wide correlation between productivity in year t+1 and annual adultapparent survival rate from year t to year t +1 for all species pooled.
Adult apparent survival rate (year t to year t+1)
Rep
rodu
ctiv
e in
dex
(you
ng/a
dult)
in y
ear
t+1
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[107]
Region, generally non-significant increases inproductivity in four of the remaining regions,and generally non-significant decreases inproductivity in the South-central and Southeastregions.
Thus, exactly out-of phase alternating patternsof changes in productivity and adult populationsize occurred program-wide and in the North-west, Southwest, North-central, and Northeastregions, with increases in adults and decreases inproductivity in 2002 followed by decreases inadults and increases in productivity in 2003. Thesame pattern also occurred in the SoutheastRegion, except that productivity continued todecline in 2003. Eighteen of the 24 changes inthese five regions or at the program-wide scalewere significant, either in terms of all speciespooled or the proportion of species increasing ordecreasing. The opposite pattern (decreases inadults and increases in productivity in 2002 andsubsequent increases in adults and decreases inproductivity in 2003) tended to occur in the tworemaining regions, except that adults increasedin 2002 in the South-central Region andproductivity continued to increase in theAlaska/Boreal Canada Region in 2003, but noneof the eight changes in these two regions weresignificant.
The pattern of regional changes in produc-tivity often being followed by changes in adultpopulation size of the same sign has been notedin previous MAPS reports (e.g., DeSante andKaschube 2006). Indeed, 31 of 42 (74%; P = 0.001,binomial test) annual changes in reproductiveindex in the various regions during the 8-yrperiod 1996-2003 (when the size of the MAPSprogram was relatively stable at about 474stations per year) were followed the next year inthose regions by changes in adult populationsize that had the same sign. This same patternalso held at the program-wide scale over theentire 12 years (1992-2003; Fig. 3a-b), where 8 of10 (80%; P = 0.044, binomial test; 6 of 6 since1996) changes in productivity were followed thenext year by changes in adult population size ofthe same sign. Moreover, the increasing anddecreasing changes in productivity seen inMAPS data at the regional level often follow analternating two-year cycle. These generallyalternating, out-of-phase patterns inproductivity and population size suggestdensity-dependent population regulation
(Rodenhouse et al. 2003, Sillett et al. 2004) inwhich (a) increased productivity in a given yearleads to increased population sizes the followingyear through increased recruitment of youngbirds, and (b) the increased population sizessuppress productivity through increasedcompetition for food or other resources neededfor reproduction. That these patterns of changeshave not been consistent in all regions in allyears suggests that density-independent factorsmay also drive changes in productivity and thatother factors besides productivity (e.g., survivalof young and adult birds) also drive year-to-yearchanges in adult population size.
SURVIVAL-RATE ESTIMATES
Increasing the number of years of data from 10 to12 provided the following increases, all of which,perhaps, were expected: (a) the mean number ofstations per region operated for at least fourconsecutive years (the minimum number ofyears necessary to be included in survivorshipanalyses) increased by an average of 15%, from68 to 79 stations; (b) the mean number of yearsper region over which stations were operatedincreased by 10.5% from 6.97 to 7.70 years; and(c) the mean number of species per region thatmet selection criteria for survivorship analysesincreased by an average of 5.4% from 59 to 62species. Interestingly, however, the mean totalnumber of adult captures per individual perspecies per region tended to decrease from 1.41in the 10-yr data set to 1.38 in the 12-yr data set,as did the mean number of returns perindividual adult per species per region, from0.140 to 0.135. This, perhaps, suggests thatsurvival rates (or recapture rates) might bedeclining. The increase in the length of the studyand in the number of stations available forsurvivorship analyses (thus producing anincrease in the total number of capture historiesand the average number of years over whichthey were captured) resulted in a continuedincrease in the precision of the parameterestimates obtained from the mark-recaptureanalyses. Thus, the mean number of species perregion with CV(�)<30%, <20%, and <10%increased by 11% (from 46 species with 10 yearsof data to 51 species with 12 years of data), by11% (from 36 to 40 species), and by 31% (from 16to 21 species), respectively. These were consider-ably smaller increases than occurred when going
from seven to 10 years of data.Again, as in previous years, a pattern of
survivorship was detected in which meanregional annual adult survival probabilitiestended to be lower at more northerly regions.This may well be an expected result due to thelonger migration routes of more northerlynesting migratory species and the more severewinter weather faced by more northerly nestingpermanent residents. Perhaps also as expected,the lowest survival rates at the highest latitudes(Alaska/Boreal Canada Region) appeared to becompensated by the highest productivity indices(0.747 for all species pooled in 2003), but thiscompensation did not always continue at lowerlatitudes where, for example, 2003 reproductiveindices for all species pooled were higher in theSouth-central and Southeast than in the North-central and Northeast regions, respectively.Future analyses of MAPS data will test thesehypotheses by modeling survival andproductivity using latitude (and perhapsaltitude) covariates.
Survival rates for better-estimated specieswere lower in each of the seven regions for the12-yr, than for the 10-yr, data set, continuing thepattern noted in previous reports in whichsurvival rates for better-estimated species in eachof the seven regions tended to be lower for the10-yr and 7-yr data sets than for the 7-yr and 5-yrdata sets, respectively. The resulting conclusionthat regional survival rates tended to bedecreasing was confirmed, at least for all speciespooled at the program-wide scale, by modelingsurvival both as time-dependent and as a linearfunction of time (year).
PROGRAM-WIDE, ALL-SPECIES-POOLEDTRENDS IN POPULATION SIZE AND VITALRATES
Chain indices of adult population size for allspecies pooled at the program-wide scale (Fig.3a) have shown a severe and highly significantlinear decline of -1.86% per year over the 12years 1992-2003, resulting in a total decrease inpopulation size of nearly 20%. It is important tonote that vital rates (productivity and survival)do not need to be declining to result in apopulation decline. All that is needed is forproductivity to be too low to balance mortality(or, stated alternatively, for survival to be toolow to maintain a stable population in the face
of a given productivity rate). However,program-wide results for all species pooledsuggest that both productivity (Fig. 3b) andadult survival (Fig. 3c) declined, a situation thatwill make it increasingly difficult to reverse thepopulation declines.
It is also interesting that survival from year t toyear t+1 (measured from breeding season tobreeding season) tends to be correlated withproductivity in year t+1 (Fig.4). It seems likelythat variations in annual survival may be drivenby weather and habitat conditions on thewintering grounds (especially in late winterwhen food resources may be at a minimum),even in those situations for migratory species inwhich most mortality occurs during migration(Sillett and Holmes 2002). If so, then thecorrelation (albeit weak) shown in Fig. 4 suggeststhat some of the same factors that drive annualvariations in survival might also drive variationsin productivity, and that these factors may actduring the non-breeding season. This isconsistent with analyses of MAPS data thatshowed that annual variations in productivity ofNearctic-Neotropical migratory species breedingin the Pacific Northwest are driven by late-winter/early-spring weather conditions on theirwintering grounds (Nott et al. 2002).
We point out that the results presented in Fig.3c derive from the modeling of >319,000individual adult capture histories, while theresults presented in Figs. 3a and 3b derive fromthe analysis of >722,000 captures of >527,000aged individuals. We hasten to add, however,that these results are based on pooling data fromall species over all regions and, as such, likelyobscure many important spatial patterns andindividual species relationships. Indeed, as isclear from the results on individual speciespresented in Tables 1-3, there exists considerablevariation among the vital rates (productivity andsurvival) of these many species. This presumablyarises in response to such factors as body mass,life history strategy, migration strategy, nestlocation, and foraging behavior. Moreover thevital rates of these many different species arelikely to be affected differently by variousweather and habitat conditions, which in turnvary greatly over the different regions of thecontinent, within which the pool of species itselftends to differ. Considering all these sources ofheterogeneity when data from all these species
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[108]
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[109]
are pooled over the entire continent, it isremarkable that such a consistent pattern ofresults emerges.
RECENT RESULTS AND CURRENTDIRECTIONS RELATED TO RESEARCH ANDMANAGEMENT GOALS OF MAPS
One of the major goals of MAPS is to determinewhether population declines are driven byprocesses affecting productivity or by processesaffecting survival. BBS results demonstrate thatthe direction and intensity of population trendscan vary dramatically from region to region;even species with overall declining populationsoften show increasing populations in someportions of their ranges (Sauer et al. 2007). Thisspatial variation in population trends provides atemplate for determining proximate demo-graphic causes of declines. In a recent paper,Saracco et al. (in press) provide an example ofsuch an analysis using 1992-2003 MAPS data forYellow Warbler and recently-developedmodeling techniques. They show that spatialvariation in population trends in this species, asestimated by MAPS capture-recapture data, canlargely be explained by spatial variation in adultand first-year survival, rather than by spatialvariation in productivity. This inference was alsosupported by a spatial comparison of MAPSproductivity indices and survival-rate estimateswith BBS estimates of population trends for 15BBS Physiographic Strata. We are in the processof completing similar analyses for other speciesin the MAPS database.
One of the greatest strengths of MAPS is that itprovides spatially-explicit data on bird popula-tions from across the continent. Yet, our ability toharness this spatial information has beenhindered by a lack of appropriate analyticaltechniques. Through collaboration withresearchers at the USGS Patuxent WildlifeResearch Center in Laurel, MD, IBP researchersare making great strides in developing analyticalmethods that can provide visualizations ofspatial patterns in demographic rates acrossspecies’ ranges, including areas for which wecurrently have few (or no) MAPS stations. Overthe next year we hope to develop these analysesfurther to incorporate BBS data in a ‘joint model’to provide even more robust inferencesregarding demographic causes of populationtrends in landbirds. If we are successful in
rigorously linking MAPS and BBS data, we hopeto apply similar techniques to link MAPS and theextensive spatially-explicit encounter data beingamassed by the Avian Knowledge Network(http://avianknowledge.net).
Other major goals of MAPS are to (1)determine ultimate causes of the observedspatial variation in demographic parameters, bymodeling them in relation to spatial variations inhabitat and weather characteristics, (2) formulatemanagement strategies based upon thosemodels, and (3) evaluate the effectiveness ofmanagement action actually implemented in anadaptive management framework (Nott et al.2003, 2005). To facilitate these goals in the PacificNorthwest, we have created a website (http://www.birdpop.org/usfsr6/usfspnwr6.htm)which presents results of GIS-based landscape-scale analyses of 16 years (1992-2007) of MAPSdata on 45 stations operated on six nationalforests in Oregon and Washington (based onNott et al. 2005) and provides decision supporttools that allow land managers, in collaborationwith GIS specialists, to assess the effects ofmanagement on the demographics of 13 land-bird species of conservation concern.
Finally, the decrease in stations that occurredin 2003 is cause for concern. We suggest that theoptimal way to maintain and grow the MAPSProgram is by incorporating it into a compre-hensive Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM)effort for North America (Bart and Ralph 2005).To begin this process we have begun integratingMAPS into Coordinated Bird Monitoring in theNortheast (USFWS Region 5, comprised of the 13northeastern states south through West Virginiaand Virginia) by a five-step process: (1) identify-ing target species for each Bird ConservationRegion (BCR) based on their being listed aspriority or focal species in the various BirdConservation Plans and their being monitorableby MAPS; (2) determining how well each of thetarget species are currently being monitored byMAPS; (3) determining the effectiveness of allcurrent and discontinued MAPS stations atmonitoring the target species; (4) identifyinggeographic and habitat gaps in MAPS coverage;and (5) making recommendations for the role ofthe various federal and state agencies andprivate sector in continuing current stations, re-establishing discontinued stations, and establish-ing new stations to effectively monitor the target
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[110]
species in each BCR. We look forward toimplementing this process throughout theUnited States and southern Canada over the nextfew years in order to build and maintain anoptimally effective continent-wide demographicmonitoring program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFirst and foremost, we express our sincereappreciation to the many individuals, organi-zations, and agencies that have contributed datato the MAPS Program. Without their coopera-tion, this continent-wide avian monitoring effortwould not be possible. We thank J. E. Hines, M.P. Nott, A. Royle, and J. F. Saracco for help andadvice with statistical aspects of productivityand mark-recapture analyses; J. F. Saracco forhelp with Figures 3 and 4; and R. B. Siegel andan anonymous reviewer for constructivecomments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Financial support for the MAPS Program during2002 and 2003, for which we are very grateful,was provided by the U.S. Department of Interior:Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 1 and AlaskaScience Center), Geological Survey (BiologicalResources Division and National BiologicalInformation Infrastructure), National ParkService (Cape Cod National Seashore andDenali, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Shenandoah,and Yosemite National Parks), and National Fishand Wildlife Foundation; U.S. Department ofAgriculture: Forest Service (Region 6 andFlathead National Forest); U.S. Department ofDefense: Legacy Resources ManagementProgram, Atlantic Division of the Department ofthe Navy, Army Corp of Engineers, ArmyGarrisons Ft. Belvoir and Ft. Bragg, and AdjutantGeneral's Department of Texas; and by theConfederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, NatureReserve of Orange County (California), YosemiteFoundation, and members and friends of TheInstitute for Bird Populations. This isContribution No. 331 of The Institute for BirdPopulations.
LITERATURE CITEDBAILLIE, S. R. 1990. Integrated population monitoring
of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland. Ibis132:151-161.
BAILLIE, S. R., R. E. GREEN, M. BODDY, AND S. T.BUCKLAND. 1986. An Evaluation of the Constant
Effort Sites Scheme. British Trust for Ornithology,Thetford, U.K. 103 pp.
BART, J., AND C. J. RALPH. 2005. The need for a NorthAmerican coordinated bird monitoring program.Pp. 982-984 in Ralph, C.J., and T.D. Rich (eds.),Bird Conservation Implementation and Integra-tion in the Americas. USDA Forest Service Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-191.
BURNHAM, K. P., AND D. R. ANDERSON. 1992. Data-based selection of an appropriate biological model:the key to modern data analysis. Pp. 16-30 inMcCullough, D. C. and R. H. Barrett (eds.),Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier AppliedScience, London, U.K.
BURNHAM, K. P., AND D. R. ANDERSON. 1998. ModelSelection and Inference: a Practical InformationTheoretic Approach. Springer-Verlag, New York,NY
CLOBERT, J., J. D. LEBRETON, AND D. ALLAINE. 1987. Ageneral approach to survival rate estimation byrecaptures or resightings of marked birds. Ardea75:133-142.
COCHRAN, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques, ThirdEdition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
DESANTE, D. F. 1992. Monitoring Avian Productivityand Survivorship (MAPS): a sharp, rather thanblunt, tool for monitoring and assessing landbirdpopulations. Pp. 511-521 in McCullough, D. C.,and R. H. Barrett (eds.), Wildlife 2001:Populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London,U.K.
DESante, D. F. 1995. Suggestions for future directionsfor studies of marked migratory landbirds fromthe perspective of a practitioner in populationmanagement and conservation. Journal of AppliedStatistics 22:949-965.
DESANTE, D. F., AND K. M. BURTON. 1994. TheMonitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship(MAPS) Program third annual report (1992). BirdPopulations 2:62-89.
DESANTE, D. F., K. M. BURTON, AND D. R. O'GRADY.1996. The Monitoring Avian Productivity andSurvivorship (MAPS) Program fourth and fifthannual report (1993 and 1994). Bird Populations3:67-120.
DESANTE, D. F., K. M. BURTON, J. F. SARACCO, AND B. L.WALKER. 1995. Productivity indices and survivalrate estimates from MAPS, a continent-wideprogramme of constant-effort mist netting inNorth America. Journal of Applied Statistics22:935-947.
DESANTE, D. F., K. M. BURTON, P. VELEZ, D. FROEHLICH,AND D. KASCHUBE. 2007. MAPS Manual: 2007Protocol. The Institute for Bird Populations, PointReyes Station, CA.
DESANTE, D. F., K. M. BURTON, AND O. E. WILLIAMS.1993b. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[111]
Survivorship (MAPS) Program second annualreport (1990-1991). Bird Populations 1:68-97.
DESANTE, D. F. AND T. L. GEORGE. 1994. Populationtrends in the landbirds of western North America.In J. R. Jehl, Jr. and N. K. Johnson (eds.), A Centuryof Avifaunal Change in Western North America.Studies in Avian Biology 15:173-190.
DESANTE, D. F., AND D. R. KASCHUBE. 2006. TheMonitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship(MAPS) Program 1999, 2000, and 2001 report. BirdPopulations 7:23-89.
DESANTE, D.F., M.P. NOTT, AND D.R. KASCHUBE. 2005.Monitoring, modeling, and management: whybase avian management on vital rates and howshould it be done? Pp. 795-804 in Ralph, C.J., andT.D. Rich (eds.), Bird Conservation Implemen-tation and Integration in the Americas. USDAForest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-191.
DESANTE, D. F., AND D. R. O’GRADY. 2000. TheMonitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship(MAPS) Program 1997 and 1998 report. BirdPopulations 5:49-101.
DESANTE, D. F., D. R. O’GRADY, K. M. BURTON, P.VELEZ, D. FROEHLICH, E. E. FEUSS, H. SMITH, AND E.D. RUHLEN. 1998. The Monitoring AvianProductivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Programsixth and seventh annual report (1995 and 1996).Bird Populations 4:69-122.
DESANTE, D. F., AND D. K. ROSENBERG. 1998. What dowe need to monitor in order to manage landbirds?Pp. 93-106 in Marzluff, J. M. and R. Sallabanks(eds.), Avian Conservation: Research andManagement. Island Press, Washington, DC.
DESANTE, D. F., J. F. SARACCO, D. K. O’GRADY, K. M.BURTON, AND B. L. WALKER. 2004. MethodologicalConsiderations of the Monitoring AvianProductivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program.Studies in Avian Biology 29:28-45.
DESANTE, D. F., O. E. WILLIAMS, AND K. M. BURTON.1993a. The Monitoring Avian Productivity andSurvivorship (MAPS) Program: overview andprogress. Pp. 208-222 in Finch, D. M., and P. W.Stangel (eds.), Status and Management ofMigratory Birds. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mt.Forest and Range Experimental Station, Ft. Collins,CO. General Technical Report RM-229.
DONOVAN, T. M., F. R. THOMPSON III, J. FAABORG, AND J.R. PROBST. 1995. Reproductive success of migratorybirds in habitat sources and sinks. ConservationBiology 9:1380-1395.
FROEHLICH, D., N. MICHEL, D. F. DESANTE, AND P.VELEZ. 2006. MAPSPROG Version 4.1 User’s Guideand Manual. The Institute for Bird Populations, Pt.Reyes Station, CA. 172 pp.
HINES, J. E., W. L. KENDALL, AND J. D. NICHOLS. 2003.On the use of the robust design with transientcapture-recapture models. Auk 120:1151-1158.
LEBRETON, J. -D., K. P. BURNHAM, J. CLOBERT, AND D. R.ANDERSON. 1992. Modeling survival and testingbiological hypotheses using marked animals: aunified approach with case studies. EcologicalMonographs 62:67-118.
MARRA, P. P., K. A. HOBSON, AND R. T. HOLMES. 1998.Linking winter and summer events in a migratorybird by using stable-carbon isotopes. Science282:1884-1886.
NOON, B. R. AND J. R. SAUER. 1992. Population modelsfor passerine birds: structure, parameterization,and analysis. Pp. 441-464 in Wildlife 2001:Populations. D. C. McCullough and R. H. Barrett(eds.), Elsevier Applied Science, London.
NOTT, M. P., AND D. F. DESANTE. 2002. Demographicmonitoring and the identification of transients inmark-recapture models. Pp. 727-736 in J. M. Scottand P. Heglund (eds.), Predicting SpeciesOccurrences: Issues of Scale and Accuracy. IslandPress, New York.
NOTT, M. P., D. F. DESANTE, R. B. SIEGEL, AND P. PYLE.2002. Influences of the El Niño/SouthernOscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation onavian productivity in forests of the PacificNorthwest of North America. Global Ecology andBiogeography 11:333-342.
NOTT, M. P., D. F. DESANTE, AND N. MICHEL. 2003.Management Strategies for Reversing Declines inLandbirds of Conservation Concern on MilitaryInstallations: A Landscape-scale Analysis of MAPSData. Unpublished report to the U.S. Departmentof Defense Legacy Resource ManagementProgram. The Institute for Bird Populations, PointReyes Station, CA. 119 p.
NOTT, M. P., D. F. DESANTE, P. PYLE, AND N. MICHEL.2005. Managing Landbird Populations in Forestsof the Pacific Northwest: Formulating Populationmanagement Guidelines from Landscape-scaleAnalyses of MAPS Data from Avian Communitieson seven national Forests in the Pacific Northwest.Unpublished report to the National Fish andWildlife Foundation and the USDA Forest Service,Northwest Region. The Institute for BirdPopulations, Point Reyes Station, CA. 163 p.
PEACH, W. J., S. T. BUCKLAND, AND S. R. BAILLIE. 1996.The use of constant effort mist-netting to measurebetween-year changes in the abundance andproductivity of common passerines. Bird Study43:142-156.
PEACH, W. J., S. R. BAILLIE, AND D. E. BALMER. 1998.Long-term changes in the abundance of passerinesin Britain and Ireland as measured by constanteffort mist-netting. Bird Study 45:257-275.
POLLOCK, K. H., J. D. NICHOLS, C. BROWNIE, AND J. E.HINES. 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recaptureexperiments. Wildlife Monographs No. 107.
PRADEL, R., J. HINES, J.-D. LEBRETON, AND J. D. NICHOLS.
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[112]
1997. Capture-recapture survival models takingaccount of transients. Biometrics 53:60-72.
PULLIAM, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and populationregulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661.
ROBBINS, C. S., D. BYSTRAK, AND P. H. GEISSLER. 1986.The Breeding Bird Survey: Its First Fifteen Years,1965-1979. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., ResourcePublication 157. 196 pp.
RODENHOUSE, N. L., T. S. SILLETT, P. J. DORAN, AND R. T.HOLMES. 2003. Multiple density-dependentmechanisms regulate a migratory bird populationduring the breeding season. Proceedings of theRoyal Society London B 270:2105-2110.
SARACCO, J. F., D. F. DESANTE, AND D. R. KASCHUBE. Inpress. Assessing landbird monitoring programsand demographic causes of population trends.Journal of Wildlife Management.
SAUER, J. R., J. E. HINES, AND J. FALLON. 2007. The NorthAmerican Breeding Bird Survey, Results andAnalysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGSPatuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
SCHLAEPFER, M. A., M. C. RUNGE, AND P. W. SHERMAN.
2002. Evolutionary and ecological traps. Trends inEcology and Evolution 17:474-480.
SILLETT, T. S., AND R. T. HOLMES. 2002. Variation in sur-vivorship of a migratory songbird throughout itsannual cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:296-308.
SILLETT, T. S., RODENHOUSE, N. L., AND R. T. HOLMES.2004. Experimentally reducing neighbor densityaffects reproduction and behavior of a migratorysongbird. Ecology 85:2467- 2477.
TEMPLE, S. A., AND J. A. WIENS. 1989. Bird populationsand environmental changes: can birds be bio-indicators? American Birds 43:260-270.
VAN HORNE, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicatorof habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management47:893-901.
WHITE, G. C. 1983. Numerical estimation of survivalrates from band-recovery and biotelemetry data.Journal of Wildlife Management 47:716-728.
WHITE, G. C., AND K. P. BURNHAM. 1999. ProgramMARK: Survival Estimation for Populations ofMarked Animals. Bird Study 46 (Supplement):120-138.
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[113]
APP
EN
DIX
. Su
mm
ary
of 4
9 M
APS
sta
tion
s ne
wly
est
ablis
hed
in 2
002,
52
stat
ions
new
ly e
stab
lishe
d in
200
3, a
nd o
ne s
tati
on e
stab
lishe
d p
rior
to 2
002
but n
ot p
revi
ousl
y su
mm
ariz
ed in
aM
APS
ann
ual r
epor
t.
Stn.
Prov
./N
eare
st10
’El
ev.
Firs
tno
.St
atio
n na
me
Ope
rato
rSp
onso
rSt
ate
tow
nbl
ock
(m)
Hab
itat(s
)Ye
ar
I. S
tati
ons
esta
blis
hed
befo
re 2
002
SO
UTH
-CEN
TRA
L R
EGIO
N14
518
Cot
tonw
ood
Leve
e st
and
D.T
wed
tU
SGS/
USF
WS
MS
Fitle
r32
3-09
1021
pulp
woo
d m
anag
ed c
otto
nwd
fore
st94
II. S
tati
ons
esta
blis
hed
in 2
002
NO
RTH
WES
T R
EGIO
N11
221
Jock
o R
iver
D.D
eSan
teU
SBIA
-Fla
thea
d IR
MT
Rav
alli
471-
1141
825
cott
onw
ood-
will
ow r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
0211
222
Burn
s Bo
gD
.Mat
thew
sPr
ivat
eBC
Ladn
er49
0-12
2510
mix
ed w
oodl
and/
peat
bog
edg
e02
1122
3G
arde
n C
reek
Nat
ure
Cen
t.A
.Hol
lora
nPr
ivat
e - G
oven
ers
Yout
hW
YC
aspe
r42
4-10
6216
09ri
pari
an c
orr./
prai
rie
gras
slan
d02
1122
4D
evil'
s Po
stpi
le N
MS.
Hea
thN
PS -
Smal
l Par
ks F
und
CA
Mam
mot
h La
kes
373-
1190
2350
mon
tane
mea
d./l
odge
pole
fore
st02
1122
5W
ishb
one
C.S
mith
Park
s C
anad
aA
BW
ater
ton
Park
490-
1134
1300
cott
onw
ood-
wet
shr
ub fo
rest
0211
237
Ore
gon
Cav
esJ.A
lexa
nder
?O
RC
ave
Junc
tion
420-
1232
1597
ripa
rian
ald
er, m
atur
e m
ixed
con
ifer
0211
238
McC
arte
ney
Cre
ekD
.Ste
phen
sTN
CW
AEp
hrat
a47
3-11
9450
3w
ater
bir
ch &
asp
en r
ipar
. woo
dlan
d02
1124
8Pu
get S
ound
Env
iron
. LC
.D
.Nor
man
Priv
ate
- PSE
LCW
AW
insl
ow47
3-12
2374
mat
ure
mix
ed c
onif
deci
d. fo
rest
0211
256
Am
bros
e N
atur
e St
udy
Ar.
J.Eid
elBu
reau
of R
ecla
mat
ion
NV
Car
son
City
390-
1194
1402
cott
onw
ood-
will
ow r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
0211
257
Day
ton
Stat
e Pa
rkJ.E
idel
Bure
au o
f Rec
lam
atio
nN
VD
ayto
n39
1-11
9313
41co
tton
woo
d-w
illow
rip
aria
n co
rrid
or02
1126
0Pl
aske
tt M
eado
ws
C.R
alph
?C
AEl
k C
reek
394-
1225
1838
ripa
rian
/mea
dow
0211
261
Mas
ters
on C
ampg
roun
dC
.Ral
ph?
CA
Elk
Cre
ek39
4-12
2518
41ri
pari
an02
1126
2Sa
lmon
Cre
ekC
.Ral
ph?
CA
Lole
ta40
4-12
413
ripa
rian
02SO
UTH
WES
T R
EGIO
N12
321
Vir
gin
Riv
erM
.Boy
les
USN
PS/
Cla
rk C
ount
y H
CP
NV
Ove
rton
363-
1142
380
tam
aris
k-w
illow
rip
aria
n co
rrid
or02
1232
4D
elta
(Car
son
Riv
er)
J.Eid
elBu
reau
of R
ecla
mat
ion
NV
Silv
er S
prin
gs39
1-11
9012
68co
tton
woo
d-w
illow
rip
aria
n co
rrid
or02
1232
5G
ila R
iver
Far
mC
.Fug
agli
Priv
ate
- T&
E In
c.N
MG
ila33
0-10
8313
97co
tton
woo
d-w
illow
rip
aria
n co
rrid
or02
1232
9C
O R
iv. D
elta
/Lak
e M
ead
J.Kah
l, Jr
.U
SBR
AZ
Mea
dvie
w36
0-11
3536
0w
illow
& s
alt c
edar
alo
ng C
O r
iver
0212
334
Empi
re C
anyo
nK
.Hug
hes
USB
LMA
ZSo
noita
314-
1103
1384
youn
g co
tton
-will
ow r
ip. w
/ m
esq.
0212
340
Indi
an C
reek
J.Par
rish
?U
TM
ontic
ello
375-
1093
1932
cott
onw
d-w
ill r
ip. w
ith o
ak&
juni
per
0212
341
Elk
Rav
ine
M.v
an H
atte
mLa
wre
nce
Live
rmor
e N
LC
ATr
acy
373-
1213
280
will
ow/e
lder
berr
y ri
pari
an02
1235
2La
guni
tas
Cre
ekD
.Hum
ple
?C
AO
lem
a38
0-12
2437
red
alde
r-w
illow
rip
aria
n02
1235
3R
edw
ood
Cre
ekD
.Hum
ple
?C
AM
uir
Beac
h37
5-12
2311
red
alde
r-w
illow
rip
. -ac
tive
rest
o.02
1236
2Le
slie
Can
yon
NW
RK
.Vog
etU
SFW
SA
ZM
cNea
l31
3-10
9318
39de
sert
scr
ub/m
esqu
ite/g
rass
land
0212
363
Ft B
owie
Nat
. His
t. Si
teT.
Woo
dU
SNPS
AZ
Dos
Cab
ezas
321-
1092
1354
dese
rt s
crub
/mes
quite
/gra
ssla
nd02
NO
RTH
-CEN
TRA
L R
EGIO
N13
370
Mer
ry L
ea F
arm
stea
dD
.Mill
erPr
ivat
e - M
erry
Lea
INW
olf L
ake
411-
0853
277
oldf
ield
/woo
dlot
s/th
icke
ts/w
etla
nd02
1337
1M
erry
Lea
Wilm
er M
ead.
D.M
iller
Priv
ate
- Mer
ry L
eaIN
Wol
f Lak
e41
1-08
5327
5ol
dfie
ld/w
et w
oodl
and/
thic
kets
0213
375
Mor
mon
Fie
ld E
ight
F.C
have
z-R
amir
ezPr
ivat
e - P
latt
e R
iver
Wh
NE
Gra
nd Is
land
404-
0982
579
post
-hay
ed m
eado
w02
1337
6M
orm
on F
ield
Fiv
eF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
EG
rand
Isla
nd?
579
tall
gras
s pr
airi
e02
1337
7M
orm
on F
ield
Nin
eF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
EG
rand
Isla
nd?
579
tall
gras
s pr
airi
e02
1337
8M
orm
on F
ield
Six
F.C
have
z-R
amir
ezPr
ivat
e - P
latt
e R
iver
Wh
NE
Gra
nd Is
land
404-
0982
579
rest
ed n
ativ
e gr
assl
and
0213
379
Mor
mon
Fie
ld T
hree
F.C
have
z-R
amir
ezPr
ivat
e - P
latt
e R
iver
Wh
NE
Gra
nd Is
land
404-
0982
579
post
-bur
n w
et m
eado
w02
1338
0M
orm
on F
ield
Sev
enF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
ED
onip
han
404-
0982
579
man
aged
mix
ed g
rass
pra
irie
02
DAVID F. DESANTE AND DANIELLE R. KASCHUBE
[114]
APP
EN
DIX
. C
onti
nued
.
Stn.
Prov
./N
eare
st10
’El
ev.
Firs
tno
.St
atio
n na
me
Ope
rato
rSp
onso
rSt
ate
tow
nbl
ock
(m)
Hab
itat(s
)Ye
ar
I. S
ta13
381
Wild
Ros
e Bi
g Sl
ough
F.C
have
z-R
amir
ezPr
ivat
e - P
latt
e R
iver
Wh
NE
Gra
nd Is
land
404-
0982
579
post
-bur
n m
eado
w02
1338
2W
ild R
ose
Pit M
eado
wF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
EG
rand
Isla
nd40
4-09
8257
9ha
yed
mea
dow
02SO
UTH
-CEN
TRA
L R
EGIO
N14
491
Cyp
rus
Ford
J.Will
iam
son
Priv
ate
- Tra
vis
Aud
ubon
TXA
ustin
301-
0973
134
cypr
ess-
will
ow r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
0214
492
Litt
le T
ank
J.Will
iam
son
Priv
ate
TXR
efug
io28
2-09
7277
oak
mat
t/po
nd/r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
/fie
ld02
NO
RTH
EAST
REG
ION
1564
1H
og Is
land
S.W
eide
nsau
l?
ME
Rou
nd P
ond
435-
0692
33m
ixed
fore
st o
n is
land
0215
642
NSV
AS
- Bla
ndy
R.S
alm
onU
of V
A/B
land
y Ex
peri
m. F
VABo
yce
390-
0780
200
mix
ed h
ardw
ood/
farm
land
/rip
aria
n02
1564
3G
lend
obbi
nR
.Sal
mon
Priv
ate
VAW
inch
este
r39
1-07
8030
0m
ixed
har
dwoo
d/fa
rmla
nd02
1564
4Pu
rcha
se K
nob
P.Su
per
USN
PS-G
reat
Sm
okie
sN
CM
aggi
e Va
lley
353-
0830
1451
N. h
ardw
ood/
fras
er fi
r tr
ee fa
rm02
1564
5A
shue
lot R
iver
Par
kJ.A
twoo
dPr
ivat
eN
HK
eene
425-
0721
144
ripa
rian
dec
iduo
us fo
rest
0215
646
Ato
n Fo
r.- S
andi
sfie
ld R
dS.
Har
ms
Priv
ate
- Ato
n Fo
rest
, In
CT
Nor
folk
420-
0730
435
N. h
ardw
ood/
hem
lock
/bea
ver
pond
0215
647
Punk
horn
Par
klan
ds F
. Sta
S.Fi
nneg
anPr
ivat
e - F
renc
h Fo
unda
tiM
ABr
ewst
er41
4-07
0014
mix
ed w
oodl
and
ripa
rian
cor
rido
r02
1564
8C
onst
itutio
n M
arsh
Sta
. 1E.
Lind
Priv
ate
- Aud
ubon
New
Yor
NY
Col
d Sp
ring
412-
0735
1tid
al w
etl./
alde
r sw
amp/
mix
ed d
. for
.02
1564
9K
ane
Stat
ion
L.D
oss
Mar
velw
ood
Scho
ol/l
ocal
cC
TK
ent
414-
0732
396
swam
p w
oodl
and/
past
ure
0215
650
Kai
ser
E.K
arna
tzPr
ivat
e-Br
addo
ck B
ay B
ird
NY
Hilt
on43
1-07
7427
0yo
ung
ash
woo
dlan
d ed
ge02
1565
1N
orth
Blin
dE.
Kar
natz
Priv
ate-
Brad
dock
Bay
Bir
dN
YH
ilton
431-
0774
270
mat
ure
ash
woo
dlan
d on
lake
sho
re02
SOU
THEA
ST R
EGIO
N16
702
Cha
ssah
owita
ka W
MA
A.B
urro
wSt
ate
- FL
F&W
Con
serv
ati
FLW
eeki
Wac
hee
284-
0823
14fla
twoo
ds/s
andh
ill a
nd h
ardw
d sw
mp
0216
703
Cle
mso
n Ex
p. F
orer
st #
AJ.C
amp
Priv
ate
- Cle
mso
n U
nive
rsSC
Cle
mso
n34
3-08
2425
0pi
ne-h
ardw
ood
fore
st02
III.
Sta
tion
s es
tabl
ishe
d in
200
3N
ORT
HW
EST
REG
ION
1123
2Sc
hall
D.D
eSan
teU
SBIA
-Fla
thea
d IR
MT
Rav
alli
471-
1140
870
cott
onw
ood-
will
ow r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
0311
233
Spri
ng C
reek
D.D
eSan
teU
SBIA
-Fla
thea
d IR
MT
Rav
alli
471-
1140
853
cott
onw
ood-
will
ow r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
0311
234
Woo
dpec
ker
Hav
enD
.DeS
ante
USB
IA-F
lath
ead
IRM
TA
rlee
471-
1140
920
cott
onw
ood-
will
ow r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
0311
235
Jack
son
Cam
pus
D.W
acho
bTe
ton
Scie
nce
Scho
olW
YJa
ckso
n43
2-11
0418
62co
tton
wd-
will
ow w
oodl
./re
stor
ed p
d.03
1123
9R
oyal
Roa
ds U
nive
rsity
A.N
ight
inga
leD
ept.
Nat
iona
l Def
ence
foBC
Vic
tori
a48
2-12
3210
2nd
grow
th fo
r.& n
atur
aliz
ed a
g la
nd03
1124
0R
ocky
Poi
nt B
ird
Obs
erv.
A.N
ight
inga
leD
ept.
Nat
iona
l Def
ence
foBC
Vic
tori
a48
1-12
3315
2nd
grow
th fo
r.& n
atur
aliz
ed a
g la
nd03
SOU
THW
EST
REG
ION
1233
0Fo
rt H
unte
r Li
gget
t #2
D.W
oodb
ury
USA
RC
- A
rmy
Res
erve
Cor
pC
AJo
lon
355-
1210
240
cott
onw
ood-
will
ow r
ipar
ian
corr
idor
0312
331
Col
orad
o R
iver
O.H
inoj
osa-
Hue
rta
Pron
atur
a So
nora
SOSa
n Lu
is R
io C
olor
ado
321-
1150
20co
tton
woo
d-w
illow
rip
aria
n co
rrid
or03
1233
2C
oyot
e Sp
ring
S.C
oxU
SE -
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ene
rgN
MA
lbuq
uerq
ue35
0-10
6220
00op
en p
inyo
n-ju
nipe
r w
oodl
and
0312
333
Lew
is C
ente
rB.
Dep
peLe
wis
Cen
ter
CA
App
le V
alle
y34
3-11
7188
5co
tton
woo
d-w
illow
rip
aria
n co
rrid
or03
1233
6A
ll Sa
ints
Sch
ulte
J.Gri
ffith
sM
onte
rey
Peni
nsul
a W
ater
CA
Car
mel
363-
1214
30re
stor
ed c
otto
nwd-
will
ow c
oast
al r
ip.
0312
337
Car
mel
Mid
dle
Scho
olJ.G
riff
iths
Car
mel
Mid
dle
Scho
olC
AC
arm
el36
3-12
1518
coas
tal s
crub
/res
tore
d w
illow
rip
.03
1233
8R
anch
o Sa
n C
arlo
sJ.G
riff
iths
Mon
tere
y Pe
nins
ula
Wat
erC
AC
arm
el36
3-12
1516
cott
onw
d-w
ill. c
oast
al r
ip.
0312
339
Red
Roc
ksJ.G
riff
iths
Mon
tere
y Pe
nins
ula
Wat
erC
AC
arm
el36
3-12
1430
rest
ored
cot
tonw
d-w
illow
coa
stal
rip
.03
1234
2C
ibol
a N
WR
- N
at. T
rail
RJ.K
ahl,
Jr.
USB
RA
ZC
ibol
a33
2-11
4470
rest
orat
ion
cott
onw
d, w
illow
, mes
q.03
1235
4Li
verm
ore
Mar
shD
.Jone
sPr
ivat
e - A
udub
on C
anyo
nC
AM
arsh
all
381-
1225
6co
asta
l will
ow r
ipar
ian
03
THE MONITORING AVIAN PRODUCTIVITY AND SURVIVORSHIP (MAPS) 2002 AND 2003 REPORT
[115]
APP
EN
DIX
. C
onti
nued
.
Stn.
Prov
./N
eare
st10
’El
ev.
Firs
tno
.St
atio
n na
me
Ope
rato
rSp
onso
rSt
ate
tow
nbl
ock
(m)
Hab
itat(s
)Ye
ar
I. S
taN
ORT
H-C
ENTR
AL
REG
ION
1337
3Be
aver
Cre
ek R
eser
ve F
RS
B.St
eger
Cou
nty/
priv
ate
- Fri
ends
WI
Fall
Cre
ek44
4-09
1129
5m
ixed
woo
dl./
flood
pln/
rest
ored
pra
ir03
1338
3Fi
eld
One
F.C
have
z-R
amir
ezPr
ivat
e - P
latt
e R
iver
Wh
NE
Ald
a40
4-09
8260
2ta
llgra
ss p
rair
ie03
1338
4N
orth
Mea
dow
F.C
have
z-R
amir
ezPr
ivat
e - P
latt
e R
iver
Wh
NE
Ald
a40
4-09
8260
2ta
llgra
ss p
rair
ie03
1338
5C
rane
Mea
dow
sF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
EA
lda
404-
0982
602
tallg
rass
pra
irie
0313
386
Mor
mon
Isla
nd F
ld E
leve
nF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
EG
rand
Isla
nd40
4-09
8260
2ta
llgra
ss p
rair
ie03
1338
7O
ffic
e Pa
stur
eF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
EA
lda
404-
0982
602
tallg
rass
pra
irie
0313
388
Mor
mon
Isla
nd F
ield
Fou
rF.
Cha
vez-
Ram
irez
Priv
ate
- Pla
tte
Riv
er W
hN
EG
rand
Isla
nd40
4-09
8260
2ta
llgra
ss p
rair
ie03
1339
0G
oose
Isla
ndM
.Mei
erU
SGS
WI
La C
ross
e43
4-09
1119
4?
0313
391
Gov
erno
rs S
t. U
n. B
ird
Ob
R.B
aisa
Stat
e - G
over
nors
St.U
niv
ILU
nive
rsity
Par
k41
2-08
7423
3ol
dfie
ld a
nd d
ense
shr
ub03
SOU
TH-C
ENTR
AL
REG
ION
1449
4Br
adfo
rd C
emet
ery
D.D
eSan
teU
SDoD
MO
Big
Pine
y37
4-09
2031
7bl
ack
wal
nut p
lant
atio
n03
1449
5Ti
lley
Bott
oms
D.D
eSan
teU
SDoD
MO
Way
nesv
ille
374-
0921
250
oldf
ield
/oak
fore
st03
1450
2C
omp.
4, p
atch
cut
& T
hin
D.T
wed
tU
SGS/
USF
WS
LAD
elhi
322-
0912
21oa
k-gu
m b
otto
mla
nd fo
r.: 2
000
harv
.03
1450
3C
omp.
4, th
inni
ng H
arve
stD
.Tw
edt
USG
S/U
SFW
SLA
Del
hi32
2-09
1221
oak-
gum
bot
tom
land
for.:
200
0 ha
rv.
0314
504
Com
p.4,
unh
arv.
con
trol
D.T
wed
tU
SGS/
USF
WS
LAD
elhi
322-
0912
21oa
k-gu
m b
otto
mla
nd fo
rest
0314
505
Com
p.9,
pat
ch c
ut &
Thi
nD
.Tw
edt
USG
S/U
SFW
SLA
Del
hi32
2-09
1221
oak-
gum
bot
tom
land
for.:
200
0 ha
rv.
0314
506
Com
p.9,
thin
ning
Har
vest
D.T
wed
tU
SGS/
USF
WS
LAD
elhi
322-
0912
21oa
k-gu
m b
otto
mla
nd fo
r.: 2
000
harv
.03
1450
7C
omp.
9, u
nhar
v. c
ontr
olD
.Tw
edt
USG
S/U
SFW
SLA
Del
hi32
2-09
1221
oak-
gum
bot
tom
land
fore
st03
1450
8C
hoct
aw Is
land
WM
AC
.Rid
eout
AR
Gam
e &
Fis
h C
omm
issi
onA
RA
rkan
sas
City
333-
0911
40Lo
wer
Mis
s. R
iver
bat
ture
03N
ORT
HEA
ST R
EGIO
N15
654
Gol
f Cou
rse
D.D
eSan
teU
SDoD
ME
Brun
swic
k43
5-06
9513
bals
am fi
r/bo
ggy
deci
duou
s fo
rest
0315
655
Chi
mne
y R
ock
D.D
eSan
teU
SDoD
ME
Brun
swic
k43
5-06
9518
map
le-o
ak d
ecid
uous
fore
st/r
ipar
ian
0315
656
Red
ingt
on P
ond
D.D
eSan
teU
SDoD
ME
Dal
las
445-
0702
507
mix
ed d
ecid
.-eve
rgre
en fo
rest
/pon
d03
1565
7Po
tato
Nub
ble
D.D
eSan
teU
SDoD
ME
Dal
las
445-
0703
488
mix
ed d
ecid
.-eve
rgre
en fo
r./sh
rubl
d03
1565
8Bl
uelin
e Tr
ail
D.D
eSan
teU
SDoD
ME
Dal
las
445-
0702
515
bals
am-r
ed s
pruc
e fo
rest
/rip
./al
der
0315
659
Hig
hlan
dD
.DeS
ante
USD
oDM
ED
alla
s45
0-07
0272
4st
unte
d ba
lsam
-red
spr
uce
for./
bogg
y03
1566
0Pa
rdon
Gra
yG
.Alb
anes
ePr
ivat
e - M
A A
udub
on, P
arR
ITi
vert
on41
3-07
1165
Oak
-hol
ly fo
r./m
aple
sw
amp/
gras
sl.
0315
661
Buff
alo
Aud
. Arb
oret
umW
.Mic
hale
kPr
ivat
e - B
uffa
lo A
udub
onN
YN
orth
Java
424-
0782
442
succ
essi
onal
har
dwd.
/man
age
mea
d03
1566
3Th
ousa
nd A
cre
Swam
pC
.Mar
ino
Priv
ate
NY
Penf
ield
431-
0772
152
mix
ed d
ecid
. for
./sw
amp/
brus
hy a
rea
0315
668
Hol
land
Col
lege
D.M
artin
Priv
ate
- Hol
land
Col
lege
PEO
rwel
l46
1-06
2520
0m
id-s
ucce
ssio
nal m
ixed
woo
dlan
d03
SOU
THEA
ST R
EGIO
N16
706
Sand
ston
e H
illD
.DeS
ante
USD
oD-L
egac
y/Fo
rt B
ragg
NC
Ash
ley
Hei
ghts
350-
0791
152
pine
sav
ana/
mix
ed w
oodl
and
0316
708
Cla
rk's
Riv
er N
WR
#1
H.C
ham
bers
USF
WS
KY
Bent
on36
5-08
8210
2bo
ttom
land
har
dwd/
post
oak
pra
irie
0316
709
Bufo
rd S
t. Fi
sh H
atch
ery
R.T
rum
pH
umm
er B
ird
Stud
y G
roup
GA
Cum
min
g34
0-08
4027
2M
ixed
woo
dlan
d/ C
hatt
ahoo
chee
rip
.03
1671
0Ti
bwin
Pla
ntat
ion
S.Lo
hrU
SFS
SCM
cCle
llanv
ille
330-
0793
3m
ariti
me
fore
st th
icke
ts/f
ield
edg
e03
1671
1Po
wha
tan
D.R
eilly
Priv
ate
- Ric
hmon
d A
udub
oVA
Pow
hata
n37
3-07
8073
mix
ed d
ecid
. woo
dlan
d/sc
rub/
field
0316
714
Nat
ural
Bri
dge
J.Wee
seSt
ate
- KY
St.
Nat
ure
Pre
KY
Slad
e37
4-08
3424
5he
mlo
ck-m
ixed
mes
ophy
tic fo
rest
0316
721
Bans
hee
Ree
ksM
.Koe
neke
Cou
nty
- Lou
don
Co
Dep
t oVA
Lees
burg
390-
0773
117
deci
d. w
oodl
ands
/suc
cess
iona
l fie
lds
0316
725
Cle
mso
n Ex
p. F
orer
st #
BJ.C
amp
Priv
ate
- Cle
mso
n U
nive
rsSC
Cle
mso
n?
9999
?03
[116]
Bird Populations 8:116-120© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
THE 2003 AND 2004 NORTH AMERICAN BREEDINGBIRD CENSUS WITH ADDITIONS FOR 2001 AND 2002
THOMAS GARDALI
PRBO Conservation Science3820 Cypress Drive No. 11Petaluma, CA, 94954 USA
JAMES D. LOWE
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology159 Sapsucker Woods Road
Ithaca, NY, 14850 [email protected]
Abstract. The Breeding Bird Census (BBC) is the longest, continuously-run bird monitoringprogram in North America. Here we publish BBC reports for 2003 and 2004, with anadditional nine reports from 2001 and 2002 that were not included in the previouspublication (Gardali and Lowe 2006) due to late submission. Breeding Bird Censuses wereconducted at 21 sites in 2003 and 24 in 2004; for the two years, breeding birds were assessedat 31 different sites, with a few sites in 2004 not visited in 2003 and vice versa.
EL CONTEO DE AVES REPRODUCTORAS (BBC) DE NORTEAMÉRICA DE 2003 Y 2004Resumen. El Conteo de Aves Reproductoras (BBC) es el programa de monitoreo más
longevo de Norteamérica. Aquí presentamos informes del BBC para 2003 y 2004, con nueveinformes adicionales de 2001 y 2002 que no se incluyeron en la publicación anterior (Gardaliy Lowe 2006). Los conteos de BBC fueron realizados en 21 sitios en 2003 y 24 sitios en 2004;para ambos años, se contaron las aves reproductoras en 31 sitios, con varios sitios de 2004no visitados en 2003 y vice versa.
INTRODUCTIONThe Breeding Bird Census (BBC) is the breedingseason component of the Resident Bird Counts(RBC), which also include the Winter BirdPopulation Study. The BBC uses the spot- orterritory-mapping method to estimate densitiesof breeding birds. More information onmethods, history, and uses of BBC data can befound in Lowe (2006).
A total of 45 BBC reports were submitted for2003 and 2004, down considerably from 2001and 2002 (68 reports). This downward trend is
likely an artifact of the cessation in publication(or even promise of publication) from 1996 to2000 – in the past, publication motivated datacollection. Thus, when publication stopped,many fewer reports were submitted, withlagged effects perhaps apparent here. It will beinteresting to see if the number of reportsincreases in the near future, responding to therenewed BBC publication in 2006 (Gardali andLowe 2006).
Nine reports from 2001 and 2002 are alsoincluded herein as they were received too late
THE 2003 AND 2004 NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD CENSUS
[117]
for publication in Bird Populations 7.Please contact Tom Gardali ([email protected])
for BBC instructions and data forms.
UNDERSTANDING THE REPORTSHere we provide the skeleton of a BBC reportwith data descriptions inserted where the meatof each report typically goes.
1. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF THE AREADESCRIPTIVE TITLE IN SPANISH
Author(s)Address(es)
Site Number: A unique ID number assignedfor some older plots. Location: State orProvince; County; nearest town; latitude andlongitude; USGS topographic map or other mapname. Continuity: Year established; Totalnumber of years census has been done. Size:Plot size in hectares. Description of Plot:Common names of dominate plant species,topography, elevation, edge, and other featuresnoted as necessary (e.g., buildings, bodies ofwater, rock outcrops, roads). Established plotswill provide the original report citation as wellas citations for published updates. Weather:Mean temperature in Celsius at the start of visits(temperature range in Celsius) and othercomments, as appropriate, such as deviationsfrom long-term averages and amount ofprecipitation. Coverage: Total hours spent;number of visits to plot (time of day); dates ofvisits; maximum number of observers/visit (ifmore than 2). Census: Species common name,Number of territories rounded to nearest halfterritory (Number of territories per 40 hectares(for species with at least 3.0 territories); numberof nests (N) or fledglings (FL) observed, ifapplicable). A “+” after a species name indicatesthat less than one-quarter of the species’territory occurred on the plot. Species are listedin descending order (ties are listed in taxonomicorder). Total: Total number of species; Totalnumber of territories (Total number of territories/ 40 hectares). Visitors: Observed species thatpotentially could nest on plot but which were
not counted (listed in taxonomic order).Remarks: Comments on factors that may haveaffected populations on the study plot thus toexplain differences from other years in thespecies’ abundances and composition (e.g.,predators, parasitism, disturbance, habitatchange, large population fluctuations fromprevious years). Other Observers: Full names.Acknowledgements: If applicable.
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS RESULTS
2001 AND 2002
Here, for years 2001 and 2002, we add anadditional nine reports, which were submittedtoo late for inclusion in volume 7 of BirdPopulations (Tables 1, 2). These nine reports areall from Ontario, Canada and they raise the totalreports for 2001 and 2002 to 38 and 30,respectively. The addition of these nine reportsbrings the total for Ontario to 13, which issecond only to California (15 reports) for years2001 and 2002.
2003 AND 2004
A total of 45 Breeding Bird Census reports areincluded, 21 in 2003 and 24 in 2004 (Tables 3, 4).The counts come from 8 U.S. states, 2 Canadianprovinces, and the District of Columbia.Connecticut, California, and Ontario each hadthe most counts with 10; 5 in 2003 and 5 in 2004in Connecticut, 3 in 2003 and 7 in 2004 inCalifornia, and 6 in 2003 and 4 in 2004 inOntario. Included here are a total of 6 plotsbeing published for the first time; 1 in 2003(report # 13) and 5 in 2004 (report #s 15, 16, 17,18, 23).
LITERATURE CITEDGARDALI, T., AND J. D. LOWE. 2006. Reviving resident
bird counts: the 2001 and 2002 Breeding BirdCensus. Bird Populations 7:90-95.
LOWE, J. D. 2006. An annotated bibliography ofBreeding Bird Census publications. BirdPopulations 7:128-135.
THOMAS GARDALI AND JAMES D. LOWE
[118]
TABLE 1. Summary of Breeding Bird Census reports from 2001 for sites not included in Gardali and Lowe (2006).
State/ Plot Size Terr. per Num. Hrs. Yrs.Habitat Prov. Author(s) (ha) 40 ha spp. Obs. Study
Broadleaf Forests35. Dry Cottonwood Sand Dune ON V. Brown 10.0 54 6 16.2 636. Red Ash–Red Oak Savannah ON J. Fischer 10.3 381 22 32.7 437. Red Oak–Ironwood Savannah ON S. Bublitz 12.2 435 27 39.5 6
Needleleaf Forests38. Tamarack Slough ON M. J. Hindle 8.8 480 32 19.5 8
TABLE 2. Summary of Breeding Bird Census reports from 2002 for sites not included in Gardali and Lowe (2006).
State/ Plot Size Terr. per Num. Hrs. Yrs.Habitat Prov. Author(s) (ha) 40 ha spp. Obs. Study
Broadleaf Forests26. Red Oak–White Birch Savannah ON M. Hindle 10.0 330 27 14.0 5
Needleleaf Forests27. White Pine–White Cedar Savannah ON M. Hindle 9.3 303 25 14.5 7
Broadleaf/Needleleaf Forests28. Red Oak–White Pine Savannah ON R. Fuentes 11.0 285 22 18.2 3
Non-forested Wetlands29. Sedge–Rush Swale I ON R. Fuentes 9.3 41 4 10.5 530. Sedge–Rush Swale II ON R. Fuentes 9.3 41 5 9.0 3
THE 2003 AND 2004 NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD CENSUS
[119]
TABLE 3. Summary of Breeding Bird Census reports from 2003.
State/ Plot Size Terr. per Num. Hrs. Yrs.Habitat Prov. Author(s) (ha) 40 ha spp. Obs. Study
Broadleaf Forests1. Mixed Hardwood Poletimber CT D. Rosgen 8.5 574 50 22.0 372. Second-Growth Hardwood Forest CT D. Rosgen 10.1 394 41 18.5 373. Mixed Upland Broadleaf Forest DC M.E. D’Imperio 14.2 358 29 50.0 454. Mature Broadleaf Forest OH C.W. Saunders et al. 16.0 220 26 21.4 95. White Oak Savannah ON M.F.G. Clark 10.4 238 17 13.9 96. Oak-Maple-Poplar Hollow PA L. Ingram 11.3 96 12 18.2 117. Virgin Hardwood Swamp Forest SC M. Dawson 8.9 474 19 15.8 138. Mature Maple-Beech-Birch Forest TN H. Wilson, L.M. Lewis 10.2 182 7 16.7 11
Needleleaf Forests9. White Pine-White Cedar Savannah ON M. Timpf 9.3 353 26 40.3 8
Broadleaf/Needleleaf Forests10. Climax Hemlock-White Pine Forest
with Transition Hardwoods CT D. Rosgen 10.5 520 40 22.5 3711. Young Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Stand CT D. Rosgen 8.5 442 43 13.5 2612. Riparian Woodland ID S.R. Robinson 8.9 209 23 13.3 713. Hemlock-Mixed Broadleaf
Riparian Forest NY L. Bowdery et al. 12.1 149 18 23.0 314. Intergrading Dune-Swale Savannah ON M.A. Kurcz 11.0 171 16 25.8 7
Mixed Habitats15. Field, Ridge, Shrubby Trees, and Woods ON M.F.G. Clark 5.8 814 15 12.7 1016. Sedge-Tamarack Dune Pond ON M. Timpf 10.0 270 17 28.8 4
Non-forested Wetlands17. Shrubby Swamp and Sedge Hummocks CT D. Rosgen 8.1 993 48 25.5 37
Shrublands18. Coastal Scrub CA P. Abbaspour, E. Porzig 8.1 301 27 268.7 2919. Disturbed Coastal Scrub A CA A. Shults, E. Porzig 4.7 357 29 164.6 2920. Disturbed Coastal Scrub B CA G. Jayabose, E. Porzig 8.1 351 25 401.5 29
Grasslands21. Bluegrass-Milkweed Grassland ON M.A. Kurcz 10.5 162 16 28.0 5
THOMAS GARDALI AND JAMES D. LOWE
[120]
TABLE 4. Summary of Breeding Bird Census reports from 2004.
State/ Plot Size Terr. per Num. Hrs. Yrs.Habitat Prov. Author(s) (ha) 40 ha spp. Obs. Study
Broadleaf Forests1. Mixed Hardwood Poletimber CT D. Rosgen 8.5 649 47 19.5 382. Second-Growth Hardwood Forest CT D. Rosgen 10.1 307 42 17.5 383. Mixed Upland Broadleaf Forest DC M.E. D’Imperio 14.2 265 26 32.0 464. Mature Broadleaf Forest OH C.W. Saunders et al. 16.0 236 29 25.2 105. Red Oak-Sugar Maple Forest ON C. Friis 11.0 689 39 38.2 76. Red Oak-Sugar Maple Savannah ON C. Friis 10.5 667 32 44.8 57. Oak-Maple-Poplar Hollow PA L. Ingram 11.3 85 11 16.5 128. Hardwood Swamp Forest SC M.R. Dawson 8.1 440 17 14.7 139. Mature Maple-Beech-Birch Forest TN D.F. Vogt, L.M. Lewis 10.2 225 9 19.8 12
Broadleaf/Needleleaf Forests10. Climax Hemlock-White Pine Forest
with Transition Hardwoods CT D. Rosgen 10.5 470 43 24.5 3811. Young Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Stand CT D. Rosgen 8.5 334 40 13.5 2712. Riparian Woodland ID S.R. Robinson 8.9 189 19 11.5 813. Dry Cottonwood-Juniper Savannah ON J. Ethelberg 10.5 135 15 34.0 414. Intergrading Dune-Swale Savannah ON J. Ethelberg 11.0 131 12 34.8 8
Mixed Habitats15. Riparian Scrub Basin CA M. Aimar 12.7 288 27 23.2 New16. Streamside Riparian Woodland I CA T. Reeser 16.4 557 28 36.8 New17. Streamside Riparian Woodland II CA B. Nash 10.3 406 30 13.4 New18. Streamside Riparian Woodland III CA T. Barbee, A. Beckman 13.0 415 35 21.5 New
Non-forested Wetlands19. Shrubby Swamp and Sedge Hummocks CT D. Rosgen 8.1 1064 43 24.5 38
Shrublands20. Coastal Scrub CA G. Epke, E. Porzig 8.1 254 25 170.5 3021. Disturbed Coastal Scrub A CA E. Kramer-Wilt, E. Porzig 4.7 277 31 136.1 3022. Disturbed Coastal Scrub B CA L. Kaplan, E. Porzig 8.1 267 23 204.2 3023. Red Osier Dogwood Shrubland BC R. Mader 10.0 452 21 12.2 New
Successional Fields24. Abandoned Upland Pasture II NY L. Bowdery et al. 30.0 263 52 33.0 3
[121]
Bird Populations 8:121-122© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2001
Note: These reports complete the set for 2001, the others having been published inVolume 7 of Bird Populations
35. DRY COTTONWOOD SAND DUNE DUNA DE ALAMO SECO
VICKI BROWN
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º32'N, 80º9'W; Little Creek RidgesQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1973; 6yr. Size: 10.0 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds27:986–987 (1973), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):54–55(1992) and 64(Suppl.):51 (1993). Weather: Mean starttemp., 19.3ºC (range 14–25ºC). Coverage: 16.2 h; 10visits (9 sunrise, 1 sunset); 8, 10, 13, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26,27, 28 June, 2001. Census: Chipping Sparrow, 5.5 (22);Eastern Kingbird, 3.0 (12; 1N); Tree Swallow, 3.0 (2N);Song Sparrow, 1.0; Northern Mockingbird, 0.5; FieldSparrow, 0.5. Total: 6 species; 13.5 territories (54/40ha). Visitors: Killdeer, Spotted Sandpiper, MourningDove, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Great Crested Flycatcher,House Wren, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Brown Thrasher,European Starling, Cedar Waxwing, Yellow Warbler,Red-winged Blackbird, Common Grackle, Brown-headed Cowbird, Baltimore Oriole. Remarks: Thisstudy is part of a long-term project designed tomonitor the response of plant and breeding birdcommunities to a reduction in deer browsing at LongPoint, Lake Erie. Other Observers: Matt Hindle andMiguel Demeulemeester. Acknowledgments: I thankJon McCracken and Matt Hindle for projectsupervision, Jane Bowles and Michael Bradstreet formeasuring vegetation parameters, and the CanadianWildlife Service for financial support.
36. RED ASH–RED OAK SAVANNAHSAVANA DE FRESNO ROJO–ROBLE ROJO
JEROME FISCHER
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National Wildlife
Area; 42º33'N, 80º14'W; Little Creek RidgesQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1991; 4yr. Size: 10.3 ha. Description of Plot: See J. FieldOrnithol. 63(Suppl):55–56 (1992) and 64(Suppl):52(1993). Weather: Mean start temp., 18.8ºC (range13–26ºC). Coverage: 32.7 h; 10 visits (9 sunrise, 1sunset); 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 June, 2001.Census: House Wren, 19.0 (74); Red-wingedBlackbird, 10.0 (39); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 7.0 (27);Song Sparrow, 7.0; Baltimore Oriole, 7.0; TreeSwallow, 6.0 (23); Common Yellowthroat, 6.0; EasternKingbird, 5.5 (21); Field Sparrow, 4.5 (17); YellowWarbler, 4.0 (16); European Starling, 2.5; AmericanWoodcock, 2.0; Downy Woodpecker, 2.0; WarblingVireo, 2.0; Red-eyed Vireo, 2.0; Blue Jay, 2.0; GrayCatbird, 2.0; Eastern Towhee, 2.0; Brown-headedCowbird, 2.0; Northern Flicker, 1.5; Yellow-billedCuckoo, 1.0; Common Grackle, 1.0. Total: 22 species;98.0 territories (381/40 ha). Visitors: Wood Duck,Red-tailed Hawk, Mourning Dove, Black-billedCuckoo, Whip-poor-will, Hairy Woodpecker, WillowFlycatcher, Least Flycatcher, Great Crested Flycatcher,American Crow, Black-capped Chickadee, AmericanRobin, Indigo Bunting. Remarks: This study is part ofa long-term project designed to monitor the responseof plant and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Other Observers: Sindy Bublitz. Acknowledgments:I thank Jon McCracken and Matt Hindle for projectsupervision, Jane Bowles and Michael Bradstreet formeasuring vegetation parameters, and the CanadianWildlife Service for financial support.
37. RED OAK–IRONWOOD SAVANNAH SAVANA DE ROBLE ROJO–PALO DE HIERRO
SINDY BUBLITZ
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point Company-Courtright Ridge; 42º34'N, 80º17'W; Big Rice BayQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1979; 6yr. Size: 12.0 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds
34:65 (1980), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):56–57 (1992)and 64(Suppl.):52–53 (1993). Weather: Mean starttemp., 18.6ºC (range 13–26ºC). Coverage: 39.5 h; 10visits (9 sunrise, 1 sunset); 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25,26, 27 June, 2001. Census: Red-winged Blackbird, 26.0(87; 1N); Yellow Warbler, 17.5 (58; 1FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 10.5 (35); House Wren, 8.5 (28); CommonYellowthroat, 8.5; Song Sparrow, 8.5; Tree Swallow, 8.0(27; 6N); Warbling Vireo, 6.0 (20); Red-eyed Vireo, 4.0(13); Gray Catbird, 4.0; American Redstart, 4.0; EasternKingbird, 3.0 (10); Baltimore Oriole, 3.0 (1FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 2.0; European Starling, 2.0; SwampSparrow, 2.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 2.0; MourningDove, 1.5; American Robin, 1.5 (1FL); AmericanWoodcock, 1.0; Red-bellied Woodpecker, 1.0; NorthernFlicker, 1.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 1.0; Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 1.0; Northern Cardinal, 1.0; CommonGrackle, 1.0; American Goldfinch, 1.0. Total: 27species; 130.5 territories (435/40ha). Visitors: Red-tailed Hawk, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, DownyWoodpecker, Blue Jay, White-breasted Nuthatch,Cedar Waxwing, Indigo Bunting. Remarks: This studyis part of a long-term project designed to monitor theresponse of plant and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Other Observer: Jerome Fischer. Acknowledgments: Ithank Jon McCracken and Matt Hindle for projectsupervision, Jane Bowles and Michael Bradstreet formeasuring vegetation parameters, and the CanadianWildlife Service for financial support.
38. TAMARACK SLOUGHPANTANO DE LARICE AMERICANO
MATT J. HINDLE
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0
Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º33'N, 80º5'W; Gravelly Bay Quadrangle,DEMR. Continuity: Established 1973; 8 yr. Size: 8.8ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 28:1017–1018(1974), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):68–69 (1992) and64(Suppl.):66–67 (1993). Weather: Mean start temp.,18.6ºC (range 16–21ºC). Coverage: 19.5 h; 10 visits (9sunrise, 1 sunset); 9, 12, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 June,2001. Census: Yellow Warbler, 16.0 (73; 1N); Red-winged Blackbird, 14.0 (64); Gray Catbird, 9.0 (41);House Wren, 6.0 (27); Common Yellowthroat, 5.0 (23);Tree Swallow, 4.0 (18; 1N); Cedar Waxwing, 4.0;Eastern Towhee, 4.0; Common Grackle, 4.0; MourningDove, 3.5 (16; 1N); Black-capped Chickadee, 3.0 (14);Chipping Sparrow, 3.0; Song Sparrow, 3.0; AmericanWoodcock, 2.0; Whip-poor-will, 2.0; Least Flycatcher,2.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 2.0; Eastern Kingbird,2.0; American Robin, 2.0; Brown Thrasher, 2.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 2.0; Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 1.0;Northern Flicker, 1.0; Eastern Wood-Pewee, 1.0;Willow Flycatcher, 1.0; White-eyed Vireo, 1.0 (2FL);Blue Jay, 1.0; Carolina Wren, 1.0; Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 1.0; European Starling, 1.0; NorthernCardinal, 1.0; American Goldfinch, 1.0. Total: 32species; 105.5 territories; (480/40ha). Visitors: WoodDuck, Mallard, Great Horned Owl, Belted Kingfisher,Red-eyed Vireo, Black-and-white Warbler, AmericanRedstart, Field Sparrow, Baltimore Oriole, HouseFinch. Remarks: This study is part of a long-termproject designed to monitor the response of plant andbreeding bird communities to a reduction in deerbrowsing at Long Point, Lake Erie. Other Observers:Miguel Demeulemeester and Jody Allair. Acknow-ledgments: I thank Jon McCracken for projectsupervision, Jane Bowles and Michael Bradstreet formeasuring vegetation parameters, and the CanadianWildlife Service for financial support.
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2001
[122]
26. RED OAK–WHITE BIRCH SAVANNAHSAVANA DE ROBLE ROJO–ABEDUL BLANCO
MATT HINDLE
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 9.4 km W of Long Point Lighthouse; 42º33'10"N,80º9'50"W; Little Creek Ridges Quadrangle, DEMR.Continuity: Established 1978; 5 yr. Size: 10.0 ha.Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 33:75–76 (1979), J.Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):59–60 (1992) and66(Suppl.):52–53 (1995). Weather: Mean start temp.,16.6ºC (range 12–22ºC). Coverage: 14.0 h.; 10 visits (9sunrise, 1 sunset); 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 June,2002. Census: Red-winged Blackbird, 12.0 (48); HouseWren, 10.5 (42); Tree Swallow, 8.0 (32; 3N); YellowWarbler, 7.0 (28); Gray Catbird, 5.0 (20); Whip-poor-will, 4.0 (16); Common Yellowthroat, 4.0; BaltimoreOriole, 4.0; Eastern Wood-Pewee, 3.0 (12); EasternKingbird, 3.0 (1N); Song Sparrow, 3.0; Great CrestedFlycatcher, 2.0; European Starling, 2.0 (1N); CommonGrackle, 2.0; Hooded Merganser, 1.0; Yellow-billedCuckoo, 1.0; Downy Woodpecker, 1.0; NorthernFlicker, 1.0 (1N); Warbling Vireo, 1.0; Red-eyed Vireo,1.0; Black-capped Chickadee, 1.0; Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 1.0; American Robin, 1.0; EasternTowhee, 1.0; Chipping Sparrow, 1.0; NorthernCardinal, 1.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0. Total: 27species; 82.5 territories (330/40 ha). Visitors:Mourning Dove, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Blue Jay,Cedar Waxwing, Ovenbird, American Goldfinch.Remarks: This study is part of a long-term projectdesigned to monitor the response of plant andbreeding bird communities to a reduction in deerbrowsing at Long Point, Lake Erie. Acknowledg-ments: Thanks to Jon McCracken for projectsupervision, Jane Bowles and Michael Bradstreet formeasuring vegetation parameters, and the CanadianWildlife Service for financial support.
27. WHITE PINE–WHITE CEDAR SAVANNAHSAVANA DE PINO BLANCO–CEDRO BLANCO
MATT HINDLE
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º32'45"N, 80º6'45"W; Gravelly BayQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1973; 7yr. Size: 9.3 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds28:1018–1019 (1974), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):69–70(1992), 65(Suppl.):72–73 (1994), and 67(Suppl.):57–58(1996). Weather: Mean start temp., 17.5ºC (range13–23ºC). Coverage: 14.5 h; 10 visits (9 sunrise, 1sunset); 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25 June, 2002.Census: Yellow Warbler, 14.0 (60); House Wren, 8.0(34); Gray Catbird, 6.0 (26); Chipping Sparrow, 6.0;Eastern Wood-Pewee, 5.0 (22); Eastern Towhee, 4.0(17); Tree Swallow, 3.0 (13); Brown-headed Cowbird,3.0; Mourning Dove, 2.0; Black-capped Chickadee, 2.0;American Robin, 2.0; Common Yellowthroat, 2.0 (1N);Baltimore Oriole, 2.0; Red-winged Blackbird, 1.5;Whip-poor-will, 1.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 1.0;Red-eyed Vireo, 1.0; Blue Jay, 1.0; Cedar Waxwing, 1.0;Field Sparrow, 1.0; Song Sparrow, 1.0; NorthernCardinal, 1.0; Common Grackle, 1.0; Least Flycatcher,0.5; Eastern Kingbird, 0.5. Total: 25 species, 70.5territories (303/40 ha). Visitors: Northern Saw-whetOwl, Downy Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, CarolinaWren, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Brown Thrasher,European Starling. Remarks: This study is part of along-term project designed to monitor the response ofplant and breeding bird communities to a reductionin deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Acknowledgments: Thanks to Jon McCracken forproject supervision, Jane Bowles and MichaelBradstreet for measuring vegetation parameters, andthe Canadian Wildlife Service for financial support.
[123]
Bird Populations 8:123-124© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2002
Note: These reports complete the set for 2002, the others having been published inVolume 7 of Bird Populations
28. RED OAK–WHITE PINE SAVANNAHSAVANA DE ROBLE ROJO–PINO BLANCO
RODNEY FUENTES
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 6.7 km NW of Long Point Lighthouse;42º33'50"N, 80º7'45"W; Little Creek Ridges Quadrangle,DEMR. Continuity: Established 1991; 3 yr. Size: 11.0ha. Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol.63(Suppl.):83–84 (1992) and 66(Suppl.):80 (1995).Weather: Mean start temp., 17.1ºC (range 12–22ºC).Coverage: 18.2 h; 10 visits (9 sunrise, 1 sunset); 8, 10,12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 June, 2002. Census: Red-wingedBlackbird, 16.0 (58); Yellow Warbler, 12.0 (44; 2N);Common Yellowthroat, 7.5 (27); Eastern Wood-Pewee,6.0 (22; 1N); Tree Swallow, 6.0 (3N); Song Sparrow, 5.0(18); Eastern Kingbird, 3.0 (11; 1N); Gray Catbird, 3.0;Baltimore Oriole, 3.0; Warbling Vireo, 2.0; CarolinaWren, 2.0; European Starling, 2.0; Northern Cardinal,2.0; Wood Duck, 1.0; American Woodcock, 1.0;Northern Flicker, 1.0; Willow Flycatcher, 1.0; HouseWren, 1.0; Marsh Wren, 1.0; Chipping Sparrow, 1.0;Common Grackle, 1.0, Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0.Total: 22 species; 78.5 territories (285/40 ha). Visitors:Mallard, Great Blue Heron, Killdeer, Mourning Dove,Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Red-headed Woodpecker,Downy Woodpecker, Red-eyed Vireo, Blue Jay, Black-capped Chickadee, American Robin, Brown Thrasher,Cedar Waxwing, Ovenbird, Eastern Towhee, OrchardOriole, House Finch, American Goldfinch. Remarks:This study is part of a long-term project designed tomonitor the response of plant and breeding birdcommunities to a reduction in deer browsing at LongPoint, Lake Erie. Acknowledgments: Thanks to JonMcCracken and Matt Hindle for project supervision,Jane Bowles and Michael Bradstreet for measuringvegetation parameters, and the Canadian WildlifeService for financial support.
29. SEDGE–RUSH SWALE IANEGADO DE ESPARGANIO–JUNQUILLOS I
RODNEY FUENTES
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º33'N, 80º7'W; Gravelly Bay Quadrangle,
DEMR. Continuity: Established 1973; 5 yr. Size: 9.3ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 27:1012 (1973),J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):98–99 (1992) and65(Suppl.):110 (1994). Weather: Mean start temp.,17.4ºC (range 13–23ºC). Coverage: 10.5 h; 10 visits (9sunrise, 1 sunset); 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24June, 2002. Census: Red-winged Blackbird, 5.0 (22);Killdeer, 2.0; Eastern Kingbird, 2.0; Chipping Sparrow,0.5. Total: 4 species; 9.5 territories (41/40 ha). Visitors:Wood Duck, Mallard, Spotted Sandpiper, MourningDove, Tree Swallow, American Robin, BrownThrasher, European Starling, Song Sparrow, CommonGrackle. Remarks: This study is part of a long-termproject designed to monitor the response ofvegetational and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Acknowledgments: Thanks to Jon McCracken andMatt Hindle for project supervision, Jane Bowles andMichael Bradstreet for measuring vegetationparameters, and the Canadian Wildlife Service forfinancial support.
30. SEDGE–RUSH SWALE IIANEGADO DE ESPARGANIO–JUNQUILLOS II
RODNEY FUENTES
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º33'N, 80º6'W; Gravelly Bay Quadrangle,DEMR. Continuity: Established 1991; 3 yr. Size: 9.3ha. Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol.63(Suppl.):99–100 (1992) and 65(Suppl.):110–111(1994). Weather: Mean start temp., 17.4ºC (range13–23ºC). Coverage: 9.0 h; 10 visits (9 sunrise, 1sunset); 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25 June, 2002.Census: Killdeer, 3.0 (13); Red-winged Blackbird, 3.0;Spotted Sandpiper, 2.0 (1N); Eastern Kingbird, 1.0;Chipping Sparrow, 0.5. Total: 5 species; 9.5 territories(41/40 ha). Visitors: Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, TreeSwallow, American Robin, Brown Thrasher, EuropeanStarling, Field Sparrow, Song Sparrow, CommonGrackle, Brown-headed Cowbird. Remarks: Thisstudy is part of a long-term project designed tomonitor the response of plant and breeding birdcommunities to a reduction in deer browsing at LongPoint, Lake Erie. Acknowledgments: Thanks to JonMcCracken and Matt Hindle for project supervision,Jane Bowles and Michael Bradstreet for measuringvegetation parameters, and the Canadian WildlifeService for financial support.
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2002
[124]
1. MIXED HARDWOOD POLETIMBERBOSQUE MIXTO MADERERO
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT1265009. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Litchfield; White Memorial Founda-tion–Wheeler Hill; 41°42'N, 73°13'W; LitchfieldQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1965; 37yr. Size: 8.5 ha. Description of Plot: See Aud. FieldNotes 19:609–610 (1965) and J. Field Ornithol.64(Suppl.):36 (1993). The plot suffered some treedamage from the November, 2002 ice storm. Inaddition, a small portion of the plot received acarefully managed hardwood saw timber harvest. Thearea to the west of the plot also had hardwoodsharvested from it during the winter. The entire plotsuffered from noticeable browsing by deer throughoutthe breeding season, which stripped away some of theground cover that would have otherwise protectedsome nesting birds. Weather: Mean start temp., 23.5°C(range 16–32°C). During May, the weather was awful.Rain fell on all, or part of, 20 days, amounting to atotal of 13.6 cm. This is 2.8 cm above normal.Temperatures were cooler than normal, with a mean of12.4°C. Flooding was a problem. During June, therewere 18 days with at least some rainfall. The total of 20cm of rain was well above average. June's averagemean temperature was 17.9°C, which is near normal.Flooding continued to be a problem through the 22nd,when it subsided. July had only 12 days with rain orshowers. Total rainfall was 9.7 cm, which is less thannormal. The average mean temperature was 20.7°C.Coverage: 22.0 h; 12 visits (1 sunrise, 5 sunset); 2, 15,27 May; 3, 10, 17, 24 June; 1, 8, 15, 24, 31 July, 2003.Maximum number of observers/visit, 3. Census: Red-eyed Vireo, 12.5 (59; 23FL); Ovenbird, 12.0 (56; 16FL);Gray Catbird, 11.0 (52; 5N,28FL); Veery, 10.5 (49; 23FL);Eastern Towhee, 9.0 (42; 1N,25FL); Wood Thrush, 6.0(28; 14FL); American Redstart, 5.0 (24; 1N,17FL);Common Yellowthroat, 4.5 (21; 5FL); Tufted Titmouse,4.0 (19; 17FL); American Robin, 4.0 (2N,15FL); ScarletTanager, 4.0 (9FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 3.5 (16;
17FL); Black-and-white Warbler, 3.5 (8FL); Chestnut-sided Warbler, 3.0 (14; 4FL); Northern Cardinal, 3.0(1N,8FL); Blue Jay, 2.5 (5FL); American Crow, 2.0(2N,8FL); Yellow Warbler, 2.0 (6FL); Wild Turkey, 1.5(9FL); Downy Woodpecker, 1.5 (1N,5FL); EasternWood-Pewee, 1.5; Great Crested Flycatcher, 1.5;American Goldfinch, 1.5; Mourning Dove, 1.0; BarredOwl, 1.0 (3FL); Red-bellied Woodpecker, 1.0 (3FL);Eastern Phoebe, 1.0 (4FL); White-breasted Nuthatch,1.0 (5FL); Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 1.0 (2FL); Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 1.0; Cooper's Hawk, 0.5 (3FL);Hairy Woodpecker, 0.5; Pileated Woodpecker, 0.5;Eastern Kingbird, 0.5; Warbling Vireo, 0.5 (3FL); CedarWaxwing, 0.5 (2FL); Song Sparrow, 0.5; CommonGrackle, 0.5 (2FL); Brown-headed Cowbird, 0.5 (2FL);Baltimore Oriole, 0.5 (1N,3FL); House Finch, 0.5;Broad-winged Hawk, +; Red-tailed Hawk, +; NorthernFlicker, +; Yellow-throated Vireo, +; Blue-wingedWarbler, +; Magnolia Warbler, +; Black-throated GreenWarbler, +; Chipping Sparrow, +; Purple Finch, +.Total: 50 species; 122.0 territories (574/40 ha). Visitors:Fish Crow, House Wren, Hermit Thrush. Remarks:The number of species breeding in the plot remainedat last year’s record high of 50. Species compositionwas similar to last year, except for the loss of RuffedGrouse and Hermit Thrush and the addition ofMagnolia Warbler and Purple Finch. The number ofterritories in the plot declined to 122.0 this year.Though this is 17.5 fewer than last year, it is still wellabove the 10-year average of 101.5 territories, and it isthe second highest number ever recorded in this plot.Species that increased by one-half or more territoriesthis year included Gray Catbird (+ 3.0), ScarletTanager (+ 1.0), Red-eyed Vireo, Veery, CommonYellowthroat, and American Goldfinch (each + 0.5).Northern Cardinal and Chestnut-sided Warbler eachdeclined sharply for no apparent reason. The formerwas down 3.5 territories from last year, while the latterwas down by 3.0 territories. On most of our visits, wesaw at least seven deer. Evidence of bobcat and coyotewas apparent. Coupled with the territorial raptors inthe plot, these predators probably took a toll onnesting songbirds. Other Observers: Eric Adam, JohnEykelhoff, Rich Kania, Marie Kennedy, and LeannMarshal.
[125]
Bird Populations 8:125-135© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
2. SECOND-GROWTH HARDWOOD FORESTBOSQUE SECUNDARIO DE MADERAS DURAS
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT2765006. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Morris; White Memorial Founda-tion–Van Winkle Road; 41°42'N, 73°12'W; LitchfieldQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1965; 37yr. Size: 10.1 ha. Description of Plot: See Aud. FieldNotes 19:590–591 (1965) and J. Field Ornithol.64(Suppl.):37–38 (1993). Small stream floodingcaused some damage to vegetation this year. Seventrees were blown down, also. Weather: Mean starttemp., 23.5°C (range 18–30°C). During May, theweather was awful. Rain fell on all, or part of, 20days, amounting to a total of 13.6 cm. This is 2.8 cmabove normal. Temperatures were cooler thannormal, with a mean of 12.4°C. Flooding was aproblem. During June, there were 18 days with atleast some rainfall. The total of 20 cm of rain was wellabove average. June's average mean temperature was17.9°C, which is near normal. Flooding continued tobe a problem through the 22nd, when it subsided.July had only 12 days with rain or showers. Totalrainfall was 9.7 cm, which is less than normal. Theaverage mean temperature was 20.7°C. Coverage:18.5 h; 10 visits (1 sunrise, 6 sunset); 9, 20, 30 May; 9,19 June; 1, 10, 17, 26, 31 July, 2003. Maximum numberof observers/visit, 3. Census: Red-eyed Vireo, 15.0(59; 2N,19FL); Ovenbird, 13.5 (53; 20FL); Veery, 12.5(50; 1N,23FL); Wood Thrush, 3.5 (14; 1N,4FL);American Robin, 3.5 (1N,15FL); American Redstart,3.5 (10FL); Scarlet Tanager, 3.5 (5FL); Yellow-belliedSapsucker, 3.0 (12; 1N,7FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 3.0(4FL); American Crow, 3.0 (3N,12FL); TuftedTitmouse, 3.0 (18FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 2.5(13FL); Wild Turkey, 2.0 (7FL); Downy Woodpecker,2.0 (1N,6FL); Great Crested Flycatcher, 2.0 (2FL);White-breasted Nuthatch, 2.0 (9FL); Gray Catbird, 2.0(1N,3FL); Northern Cardinal, 2.0 (1N,5FL); Red-bellied Woodpecker, 1.5 (1N,5FL); Blue Jay, 1.5 (4FL);Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 1.5 (1N,3FL); Black-and-whiteWarbler, 1.5; American Goldfinch, 1.5; HairyWoodpecker, 1.0 (2FL); Eastern Phoebe, 1.0 (8FL);Cedar Waxwing, 1.0; Eastern Towhee, 1.0 (2FL);Chipping Sparrow, 1.0; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 1.0;Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0 (2FL); Barred Owl, 0.5(1FL); Eastern Kingbird, 0.5; Yellow-throated Vireo,0.5; Brown Creeper, 0.5; Louisiana Waterthrush, 0.5;Common Yellowthroat, 0.5; Baltimore Oriole, 0.5;Broad-winged Hawk, +; Mourning Dove, +; Ruby-throated Hummingbird, +; Chestnut-sided Warbler,+. Total: 41 species; 99.5 territories (394/40 ha).Visitors: Northern Flicker, Pileated Woodpecker,Blue-winged Warbler, Black-throated Blue Warbler,
Pine Warbler. Remarks: The number of breedingspecies declined to 41 (from 46 last year, 42 in 2001,and 47 in 2000). This is three less than the 10-yaverage of 44. Species found this year but not lastyear included Broad-winged Hawk, Ruby-throatedHummingbird, and Brown Creeper. Most of thespecies found in very limited numbers last year (suchas Cooper’s Hawk and Hermit Thrush) were missedthis year. The number of territorial males increasedslightly this year to 99.5; last year, the number was99.0. These figures are very close to the 10-yr averageof 101.0 territorial males. During this time, there hasbeen little deviation from this number. Nor has therebeen much of a change among the top three mostabundant species (Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, andVeery); all three increased in abundance . Otherspecies that increased included American Crow(which doubled in number), White-breastedNuthatch, Northern Cardinal, and Blue-grayGnatcatcher. Species that declined by one or moreterritories included American Robin, Great CrestedFlycatcher, and Gray Catbird. Other Observers: EricAdam, John Eykelhoff, Lukas Hyder, Marie Kennedy,and Ed Yescott.
3. MIXED UPLAND BROADLEAF FORESTBOSQUE MIXTO DE HOJA ANCHA DE ALTURAS
MARY E. D'IMPERIO
4000 Cathedral Ave. NW, #106BWashington DC 20016
Site Number: DC1060009. Location: District ofColumbia; Washington; Glover-Archbold Park;38°55'N, 77°5'W; Washington West Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: Established 1959; 45 yr. Size: 14.2ha. Description of Plot: See Aud. Field Notes14:502–503 (1960). Weather: Mean start temp., 16.7°C(range 7–21°C). Nine days were clear, eight werepartly cloudy, and eight were cloudy. There was lightdrizzle during one visit and some fog during another.May and June were very rainy and cold in generalwith standing water in many places in the woods andmany mosquitoes. Coverage: 50.0 h; 25 visits (25sunrise); 29 Mar; 2, 6, 12, 19, 27, 30 Apr; 4, 7, 12, 19,22, 25, 30 May; 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 21, 25, 28 June; 4, 9, 13July, 2003. Census: Red-bellied Woodpecker, 12.0(34); Veery, 11.0 (31; 3FL); Gray Catbird, 11.0 (4FL);Northern Cardinal, 10.0 (28; 6FL); Red-eyed Vireo, 9.0(25); Carolina Wren, 9.0 (8FL); White-breastedNuthatch, 8.0 (23; 3FL); Downy Woodpecker, 7.0 (20;29FL); Tufted Titmouse, 7.0 (2FL); Northern Flicker,6.0 (17); Acadian Flycatcher, 6.0; Eastern Wood-Pewee, 4.0 (11); Hairy Woodpecker, 3.0 (8; 1FL);House Finch, 3.0 (1N); Song Sparrow, 2.5; PileatedWoodpecker, 2.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 2.0;American Crow, 2.0; House Wren, 2.0 (2FL); EasternTowhee, 2.0 (6FL); Common Grackle, 2.0; House
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[126]
Sparrow, 2.0 (2N,1FL); Chimney Swift, 1.0; Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 1.0 (2FL); Wood Thrush, 1.0; Red-shouldered Hawk, 0.5; Northern Mockingbird, 0.5(3FL); European Starling, 0.5 (2N,7FL); MourningDove, +. Total: 29 species; 127.0 territories (358/40ha). Visitors: Mallard, Green Heron, Yellow-billedCuckoo, Barred Owl, Ruby-throated Hummingbird,White-eyed Vireo, Blue Jay, Fish Crow, CarolinaChickadee, American Robin, American Redstart,Ovenbird, Louisiana Waterthrush, CommonYellowthroat, Scarlet Tanager, Field Sparrow, IndigoBunting, Brown-headed Cowbird, AmericanGoldfinch. Remarks: An unusual year, in terms ofweather, following a very severe winter. There wereconsistently fewer birds in general. Very few crowswere seen, with only two possible territoriescompared to the usual 5-7, and no evidence of nestsor young. There were relatively few Blue Jays orCarolina Chickadees. These birds may have been lostdue to West Nile Virus. Carolina Wrens were greatlyreduced (9.0 territories this year compared to 30.0 lastyear), probably due to the severe winter. WoodThrushes were also reduced (1.0 territory this yearcompared to 6.0 last year). Resurfacing on 42nd Streetall spring and early summer and masonry work onan apartment building on W Street seemed to driveaway many birds trying to set up territories along thewoodland edge there. Other Observers: NealFitzpatrick and Bob Norris.
4. MATURE BROADLEAF FORESTBOSQUE DE HOJA ANCHA MADURA
CHARLES W. SAUNDERS*, STEVE PELIKAN & LAUREN P. SAUNDERS
*5561 Carlsbad CourtFairfield OH 45014
Site Number: OH1591043. Location: Ohio; HamiltonCo.; Hooven; Miami Whitewater Forest; 39°14'42”N,84°45'38”W; Hooven Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity:Established 1991; 9 yr. Size: 16.0 ha. Description ofPlot: See J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):52 (1992) and65(Suppl.):59 (1994). Weather: Mean start temp.,15.0°C (range 9–22°C). Six days were calm (0 onBeaufort scale), three days had light winds (1 or 2 onBeaufort), and one day was breezy (3 on Beaufort).Coverage: 21.4 h; 10 visits (10 sunrise); 24, 25, 31 May;1, 7, 20, 21, 26, 28 June; 3 July, 2003. Maximumnumber of observers/visit, 3. Census: Wood Thrush,14.0 (35; 2FL); Red-eyed Vireo, 11.5 (29); AcadianFlycatcher, 9.5 (24); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 5.5 (14);Red-bellied Woodpecker, 4.5 (11); Scarlet Tanager, 4.0(10); Brown-headed Cowbird, 4.0 (3FL); TuftedTitmouse, 3.5 (9); White-breasted Nuthatch, 3.5;Northern Cardinal, 3.5 (3FL); Blue Jay, 3.0 (8);Carolina Chickadee, 2.5; Downy Woodpecker, 2.0;Hairy Woodpecker, 2.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 2.0;
Ovenbird, 2.0; Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 1.5; AmericanRobin, 1.5 (11FL); Kentucky Warbler, 1.5; Ruby-throated Hummingbird, 1.0; Northern Flicker, 1.0;Pileated Woodpecker, 1.0 (1FL); Yellow-throatedVireo, 1.0; Carolina Wren, 1.0; Louisiana Waterthrush,1.0; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 0.5. Total: 26 species;88.0 territories (220/40 ha). Visitors: Wild Turkey,Yellow-billed Cuckoo, American Redstart, HoodedWarbler, Summer Tanager, American Goldfinch.Remarks: By comparing 2003 populations withhistorical data (1991–98), we observed decreases inthe populations of more species than expected bychance. In contrast, few species showed a populationincrease. Regardless of the cause(s) of these declines,we have measured the amount of decline of thewoodland birds in the plot, with the total number ofterritorial males 12% below the 1991-98 average. SeeSaunders et al. (2005) Ohio Journal of Science105(3):43–45. Other Observers: Lester Peyton andMary Saunders. Acknowledgments: We thank JohnKlein and the Hamilton County Park District for theuse of the land.
5. WHITE OAK SAVANNAHSAVANA DE ROBLE BLANCO
MICHAEL F. G. CLARK
101 Governor's Road, #708Dundas ON L9H 6L7
Site Number: ON2893110. Location: Ontario;Municipality of Muskoka; Torrance; SouthwoodShield Plateau; 44°56'N, 79°30'W. Continuity:Established 1993; 9 yr. Size: 10.4 ha. Description ofPlot: See J. Field Ornithol. 65(Suppl.):60–61 (1994). Therecent die-off of a considerable number of large whiteoaks (the plot's dominant species) plus some smallertrees and shrubs likely continues to affect breedingbird numbers. Grass and herbal ground cover wereuncharacteristically abundant throughout the plot thisyear. Weather: Mean start temp., 24.1°C (range19.0–29.5°C). Monthly temperatures were at or verynear the norm from May through July. Precipitationwas 9% below the norm overall; rainfall was 14%above the 30-year norm in May and 20% below thenorm for June and July combined. Source:Environment Canada. Coverage: 13.9 h; 8 visits (8sunset); 18 May; 4, 17, 27, 30 June; 3, 4, 13 July, 2003.Census: Chipping Sparrow, 10.0 (38); AmericanRobin, 8.0 (31); Field Sparrow, 7.0 (27); Chestnut-sidedWarbler, 6.0 (23); Red-eyed Vireo, 4.5 (17); EasternTowhee, 4.5; Hermit Thrush, 4.0 (15); Yellow-rumpedWarbler, 3.0 (12); Common Yellowthroat, 3.0; SongSparrow, 3.0; Least Flycatcher, 2.0; Cedar Waxwing,2.0; Common Nighthawk, 1.0; Northern Flicker, 1.0;Brown Thrasher, 1.0; American Redstart, 1.0; White-throated Sparrow, 1.0. Total: 17 species; 62.0 territories(238/40 ha). Visitors: Ruffed Grouse, Mourning
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[127]
Dove, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Hairy Woodpecker,Eastern Wood-Pewee, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, GreatCrested Flycatcher, Black-capped Chickadee, BrownCreeper, Eastern Bluebird, Veery, Vesper Sparrow,Brown-headed Cowbird, Purple Finch, AmericanGoldfinch. Remarks: The much lower precipitation inJune and July may have resulted in the markeddwindling of late spring-early summer breedingactivity. Total territorial males and total species mayhave “bottomed out” over the past four years atroughly 59 and 18, respectively. In 1995 there were131.5 territorial males and 25 breeding species.Seedeaters (25.5 territorial males and 5 species) weredominant again this year. The 13 warbler territories (4species) tied the lowest breeding total over nine years.Despite the sharp overall declines in breedingnumbers, thrush (2 species) and vireo (1 species)totals were above their 9-yr averages. The onebreeding thrasher, a low for this plot, is 6 territorialmales below the average for mimids.
6. OAK–MAPLE–POPLAR HOLLOWBOSQUE DE ROBLE–ARCE–ALAMO HUECO
LINDA INGRAM
Nolde Forest Environmental Education Center2910 New Holland Road
Reading PA 19607Site Number: PA1093123. Location: Pennsylvania;Berks Co.; Reading; Nolde Forest, Buck Hollow;40°17'N, 75°57'W; Reading Quadrangle, USGS.Continuity: Established 1993; 11 yr. Size: 11.3 ha.Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol. 65(Suppl.):61(1994). Weather: Mean start temp., 11.8°C (range7–18°C). There were some sprinkles during two visits.Grounds were damp with winds calm to light. May2003 received near normal precipitation; observersavoided days with heavy rain. Temperatures in Maywere normal: mean 16.7°C (range 11.1°–22.2°C).Source: National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC(2000). Coverage: 18.2 h; 10 visits (10 sunrise, 0sunset); 27, 28, 30 April; 6, 11, 18, 21, 29, 31 May; 11June, 2003. Census: Ovenbird, 6.0 (21); Wood Thrush,5.0 (18); Red-eyed Vireo, 3.0 (11); Tufted Titmouse, 3.0;Veery, 2.5; American Crow, 1.5; Red-belliedWoodpecker, 1.0; Hairy Woodpecker, 1.0; PileatedWoodpecker, 1.0 (1N); Blue Jay, 1.0; chickadee species,1.0; Northern Cardinal, 1.0. Total: 12 species; 27.0territories (96/40 ha). Visitors: Mourning Dove,Downy Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Great Crested Flycatcher, White-breastedNuthatch, American Robin, Gray Catbird, ScarletTanager, Chipping Sparrow, Rose-breasted Grosbeak,American Goldfinch. Other Observers: RichardBonnett, Edward Barrell, Patricia Mangas, BarryPounder, Phyllis Reynolds, and David Reynolds.
7. VIRGIN HARDWOOD SWAMP FORESTBOSQUE PANTANOSO VIRGEN DE MADERAS
DURAS
MICHAEL DAWSON
Francis Beidler Forest336 Sanctuary RoadHarleyville SC 29448
Location: South Carolina; Berkeley Co.; Harleyville;Francis Beidler Forest Sanctuary; 33°13'N, 80°20'W;Pringletown Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity:Established 1979; 13 yr. Size: 8.9 ha. Description ofPlot: See Am. Birds 34:50 (1980) and J. Field Ornithol.65(Suppl.):64 (1994). The plot is continuing to recoverfrom the damage caused by hurricane Hugo in 1989.Scrubby areas are beginning to thin out as saplingsincrease in height and shade the forest floor. Weather:Mean start temp., 15.2°C (range 13–19°C). March,April and May were extremely wet. All surveys wereconducted during times without wind.. Coverage:15.8 h; 10 visits (10 sunrise, 0 sunset); 22, 29 April; 2, 3,9, 12, 16, 21, 24, 30 May, 2003. Maximum number ofobservers/visit, 3. Census: Blue-gray Gnatcatcher,28.0 (126); Northern Parula, 11.5 (52); TuftedTitmouse, 9.0 (40); Carolina Wren, 8.5 (38); Red-eyedVireo, 7.5 (34); Prothonotary Warbler, 7.0 (31);Northern Cardinal, 7.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 5.0(22); White-eyed Vireo, 5.0; Red-bellied Woodpecker,4.5 (20); Acadian Flycatcher, 3.0 (13); Yellow-billedCuckoo, 2.0; Hooded Warbler, 2.0; Red-shoulderedHawk, 1.0; Barred Owl, 1.0; Downy Woodpecker, 1.0;Pileated Woodpecker, 1.0; American Crow, 1.0;Swainson's Warbler, 0.5. Total: 19 species; 105.5territories (474/40 ha). Visitors: White Ibis, EasternScreech-Owl, Chimney Swift, Yellow-throated Vireo,Fish Crow, Carolina Chickadee, White-breastedNuthatch, Wood Thrush, Black-throated Blue Warbler,Yellow-throated Warbler, Common Yellowthroat,Summer Tanager. Other Observers: NormanBrunswig, Bettina Miller, and Julia Noran.
8. MATURE MAPLE–BEECH–BIRCH FORESTBOSQUE MADURO DE ARCE–HAYA–ABEDUL
HAYDEN WILSON & LAURA M. LEWIS**Cherokee National Forest
2800 N. Ocoee StreetCleveland TN 37312
Site Number: TN2392102. Location: Tennessee;Monroe Co.; Whigg Ridge, Cherokee National Forest;35°19'N, 84°2'W; Big Junction Quadrangle, USGS.Continuity: Established 1992; 11 yr. Size: 10.2 ha.Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol.64(Suppl.):57–58 (1993) and 66(Suppl.):63 (1995).Weather: Mean start temp., 16.6°C (range 9–25°C).Coverage: 16.7 h; 9 visits (5 sunrise, 4 sunset); 1, 2, 10,
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[128]
11, 15(2), 16 June; 2, 3 July, 2003. Census: Veery, 13.5(53); Dark-eyed Junco, 12.0 (47); Blue-headed Vireo,5.5 (22); Blackburnian Warbler, 5.5; Ovenbird, 5.0 (20);Black-throated Blue Warbler, 4.0 (16); HairyWoodpecker, 1.0. Total: 7 species; 46.5 territories(182/40 ha). Visitors: Ruffed Grouse, Red-eyed Vireo,Tufted Titmouse, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Chestnut-sided Warbler, Rose-breasted Grosbeak. Remarks:Flyovers included Chimney Swift and AmericanGoldfinch. Acknowledgments: We wish toacknowledge the logistical and financial support ofthe USDA Forest Service, Cherokee National Forest.
9. WHITE PINE–WHITE CEDAR SAVANNAHSAVANA DE PINO BLANCO–CEDRO BLANCO
MATT TIMPF
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º32'45"N, 80°6'45"W; Gravelly BayQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1973; 8yr. Size: 9.3 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds28:1018–1019 (1974), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):69–70(1992), 65(Suppl.):72–73 (1994), and 67(Suppl.):57–58(1996). Weather: Mean start temp., 16.3°C (range12–20°C). Coverage: 40.3 h; 10.5 visits (7.5 sunrise, 3sunset); 6, 7, 10, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 June, 2003.Census: Yellow Warbler, 14.0 (60); House Wren, 8.5(37); Chipping Sparrow, 7.0 (30; 2FL); CommonYellowthroat, 6.5 (28); Gray Catbird, 5.5 (24); EasternTowhee, 5.0 (22; 1N,1FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 4.5(19; 3N); Red-eyed Vireo, 4.0 (17; 1N); NorthernCardinal, 2.5; Baltimore Oriole, 2.5 (1N); GreatCrested Flycatcher, 2.0; Eastern Kingbird, 2.0 (1N);White-eyed Vireo, 2.0 (1N); Black-capped Chickadee,2.0 (1FL); Song Sparrow, 2.0; Red-winged Blackbird,2.0; Carolina Wren, 1.5; Cooper ’s Hawk, 1.0;Mourning Dove, 1.0; Whip-poor-will, 1.0; Blue Jay,1.0; Pine Warbler, 1.0; American Redstart, 1.0; FieldSparrow, 1.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0; AmericanRobin, 0.5 (1FL). Total: 26 species, 82.0 territories(353/40 ha). Visitors: American Woodcock, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Veery, BrownThrasher, Cedar Waxwing, Nashville Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, Ovenbird, White-throatedSparrow, Common Grackle, American Goldfinch.Remarks: This study is part of a long-term projectdesigned to monitor the response of plant andbreeding bird communities to a reduction in deerbrowsing at Long Point, Lake Erie. Other Observers:Taeko Knockaert, John Brett, and Crissy Ranelucci.Acknowledgments: Thanks to Jon McCracken forproject supervision, Jane Bowles and Michael
Bradstreet for measuring vegetation parameters, andthe Canadian Wildlife Service for financial support.
10. CLIMAX HEMLOCK–WHITE PINE FORESTWITH TRANSITION HARDWOODS
BOSQUE CLIMAX DE PICEA–PINO BLANCO ENTRANSICION A MADERAS DURAS
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT2765008. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Litchfield; White Memorial Founda-tion–Catlin Woods; 41°43'N, 73°12'W; LitchfieldQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1965; 37yr. Size: 10.5 ha. Description of Plot: See Aud. FieldNotes 19:594–595 (1965) and J. Field Ornithol.67(Suppl.):60 (1996). The plot suffered significant treedamage from an ice storm in November 2002 andseveral subsequent snowstorms. Coupled with blow-downs from storms in previous years, there is nowmuch more undergrowth and regeneration, which isimproving habitat diversity. Though the old-growthtrees are fewer in number, there are still plenty ofthem in the plot. Hemlock woolly adelgid has notspread into the forest any further than the edge ofWebster Road, and only two additional trees diedfrom it this year. Weather: Mean start temp., 21.8°C(range 14–27°C). During May, the weather was awful.Rain fell on all, or part of, 20 days, amounting to atotal of 13.6 cm. This is 2.8 cm above normal.Temperatures were cooler than normal, with a meanof 12.4°C. Flooding was a problem. During June, therewere 18 days with at least some rainfall. The total of20 cm of rain was well above average. June's averagemean temperature was 17.9°C, which is near normal.Flooding continued to be a problem through the 22nd,when it subsided. July had only 12 days with rain orshowers. Total rainfall was 9.7 cm, which is less thannormal. The average mean temperature was 20.7°C.Coverage: 22.5 h; 10 visits (1 sunrise, 5 sunset); 5, 19,29 May; 5, 16, 24 June; 3, 12, 18, 25 July, 2003.Maximum number of observers/visit, 3. Census:Black-throated Green Warbler, 18.5 (70; 4N,34FL);Ovenbird, 16.0 (61; 2N,22FL); Veery, 14.5 (55; 21FL);Blackburnian Warbler, 14.0 (53; 2N,28FL); Red-eyedVireo, 13.5 (51; 18FL); Hermit Thrush, 6.0 (23; 14FL);Pine Warbler, 4.5 (17; 9FL); Scarlet Tanager, 4.5 (5FL);Black-capped Chickadee, 4.0 (15; 17FL); Great CrestedFlycatcher, 3.5 (13; 7FL); Wood Thrush, 3.5 (2FL);Black-and-white Warbler, 3.5 (3FL); Blue-headedVireo, 3.0 (11; 3FL); Brown Creeper, 2.5 (9FL); Yellow-rumped Warbler, 2.5 (5FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 2.0(2FL); Blue Jay, 2.0 (7FL); Tufted Titmouse, 2.0 (8FL);Mourning Dove, 1.5; Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, 1.5
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[129]
(2FL); Northern Cardinal, 1.5 (2FL); Wild Turkey, 1.0;Hairy Woodpecker, 1.0 (2FL); Pileated Woodpecker,1.0 (2FL); American Crow, 1.0 (1N,4FL); White-breasted Nuthatch, 1.0 (4FL); American Robin, 1.0(1N,4FL); Common Yellowthroat, 1.0; CanadaWarbler, 1.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0 (1FL);Broad-winged Hawk, 0.5; Great Horned Owl, 0.5(2FL); Ruby-throated Hummingbird, 0.5 (3FL); GrayCatbird, 0.5 (3FL); Chipping Sparrow, 0.5 (2FL);Purple Finch, 0.5; Downy Woodpecker, +; Red-breasted Nuthatch, +; Louisiana Waterthrush, +; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, +. Total: 40 species; 136.5territories (520/40 ha). Visitors: Barred Owl,Northern Flicker, Eastern Phoebe, Yellow-throatedVireo, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, American Redstart,American Goldfinch. Remarks: In spite of increasinghabitat diversity in the plot, the number of breedingspecies dropped back to 40 this year. It hasn’t beenthis low since 1999. Last year 46 species bred here,and the 10-yr average is 43 species. Species found onterritory last year but not this year included MagnoliaWarbler, Cedar Waxwing, Eastern Kingbird, and SongSparrow. The only species found this year but not lastyear were Ruby-throated Hummingbird andLouisiana Waterthrush. This latter species is a newone for the plot. The number of territorial malesdecreased slightly from 137.0 last year to 136.5 thisyear, but the total was the third highest ever recorded.The 10-yr average is 123.0 territories. Species thatincreased by more than one territory this yearincluded Black-throated Green Warbler, Ovenbird,Veery, and Blackburnian Warbler. Species thatdecreased included Pine Warbler and AmericanRobin. Other Observers: Eric Adam, John Eykelhoff,Kathy Hall, Lukas Hyder, Rich Kania, Marie Kennedy,Russ Naylor, and Ed Yescott.
11. YOUNG MIXED HARDWOOD–CONIFERSTAND
BOSQUE JOVEN–MIXTO DE MADERASDURAS/RODAL DE CONIFEROS
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT2778262. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Morris; White Memorial Founda-tion–Pitch Road; 41°42'N, 73°10'W; LitchfieldQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1978; 26yr. Size: 8.5 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds33:72 (1979). Weather: Mean start temp., 18.5°C (range13–24°C). During May, the weather was awful. Rainfell on all, or part of, 20 days, amounting to a total of13.6 cm. This is 2.8 cm above normal. Temperatureswere cooler than normal, with a mean of 12.4°C.Flooding was a problem. During June, there were 18
days with at least some rainfall. The total of 20 cm ofrain was well above average. June's average meantemperature was 17.9°C, which is near normal.Flooding continued to be a problem through the 22nd,when it subsided. July had only 12 days with rain orshowers. Total rainfall was 9.7 cm, which is less thannormal. The average mean temperature was 20.7°C.Coverage: 13.5 h; 8 visits (2 sunrise, 4 sunset); 20, 30May; 8, 17, 27 June; 8, 17, 29 July, 2003. Census: Red-eyed Vireo, 12.0 (56; 1N,13FL); Veery, 11.5 (54; 17FL);Ovenbird, 11.5 (23FL); Wood Thrush, 6.0 (28;1N,11FL); Hermit Thrush, 4.5 (21; 9FL); ScarletTanager, 4.5 (8FL); American Redstart, 3.0 (14; 8FL);Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, 2.5 (3FL); Black-cappedChickadee, 2.5 (9FL); Tufted Titmouse, 2.5 (13FL);American Robin, 2.5 (1N,8FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee,2.0; Gray Catbird, 2.0 (1N,5FL); Black-and-whiteWarbler, 2.0 (3FL); Northern Cardinal, 2.0 (5FL);Downy Woodpecker, 1.5 (2FL); Great CrestedFlycatcher, 1.5; Blue Jay, 1.5; White-breasted Nuthatch,1.5 (5FL); Louisiana Waterthrush, 1.5 (3FL); CommonYellowthroat, 1.5 (2FL); Wild Turkey, 1.0; Barred Owl,1.0 (3FL); Blue-headed Vireo, 1.0 (3FL); Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 1.0 (2FL); Black-throated Blue Warbler,1.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0 (2FL); AmericanGoldfinch, 1.0; Broad-winged Hawk, 0.5; MourningDove, 0.5; Ruby-throated Hummingbird, 0.5; Red-bellied Woodpecker, 0.5; Pileated Woodpecker, 0.5;Eastern Phoebe, 0.5; American Crow, 0.5; CedarWaxwing, 0.5; Chestnut-sided Warbler, 0.5;Blackburnian Warbler, 0.5; Eastern Towhee, 0.5; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 0.5; Baltimore Oriole, 0.5; PurpleFinch, 0.5; Black-throated Green Warbler, +. Total: 43species; 94.0 territories (442/40 ha). Visitors: HairyWoodpecker, Northern Flicker, Yellow-throated Vireo,Canada Warbler. Remarks: This plot suffered on-going problems throughout the year from illegaldumping, parties, ATVs, and dirt bikes. Whether ornot these activities contributed to the sharp decreasein species diversity this year is unknown. Likelycontributing was the persistent wet weather andresultant flooding. Whatever the cause, a drop from50 species last year to 43 this year is significant, eventhough this latter figure is closer to the long-termaverage. Broad-winged Hawk was the only speciesfound this year and not last year. The number ofterritorial males found this year was 94.0, which is 1.5more than were found last year, and 2 more than the10-yr average. This increase is largely due tosignificant increases in the numbers of Red-eyedVireos (from 9.0 territories last year to 12.0 this year),Veeries (from 9.5 to 11.5), and Ovenbirds (from 10.0 to11.5). These have been the most abundant species inthis plot for the past several years, but they weremore abundant than ever this year. Other Observers:Lukas Hyder, Russ Naylor, Ed Yescott, and JohnEykelhoff.
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[130]
12. RIPARIAN WOODLANDARBOLADO RIVEREÑO
SCOTT R. ROBINSON
Bureau of Land Management3815 N. Schreiber Way
Coeur d'Alene ID 83815Location: Idaho; Kootenai Co.; Coeur d'Alene;Blackwell Island; 47°41'N, 116°48'W; Coeur d'AleneQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1997; 7 yr.Size: 8.9 ha. Description of Plot: See 1997 BBC report(unpublished) and Bird Populations 7:106 (2006) and7:123 (2006). Construction of the day-use recreationarea with boat launch, picnic area, and boardwalk forbirdwatchers was completed and it was opened to thepublic for Memorial Day weekend. Weather: Meanstart temp., 8.6°C (range 3–13°C). The seven sunrisevisits explain the lower starting temperatures thanduring the first five years of the census. No floodingthis year. The mosquito hatch between visits five andsix provided a good food source for bird chicks.Coverage: 13.3 h; 7 visits (7 sunrise); 13, 20, 28 May; 3,10, 24 June; 2 July, 2003. Census: Song Sparrow, 6.0 (27);American Robin, 5.5 (25); Tree Swallow, 5.0 (22; 5N);Yellow Warbler, 5.0; Spotted Sandpiper, 2.0; EuropeanStarling, 2.0; Black-headed Grosbeak, 2.0; Red-wingedBlackbird, 2.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 2.0; HouseFinch, 2.0; Canada Goose, 1.0 (3FL); Mallard, 1.0;California Quail, 1.0; Killdeer, 1.0; CalliopeHummingbird, 1.0; Hairy Woodpecker, 1.0; NorthernFlicker, 1.0; Willow Flycatcher, 1.0; Violet-greenSwallow, 1.0; Pygmy Nuthatch, 1.0; Gray Catbird, 1.0;Cedar Waxwing, 1.0; Yellow-rumped Warbler, 1.0.Total: 23 species; 46.5 territories (209/40 ha). Visitors:Common Merganser, Osprey, Bald Eagle, Ring-billedGull, Mourning Dove, Rufous Hummingbird, Red-naped Sapsucker, Downy Woodpecker, Western Wood-Pewee, American Crow, Common Raven, BarnSwallow, Black-capped Chickadee, Nashville Warbler,Common Yellowthroat, Brewer's Blackbird, Bullock'sOriole. Remarks: One artificial nest box was removedfrom the census plot. Swallows and flickers havecontinually occupied these nest boxes in place of WoodDucks. A visiting Bald Eagle took at least two goslingsand left three to fledge.
13. HEMLOCK–MIXED BROADLEAF RIPARIANFOREST
BOSQUE RIVEREÑO MIXTO DE ESPECIES DE HOJAANCHA Y PINABETO
LYNN BOWDERY, ALLAN BOWDERY, TOM SARRO, & LIN FAGAN
Daniel Smiley Research CenterMohonk Lake
1000 Mountain Rest RoadNew Paltz NY 12561
Location: New York; Ulster Co.; Gardiner; UpperCoxing Clove; 41°44'N, 74°12'W; GardinerQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1993; 3yr. Size: 12.1 ha. Description of Plot: A rectangularplot (shortest side 152 m, longest 794 m) with a closedcanopy dominated by eastern hemlock, red oak, blackbirch, and sugar maple. The stand is 61–100 years ofage with a mean canopy height of 20 m (range 15–25m). The understory is dominated by striped maple,witch-hazel, and mountain laurel. The ground coveris dominated by hay-scented fern, partridge berry,and New York fern. There is one permanent stream(the Coxing Kill) with a maximum width of 10 m anda maximum depth of 1 m, and there are also a fewephemeral streams and pools. This area has sufferedfrom an infestation of woolly adelgids since 1998, anda noticeable number of hemlocks, ~10%, in this ravinehave died or are in poor condition. In November 2002,there was a severe ice storm that broke manybranches and tops of hardwood trees and even felleda few. Edge: More than 75% of the plot's perimeter isbordered by the same habitat, and the plot lies withina tract of similar habitat 51–100 ha in size.Topography and Elevation: The plot has a NE-facingslope of 11–16% grade. Minimum elevation 279 m,maximum 320 m. Weather: Mean start temp., 14.3°C(range 9–26°C). The average temperature for May was0.5°C below normal, and precipitation was 27% aboveaverage. The average temperature for June was 0.5°Cabove normal, and precipitation was 52% aboveaverage. The frequent rains kept the Coxing Killunusually full, causing it to be quite noisy duringvisits 4–12, and making faint or very high-pitchedsounds inaudible. Coverage: 23.0 h; 12 visits (11sunrise, 1 sunset); 16, 19, 22, 27 May; 2, 6, 10, 12, 16,19, 23, 27 June, 2003. Maximum number of observers/visit, 6. Census: Red-eyed Vireo, 12.0 (40); Ovenbird,6.0 (20; 1N); Black-throated Green Warbler, 4.5 (15);Louisiana Waterthrush, 4.0 (13); Wood Thrush, 3.5(12); Scarlet Tanager, 3.5; Acadian Flycatcher, 3.0 (10);Eastern Wood-Pewee, 2.0; Black-and-white Warbler,1.5; Blue Jay, 1.0 (2FL); Black-throated Blue Warbler,1.0; Blackburnian Warbler, 1.0; Red-belliedWoodpecker, 0.5; Pileated Woodpecker, 0.5; Black-capped Chickadee, 0.5; Hooded Warbler, 0.5; GreatCrested Flycatcher, +; Yellow-throated Vireo, +. Total:18 species; 45.0 territories (149/40 ha). Visitors:Downy Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker, AmericanCrow, Tufted Titmouse, American Robin, Worm-eating Warbler, American Goldfinch. Remarks:Inspection of the original data sheets confirmed thatfewer birds were detected this year (compared with63+ territories of 27 species). In addition to the loss ofhemlocks and ice damage resulting in fewercaterpillars, the West Nile virus has been found inUlster County for several years. Other Observers:David Arner, Lisa Daddona, Ruth Elwell, Ethan
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[131]
Pierce, Barbara Rubin, John Thompson, and JaneVecchione. Acknowledgments: Thanks to theMohonk Preserve for its cooperation and support.
14. INTERGRADING DUNE–SWALE SAVANNAHSAVANA CON GRADIENTE DE DUNA A CIENAGA
MARGARET A. KURCZ
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º32'45"N, 80º4'0"W; Gravelly Bay Quadrangle,DEMR. Continuity: Established 1965; 7 yr. Size: 11.0ha. Description of Plot: See Aud. Field Notes 19:630(1965), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):82–83 (1992),65(Suppl.):85–86 (1994), and 67(Suppl.):65–66 (1996).Weather: Mean start temp., 15.7ºC (range 10–21ºC).Coverage: 25.8 h; 9 visits (7 sunrise, 2 sunset); 5, 13,15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 June, 2003. Census: TreeSwallow, 10.5 (38; 7N); Chipping Sparrow, 6.0 (22;1N); Killdeer, 5.0 (18); Brown Thrasher, 5.0 (3N,1FL);Eastern Kingbird, 3.0 (11; 1N); Song Sparrow, 3.0;Northern Mockingbird, 2.5; Mourning Dove, 2.0;Warbling Vireo, 2.0 (1N); European Starling, 2.0 (1N);Common Grackle, 2.0 (2FL); House Wren, 1.0; Red-winged Blackbird, 1.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0;Yellow Warbler, 0.5, Common Yellowthroat, 0.5. Total:16 species, 47.0 territories (171/40 ha). Visitors:Spotted Sandpiper, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Belted Kingfisher, NorthernFlicker, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Great CrestedFlycatcher, Red-eyed Vireo, American Robin, FieldSparrow, Savannah Sparrow, Bobolink, BaltimoreOriole, American Goldfinch. Remarks: This study ispart of a long-term project designed to monitor theresponse of plant and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Other Observers: Matt Timpf and John Brett.Acknowledgments: I thank Jon McCracken forproject supervision, Jane Bowles and MichaelBradstreet for measuring vegetation parameters, andthe Canadian Wildlife Service for financial support.
15. FIELD, RIDGE, SHRUBBY TREES, ANDWOODS
CAMPOS, COLINAS, ARBUSTOS Y BOSQUES
MICHAEL F. G. CLARK
101 Governor's Road, #708Dundas ON L9H 6L7
Location: Ontario; Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth; Dundas; Dundas Valley Plot #1; 43°15'N,79°54'W. Continuity: Established 1994; 10 yr. Size: 5.8ha. Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol.
60(Suppl.):14 (1989), 66(Suppl.):27–28 (1995), and67(Suppl.):73–74 (1996). Weather: Mean start temp.,18.1°C (range 11.5–24.0°C). Precipitation was 15%above the 30-year norm from April through June.May rainfall was 63% above the norm and Junerainfall was 25% below. Temperatures averagedroughly 2° below the norm for all three months.Source: Environment Canada. Coverage: 12.7 h; 8visits (0 sunrise, 3 sunset); 29 April; 10, 14, 22 May; 6,13, 19, 24 June, 2003. Census: Yellow Warbler, 45.0(310); Gray Catbird, 21.0 (145); Song Sparrow, 11.0(76); Northern Cardinal, 8.0 (55); Blue-wingedWarbler, 5.0 (34); Common Grackle, 5.0; FieldSparrow, 4.0 (28); Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 4.0;American Robin, 3.0 (21); Indigo Bunting, 3.0;American Goldfinch, 3.0; Northern Flicker, 2.0; BrownThrasher, 2.0; Wood Thrush, 1.0; Brown-headedCowbird, 1.0. Total: 15 species; 118.0 territories(814/40 ha). Visitors: Ruby-throated Hummingbird,Downy Woodpecker, Great Crested Flycatcher, BlueJay, Black-capped Chickadee, Cedar Waxwing,Common Yellowthroat, Eastern Towhee, OrchardOriole, Baltimore Oriole. Remarks: This revised plot’stop three breeders (Yellow Warbler, Gray Catbird,Song Sparrow) accounted for 65% of all territorialmales. May’s abnormally high rainfall and belownormal temperatures may have adversely affectedbreeding success. Ongoing vegetative succession waslikely responsible for record numbers of breedingCommon Grackles and Rose-breasted Grosbeaks, aswell as the notable continuing decline or absence ofseveral smaller species. The total of 118 breeding pairswas 10 pairs below the 10-yr average; the total of 15breeding species (the lowest total to date) was 4species below average.
16. SEDGE–TAMARACK DUNE PONDDUNA DE ESPARGANIO–LARICE AMERICANO
MATT TIMPF
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 9.0 km W of Long Point Lighthouse;42°32'54"N, 80º9'45"W; Little Creek RidgesQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1978; 4yr. Size: 10.0 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds33:103–104 (1979), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):93–94(1992) and 65(Suppl.):103 (1994). Weather: Mean starttemp., 14.6°C (range 10–18°C). Coverage: 28.8 h; 8visits (6 sunrise, 2 sunset); 2, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23June, 2003. Census: Red-winged Blackbird, 31.0 (124;14N,16FL); Yellow Warbler, 8.0 (32; 2N); CommonYellowthroat, 7.5 (30; 2N,2FL); Eastern Kingbird, 5.0(20; 4N); Song Sparrow, 3.5 (14); Tree Swallow, 2.0;
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[132]
Swamp Sparrow, 2.0; Baltimore Oriole, 2.0 (2N);Chipping Sparrow, 1.5 (1N); Mallard, 1.0 (3FL); Sora,1.0; Eastern Wood-Pewee, 1.0; Cedar Waxwing, 1.0;Field Sparrow, 1.0 (1N); Whip-poor-will, +; GrayCatbird, +; Brown Thrasher, +. Total: 17 species, 67.5territories (270/40 ha). Visitors: Wood Duck, HoodedMerganser, Pied-billed Grebe, Killdeer, Black Tern,Mourning Dove, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, BeltedKingfisher, Northern Flicker, Red-eyed Vireo, Black-capped Chickadee, House Wren, Marsh Wren,American Robin, European Starling, Eastern Towhee,Common Grackle, American Goldfinch. Remarks:This study is part of a long-term project designed tomonitor the response of plant and breeding birdcommunities to a reduction in deer browsing at LongPoint, Lake Erie. Acknowledgments: Thanks to JonMcCracken for project supervision, Jane Bowles andMichael Bradstreet for measuring vegetationparameters, and the Canadian Wildlife Service forfinancial support.
17. SHRUBBY SWAMP AND SEDGE HUMMOCKSPANTANO ARBUSTIVO–MOGOTE
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Location: Connecticut; Litchfield Co.; Litchfield;White Memorial Foundation–North Shore Marsh;41°43'N, 73°13'W; Litchfield Quadrangle, USGS.Continuity: Established 1965; 37 yr. Size: 8.1 ha.Description of Plot: See Aud. Field Notes 19:625–627(1965) and Bird Populations 7:125–126 (2006). Habitatsuccession continued in spite of persistent, andsometimes severe flooding. Red maple and othersapling-sized trees withstood the flooding fairly well,as did most of the shrubs. Herbaceous vegetation,however, was adversely affected. Beavers have nowgirdled enough trees that there is an ample supply ofsnags to serve as homes for cavity nesters. Weather:Mean start temp., 21.5°C (range 13–30°C). DuringMay, the weather was awful. Rain fell on all, or partof, 20 days, amounting to a total of 13.6 cm. This is 2.8cm above normal. Temperatures were cooler thannormal, with a mean of 12.4°C. Flooding was aproblem. During June, there were 18 days with atleast some rainfall. The total of 20 cm of rain was wellabove average. June's average mean temperature was17.9°C, which is near normal. Flooding continued tobe a problem through the 22nd, when it subsided.July had only 12 days with rain or showers. Totalrainfall was 9.7 cm, which is less than normal. Theaverage mean temperature was 20.7°C. Coverage:25.5 h; 12 visits (1 sunrise, 3 sunset); 1, 9, 19, 27 May;2, 9, 17, 23 June; 1, 8, 15, 25 July, 2003. Maximumnumber of observers/visit, 3. Census: Red-winged
Blackbird, 33.0 (163; 7N,104FL); Yellow Warbler, 30.0(148; 9N,72FL); Swamp Sparrow, 29.0 (143; 3N,74FL);Common Yellowthroat, 22.0 (109; 44FL); Gray Catbird,20.0 (99; 6N,48FL); Common Grackle, 7.0 (35;5N,18FL); Song Sparrow, 4.5 (22; 10FL); AmericanGoldfinch, 4.0 (20; 9FL); Eastern Kingbird, 3.5 (17;3N,14FL); Cedar Waxwing, 3.5 (1N,7FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 3.0 (15; 2N,14FL); Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 3.0 (2N,5FL); Willow Flycatcher, 2.5(1N,3FL); Tree Swallow, 2.5 (2N,13FL); Veery, 2.5(7FL); American Robin, 2.5 (2N,11FL); BaltimoreOriole, 2.5 (2N,9FL); Great Crested Flycatcher, 2.0(5FL); Warbling Vireo, 2.0 (1N,3FL); NorthernCardinal, 2.0 (5FL); Mallard, 1.5 (9FL); AlderFlycatcher, 1.5 (4FL); Least Flycatcher, 1.5 (2FL);Chestnut-sided Warbler, 1.5 (2FL); Black-and-whiteWarbler, 1.5 (6FL); Downy Woodpecker, 1.0 (3FL);Northern Flicker, 1.0 (2FL); Yellow-throated Vireo, 1.0;Tufted Titmouse, 1.0 (6FL); American Redstart, 1.0(4FL); Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0 (1FL); CanadaGoose, 0.5; Mute Swan, 0.5; Wood Duck, 0.5 (7FL);Great Blue Heron, 0.5; Spotted Sandpiper, 0.5;Mourning Dove, 0.5; Hairy Woodpecker, 0.5; EasternWood-Pewee, 0.5; Red-eyed Vireo, 0.5; AmericanCrow, 0.5 (3FL); White-breasted Nuthatch, 0.5 (2FL);Marsh Wren, 0.5; Northern Waterthrush, 0.5; Ruby-throated Hummingbird, +; Eastern Bluebird, +; WoodThrush, +; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, +. Total: 48species; 201.0 territories (993/40 ha). Visitors:American Woodcock, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Blue Jay, Canada Warbler.Remarks: Though ground nesters suffered some illeffects from spring flooding, shrub and tree nestersdid just fine. The total of 48 species found breedingthis year was a new record high. This has to be due tothe increase in habitat diversity brought about bysuccession, and is a continuation of an upward trendthat began in 1997. The number of species hasincreased every year since then. Despite the increasein species diversity, the total number of territoriesdecreased to 201. This is still the second-highestnumber ever counted in this plot. The 1993–2002average was 175 territories, with 220 tallied last yearand 191 in 2001. Species suffering the biggest declineswere mostly ground nesters, which were the victimsof frequent floods in May and June. Red-wingedBlackbird remained the most abundant species, butdeclined by 5.0 territories from last year. YellowWarbler declined by only 1.0 territory, but became thesecond most common species here because SwampSparrow declined by 6.0 territories. CommonYellowthroat increased by 1.0 territory. Gray Catbirdincreased by 4.0 territories. Other Observers: EricAdam, John Eykelhoff, Rich Kania, Carolyn Kurtich,Ed Yescott, Janet Amalavage, and LorraineAmalavage. Acknowledgments: Marie Kennedyhelped compile these data.
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[133]
18. COASTAL SCRUBMATORRAL COSTANERO
PARVANEH ABBASPOUR & ELIZABETH PORZIG
PRBO Conservation Science3820 Cypress Drive #11
Petaluma CA 94954Location: California; Marin Co.; Bolinas; PalomarinField Station; 37°55'N, 122°45'W; Bolinas Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: Established 1971; 29 yr. Size: 8.1ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 25:1003–1004(1971). The cover of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii) and shrubs continues to increase. Weather:Mean start temp., 9.5°C (range 4–19°C). Coverage:268.7 h; 84 visits (43 sunrise, 0 sunset), 2003. Census:Wrentit, 11.5 (57; 11N,21FL); Spotted Towhee, 7.0 (35;4N); Bewick's Wren, 5.0 (25); Orange-crownedWarbler, 4.5 (22); Wilson's Warbler, 4.5; Allen'sHummingbird, 3.0 (15); Hutton's Vireo, 3.0; Anna'sHummingbird, 2.5 (3N,2FL); Chestnut-backedChickadee, 2.5; White-crowned Sparrow, 2.5; PurpleFinch, 2.5; California Quail, 2.0; Northern Flicker, 2.0;Bushtit, 2.0; Song Sparrow, 2.0 (3N,3FL); Band-tailedPigeon, 1.0 (1N); Mourning Dove, 1.0; Olive-sidedFlycatcher, 1.0; Pacific-slope Flycatcher, 0.5; WesternScrub-Jay, 0.5; Golden-crowned Kinglet, 0.5; Red-tailed Hawk, +; Steller's Jay, +; Swainson's Thrush, +;American Robin, +; California Towhee, +; Dark-eyedJunco, +. Total: 27 species; 61.0 territories (301/40 ha).Visitors: None reported. Remarks: Overall territorydensity increased 27% from 2002. This is the first yearthat Olive-sided Flycatcher, Band-tailed Pigeon, andPacific-slope Flycatcher were recorded. Species withnotable increases include Wrentit (from 8.0 to 11.5territories) and Hutton’s Vireo (from + to 3.0). Theincrease in cover is likely responsible for somechanges in bird numbers and community composi-tion. Other Observers: Dennis Jongsomjit, TomGardali, Grant Ballard, and Alex Rosenthal.Acknowledgments: We thank Point Reyes NationalSeashore for their cooperation. This is PRBOcontribution No. 1599.
19. DISTURBED COASTAL SCRUB AMATORRAL PERTURBADO A
AMANDA SHULTS & ELIZABETH PORZIG
PRBO Conservation Science3820 Cypress Drive #11
Petaluma CA 94954Location: California; Marin Co.; Bolinas; PalomarinField Station; 37°55'N, 122°45'W; Bolinas Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: Established 1972; 29 yr. Size: 4.7ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 26:987–988(1972). Weather: Mean start temp., 9.5°C (range4–19°C). Coverage: 164.6 h; 65 visits (19 sunrise, 0sunset), 2003. Census: Wrentit, 7.5 (64; 5N,5FL);
American Goldfinch, 4.0 (34; 2N); California Quail, 3.0(26); Orange-crowned Warbler, 3.0; Spotted Towhee,3.0 (3N); Song Sparrow, 3.0 (4N,10FL); Purple Finch,3.0; Wilson's Warbler, 2.0; Allen's Hummingbird, 1.5;Bushtit, 1.5 (1N); Bewick's Wren, 1.5; Mourning Dove,1.0; Anna's Hummingbird, 1.0; Western Scrub-Jay, 1.0;American Robin, 1.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0;Northern Flicker, 0.5 (1N,2FL); Olive-sided Flycatcher,0.5; Hutton's Vireo, 0.5; Chestnut-backed Chickadee,0.5; Swainson's Thrush, 0.5; California Towhee, 0.5;White-crowned Sparrow, 0.5; Dark-eyed Junco, 0.5;Red-tailed Hawk, +; Band-tailed Pigeon, +; Pacific-slope Flycatcher, +; Steller's Jay, +; Black-headedGrosbeak, +. Total: 29 species; 42.0 territories (357/40ha). Visitors: None reported. Remarks: Cover of trees(firs) and shrubs continues to increase. Overallterritory density increased from 2002. This is the firstyear that Olive-sided Flycatcher and Dark-eyed Juncobred on the plot. Species with notable increases indensity from last year include American Goldfinch(from 1.0 to 4.0 territories) and Wrentit (4.5 to 7.5).Other Observers: Tom Gardali, Dennis Jongsomjit,Geoff Geupel, and Geetha Jayabose. Acknowledg-ments: We thank Point Reyes National Seashore fortheir cooperation. This is PRBO contribution No. 1600.
20. DISTURBED COASTAL SCRUB BMATORRAL PERTURBADO B
GEETHA JAYABOSE & ELIZABETH PORZIG
PRBO Conservation Science3820 Cypress Drive #11
Petaluma CA 94954Location: California; Marin Co.; Bolinas; PalomarinField Station; 37°55'N, 122°46'W; Bolinas Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: Established 1971; 29 yr. Size: 8.1ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 25:1002 (1971)and J. Field Ornithol. 66(Suppl.):104 (1995). Weather:Mean start temp., 9.5°C (range 4–19°C). Coverage:401.5 h; 119 visits (41 sunrise, 2 sunset), 2003. Census:Song Sparrow, 12.5 (62; 14N,13FL); Wrentit, 10.0 (49;9N,23FL); American Goldfinch, 7.0 (35; 3N);Swainson's Thrush, 5.0 (25); Wilson's Warbler, 5.0;Spotted Towhee, 5.0; Orange-crowned Warbler, 3.5(17); Purple Finch, 3.5; Anna's Hummingbird, 3.0 (15);Bewick's Wren, 2.5 (1N); Golden-crowned Kinglet, 2.5;Chestnut-backed Chickadee, 2.0; Western Scrub-Jay,1.5; American Robin, 1.5; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.5;Mourning Dove, 1.0 (1N); Allen's Hummingbird, 1.0(1N); Northern Flicker, 1.0; Hutton's Vireo, 1.0;California Towhee, 0.5; White-crowned Sparrow, 0.5;Red-tailed Hawk, +; Bushtit, +; Winter Wren, +;House Finch, +. Total: 25 species; 71.0 territories(351/40 ha). Visitors: None reported. Remarks: Coverof trees (firs) and shrubs continues to increase.Overall territory density increased slightly (15%) from2002. Species with notable increases in density from
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[134]
last year include Wilson’s Warbler (from 2.0 to 5.0territories) and Spotted Towhee (2.5 to 5.0). This is thefirst year that Golden-crowned Kinglet was recordedbreeding on the plot. Other Observers: DennisJongsomjit, Tom Gardali, Geoff Geupel, and AmandaShults. Acknowledgments: We thank Point ReyesNational Seashore for their cooperation. This is PRBOcontribution No. 1601.
21. BLUEGRASS–MILKWEED GRASSLANDYERBASAL DE “YERBA-AZUL”
MARGARET A. KURCZ
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42º32'48"N, 80°9'45"W; Little Creek RidgesQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1973; 5yr. Size: 10.5 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds27:1013 (1973), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):107–108(1992) and 67(Suppl.):87–88 (1996). Weather: Mean
start temp., 15°C (range 10–19ºC). Coverage: 28.0 h; 8visits (6 sunrise, 2 sunset); 2, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 26June, 2003. Census: Field Sparrow, 6.0 (23; 2FL);Common Yellowthroat, 4.0 (15); Red-wingedBlackbird, 4.0 (1N); Killdeer, 3.0 (11; 1N); EasternKingbird, 3.0 (1N); Northern Rough-winged Swallow,3.0 (3N); Chipping Sparrow, 3.0; Song Sparrow, 3.0;Mourning Dove, 2.0 (1N); Tree Swallow, 2.0; BankSwallow, 2.0 (1N); Northern Mockingbird, 2.0; YellowWarbler, 2.0; Baltimore Oriole, 1.5; Northern Flicker,1.0; European Starling, 1.0 (1N,4FL). Total: 16 species,42.5 territories (162/40 ha). Visitors: Yellow-billedCuckoo, Belted Kingfisher, American Robin, BrownThrasher, Common Grackle, Brown-headed Cowbird,American Goldfinch. Remarks: This plot wasformerly called Bluegrass Grassland. This study ispart of a long-term project designed to monitor theresponse of plant and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Acknowledgments: Thanks to Jon McCracken forproject supervision, Jane Bowles and MichaelBradstreet for measuring vegetation parameters, andthe Canadian Wildlife Service for financial support.
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2003
[135]
[136]
Bird Populations 8:136-148© The Institute for Bird Populations 2007
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
1. MIXED HARDWOOD POLETIMBERBOSQUE MIXTO MADERERO
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT1265009. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Litchfield; White MemorialFoundation–Wheeler Hill; 41°42'N, 73°13'W;Litchfield Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established1965; 38 yr. Size: 8.5 ha. Description of Plot: See Aud.Field Notes 19:609–610 (1965), J. Field Ornithol.64(Suppl.):36 (1993), and 2003 report (this volume).Succession is continuing, including the area that waslogged last year. Non-native, invasive species ofvines, shrubs, and herbaceous plants are continuingto take over despite limited control efforts. White-tailed deer grazing is doing significant damage to theground cover and some damage to native shrubcover. Weather: Mean start temp., 19.3°C (range11–25°C). This year’s weather was ideal for breedingactivity. The only exceptions were a few cold nights inMay. Overall, temperatures were below average fromMay through August. May’s mean temperature was15.9°C, June’s was 17.7°C, and July’s was 20.8°C. Nodays exceeded 32.2°C. Rain fell on 19 days in Maywith precipitation totaling 11.2 cm (about normal).During June, there were 12 days with rainfall totaling5.7 cm (5 cm below average). Most of June’s rainfallswere light, not exceeding 1.3 cm each. During July,there were 14 wet days with total precipitationamounting to 11.9 cm (1 cm below average). The onlysignificant rainstorm in July (on the 28th) produced 3cm of rain. Coverage: 19.5 h; 10 visits (1 sunrise, 6sunset); 4, 11, 20, 27 May; 4, 12, 21, 29 June; 10, 19 July;2004. Maximum number of observers/visit, 3.Census: Red-eyed Vireo, 16.5 (78; 1N,22FL); Veery,13.5 (64; 23FL); Ovenbird, 13.0 (61; 1N,22FL); GrayCatbird, 12.0 (56; 5N,30FL); American Redstart, 9.0(42; 5N,24FL); Eastern Towhee, 7.5 (35; 18FL); WoodThrush, 6.5 (31; 2N,13FL); American Robin, 5.0 (24;2N,14FL); Common Yellowthroat, 5.0 (10FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 4.0 (19; 1N,19FL); Chestnut-sidedWarbler, 4.0 (1N,6FL); Scarlet Tanager, 4.0 (1N,7FL);Tufted Titmouse, 3.0 (14; 1N,14FL); Yellow Warbler,3.0 (2N,8FL); Black-and-white Warbler, 3.0 (9FL);
Northern Cardinal, 3.0 (3N,9FL); American Crow, 2.0(2N,8FL); Baltimore Oriole, 2.0 (1N,4FL); Wild Turkey,1.5 (6FL); Mourning Dove, 1.5 (1N,3FL); DownyWoodpecker, 1.5 (4FL); Blue Jay, 1.5 (1N,6FL); SongSparrow, 1.5 (3FL); Red-bellied Woodpecker, 1.0 (2FL);Great Crested Flycatcher, 1.0; Warbling Vireo, 1.0(2FL); White-breasted Nuthatch, 1.0 (3FL); CedarWaxwing, 1.0; Blue-winged Warbler, 1.0 (3FL); Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 1.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0;House Finch, 1.0 (1N,4FL); American Goldfinch, 1.0;Red-tailed Hawk, 0.5; Barred Owl, 0.5 (1N,2FL);Northern Flicker, 0.5; Eastern Wood-Pewee, 0.5;House Wren, 0.5 (5FL); Golden-crowned Kinglet, 0.5;Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 0.5; Magnolia Warbler, 0.5;Black-throated Green Warbler, 0.5; Eastern Phoebe, +;Eastern Kingbird, +; Yellow-throated Vireo, +;Carolina Wren, +; Purple Finch, +. Total: 47 species;138.0 territories (649/40 ha). Visitors: HairyWoodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Fish Crow, Black-throated Blue Warbler. Remarks: The number ofspecies breeding in the plot decreased to 47 (from 50in 2003 and 2002 and 49 in 2001 and 2000). This isequal to the 1994–2003 average. The speciescomposition was similar to previous years except forthe loss of Cooper ’s Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk,Chipping Sparrow, and Common Grackle; all werefound last year. New species found were CarolinaWren and Golden-crowned Kinglet. The kinglet hadnever before shown breeding evidence. The numberof territories in the plot increased to 138.0, the secondhighest total ever recorded; the record was 139.5 in2002. The number of territories increased by 16 from2003, with the total being 34 more than the 10-yraverage of 104. Species that increased by one or moreterritories over last year included Red-eyed Vireo (+4.0), Veery (+ 3.0), Ovenbird (+ 1.0), Gray Catbird (+1.0), American Redstart (+ 4.0), American Robin (+1.0), Chestnut-sided Warbler (+ 1.0), Yellow Warbler(+ 1.0), and Baltimore Oriole (+ 1.5). The only speciesthat declined dramatically this year was EasternTowhee (– 1.5). Red-eyed Vireo remained the mostabundant species, but Veery moved into the numbertwo spot this year. Other Observers: Eric Adam, JohnEykelhoff, John Grabowski, Richard Kania, MarieKennedy, and Pamela Velez. Acknowledgments:Marie Kennedy was instrumental in helping tocompile our Breeding Bird Census data this year.
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[137]
2. SECOND-GROWTH HARDWOOD FORESTBOSQUE SECUNDARIO DE MADERAS DURAS
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT2765006. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Morris; White MemorialFoundation–Van Winkle Road; 41°42'N, 73°12'W;Litchfield Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established1965; 38 yr. Size: 10.1 ha. Description of Plot: See Aud.Field Notes 19:590–591 (1965), J. Field Ornithol.64(Suppl.):37–38 (1993), and 2003 report (this volume).Weather: Mean start temp., 19.3°C (range 14–26°C).This year’s weather was ideal for breeding activity. Theonly exceptions were a few cold nights in May. Overall,temperatures were below average from May throughAugust. May’s mean temperature was 15.9°C, June’swas 17.7°C, and July’s was 20.8°C. Rain fell on 19 daysin May with precipitation totaling 11.2 cm (aboutaverage). During June, there were 10 days with rainfalltotaling only 5.7 cm (5 cm below average). During July,there were 14 days with precipitation that amounted toa total of 11.9 cm (1 cm below average). Coverage: 17.5h; 10 visits (1 sunrise, 5 sunset); 6, 15, 22, 29 May; 10, 21June; 2, 9, 19, 30 July; 2004. Maximum number ofobservers/visit, 3. Census: Red-eyed Vireo, 13.5 (53;6FL); Veery, 12.0 (48; 12FL); Ovenbird, 11.5 (46; 13FL);Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, 3.5 (14; 1N,10FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 3.0 (12; 16FL); Tufted Titmouse, 3.0(1N,11FL); Wood Thrush, 3.0; American Robin, 3.0(1N,6FL); Scarlet Tanager, 3.0 (4FL); Red-belliedWoodpecker, 2.0 (2N,7FL); American Redstart, 2.0(3FL); Downy Woodpecker, 1.5 (5FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 1.5 (2FL); American Crow, 1.5 (1N,7FL); GrayCatbird, 1.5 (2FL); Wild Turkey, 1.0 (6FL); Red-tailedHawk, 1.0 (1N,2FL); Great Crested Flycatcher, 1.0; BlueJay, 1.0 (1N,4FL); White-breasted Nuthatch, 1.0 (4FL);Black-and-white Warbler, 1.0 (3FL); CommonYellowthroat, 1.0; Chipping Sparrow, 1.0 (3FL);Northern Cardinal, 1.0 (2FL); Mourning Dove, 0.5;Eastern Phoebe, 0.5; Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 0.5; CedarWaxwing, 0.5; Pine Warbler, 0.5; Eastern Towhee, 0.5;Broad-winged Hawk, +; Barred Owl, +; HairyWoodpecker, +; Northern Flicker, +; Eastern Kingbird,+; Yellow-throated Vireo, +; Chestnut-sided Warbler, +;Louisiana Waterthrush, +; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, +;Brown-headed Cowbird, +; Baltimore Oriole, +;American Goldfinch, +. Total: 42 species; 77.5territories (307/40 ha). Visitors: None. Remarks: Thenumber of breeding species (42) was similar to last year(41) and is only one less than the 10-yr average. Speciesfound this year but not last year included Red-tailedHawk, Northern Flicker, and Pine Warbler. The lattertwo species were visitors last year. Species found lastyear but not this year included Ruby-throatedHummingbird and Brown Creeper. The total number
of territorial males crashed for no obvious reason. Only77.5 were counted, compared to 99.5 last year, 99.0 in2002, and 100.0 in 2001. The previous 10-yr averagewas 99.0 territories. Red-eyed Vireo remained the mostabundant species and only declined by 1.5 territoriesfrom last year. Veery was the second most numerousspecies, declining by only 0.5 territories from last year.Ovenbird dropped to third place with a decrease of 2.0territories from last year. Wood Thrush, AmericanRobin, and American Redstart also declined. OtherObservers: Eric Adam, John Eykelhoff, Marie Kennedy,Pamela Velez, Edward Yescott, James Zingo, and AmyZingo. Acknowledgments: Marie Kennedy wasinstrumental in helping to compile our Breeding BirdCensus data this year.
3. MIXED UPLAND BROADLEAF FORESTBOSQUE MIXTO DE HOJA ANCHA DE ALTURAS
MARY E. D'IMPERIO
4000 Cathedral Ave. NW, #106BWashington DC 20016
Site Number: DC1060009. Location: District ofColumbia; Washington; Glover-Archbold Park;38°55'N, 77°5'W; Washington West Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: Established 1959; 46 yr. Size: 14.2ha. Description of Plot: See Aud. Field Notes14:502–503 (1960). Weather: Mean start temp., 13.8°C(range 7–21°C). Six days were clear, one was partlycloudy, and nine were cloudy. Coverage: 32.0 h; 16visits (16 sunrise); 28 March; 3, 7, 9, 17, 24 April; 1, 8,14, 18, 22, 31 May; 4, 13, 19, 27 June; 2004. Census:Carolina Wren, 17.0 (48; 11FL); Northern Cardinal,11.0 (31; 4FL); Red-bellied Woodpecker, 9.0 (25); GrayCatbird, 8.0 (23; 2FL); Red-eyed Vireo, 6.0 (17); White-breasted Nuthatch, 6.0; Veery, 6.0; DownyWoodpecker, 5.0 (14; 9FL); Northern Flicker, 3.0 (8);Acadian Flycatcher, 3.0; American Crow, 3.0; EasternTowhee, 3.0; Hairy Woodpecker, 2.0; Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 2.0 (1FL); House Sparrow, 2.0; ChimneySwift, 1.0; Pileated Woodpecker, 1.0; Eastern Wood-Pewee, 1.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 1.0; House Wren,1.0; Wood Thrush, 1.0; Song Sparrow, 1.0; CommonGrackle, 1.0; Mourning Dove, +; American Robin, +;European Starling, +. Total: 26 species; 94.0 territories(265/40 ha). Visitors: Mallard, Red-shouldered Hawk,Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Eastern Phoebe, White-eyedVireo, Blue Jay, Carolina Chickadee, Tufted Titmouse,Northern Mockingbird, Brown-headed Cowbird,House Finch. Remarks: The periodical cicadasprovided an unusual food source for birds and smallmammals this year. Still, even fewer birds were seenon average than last year or previous years. Therewere few crows, and almost no jays, titmice, orchickadees. The Red-shouldered Hawks nestedfurther north, near the community gardens. Therewere fewer territories for most species.
4. MATURE BROADLEAF FORESTBOSQUE DE HOJA ANCHA MADURA
CHARLES W. SAUNDERS* & STEVE PELIKAN
*5561 Carlsbad CourtFairfield OH 45014
Site Number: OH1591043. Location: Ohio; HamiltonCo.; Hooven; Miami Whitewater Forest; 39°14'42”N,84°45'38”W; Hooven Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity:Established 1991; 10 yr. Size: 16.0 ha. Description ofPlot: See J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):52 (1992) and65(Suppl.):59 (1994). Weather: Mean start temp., 17.9°C(range 14–22°C). Coverage: 25.2 h; 10 visits (10 sunrise);29, 30 May; 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 27 June; 10 July; 2004.Census: Wood Thrush, 16.0 (40; 3FL); Red-eyed Vireo,12.5 (31); Acadian Flycatcher, 6.5 (16; 1N); NorthernCardinal, 5.5 (14; 2FL); Red-bellied Woodpecker, 5.0 (13);Brown-headed Cowbird, 5.0 (5FL); Tufted Titmouse, 4.5(11); White-breasted Nuthatch, 4.5; Blue Jay, 4.0 (10);Scarlet Tanager, 4.0; American Robin, 3.5 (9; 6FL);Downy Woodpecker, 3.0 (8); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 3.0;Carolina Chickadee, 2.5; Yellow-throated Vireo, 2.0;Great Crested Flycatcher, 1.5; Carolina Wren, 1.5; Broad-winged Hawk, 1.0; Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 1.0; HairyWoodpecker, 1.0; Northern Flicker, 1.0; PileatedWoodpecker, 1.0; Ovenbird, 1.0; Louisiana Waterthrush,1.0; Kentucky Warbler, 1.0; Cooper’s Hawk, 0.5; Red-tailed Hawk, 0.5; Ruby-throated Hummingbird, 0.5;Eastern Phoebe, 0.5. Total: 29 species; 94.5 territories(236/40 ha). Visitors: Wild Turkey, Barred Owl, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Hooded Warbler, Summer Tanager,Common Grackle, American Goldfinch. Remarks: Thetotal number of territorial males was up from 88.0 in2003, and within one standard deviation of the meannumber from the eight censuses from 1991–98 (97 ± 2.6).This year, two species (Red-eyed Vireo and Brown-headed Cowbird) were present in numbers greater thanone standard deviation above their mean from 1991–98.In contrast, six species (Hairy Woodpecker, EasternWood-Pewee, Tufted Titmouse, Hooded Warbler, ScarletTanager, and Rose-breasted Grosbeak) declined morethan one standard deviation from their 1991–98 mean.Of particular concern are Hooded Warbler and Rose-breasted Grosbeak, both absent as breeding species in2004, compared to 3.3 ± 1.2 and 2.4 ± 1.1 territorialmales, respectively, from 1991–98. Acknowledgments:We thank John Klein and the Hamilton County ParkDistrict for the use of the land.
5. RED OAK–SUGAR MAPLE FORESTBOSQUE DE ROBLE ROJO–ARCE DULCE
CHRISTIAN FRIIS
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-
Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 15.3 km W of Long Point Lighthouse;42°33'45"N, 80°14'30"W; Little Creek RidgesQuadrangle; DEMR. Continuity: Established 1973; 7yr. Size: 11.0 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds27:967 (1973), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):57–58 (1992)and 66(Suppl.):50–51 (1995). Weather: Mean starttemp., 16.7ºC (range 10–27ºC). Coverage: 38.2 h; 10visits (9 sunrise, 1 sunset); 3, 7, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26, 28, 30June; 1 July; 2004. Census: House Wren, 24.5 (89;1N,4FL); Tree Swallow, 17.0 (62; 11N,12FL); CommonYellowthroat, 14.5 (53); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 12.0(44); Baltimore Oriole, 12.0 (5N,4FL); Song Sparrow,9.0 (33; 3FL); Gray Catbird, 8.0 (29; 5FL); IndigoBunting, 8.0; Red-winged Blackbird, 6.5 (24; 3FL);Eastern Kingbird, 6.0 (22); European Starling, 5.5 (20;1N,3FL); Yellow Warbler, 5.5; Red-eyed Vireo, 4.5 (16);Mourning Dove, 4.0 (14); Northern Flicker, 4.0 (1N);Brown-headed Cowbird, 4.0; Great CrestedFlycatcher, 3.5 (13); Red-bellied Woodpecker, 3.0 (11;1N,1FL); Downy Woodpecker, 3.0 (1N,2FL); WarblingVireo, 3.0; Eastern Towhee, 3.0; Common Grackle, 3.0(1N,3FL); Whip-poor-will, 2.5; American Robin, 2.5(2FL); Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 2.0; Blue Jay, 2.0 (1FL);Black-capped Chickadee, 2.0 (1FL); White-breastedNuthatch, 2.0; American Redstart, 2.0; NorthernCardinal, 2.0; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 2.0; FieldSparrow, 1.5; American Woodcock, 1.0 (1FL); Black-billed Cuckoo, 1.0; Hairy Woodpecker, 1.0; Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 1.0; Scarlet Tanager, 1.0; Red-tailedHawk, 0.5; Swamp Sparrow, +. Total: 39 species; 189.5territories (689/40 ha). Visitors: Wood Duck, BaldEagle, Great Horned Owl, Ruby-throatedHummingbird, Belted Kingfisher, Wood Thrush,Brown Thrasher, Cedar Waxwing, Worm-eatingWarbler, American Goldfinch. Remarks: This study ispart of a long-term project designed to monitor theresponse of plant and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Acknowledgments: I thank Jon McCracken forproject supervision, Jane Bowles and MichaelBradstreet for measuring vegetation parameters, StuMackenzie for field assistance, and the CanadianWildlife Service for financial support.
6. RED OAK–SUGAR MAPLE SAVANNAHSAVANA DE ROBLE ROJO–ARCE DULCE
CHRISTIAN FRIIS
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 16.7 km from Long Point Lighthouse;42º33'40"N, 80º15'W; Big Rice Bay Quadrangle,DEMR. Continuity: Established 1979; 5 yr. Size: 10.5
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[138]
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[139]
ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 34:51 (1980), J.Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):58–59 (1992) and66(Suppl.):51–52 (1995). Weather: Mean start temp.,15.2°C (range 10–20°C). Coverage: 44.8 h; 10 visits (9sunrise, 1 sunset); 1, 5, 12, 17, 21, 24, 27, 29 June; 1July; 2004. Census: House Wren, 18.5 (70; 1N,5FL);Common Yellowthroat, 14.0 (53; 1N); Tree Swallow,12.0 (46; 3N,10FL); Yellow Warbler, 12.0 (1N); SongSparrow, 11.5 (44; 5FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 10.5(40; 1N); Red-winged Blackbird, 10.0 (38; 2FL);Baltimore Oriole, 9.0 (34; 5N,5FL); Gray Catbird, 8.0(30; 1N,3FL); Eastern Kingbird, 7.0 (27); WarblingVireo, 7.0 (1FL); Indigo Bunting, 6.0 (23); EuropeanStarling, 5.0 (19; 2N,2FL); American Robin, 4.0 (15;1FL); Field Sparrow, 4.0 (1FL); Blue Jay, 3.5 (13);Black-capped Chickadee, 3.5 (3FL); Northern Flicker,3.0 (11; 1FL); Great Crested Flycatcher, 3.0; Red-eyedVireo, 3.0 (1FL); White-breasted Nuthatch, 3.0;Common Grackle, 3.0 (1FL); Red-bellied Woodpecker,2.0; Eastern Towhee, 2.0; Northern Cardinal, 2.0 (1N);Brown-headed Cowbird, 2.0; Downy Woodpecker, 1.5(1N,1FL); Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 1.0; Ruby-throatedHummingbird, 1.0; Hairy Woodpecker, 1.0 (1FL);Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 1.0; Chestnut-sided Warbler,1.0. Total: 32 species, 175.0 territories (667/40 ha).Visitors: Wood Duck, Great Blue Heron, Bald Eagle,Red-tailed Hawk, American Woodcock, MourningDove, White-eyed Vireo, Eastern Bluebird, BrownThrasher, Cedar Waxwing, Scarlet Tanager, ChippingSparrow, Swamp Sparrow, Rose-breasted Grosbeak,American Goldfinch. Remarks: This study is part of along-term project designed to monitor the responseof plant and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Other Observer: Stu Mackenzie. Acknowledgments:I thank Jon McCracken for project supervision, JaneBowles and Michael Bradstreet for measuringvegetation parameters, Stu Mackenzie for fieldassistance, and the Canadian Wildlife Service forfinancial support.
7. OAK–MAPLE–POPLAR HOLLOWBOSQUE DE ROBLE–ARCE–ALAMO HUECO
LINDA INGRAM
Nolde Forest Environmental Education Center2910 New Holland Road
Reading PA 19607Site Number: PA1093123. Location: Pennsylvania;Berks Co.; Reading; Nolde Forest, Buck Hollow;40°17'N, 75°57'W; Reading Quadrangle, USGS.Continuity: Established 1993; 12 yr. Size: 11.3 ha.Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol. 65(Suppl.):61(1994). Weather: Mean start temp., 15.6°C (range8–25°C). Grounds were damp with winds calm tolight. May 2004 received near normal precipitation,
however observers avoided days with heavy rain.Normal May temperatures: mean 16.7°C, minimum11.1°C, maximum 22.2°C. Source: National ClimaticData Center, Asheville, NC (2000). Coverage: 16.5 h; 9visits (9 sunrise, 0 sunset); 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 25May; 2004. Census: Wood Thrush, 5.0 (18); Ovenbird,5.0; Red-eyed Vireo, 3.0 (11); Veery, 2.5; NorthernCardinal, 2.5; Red-bellied Woodpecker, 1.0; PileatedWoodpecker, 1.0; Blue Jay, 1.0; American Crow, 1.0;Tufted Titmouse, 1.0; Scarlet Tanager, 1.0. Total: 11species; 24.0 territories (85/40 ha). Visitors: MourningDove, Downy Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, EasternWood-Pewee, Great Crested Flycatcher, White-breasted Nuthatch, American Robin, Gray Catbird,Chipping Sparrow, Rose-breasted Grosbeak,American Goldfinch. Other Observers: LynnScheirer, Patricia Mangas, Phyllis Reynolds, andDavid Reynolds.
8. HARDWOOD SWAMP FORESTBOSQUE DE MADERAS DURAS PANTANOSO
MICHAEL R. DAWSON
Francis Beidler Forest336 Sanctuary RoadHarleyville SC 29448
Location: South Carolina; Dorchester Co.; Harleyville;Francis Beidler Forest Sanctuary, Four Holes Swamp;33°11'N, 80°19'W; Pringletown Quadrangle, USGS.Continuity: Established 1979; 13 yr. Size: 8.1 ha.Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 34:50 (1980) and J.Field Ornithol. 64 (Suppl.):56 (1993). The plot is stillrecovering from the effects of hurricane Hugo in 1989.Post-hurricane profusion of bushes is thinning as theunderstory trees grow up and shade the forest floor.Coarse woody debris is rotting away, further openingup the forest floor. The plot vegetation wasresurveyed in 1996 (unpublished). Weather: Meanstart temp., 15.6°C (range 7–20°C). Temperatures werenormal. Water levels were very low due to aspringtime dry spell. Coverage: 14.7 h; 11 visits (11sunrise); 30 April; 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27(2) May;2004. Census: Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 29.0 (143);Northern Parula, 10.5 (52); Red-eyed Vireo, 8.0 (40);Tufted Titmouse, 7.0 (35); Prothonotary Warbler, 6.0(30); Acadian Flycatcher, 5.0 (25); Great CrestedFlycatcher, 5.0; Northern Cardinal, 3.0 (15); Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 2.5; White-eyed Vireo, 2.5; Red-belliedWoodpecker, 2.0; Carolina Wren, 2.0; PileatedWoodpecker, 1.5; Swainson's Warbler, 1.5; HoodedWarbler, 1.5; Yellow-throated Vireo, 1.0; AmericanCrow, 1.0. Total: 17 species; 89.0 territories (440/40ha). Visitors: Great Blue Heron, Yellow-crownedNight-Heron, White Ibis, Downy Woodpecker,Yellow-throated Warbler. Other Observer: NormanBrunswig.
9. MATURE MAPLE–BEECH–BIRCH FORESTBOSQUE MADURO DE ARCE–HAYA–ABEDUL
DAVID F. VOGT & LAURA M. LEWIS**Cherokee National Forest
2800 N. Ocoee StreetCleveland TN 37312
Site Number: TN2392102. Location: Tennessee;Monroe Co.; Whigg Ridge, Cherokee National Forest;35°19'N, 84°2'W; Big Junction Quadrangle, USGS.Continuity: Established 1992; 12 yr. Size: 10.2 ha.Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol.64(Suppl.):57–58 (1993) and 66(Suppl.):63 (1995).Weather: Mean start temp., 18.0°C (range 14–21°C).The 2 July visit followed heavy rain; stream noise wasconsiderable. Coverage: 19.8 h; 8 visits (6 sunrise, 2sunset); 29 May; 11, 18, 19, 24 June; 2, 3, 9 July; 2004.Census: Veery, 13.5 (53); Blue-headed Vireo, 11.5 (45);Dark-eyed Junco, 10.0 (39; 3FL); Ovenbird, 9.5 (37);Black-throated Blue Warbler, 5.5 (22; 1FL);Blackburnian Warbler, 4.5 (18); Chestnut-sidedWarbler, 1.5; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 1.0; RuffedGrouse, 0.5 (4FL). Total: 9 species; 57.5 territories(225/40 ha). Visitors: Barred Owl, Hairy Woodpecker,Red-eyed Vireo, Common Raven, Carolina Chickadee,Black-capped Chickadee, Tufted Titmouse, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Winter Wren, Cedar Waxwing.Remarks: Flyovers included Northern Bobwhite,Chimney Swift, American Crow, and AmericanGoldfinch. Mammals sighted included red squirrel,wild boar, and black bear (in plot).Acknowledgments: Logistical and financial supportprovided by USDA Forest Service, Cherokee NationalForest.
10. CLIMAX HEMLOCK–WHITE PINE FORESTWITH TRANSITION HARDWOODS
BOSQUE CLIMAX DE PICEA–PINO BLANCO ENTRANSICION A MADERAS DURAS
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT2765008. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Litchfield; White MemorialFoundation–Catlin Woods; 41°43'N, 73°12'W;Litchfield Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established1965; 38 yr. Size: 10.5 ha. Description of Plot: SeeAud. Field Notes 19:594–595 (1965), J. Field Ornithol.67(Suppl.):60 (1996), and 2003 report (this volume).Succession is continuing in the areas where blow-downs have occurred in the past few years. Theseareas are thick with seedling and sapling easternhemlocks, black birches, various other trees, andhobblebush. Weather: Mean start temp., 19.8°C (range13–25°C). This year’s weather was ideal for breeding
activity, except for a few cold nights in May. Overall,temperatures were below average from May throughAugust; May’s mean temperature was 15.9°C, June’swas 17.7°C, and July’s was 20.8°C. No days exceeded32.2°C. Rain fell on 19 days in May with precipitationtotaling 11.2 cm (average); there were 10 days of raintotaling 5.7 cm during June (5 cm below normal); and14 days of rain totaling 11.9 cm during July (1 cmbelow normal). The only significant rainstorm in July(on the 28th) produced 3 cm of rain. Coverage: 24.5 h;12 visits (1 sunrise, 5 sunset); 1, 7, 14, 21, 29 May; 8,15, 26 June; 6, 16, 24, 31 July; 2004. Maximum numberof observers/visit, 3. Census: Black-throated GreenWarbler, 16.0 (61; 3N,46FL); Ovenbird, 15.0 (57;2N,19FL); Veery, 14.0 (53; 20FL); BlackburnianWarbler, 12.0 (46; 6FL); Red-eyed Vireo, 11.5 (44;16FL); Hermit Thrush, 6.0 (23; 14FL); Scarlet Tanager,5.0 (19; 8FL); Wood Thrush, 4.5 (17; 1N,13FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 3.5 (13; 1N,17FL); Pine Warbler, 3.0(11; 3FL); Great Crested Flycatcher, 2.5 (5FL); Black-and-white Warbler, 2.5 (6FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee,2.0 (4FL); Blue-headed Vireo, 2.0; American Crow, 2.0(2N,8FL); American Robin, 2.0 (10FL); Purple Finch,2.0 (5FL); Wild Turkey, 1.5 (10FL); Blue Jay, 1.5 (4FL);Red-breasted Nuthatch, 1.5 (3FL); Brown Creeper, 1.5;Yellow-rumped Warbler, 1.5 (5FL); Northern Cardinal,1.5 (3FL); Pileated Woodpecker, 1.0 (2FL); TuftedTitmouse, 1.0 (5FL); White-breasted Nuthatch, 1.0(1N,5FL); Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.0 (1FL); Broad-winged Hawk, 0.5; Mourning Dove, 0.5; Barred Owl,0.5; Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, 0.5; DownyWoodpecker, 0.5; Hairy Woodpecker, 0.5 (2FL); GrayCatbird, 0.5 (3FL); Cedar Waxwing, 0.5; AmericanRedstart, 0.5; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 0.5; GreatHorned Owl, +; Eastern Kingbird, +; CommonYellowthroat, +; Eastern Towhee, +; ChippingSparrow, +; American Goldfinch, +. Total: 43 species;123.5 territories (470/40 ha). Visitors: Blue-grayGnatcatcher, Canada Warbler. Remarks: The totalnumber of species found (43) was three more than lastyear, six fewer than 2002, and similar to the long-termaverage. No new species were found. Several specieswere found again after having been missed last year:Eastern Kingbird, Cedar Waxwing, and EasternTowhee. Species found last year but missed this yearincluded Ruby-throated Hummingbird and LouisianaWaterthrush. Despite an increase in the number ofbreeding species, the total number of territoriesdecreased to 123.5. This is only one below theprevious 10-yr average, but it is 13.0 fewer than lastyear. This was the third year of a decline following arecord high number of territories, of 141.0, found in2001. The six most abundant species this year werethe same and in the same order of abundance as lastyear. This was despite the fact that all except HermitThrush declined by as much as 2.5 territories. OtherObservers: John Eykelhoff, Lukas Hyder, Richard
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[140]
Kania, Marie Kennedy, Russ Naylor, Hugh Schoelzel,Perry Stafford, Pamela Velez, Edward Yescott, JamesZingo, and Amy Zingo. Acknowledgments: MarieKennedy was instrumental in helping to compile ourBreeding Bird Census data this year.
11. YOUNG MIXED HARDWOOD–CONIFERSTAND
BOSQUE JOVEN–MIXTO DE MADERASDURAS/RODAL DE CONIFEROS
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Site Number: CT2778262. Location: Connecticut;Litchfield Co.; Morris; White MemorialFoundation–Pitch Road; 41°42'N, 73°10'W; LitchfieldQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1978; 27yr. Size: 8.5 ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds33:72 (1979). Weather: Mean start temp., 19.4°C (range12–23°C). This year’s weather was ideal for breedingactivity, except for a few cold nights in May. Overall,temperatures were below average from May throughAugust. May’s mean temperature was 15.9°C, June’swas 17.7°C, and July’s was 20.8°C. No days exceeded32.2°C. Rain fell on 19 days in May with precipitationtotaling 11.2 cm (average); there were 10 days of raintotaling 5.7 cm in June (5 cm below normal); and 14days of rain totaling 11.9 cm in July (1 cm belownormal). The only significant rainstorm in July (on the28th) produced 3 cm of rain. Coverage: 13.5 h; 8 visits(1 sunrise, 6 sunset); 13, 20, 28 May; 11, 22 June; 2, 15,26 July; 2004. Census: Ovenbird, 11.0 (52; 14FL);Veery, 10.5 (49; 12FL); Red-eyed Vireo, 10.0 (47; 4FL);Wood Thrush, 5.0 (24; 2N,7FL); Scarlet Tanager, 3.5(16; 5FL); Hermit Thrush, 3.0 (14; 2FL); Yellow-belliedSapsucker, 2.5 (3FL); American Robin, 2.5 (5FL);Black-capped Chickadee, 2.0 (12FL); AmericanRedstart, 2.0; Downy Woodpecker, 1.5 (5FL); EasternWood-Pewee, 1.5 (2FL); Tufted Titmouse, 1.5 (5FL);Gray Catbird, 1.5; Northern Cardinal, 1.5 (4FL); BlueJay, 1.0 (4FL); Black-throated Blue Warbler, 1.0; Black-throated Green Warbler, 1.0; Black-and-white Warbler,1.0; Louisiana Waterthrush, 1.0; CommonYellowthroat, 1.0; Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 1.0; Ruby-throated Hummingbird, 0.5; Northern Flicker, 0.5;Great Crested Flycatcher, 0.5; American Crow, 0.5;White-breasted Nuthatch, 0.5 (4FL); BlackburnianWarbler, 0.5; Eastern Towhee, 0.5; Brown-headedCowbird, 0.5 (1FL); American Goldfinch, 0.5; WildTurkey, +; Barred Owl, +; Red-bellied Woodpecker, +;Eastern Phoebe, +; Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, +; CedarWaxwing, +; Canada Warbler, +; Chipping Sparrow, +;Baltimore Oriole, +. Total: 40 species; 71.0 territories(334/40 ha). Visitors: Mourning Dove, PileatedWoodpecker, Blue-headed Vireo, Pine Warbler.
Remarks: The number of breeding species decreasedto 40 (from 43 last year and 50 in 2002). The 1994–2003average is 44.5 species. The continued harassment ofwildlife by dirt bikers, ATV users, and partiers partlymay be to blame. The only species found on territorythis year but not last year were Canada Warbler andChipping Sparrow. Species that were missed entirelyincluded Broad-winged Hawk, Mourning Dove, andChestnut-sided Warbler. The number of territorialmales declined by 23 to 71, compared to last year, andis 21 birds fewer than the previous 10-yr average. Thisshows that something was really wrong. Speciesdeclining by more than 1.0 territory from last yearincluded Red-eyed Vireo (– 2.0) and Hermit Thrush (–1.5). A total of 29 species decreased in number ofterritories. The only species showing increases wereNorthern Flicker, Black-throated Green Warbler, andRose-breasted Grosbeak. Ovenbird was the mostcommon species, followed by Veery and Red-eyedVireo. Other Observers: Lukas Hyder, Russ Naylor,and Ed Yescott. Acknowledgments: Marie Kennedywas instrumental in helping to compile our BreedingBird Census data this year.
12. RIPARIAN WOODLANDARBOLADO RIVEREÑO
SCOTT R. ROBINSON
Bureau of Land Management3815 N. Schreiber Way
Coeur d'Alene ID 83815Location: Idaho; Kootenai Co.; Coeur d'Alene;Blackwell Island; 47°41'N, 116°48'W; Coeur d'AleneQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: Established 1997; 8yr. Size: 8.9 ha. Description of Plot: See 1997 BBCreport (unpublished) and Bird Populations 7:106 (2006)and 7:123 (2006). This is the second year postconstruction of the day-use recreation site. Weather:Mean start temp., 9.7°C (range 6–14°C). The sevensunrise visits explain the lower starting temperaturesthan during the first five years of the census. Noflooding this year. This year ’s mosquito hatchbetween 15 and 22 June was less than last year’s hatchfor the same time period. Coverage: 11.5 h; 7 visits (7sunrise); 3, 11, 17 May; 1, 8, 15, 22 June; 2004. Census:American Robin, 6.5 (29); Mallard, 4.0 (18; 11FL); TreeSwallow, 4.0 (2N); Yellow Warbler, 4.0; Song Sparrow,3.0 (13); Brown-headed Cowbird, 3.0; SpottedSandpiper, 2.5 (3FL); European Starling, 2.0; Red-winged Blackbird, 2.0; Bullock's Oriole, 2.0; CanadaGoose, 1.0; Calliope Hummingbird, 1.0; HairyWoodpecker, 1.0; Northern Flicker, 1.0; Violet-greenSwallow, 1.0 (1N); Black-capped Chickadee, 1.0; GrayCatbird, 1.0; Cedar Waxwing, 1.0; CommonYellowthroat, 1.0. Total: 19 species; 42.0 territories(189/40 ha). Visitors: California Quail, Great BlueHeron, Osprey, Killdeer, Ring-billed Gull, Mourning
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[141]
Dove, Red-naped Sapsucker, Downy Woodpecker,Western Wood-Pewee, Warbling Vireo, Black-billedMagpie, American Crow, Common Raven, BarnSwallow, Pygmy Nuthatch, Yellow-rumped Warbler,American Redstart, Chipping Sparrow, Black-headedGrosbeak. Remarks: The second artificial nest box fellfrom a tree within the census plot. Swallows havecontinually occupied these nest boxes in place ofWood Ducks.
13. DRY COTTONWOOD–JUNIPER SAVANNAHSAVANA DE ALAMO SECO–JUNIPERO
JANUS ETHELBERG
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National WildlifeArea; 42°32'35"N, 80°6'30"W; Gravelly BayQuadrangle, DEMR. Continuity: Established 1991; 4yr. Size: 10.5 ha. Description of Plot: See J. FieldOrnithol. 63(Suppl.):81 (1992) and 67(Suppl.):64–65(1996). Weather: Mean start temp., 15°C (range12–20°C). Coverage: 34.0 h; 8 visits (7 sunrise, 1sunset); 3, 6, 7, 20, 22, 23, 28, 30 June; 2004. Census:Song Sparrow, 8.5 (32); Chipping Sparrow, 6.0 (23;2N); Field Sparrow, 4.0 (15); Mourning Dove, 2.0 (2N);Eastern Kingbird, 2.0; Tree Swallow, 2.0 (2N); Red-winged Blackbird, 2.0; Yellow Warbler, 1.5; EasternTowhee, 1.5; House Wren, 1.0; American Robin, 1.0;Northern Mockingbird, 1.0; Brown Thrasher, 1.0;Common Grackle, 1.0; House Finch, 1.0; Total: 15species, 35.5 territories (135/40 ha). Visitors: Killdeer,Whip-poor-will, Black-capped Chickadee, Blue-grayGnatcatcher, Eastern Bluebird, Gray Catbird,European Starling, Cedar Waxwing, CommonYellowthroat, Brown-headed Cowbird. Remarks: Thisstudy is part of a long-term project designed tomonitor the response of plant and breeding birdcommunities to a reduction in deer browsing at LongPoint, Lake Erie. Acknowledgments: I thank JonMcCracken for project supervision, Jane Bowles andMichael Bradstreet for measuring vegetationparameters, and the Canadian Wildlife Service forfinancial support.
14. INTERGRADING DUNE–SWALE SAVANNAHSAVANA CON GRADIENTE DE DUNA A CIENAGA
JANUS ETHELBERG
Bird Studies CanadaP.O. Box 160
Port Rowan ON N0E 1M0Location: Ontario; Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk; Port Rowan; Long Point National Wildlife
Area; 42°32'45"N, 80°4'0"W; Gravelly Bay Quadrangle,DEMR. Continuity: Established 1965; 8 yr. Size: 11.0ha. Description of Plot: See Aud. Field Notes 19:630(1965), J. Field Ornithol. 63(Suppl.):82–83 (1992),65(Suppl.):85–86 (1994), and 67(Suppl.):65–66 (1996).Weather: Mean start temp., 16.8ºC (range 12–25ºC).Coverage: 34.8 h; 8 visits (7 sunrise, 1 sunset); 5, 9, 15,16, 18, 24, 26, 27 June; 2004. Census: Tree Swallow,10.5 (38; 10N); Chipping Sparrow, 7.0 (25; 1N); EasternKingbird, 2.5 (2N); Killdeer, 2.0; Mourning Dove, 2.0(2N); House Wren, 2.0; Northern Mockingbird, 2.0(1N); Brown Thrasher, 2.0; Field Sparrow, 2.0;Common Grackle, 2.0; Whip-poor-will, 1.0, EuropeanStarling, 1.0 (1N). Total: 12 species, 36.0 territories(131/40 ha). Visitors: American Woodcock, Black-billed Cuckoo, Northern Flicker, American Robin,Common Yellowthroat, Song Sparrow, IndigoBunting, Red-winged Blackbird. Remarks: This studyis part of a long-term project designed to monitor theresponse of plant and breeding bird communities to areduction in deer browsing at Long Point, Lake Erie.Other Observer: Christian Friis. Acknowledgments: Ithank Jon McCracken for project supervision, JaneBowles and Michael Bradstreet for measuringvegetation parameters, and the Canadian WildlifeService for financial support.
15. RIPARIAN SCRUB BASINCUENCA CON MATORRAL RIBEREÑO
MELODY AIMAR
Santa Ana Watershed Association25864-K Business Center Drive
Redlands CA 92374Location: California; Riverside Co.; Riverside;Mockingbird Canyon; 33˚53'33"N, 117˚24'47"W;Riverside West Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity: New.Size: 12.7 ha. Description of Plot: The irregularlyshaped plot is within the Santa Ana River watershed,and is located in the basin between MockingbirdCanyon Reservoir and the adjoining narrow ripariancanyon. In general the stream is mostly perennial, but itis only ephemeral on the plot. Site disturbance includeshistorical grazing and other human-related activities(e.g., paintball games and ATVs). The plot containsboth riparian woodland and disturbed scrub; thedominant plants are black willow and mulefat. Thestudy area originally contained a multitude of exoticplant species, most notably Arundo donax, castor bean(Ricinus communis), and mustard (Brassica nigra).Persons from the Santa Ana Watershed Associationremoved Arundo and castor bean throughout the plotin 2003. Edge: Between 26 and 50% of the plot'sperimeter is bordered by the same habitat, and the plotlies within a tract of similar habitat 51–100 ha in size.Surrounding land use includes moderately denseriparian habitat north to the open-water reservoir, rural
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[142]
and agricultural land use, and gentle slopes ofhistorically grazed hillsides bisected by major roadsand development. The southernmost edge of the plot isthe upper canyon connection, which passes through alarge underpass to a narrow, winding canyonsurrounded by development. Topography andElevation: The plot is nearly level with a slope of <5%.Elevation is 300 m. A sandy wash traverses the plot.Weather: Mean start temp., 21.4˚C (range 11–33˚C).Temperatures were mildly warm, as typical forsouthern California's Mediterranean climate. Therewas no precipitation during, or within 24 hours of,survey visits. Coverage: 23.2 h; 10 visits (3 sunrise, 0sunset); 19, 25, 27 May; 7, 13, 24 June; 8, 14, 22, 23 July;2004. Census: Spotted Towhee, 14.5 (46); CaliforniaTowhee, 12.5 (39); Bewick's Wren, 9.0 (28); Black-headed Grosbeak, 6.0 (19); Lesser Goldfinch, 5.5 (17);Anna's Hummingbird, 5.0 (16); Phainopepla, 5.0; SongSparrow, 4.0 (13); House Finch, 4.0; Mourning Dove,3.0 (9); California Thasher, 3.0; Western Scrub-Jay, 2.5;California Quail, 2.0; Nuttall's Woodpecker, 2.0;American Goldfinch, 2.0; Black-chinnedHummingbird, 1.5; Black Phoebe, 1.5; Red-tailedHawk, 1.0; Northern Flicker, 1.0; Ash-throatedFlycatcher, 1.0; Bushtit, 1.0; House Wren, 1.0; CaliforniaGnatcatcher, 1.0; Hooded Oriole, 1.0; DownyWoodpecker, 0.5; Yellow-breasted Chat, 0.5; Lawrence'sGoldfinch, 0.5. Total: 27 species; 91.5 territories (288/40ha). Visitors: Cooper's Hawk, Say's Phoebe, WesternKingbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Least Bell's Vireo,American Crow, Northern Mockingbird, Orange-crowned Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Brown-headed Cowbird, Bullock's Oriole. Remarks: Spottedand California towhees were the most abundantpotential breeders. All species observed were commonwith the exception of California Gnatcatcher, Yellow-breasted Chat, and Least Bell's Vireo. The latter twospecies nested offsite and only partially used the plot.The Red-tailed Hawk nest was on the plot, but theterritory was larger than the plot. The small number ofBrown-headed Cowbirds on the plot is attributed tothe Santa Ana Watershed Association’s cowbirdtrapping program nearby. In addition to winter andbreeding bird surveys, this site is currently beingmonitored for invasive plant re-growth and Least Bell'sVireo nesting. Acknowledgements: Special thanks toGage Canal for site access.
16. STREAMSIDE RIPARIAN WOODLAND IBOSQUE RIBEREÑO I
TERRY REESER
Santa Ana Watershed Association25864-K Business Center Drive
Redlands CA 92374Location: California; Orange Co.; Yorba Linda;Featherly Regional Park; 33˚52'24"N, 117˚42'23"W;
Black Star Canyon and Prado Dam Quadrangles,USGS. Continuity: New. Size: 16.4 ha. Description ofPlot: The plot is a narrow corridor of riparian forestapproximately 2.3 km in length and 40–165 m inwidth edged by disturbed upland coastal sage scruband chaparral elements set in a highly urbanenvironment. It is part of a narrow wildlife corridor inthe Santa Ana Canyon connecting two large wildlifereserve fragments, the Cleveland NationalForest/Limestone Canyon Reserve and Chino HillsState Park. The keystone species, the mountain lion, isfrequent in the plot area. Cottonwoods and blackwillow line the river, but sycamore, scrub oak,California walnut, eucalyptus, and Peruvian pepperoccur in the upland edge of the plot. Patchycobblestone and gravel floodplain occurs within theriparian understory, which is dominated by mulefatand elderberry and also includes toyon, cattail, wildgrape, poison oak, and cocklebur. The upland plantcommunity consists of California sage, Californiabuckwheat, laurel sumac, conyza, brittle bush, andtarragon. Non-native invasive plants such as mustard,castor bean, tree tobacco, and giant reed occur in theplot. Invasive weed management is done sporadically.The river has a maximum depth of approximately 3m. The maximum width is 15.2 m. Manholes for ahazardous waste line that runs under the river occuralong the length of the plot. The plot is roughlybisected longitudinally by a dirt service road (6–13 min width), which is maintained by the local sanitationdistrict for access to the manholes. Edge: Between 51and 75% of the plot's perimeter is bordered by thesame habitat, and the plot lies within a tract of similarhabitat 101–500 ha in size. The Santa Ana River formsthe southern edge and is included in the plot. The plotwill vary slightly from year to year due to river flowthat is east to west. Similar habitat occurs on the southside of the river and upstream and downstream fromthe plot. Just outside the northern edge are citrusgroves, a bike trail, and railroad tracks beyond whichis a residential community. Topography andElevation: The plot is nearly level with a slope of<5%. Minimum elevation 111 m, maximum 121 m.Weather: Mean start temp., 18.0˚C (range 17–21˚C).Temperatures were mild, as typical for southernCalifornia's Mediterranean climate. There was noprecipitation during, before, or after (within 24 hoursof) survey visits. Coverage: 36.8 h; 8 visits (7 sunrise,0 sunset); 30 April; 12, 17 May; 3, 15, 23 June; 2, 9 July;2004. Census: Common Yellowthroat, 34.5 (84; 2FL);Spotted Towhee, 21.5 (52); Song Sparrow, 21.5 (1FL);Yellow Warbler, 19.5 (48); Bewick's Wren, 17.5 (43);House Wren, 15.5 (38; 1FL); Black-headed Grosbeak,11.5 (28; 2N,3FL); Least Bell's Vireo, 11.0 (27; 4N,3FL);Black Phoebe, 10.0 (24); Wrentit, 10.0; Anna'sHummingbird, 9.0 (22); California Towhee, 8.0 (20);Lesser Goldfinch, 8.0 (2FL); Nuttall's Woodpecker, 6.0
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[143]
(15); Ash-throated Flycatcher, 4.0 (10); AmericanCrow, 3.0 (7); Yellow-breasted Chat, 3.0; AmericanGoldfinch, 3.0 (1N); Western Scrub-Jay, 2.5; CaliforniaThrasher, 2.0; Mallard, 1.0; California Quail, 1.0;Cooper's Hawk, 1.0; Downy Woodpecker, 1.0;Northern Rough-winged Swallow, 1.0 (2FL); Bushtit,1.0; Savannah Sparrow, 1.0; Blue Grosbeak, 0.5. Total:28 species; 228.5 territories (557/40 ha). Visitors: Red-shouldered Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, Mourning Dove,Black-chinned Hummingbird, Western Wood-Pewee,European Starling, Orange-crowned Warbler, Wilson’sWarbler, Western Tanager, Hooded Oriole, Bullock'sOriole, House Finch. Remarks: The breeding birdcommunity includes riparian, coastal sage, andchaparral species. The endangered Least Bell's Vireoand California Species of Concern Yellow Warbler andYellow-breasted Chat bred on the plot along withother species of local concern such as DownyWoodpecker. We possibly over-counted some speciesdue to surveying only one side of the river, but wetook this into account for some species. Nestmonitoring for the Least Bell's Vireo and winter birdsurveys take place on the plot. Other Observer: SusanHoffman. Acknowledgements: I thank Harbors,Beaches, and Parks Resources and DevelopmentDepartment, County of Orange, for site access and itscontinuing logistical support.
17. STREAMSIDE RIPARIAN WOODLAND IIBOSQUE RIBEREÑO II
BONNIE NASH
Orange County Water District14980 River RoadCorona CA 92880
Location: California; Riverside Co.; Corona; PradoBasin; 33˚55'N, 117˚36'W; Corona North Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: New. Size: 10.3 ha. Description ofPlot: The plot is part of a 770 ha riparian preservebehind Prado Dam. It is approximately rectangularwith shortest side 141 m and longest side 767 m. Thesite is recovering from a September 2002 fire thatkilled much of the vegetation above ground. The plotcontains approximately 50% natives consisting of amixed willow (black willow and arroyo willow)-cottonwood-mulefat plant community without anassociated upland component. The dominant non-native plant is giant cane (Arundo donax), which isunder spray management since the fire. The dominantground cover plants are blackberry and mustard. Asof September 2003, there has been significant re-growth of black willow, cottonwood, mulefat, andblackberry. Patches of Arundo still occur. Maturewillows, cottonwoods, and eucalyptus are densealong the bluff side of the plot and spread sparselythroughout the rest of the plot. The plot contains a1400 m2 pond with a depth of 1–1.5 m. Vegetation
covers approximately one-third of the pond. Sitedisturbances include a newly constructed access roadand human encroachment such as ATV, paintball, andequestrian activities. Edge: Between 26 and 50% of theplot's perimeter is bordered by the same habitat, andthe plot lies within a tract of similar habitat >500 ha insize. The plot is bordered by the Santa Ana River tothe north and a bluff with residential development tothe south. Similar habitat occurs to the east and west,but there is also a busy two-lane road that borders theplot on the east. Topography and Elevation: The plotis nearly level with a slope of <5%. Minimumelevation 520 m, maximum 540 m. Weather: Meanstart temp., 20.6˚C (range 16–28˚C). Temperatureswere mildly warm, as typical for southern California'sMediterranean climate. Coverage: 13.4 h; 8 visits (1sunrise, 0 sunset); 13, 20, 28 May; 4, 11, 18 June; 13, 23July; 2004. Census: Song Sparrow, 17.0 (66); CommonYellowthroat, 16.5 (64); Spotted Towhee, 8.5 (33);Anna's Hummingbird, 7.5 (29); Yellow-breasted Chat,7.5; Black-headed Grosbeak, 6.5 (25; 1FL); YellowWarbler, 6.0 (23); Bewick's Wren, 5.0 (19); Ash-throated Flycatcher, 3.5 (14); California Thrasher, 2.5;California Towhee, 2.5; Common Ground-Dove, 2.0;Brown-headed Cowbird, 2.0; Selasphorus sp., 1.5;Nuttall's Woodpecker, 1.5; Downy Woodpecker, 1.5;Western Scrub-Jay, 1.5; House Finch, 1.5; LesserGoldfinch, 1.5; Northern Flicker, 1.0; Black Phoebe,1.0; Cassin's Kingbird, 1.0; Least Bell's Vireo, 1.0(1N,2FL); American Crow, 1.0; Bushtit, 1.0; HouseWren, 1.0; Bullock's Oriole, 1.0; Red-tailed Hawk, 0.5;American Kestrel, +; Wrentit, +. Total: 30 species;104.5 territories (406/40 ha). Visitors: Cooper's Hawk,Hooded Oriole, American Goldfinch. Remarks:Snowy Egrets, Great Blue Herons, and Black-crownedNight-Herons foraged on the plot. Least Bell's Vireonesting was monitored. This plot was damagedduring 2004–2005 winter flooding and has not beenaccessible since then. Invasive giant cane grew in theplot and is currently being cut and sprayed. Whethersurveys continue here, has not yet been determined.
18. STREAMSIDE RIPARIAN WOODLAND IIIBOSQUE RIBEREÑO III
TALULA BARBEE
Santa Ana Watershed Association14980 River RoadCorona CA 92880
ALLYSON BECKMAN
Santa Ana Watershed Association25864-K Business Center Drive
Redlands CA 92374Location: California; Riverside Co.; Redlands; SanTimoteo Canyon; 33˚59'5"N, 117˚7'45"W; SunnymeadQuadrangle, USGS. Continuity: New. Size: 13.0 ha.Description of Plot: The linear plot is located along
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[144]
San Timoteo Creek, in a fairly narrow canyon thatdrains approximately 198,000 ha of the SanBernardino Mountains and foothills in westernRiverside and San Bernardino counties. It isapproximately 1 km in length and varies from 46–200m in width. Two wide, low-lying terraces within thecanyon constitute the widest portions of the plot. Thehabitat is characterized by typical southern Californiariparian vegetation including a canopy of cottonwoodand black willow. The understory is dominated byblack willow, stands of mulefat, and arroyo willow,but also includes elderberry, mugwort, goldencurrant, and toyon. Associated upland plants includeArtemisia californica and California buckwheat. A largeportion of the ground cover is composed of leaf litterand bare soil. The study area originally wasdominated by invasive plants, most notably giantcane (Arundo donax) and tamarisk. Removal ofinvasives in 1997–2001, however, has allowedrestoration of the native plant community. The wateris shallow (<1 m in depth) and meanders through theplot. The maximum width of the creek is 15 m. Waterflow is usually perennial and predominantly fromdischarged treated water and agricultural and urbanrunoff. Edge: Less than 25% of the plot's perimeter isbordered by the same habitat, and the plot lies withina tract of similar habitat >500 ha in size. The plot isenclosed by 9–12 m steep cliff walls, and thesurrounding upland area consists mostly of non-native grasslands used for grazing and agriculture.The riparian habitat along the stream, however, iscontinuous for approximately 20 km above and belowthe plot. Topography and Elevation: The plot isnearly level with a slope of <5%. Minimum elevation515 m, maximum 533 m. Weather: Mean start temp.,20.8˚C (range 12–29˚C). Temperatures were mildlywarm, as typical for southern California'sMediterranean climate. There was no precipitationduring, or within 24 hours of, survey visits. Source:Western Regional Climate Center for Beaumont, CA.Coverage: 21.5 h; 8 visits (1 sunrise, 0 sunset); 14, 21,28 May; 4, 8, 25 June; 2, 9 July; 2004. Census: Bewick'sWren, 12.0 (37); Spotted Towhee, 12.0; Song Sparrow,12.0; Mourning Dove, 10.0 (31); House Wren, 9.0 (28);Least Bell's Vireo, 8.0 (25); California Towhee, 8.0;American Goldfinch, 7.0 (22); Ash-throatedFlycatcher, 5.0 (15); Lesser Goldfinch, 4.5 (14); BarnOwl, 4.0 (12); Nuttall's Woodpecker, 4.0; Bushtit, 4.0;Brown-headed Cowbird, 4.0; Oak Titmouse, 3.0 (9);Yellow Warbler, 3.0; Yellow-breasted Chat, 3.0; Black-chinned Hummingbird, 2.0; Anna's Hummingbird,2.0; Northern Flicker, 2.0; Common Yellowthroat, 2.0;Lark Sparrow, 2.0; California Quail, 1.0; Red-shouldered Hawk, 1.0 (1N); Red-tailed Hawk, 1.0;Downy Woodpecker, 1.0; Pacific-slope Flycatcher, 1.0;Black Phoebe, 1.0; American Crow, 1.0; EuropeanStarling, 1.0; Phainopepla, 1.0; Black-headed
Grosbeak, 1.0; Blue Grosbeak, 1.0; House Finch, 1.0;Bullock's Oriole, 0.5; Total: 35 species; 135.0 territories(415/40 ha). Visitors: White-tailed Kite, Cooper'sHawk, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, CommonRaven, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, NorthernMockingbird, California Thrasher. Remarks: The plotthat has been undergoing passive restoration for threeyears after removal of over 80 ha of invasive giantcane that choked the entire canyon. Thirty-five avianspecies bred within it, including one endangeredspecies, Least Bell's Vireo. Endangered SouthwesternWillow Flycatchers have been reported as breedershere on occasion. Other breeding species that havesuffered declines and are of state or local concerninclude Yellow-breasted Chat, Yellow Warbler, andDowny Woodpecker. Raptors are present, as are anumber of cavity nesters, which previously had beensparse. Nest monitoring for the Least Bell's Vireo andwinter bird surveys are also done on this plot.Acknowledgements: Special thanks to the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers for providing funding for thesurveys.
19. SHRUBBY SWAMP AND SEDGE HUMMOCKSPANTANO ARBUSTIVO–MOGOTE
DAVID ROSGEN
White Memorial Conservation CenterP.O. Box 368
Litchfield CT 06759Location: Connecticut; Litchfield Co.; Litchfield; WhiteMemorial Foundation–North Shore Marsh; 41°43'N,73°13'W; Litchfield Quadrangle, USGS. Continuity:Established 1965; 38 yr. Size: 8.1 ha. Description ofPlot: See Aud. Field Notes 19:625–627 (1965) and BirdPopulations 7:125–126 (2006). Succession is continuingwith more shrubs and trees and less herbaceousvegetation present every year. Flooding last yearcaused several more trees in the 8–15 cm DBH sizerange to die. There are now quite a few snags in theplot. Weather: Mean start temp., 19.6°C (range15–25°C). This year’s weather was ideal for breedingactivity. The only exceptions were a few cold nights inMay. Overall, temperatures were below average fromMay through August. May’s mean temperature was15.9°C, June’s was 17.7°C, and July’s was 20.8°C. Nodays exceeded 32.2°C. Rain fell on 19 days in Maywith precipitation totaling 11.2 cm (average). Therewere 10 days of rain totaling only 5.7 cm in June (5 cmbelow normal), and 14 days of rain totaling 11.9 cm inJuly (1 cm below normal). The only significantrainstorm in July (on the 28th) produced 3 cm of rain.Coverage: 24.5 h; 12 visits (1 sunrise, 4 sunset); 1, 8, 17,25 May; 3, 11, 18, 29 June; 9, 16, 24, 31 July; 2004.Maximum number of observers/visit, 3. Census:Swamp Sparrow, 35.0 (173; 6N,90FL); Red-wingedBlackbird, 34.0 (168; 8N,74FL); Yellow Warbler, 30.0
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[145]
(148; 16N,87FL); Common Yellowthroat, 23.0 (114;58FL); Gray Catbird, 18.5 (91; 7N,61FL); CommonGrackle, 9.0 (44; 7N,37FL); Song Sparrow, 6.0 (30;21FL); Cedar Waxwing, 5.0 (25; 1N,11FL); AmericanGoldfinch, 5.0 (1N,8FL); Eastern Kingbird, 4.0 (20;3N,12FL); Willow Flycatcher, 3.5 (17; 1N,10FL); TreeSwallow, 3.5 (2N,18FL); Warbling Vireo, 3.0 (15;1N,9FL); Baltimore Oriole, 3.0 (3N,14FL); LeastFlycatcher, 2.5 (7FL); Black-capped Chickadee, 2.5(2N,10FL); Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 2.5 (2N,8FL); Veery,2.5 (6FL); Alder Flycatcher, 2.0 (5FL); American Robin,2.0 (2N,8FL); Mallard, 1.5 (11FL); Downy Woodpecker,1.5 (1N,7FL); Northern Flicker, 1.5 (6FL); Great CrestedFlycatcher, 1.5 (3FL); Yellow-throated Vireo, 1.5 (3FL);Black-and-white Warbler, 1.5 (4FL); AmericanRedstart, 1.5 (4FL); Brown-headed Cowbird, 1.5 (2FL);Mourning Dove, 1.0 (2FL); Tufted Titmouse, 1.0 (6FL);White-breasted Nuthatch, 1.0 (1N,5FL); NorthernCardinal, 1.0 (1N,5FL); Mute Swan, 0.5 (1N); WoodDuck, 0.5 (6FL); Great Blue Heron, 0.5; HairyWoodpecker, 0.5 (2FL); Eastern Wood-Pewee, 0.5(3FL); Northern Waterthrush, 0.5; Spotted Sandpiper,+; Yellow-billed Cuckoo, +; Ruby-throatedHummingbird, +; Red-eyed Vireo, +; Purple Finch, +.Total: 43 species; 215.5 territories (1064/40 ha).Visitors: Canada Goose, Red-bellied Woodpecker,Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Remarks: The number ofbreeding species decreased dramatically this year. Thetotal of 43 species was 5 fewer than last year, but stillhigher than the previous 10-yr average of 36.8 species.The only species found this year but not last year wereYellow-billed Cuckoo and Purple Finch. Species foundlast year but not this year included Canada Goose,American Crow, Marsh Wren, Eastern Bluebird, WoodThrush, Chestnut-sided Warbler, and Rose-breastedGrosbeak. The total absence of Chestnut-sided Warbleris perplexing. Despite the decrease in the number ofspecies, the total number of territorial males rose to thesecond-highest total ever. The 215.5 territories countedthis year is well above the previous 10-yr average of175. Swamp Sparrow was the most abundant specieswith an increase of 6.0 territories over last year. OtherObservers: Eric Adam, John Eykelhoff, MarieKennedy, Bruce Sebastian, Pamela Velez, and EdwardYescott. Acknowledgments: Marie Kennedy wasinstrumental in helping to compile our Breeding BirdCensus data this year.
20. COASTAL SCRUBMATORRAL COSTANERO
GERHARD EPKE & ELIZABETH PORZIG
PRBO Conservation Science3820 Cypress Drive #11
Petaluma CA 94954Location: California; Marin Co.; Bolinas; PalomarinField Station; 37°55'N, 122°45'W; Bolinas Quadrangle,
USGS. Continuity: Established 1971; 30 yr. Size: 8.1ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 25:1003–1004(1971). The cover of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)and shrubs continues to increase. Weather: Mean starttemp., 10°C (range 5–14°C). Coverage: 170.5 h; 49visits (24 sunrise, 0 sunset). 2004. Census: Wrentit, 11.0(54; 8N,23FL); Bewick's Wren, 8.0 (40); SpottedTowhee, 7.5 (37; 2N); Wilson's Warbler, 5.5 (27; 1N);Orange-crowned Warbler, 4.5 (22; 2N); Allen'sHummingbird, 2.5; Hutton's Vireo, 2.0 (3N); Bushtit,2.0; Swainson's Thrush, 2.0; Chestnut-backedChickadee, 1.5; Red-breasted Nuthatch, 1.5; CaliforniaQuail, 1.0; Purple Finch, 1.0; Pacific-slope Flycatcher,0.5; Western Scrub-Jay, 0.5; Golden-crowned Kinglet,0.5 (1N); Red-tailed Hawk, +; Mourning Dove, +;Northern Flicker, +; Olive-sided Flycatcher, +; Steller'sJay, +; American Robin, +; Song Sparrow, +; White-crowned Sparrow, +; Dark-eyed Junco, +. Total: 25species; 51.5 territories (254/40 ha). Visitors: Sharp-shinned Hawk, Band-tailed Pigeon, Anna'sHummingbird, Hairy Woodpecker, NorthernMockingbird, American Goldfinch. Remarks: Theincrease in cover is likely responsible for some changesin bird numbers and species composition. OtherObserver: Dennis Jongsomjit. Acknowledgments: Wethank Point Reyes National Seashore for theircooperation. This is PRBO contribution No. 1605.
21. DISTURBED COASTAL SCRUB AMATORRAL PERTURBADO A
ERRIN KRAMER-WILT & ELIZABETH PORZIG
PRBO Conservation Science3820 Cypress Drive #11
Petaluma CA 94954Location: California; Marin Co.; Bolinas; PalomarinField Station; 37°55'N, 122°45'W; Bolinas Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: Established 1972; 30 yr. Size: 4.7ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 26:987–988(1972). Weather: Mean start temp., 10°C (range5–14°C). Coverage: 136.1 h; 65 visits (22 sunrise, 0sunset). 2004. Census: Wrentit, 4.5 (38; 5N,13FL);Allen's Hummingbird, 3.5 (30); Spotted Towhee, 3.0(26; 2N); Bushtit, 2.5; Song Sparrow, 2.5 (10N,20FL);Purple Finch, 2.5; American Goldfinch, 2.5 (3N);California Quail, 2.0; Anna's Hummingbird, 2.0;Wilson’s Warbler, 2.0; Bewick's Wren, 1.0; Orange-crowned Warbler, 1.0; Mourning Dove, 0.5; Hutton'sVireo, 0.5; Chestnut-backed Chickadee, 0.5; Red-breasted Nuthatch, 0.5; Swainson's Thrush, 0.5;White-crowned Sparrow, 0.5; Dark-eyed Junco, 0.5;Downy Woodpecker, +; Northern Flicker, +; Olive-sided Flycatcher, +; Pacific-slope Flycatcher, +;Steller's Jay, +; Western Scrub-Jay, +; Golden-crownedKinglet, +; American Robin, +; California Towhee, +;Black-headed Grosbeak, +; Brown-headed Cowbird,+; House Finch, +. Total: 31 species; 32.5 territories
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[146]
(277/40 ha). Visitors: Osprey. Remarks: Cover of trees(firs) and shrubs continues to increase. Overallterritory density decreased by 23% from 2003. Specieswith notable decreases in density from last yearinclude Wrentit (from 7.5 to 4.5 territories). This is thefirst year that Red-breasted Nuthatch was recordedbreeding on the plot. Other Observers: Nonereported. Acknowledgments: We thank Point ReyesNational Seashore for their cooperation. This is PRBOcontribution No. 1606.
22. DISTURBED COASTAL SCRUB BMATORRAL PERTURBADO B
LAURA KAPLAN & ELIZABETH PORZIG
PRBO Conservation Science3820 Cypress Drive #11
Petaluma CA 94954Location: California; Marin Co.; Bolinas; PalomarinField Station; 37°55'N, 122°46'W; Bolinas Quadrangle,USGS. Continuity: Established 1971; 30 yr. Size: 8.1ha. Description of Plot: See Am. Birds 25:1002 (1971)and J. Field Ornithol. 66(Suppl.):104 (1995). Weather:Mean start temp., 10°C (range 5–14°C). Coverage:204.2 h; 68 visits (25 sunrise, 0 sunset). 2004. Census:Song Sparrow, 10.0 (49; 5N,10FL); AmericanGoldfinch, 9.0 (44; 6N); Wrentit, 7.0 (35; 6N,10FL);Swainson's Thrush, 4.0 (20); Bewick's Wren, 3.5 (17);Wilson's Warbler, 3.5 (1N); Spotted Towhee, 3.5 (3N);Anna's Hummingbird, 3.0 (15); Orange-crownedWarbler, 3.0; Allen's Hummingbird, 2.5; Purple Finch,1.5; Mourning Dove, 1.0; Western Scrub-Jay, 1.0;Downy Woodpecker, 0.5; Bushtit, 0.5; Brown-headedCowbird, 0.5; Northern Flicker, +; Steller ’s Jay, +;Chestnut-backed Chickadee, +; Golden-crownedKinglet, +; American Robin, +; California Towhee, +;White-crowned Sparrow, +. Total: 23 species; 54.0territories (267/40 ha). Visitors: California Quail,Band-tailed Pigeon. Remarks: Cover of trees (firs) andshrubs continues to increase. Overall territory densitydecreased by 24% from 2003. No single speciesdecreased dramatically, but rather a majority ofspecies exhibited slight declines. This is the first yearthat Downy Woodpecker was recorded with aterritory in the plot. Other Observers: None reported.Acknowledgments: We thank Point Reyes NationalSeashore for their cooperation. This is PRBOcontribution No. 1607.
23. RED OSIER DOGWOOD SHRUBLANDMATORRAL DE CORNEJO DE HOJAS ROJAS
RYAN MADER
4192 West King Edward AvenueVancouver BC V6S 1N3
Location: Ontario; Waterloo; Laurel Creek
Conservation Area; 43˚29'N, 80˚35'W. Continuity:New. Size: 10.0 ha. Description of Plot: A roughlysquare plot located within the Laurel CreekConservation Area. The park itself contains a varietyof habitats: deciduous forest, coniferous woodland,wetland marsh, meadowland, and shrubland. Theprimary habitat of the plot is shrubland dominated byred osier dogwood, which is scattered in varyingdensities throughout. The dogwoods range from 1–3m in height, and are tallest and most dense in thesoutheast end of the plot. Both the height and densityof the dogwoods gradually decrease toward thenorthwest end such that the sparse shrubs areseparated by a ground cover of tall grass. A few smalldeciduous trees are dispersed within the shrubland.Within the plot, there is a teardrop-shaped pond witha diameter of approximately 50 m. Also within theplot, there are grass- or gravel-covered trails and ninebirdhouses. Edge: The plot is surrounded by a varietyof habitats. There is a deciduous forest and a privateresidence to the north. To the east is marshland,Laurel Creek Reservoir, and Laurel Creek itself. Thesouthern border is delineated by an east-west runningpowerline. To the southwest is a deciduous swampforest, and to the west there is a long, thin, tall swathof trees (primarily cedar) and then more shrubland.Topography and Elevation: The plot is roughly levelwith a gentle slope down towards the reservoir at theeastern end. This area can be exceptionally wet.Weather: Mean start temp., 14.2˚C (range 7–18˚C). The10 June visit was ended early due to heavy rain. The27 May visit began with heavy fog, which soon liftedto clear skies. Coverage: 12.2 h; 6 visits (6 sunrise, 0sunset); 13, 18, 27 May; 3, 10, 14 June; 2004. Census:Yellow Warbler, 19.0 (76; 1N); American Goldfinch,18.0 (72); Song Sparrow, 14.0 (56); Tree Swallow, 10.0(40); Red-winged Blackbird, 10.0; Willow Flycatcher,8.0 (32; Gray Catbird, 6.0 (24); Brown-headedCowbird, 5.0 (20); Black-capped Chickadee, 4.0 (16);American Robin, 4.0; Northern Flicker, 2.0; Blue Jay,2.0; Common Yellowthroat, 2.0; Northern Cardinal,2.0; Canada Goose, 1.0 (FL); Great Blue Heron, 1.0;Eastern Kingbird, 1.0; American Crow, 1.0; BrownThrasher, 1.0; Indigo Bunting, 1.0; Baltimore Oriole,1.0. Total: 21 species; 113.0 territories (452/40 ha).Visitors: Mallard, Ruby-throated Hummingbird,Downy Woodpecker, Red-eyed Vireo, CedarWaxwing, Chestnut-sided Warbler, Clay-coloredSparrow, Rose-breasted Grosbeak. Remarks:Mosquitoes and dragonflies were numerous duringthe second half of the census. In general, the mostintense amount of bird activity was in thesoutheastern corner of the plot where the dogwoodswere the tallest and densest. The borderingpowerlines and the birdhouses showed a considerableamount of bird activity. The powerlines were used bya variety of species including Brown-headed
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[147]
BREEDING BIRD CENSUS: 2004
[148]
Cowbird, Willow Flycatcher, Gray Catbird, Red-winged Blackbird, and Tree Swallow. The birdhouseswere used by Tree Swallows.
24. ABANDONED UPLAND PASTURE IIPASTIZAL DE ALTURAS ABANDONADO II
LYNN BOWDERY, LIN FAGAN, ALLAN BOWDERY, TOM SARRO, JANE VECCHIONE, RUTH ELWELL,
ELIZABETH MOFFET & BEA CONOVER
Mohonk Preserve, Inc.Daniel Smiley Research Center
P.O. Box 715New Paltz NY 12561
Site Number: NY1394089. Location: New York; UlsterCo.; Marbletown; Spring Farm; 41°47'30"N,74°7'30"W; Mohonk Lake & Rosendale Quadrangles,USGS. Continuity: Established 1994; 3 yr. Size: 30.0ha. Description of Plot: See J. Field Ornithol.66(Suppl.):114–115 (1995). Brush conditions in thefields were similar to 1999. Ash trees at the edgescontinue to die, and the dead elms are losing branchesand rotting away. Woolly adelgid has killed some ofthe hemlocks in the surrounding woods. Weather:Mean start temp., 17.3°C (range 12–23°C). We enjoyedgood observing weather for this census. In particular,there were no days in which wind noise prevented usfrom hearing the birds. Coverage: 33.0 h; 13 visits (12sunrise, 1 sunset); 14, 17, 19, 24 May; 2, 4, 7, 9, 14, 16,21, 23 June; 4 August; 2004. Maximum number ofobservers/visit, 9. Census: Indigo Bunting, 36.0 (48;2N); Red-eyed Vireo, 17.0 (23; 1N); Field Sparrow, 12.0(16); Tufted Titmouse, 9.5 (13; 3FL); CommonYellowthroat, 8.0 (11); Prairie Warbler, 7.0 (9);American Goldfinch, 7.0; Red-bellied Woodpecker, 6.0(8); Northern Cardinal, 6.0; Chipping Sparrow, 5.0 (7;2FL); Downy Woodpecker, 4.0 (5; 2FL); Black-cappedChickadee, 4.0 (3FL); Wood Thrush, 4.0; Gray Catbird,4.0; Scarlet Tanager, 4.0; Brown-headed Cowbird, 4.0;Baltimore Oriole, 4.0; Eastern Wood-Pewee, 3.5 (5);Ruby-throated Hummingbird, 3.0 (4); Eastern Phoebe,
3.0 (1FL); Blue Jay, 3.0; Tree Swallow, 3.0 (3FL); White-breasted Nuthatch, 3.0; American Robin, 3.0 (2FL);Blue-winged Warbler, 3.0; Eastern Towhee, 3.0 (1FL);Rose-breasted Grosbeak, 3.0; Red-winged Blackbird,3.0; Mourning Dove, 2.0; Great Crested Flycatcher, 2.0;Eastern Bluebird, 2.0 (5FL); American Redstart, 2.0;Wild Turkey, 1.0 (4FL); Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 1.0;Hairy Woodpecker, 1.0; Northern Flicker, 1.0; PileatedWoodpecker, 1.0; Eastern Kingbird, 1.0; Barn Swallow,1.0 (1N); House Wren, 1.0 (1N); Blue-grayGnatcatcher, 1.0; Cedar Waxwing, 1.0; Black-and-white Warbler, 1.0; Ovenbird, 1.0; Song Sparrow, 1.0;Sharp-shinned Hawk, 0.5; Yellow-throated Vireo, 0.5;American Crow, 0.5; European Starling, +; YellowWarbler, +; Worm-eating Warbler, +; CommonGrackle, +. Total: 52 species; 197.5 territories (263/40ha). Visitors: Red-tailed Hawk, Black-billed Cuckoo,Acadian Flycatcher, Least Flycatcher, Carolina Wren,Golden-crowned Kinglet, Black-throated BlueWarbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Black-throatedGreen Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, House Finch.Remarks: New species this year were Sharp-shinnedHawk, Red-tailed Hawk, Black-billed Cuckoo,Acadian Flycatcher, Golden-crowned Kinglet, andCarolina Wren. Chestnut-sided Warbler had been seenon territory previously but was not seen this year.There were substantial declines in the numbers ofterritories of Field Sparrow, Common Yellowthroat,Prairie Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, AmericanRedstart, American Robin, and Song Sparrow. Speciesthat increased their numbers included IndigoBunting, Red-eyed Vireo, Tufted Titmouse, DownyWoodpecker, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Baltimore Oriole, and Ruby-throatedHummingbird. Other Observers: Barbara Rubin,David Arner, Betty Boomer, Tom Crepet, JohnThompson, Ethan Pierce, Lauren McPhillips, and CleaBowdery. Acknowledgments: Thanks to the MohonkPreserve for its cooperation, and especially to theDaniel Smiley Research Center, for which thesecensuses are done.
[149]
The BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey(BBS) is now the main survey aimed at keepingtrack of changes in the breeding populations ofwidespread terrestrial bird species across theUK. Knowledge of the status of bird populationsis fundamental to their conservation and BBSresults are already being used by Governmentand nongovernmental organisations to setconservation priorities.
Randomly selected 1-km squares are allocatedto participants within each BBS Region byvolunteer Regional Organisers (ROs). The BBS isa line-transect survey, with each observervisiting their square on two occasions fromApril to June to count all the birds they see andhear along a 2-km route. Although many partsof the country have reached a near optimumlevel of coverage, other areas are still in need ofparticipants. We are particularly keen to increasethe number of squares surveyed in NorthernIreland, Scotland, North East England and theMidlands. Increasing the coverage in these areaswould allow us to monitor the populationchanges of more bird species.
SURVEY COVERAGEThis carefully designed, yet simple survey
attracted many participants and in the spring of2003 there were more than 1,800 BBS observerscollecting information on bird numbers from2,254 1-km squares throughout the UK. Of thistotal, the majority was located in England (1,671squares), with smaller numbers in Scotland(255), Wales (212), Northern Ireland (105),Channel Islands (7) and the Isle of Man (4). Thisconsiderable effort on the part of organisers andobservers means that we are able to report onchanges in bird populations for England,Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and innine English Government Office Regions as wellas for the UK overall.
SPECIES AND HABITAT COVERAGE A total of 212 species was recorded in 2003 andof these, 100 species were noted in at least 40squares, enabling UK population trends to bemeasured. Work has recently been undertakento assess the precision and reliability of BBStrends for all species, with the aim of developinga protocol for ensuring that the reporting oftrends is based on reliable data and sufficientsample sizes. This has resulted in the populationtrends of five species of gull (Black-headed,Common, Herring, Lesser Black-backed and
Bird Populations 8:149-155Reprinted with permissionBTO News 254:10-13© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS?
MIKE RAVEN, DAVID NOBLE AND STEPHEN BAILLIE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Mike Raven, David Noble and Stephen Baillie report on the results of the Breeding BirdSurvey: 1994–2003.
¿QUÉ HA ESTADO OCURRIENDO CON LAS POBLACIONES DE AVES COMUNES? Mike Raven, David Noble y Stephen Baillie informan sobre los resultados del Conteo de Aves
Reproductoras: 1994-2003.
MIKE RAVEN, DAVID NOBLE AND STEPHEN BAILLIE
[150]
Great Blackbacked) being excluded from thereport as a large proportion of the counts areconsidered to be of non-breeding, wintering ormigratory birds. Trends for Cormorant, GreyHeron and Common Tern are reported with thecaveat that counts may contain a highproportion of birds away from breeding sites,and the trend for Tawny Owl with the caveatthat the BBS method monitors nocturnal speciespoorly.
No official UK rarities were reported,although lucky observers managed to record anumber of rare breeding species on theirsquares, such as Black-necked Grebe, Garganey,Honey Buzzard, Whitetailed Eagle, Montagu’sHarrier, Corncrake, Mediterranean Gull,Firecrest, Hawfinch and Golden Oriole. Latewinter visitors and migrants included GreatNorthern Diver, Scaup, Wood Sandpiper andIceland Gull. Redwing and Fieldfare wererecorded on an unusually high number ofsquares in 2003, suggesting that they were lateto leave the UK for their breeding grounds innorthern Europe.
In total, the habitat details from more than21,000 200 m transect sections were recorded in2003. Work is planned this year to use thisextensive dataset of habitat information, togenerate habitat-specific trends for individualspecies. This will further help us to identifypossible reasons for population changes.
POPULATION TRENDSTable 1 shows the population changes betweenthe last two seasons for which complete data areavailable (2002 and 2003) and for the surveyperiod to date (1994 to 2003). Trends areestimated using a log-linear regression modelthat corrects for differences in coverage amongregions. Across the UK, 44 species increased and26 species declined significantly between 1994and 2003. The following are some of the moreinteresting ups and downs.
GOLDFINCH & LINNETThe Common Birds Census (CBC) data indicatethat Goldfinch underwent a marked declinebetween the mid 1970s and mid 1980s, but hasrecovered since 1986. Numbers have increasedby 33% on BBS squares since 1994 (see Figure 1).It is thought that this decline was driven by
reduced survival rates, caused by a reduction inthe availability of weed seeds. The subsequentrecovery may be partly due to the Goldfinch’snew fondness for visiting garden bird tables,and this is borne out by the increasing numberof Garden BirdWatch and Garden Bird FeedingSurvey (see p37–40) sites reporting this speciessince 1985. An interesting comparison can bemade with the red-listed Linnet, whichunderwent a similar decline, after whichnumbers stabilised (there has been little changeon BBS sites since 1994). However declines arestill being reported from Constant Effort Sites(CES), probably driven by low productivity.Modern day hedgerow management, which canleave broods vulnerable to predation, could be acontributing factor to this decline. Linnets,unfortunately, have not taken to garden feeders.
TURTLE DOVENumbers of the red-listed Turtle Dove declinedby 44% on BBS squares between 1994 and 2003.Declines were first identified from CommonBirds Census (CBC) data in the late 1970s, andhave continued at an alarming rate. Since thefirst Breeding Bird Atlas was published in 1976,numbers have fallen by threequarters, with theestimated UK population dropping from morethan 125,000 pairs to less than 45,000 pairs atpresent. The range has also contracted, withpopulations disappearing from peripheral areasin the North and South West of England. TheEast of England (birds recorded on 31% of BBSsquares), South East (15%) and East Midlandregions (10%) hold the core of the UKpopulation, with the West Midlands (4%),Yorkshire (2%) and South West (1%) now at the
FIGURE 1. Goldfinch and Linnet CBC/BBS forEngland.
Index (1966=100)
120
80
40
0
Goldfinch
Linnet
66 71 76 81 86 91 96 01
Year
edge of its range. Only in the fenland areas ofEast Anglia, can the Turtle Dove be described asreasonably common. A number of factors areprobably driving this severe and continuingdecline, including hunting pressure along itsmigration route in southern Europe, andagricultural intensification in the UK. Workdone by the Game Conservancy Trust indicatesthat the latter factor appears to be limiting thenumber of breeding attempts.
STARLINGThe downward trend of the Starling continues,with numbers falling by 28% on BBS squaresbetween 1994 and 2003. The UK conservationlisting for Starling has recently been changedfrom Amber to Red because the long-termdecline now exceeds 50%. Numbers fellsignificantly in eight of the nine English regions,and in Wales a decline of 62% was recorded.However, the picture was not all bad, with littlechange reported in Scotland, and a significantincrease of 76% in Northern Ireland. A seriousdecline was first noted in the UK in the early1980s, and this has been especially severe inwoodland. Analysis of ringing data undertakenby BTO staff indicates that decreasing survivalrates, particularly among first year birds, may beresponsible for the decline, which in turn maybe linked to a loss of the species’ preferredfeeding habitat — permanent pasture — and theintensification of livestock rearing.
RAVENThe increase of Raven populations, however, isanother success story recorded by the BBS. Aftermany years of decline and contraction in range,the BBS is reporting significant increases inEngland, Scotland and Wales. In the early 19thcentury this species bred across the UK,including most lowland counties of England.Following widespread persecution, its rangecontracted into core areas in Wales, Scotland andSouth West England. In the past 10 years,however, widespread reports show this speciesto be recolonising areas in which it had onlyrecently been classified as a rare visitor.Although Ravens are not recorded in enoughsquares for BBS trends to be calculated inseparate English regions, occurrence on BBS
squares has more than doubled in the NorthWest, West Midlands and South West since thestart of the survey. Likewise in Northern Ireland,Ravens were recorded more widely in 2003, thanin 1994.
MIXED FORTUNES FOR MIGRANTWARBLERS
Most of Britain’s warblers are long distancemigrants, over-wintering in areas from theMediterranean to Africa south of the Sahara,and hence year-to-year changes are stronglyinfluenced by conditions outside the breedingseason. The UK BBS trends for 10 species areshown in Figure 2. BBS results showed thatSedge Warbler numbers fell sharply in 2003 tolevels below those in 1994 (although notsignificantly). Reed Warbler and GrasshopperWarbler numbers also dropped in 2003, butshowed no overall change over the surveyperiod. The fortunes of the four Sylvia warblersmonitored by the BBS were more varied, withsignificant declines in Lesser Whitethroat (down39%) and Garden Warbler (down 17%),contrasting with increases in Whitethroat (up17%) and Blackcap (up 36%) over the surveyperiod.
Of the three Phylloscopus warblers monitoredby the BBS, the Wood Warbler has the dubioushonour of having undergone the greatest declinein the UK since 1994, with numbers falling by68%. Chiffchaff continued to increase, withnumbers up by 22% between 2002 and 2003, andup by 46% over the survey period. Regionally,increases in excess of 100% since 1994 werereported for this species in North West England,Yorkshire and the East Midlands. The decline inWillow Warbler however, continued, withnumbers down by 11% in the UK. This moderatefall masked much larger declines in seven of theeight English regions for which trends could becalculated, although numbers increased inScotland (up 25%) and Northern Ireland (up47%).
Populations of Sedge Warbler and White-throat, and probably Garden Warbler have beenadversely affected by drought conditions intheir African wintering grounds in the past,although they have made varying degrees ofrecovery since the declines of the late 1960s andearly 1970s. Chiffchaff also underwent a decline
WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS?
[151]
MIKE RAVEN, DAVID NOBLE AND STEPHEN BAILLIE
[152]
TABLE 1. Population changes of common and widespread species 2002–2003 and 1994–2003.
Species Sample Change 02-03 Change 94-03 lcl ucl
Little Grebe 47 18.6 47.4 * 5 106Little Grebe 49 1 49 * 7 107Great Crested Grebe 56 –39 –28 * –47 –1Cormorant 153 –28 14 –4 37Grey Heron 494 6 40 * 26 56Mute Swan 174 –6 14 –2 33Greylag Goose 92 14 183 * 120 264Canada Goose 311 44 * 136 * 108 169Shelduck 114 –9 –39 * –49 –26Mallard 943 –12 24 * 16 33Tufted Duck 121 9 50* 22 85Sparrowhawk 271 2 –5 –18 10Buzzard 504 2 53 * 38 69Kestrel 514 36 * –5 –15 5Red Grouse 100 17 22 –1 50Red-legged Partridge 379 7 28 * 14 43Grey Partridge 210 –25 –39 * –49 –27Pheasant 1262 14 * 33 * 26 39Moorhen 508 8 32 * 19 45Coot 194 30 102 * 74 134Oystercatcher 237 1 –14 * –23 –5Golden Plover 53 21 –9 –31 21Lapwing 542 2 –13 * –20 –6Snipe 121 –1 46 * 21 76Curlew 429 –10 –27 * –33 –21Redshank 67 –4 –22 –39 0Common Sandpiper 60 13 –12 –31 12Common Tern 46 7 1 –28 42Feral Pigeon 539 36 * 14 * 3 25Stock Dove 597 1 13 * 2 24Wood Pigeon 1851 7 12 * 8 17Collared Dove 1003 5 31 * 23 38Turtle Dove 184 –5 –44 * –53 –33Cuckoo 707 –12 –36 * –41 –30Little Owl 90 –22 1 –22 32Tawny Owl 76 6 –32 * –49 –10Swift 852 4 –28 * –34 –22Kingfisher 42 –26 23 –16 82Green Woodpecker 561 7 28 * 16 40Gr. Sp. Woodpecker 619 7 85 * 68 104Skylark 1378 0 –14 * –17 –10Sand Martin 96 –51 * –46 * –59 –29Swallow 1437 –1 8 * 2 14House Martin 736 1 15 * 6 26Tree Pipit 119 –2 –1 –19 21Meadow Pipit 628 7 3 –2 8Yellow Wagtail 151 14 –17 * –29 –2Grey Wagtail 162 3 53 * 26 85Pied Wagtail 982 9 34 * 24 43Dipper 44 68 34 –8 95Wren 1816 3 17 * 13 20Dunnock 1513 9 21 * 15 26Robin 1749 0 17 * 13 21Redstart 131 –18 11 –8 33
WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS?
[153]
Whinchat 76 10 –10 –29 14Stonechat 88 3 168 * 100 258Wheatear 239 –6 2 –10 17Blackbird 1832 2 18 * 15 21Song Thrush 1428 4 18 * 12 24Mistle Thrush 964 4 2 –6 10Grasshopper Warbler 58 –22 –3 –32 38Sedge Warbler 241 –34 * –9 –21 4Reed Warbler 87 –15 10 –10 35Lesser Whitethroat 202 –15 –39 * –48 –27Whitethroat 987 –10 17 * 9 24Garden Warbler 366 –2 –17 * –27 –6Blackcap 1067 –6 36 * 28 44Wood Warbler 54 –24 –68 * –78 –55Chiffchaff 978 22 * 46 * 38 55Willow Warbler 1191 –3 –11 * –15 –7Goldcrest 553 –1 57 * 44 71Spotted Flycatcher 190 4 –42 * –51 –31Pied Flycatcher 41 –38 –43 * –59 –20Long-tailed Tit 646 13 11 –1 23Marsh Tit 122 –9 16 –7 46Willow Tit 54 55 –55 * –68 –37Coal Tit 559 3 29 * 19 40Blue Tit 1710 9 * 18 * 13 22Great Tit 1568 7 26 * 20 31Nuthatch 303 –1 42 * 24 61Treecreeper 268 –8 9 –7 27Jay 524 –21 * –11 * –20 –1Magpie 1422 0 1 -3 6Jackdaw 1203 6 20 * 13 27Rook 1012 9 8 0 17Carrion Crow 1734 –7 8 * 3 14Hooded Crow 111 32 –4 –23 21Raven 173 31 99 * 65 141Starling 1469 –17 * –28 * –33 –23House Sparrow 1239 7 –2 –6 2Tree Sparrow 133 0 52 * 24 85Chaffinch 1833 2 7 * 4 11Greenfinch 1329 –1 30 * 23 37Goldfinch 1053 12 33 * 24 43Siskin 112 –21 –33 * –46 –16Linnet 1024 3 –1 –8 6Lesser Redpoll 120 –8 11 –10 37Bullfinch 448 3 –19 * –28 –9Yellowhammer 992 –3 –17 * –21 –13Reed Bunting 338 11 13 * 2 26Corn Bunting 139 10 –35 * –45 –22
KEY TO TABLE 1Population changes of widespread species 2002–2003 and 1994–2003. The sample size indicated is the meannumber of squares occupied each year over the 10 years (excluding squares where the species was recorded inonly one year). The figures presented are the percentage changes in population levels for the respective timeperiods, those marked with an asterisk were significantly different at a 5% level. For the 1994–2003 period, thelower and upper 95% confidence intervals (lcl, ucl) are given. Species in bold are redlisted, and species in italicsamber-listed in The Population Status of Birds in the UK, Birds of conservation concern: 2002–2007.
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Species Sample Change 02-03 Change 94-03 lcl ucl
W 47 6
during the early 1970s, after which numbershave increased. Lesser Whitethroat numbershave undergone a moderate decline since thelate 1980s possibly due to lower productivity, asrevealed by Constant Effort Site (CES) results,but have shown a slight recovery since 1997.Blackcap numbers have increased consistentlysince the late 1970s and increases have occurredacross most of the countries and English regionsfor which trends can be calculated. The reasonfor this success remains unknown, with noidentifiable trends in productivity, but we doknow that increasing numbers of continentalbirds are over-wintering in the UK.
USE OF BBS DATA FOR FARMLANDBIRD CONSERVATION
The BBS has taken over the role of supplyinginformation on changes in UK terrestrialbreeding bird populations from the CBC, andthese data are more important for conservationthan ever. BBS data are now fully integratedwith CBC data for the calculation of long-termtrends and in the headline wild bird indicators.The Farmland Bird Indicator has been adoptedby the Government as a Public ServiceAgreement target, with a promise to reversedeclines by 2020. A number of species haveBiodiversity Action Plans because of their poorconservation status, and progress towards BAPtargets is assessed using the most recentCBC/BBS trends, or special surveys (e.g. StoneCurlew).
Data from the Nest Record Scheme, CES andRinging Scheme have been analysed todetermine whether changes in survival orbreeding performance appear to be driving thedeclines in farmland species. Armed with thisinformation and intensive studies of theirecological requirements, conservationists have amuch better idea about changes in agriculturalpractices and the aspects of habitat managementneeded to reverse these trends. The next step isto test management options in the field and anumber of broad-scale experiments areunderway. These include studies of the impactof winter food availability on seed-eatingfarmland birds, the effectiveness of Skylarkscrapes (unsown patches) for nesting in arablecrops, and on the provision of field margins inpastoral systems. Early results from theseFIGURE 2. Warbler population changes on UK BBS
sites.
94 96 98 00 02
94 96 98 00 02
94 96 98 00 02
94 96 98 00 02
94 96 98 00 02
MIKE RAVEN, DAVID NOBLE AND STEPHEN BAILLIE
[154]
BBS Index (1994=1)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Chiffchaff
Willow Warbler
Blackcap
WoodWarbler
Whitethroat
Garden Warbler
Lesser Whitethroat
Grasshopper Warbler
Sedge Warbler
Reed Warbler
Year
projects, and other research within Europe, werehighlighted at a recent BOU Farmland BirdConference attended by academics, farmers,representatives from conservation organisationsand those responsible for governmentagricultural policy. One of the most importantoutcomes of farmland bird monitoring andresearch over the past few decades is that inJanuary 2005, the government will be rolling outits new Entry Level Environmental StewardshipScheme. This will include familiar options suchas set-aside and organic farming, but also avariety of new options aimed at improvingbiodiversity (not just birds) in agriculturallandscapes. Importantly, the success of thebroad-scale implementation of these optionsacross the UK will be measured by changes inbreeding bird populations on BBS squares.
BBS data are also being used in a specialproject (the Farmland Bird Database) to map thedistributions of less widespread species in orderto direct agri-environment scheme applicationsat sites where they are likely to have the mostimpact.
THE FUTUREBBS-online went live in October 2003 allowingobservers to submit their BBS countselectronically via the web. To date, counts frommore than 450 BBS squares have been submittedonline for the 2004 field season. All of thehistorical data (1994–2002), together with thelatest counts for 2003 have been loaded onto thesystem and this provides the user with afascinating insight into the birds, mammals andhabitat recorded on BBS squares over the pastnine years. The website pages provide a wealth ofinformation on BBS trends, county and regionalspecies lists, species distribution maps, schemecoverage, methodology and how to take part.Once the BBS observer has registered as an onlineuser, they can enter their BBS counts and viewpast data for their squares (www.bto.org/bbs).
One of the aims of the system is to encouragenew volunteers to take part in the BBS, and so ithas been very encouraging to see so manyenquiries to participate in the scheme since thesystem went live. Many thanks must be given tothe RSPB for generously funding the develop-ment of BBS-online, and to members of theBTO’s Information Systems Unit (Iain Downie,Karen Wright, James Hall and James Mackinnon)who have developed the system and providedtechnical support over the past few months.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are again extremely grateful to all the ROs,observers and BTO members who took part inthe BBS last year. We would also like to thankthe farmers and landowners for their supportand cooperation in allowing BBS volunteersonto their land. The BBS continues to be anenormous success and is now the primarysource of information on national and regionaltrends in common breeding birds. If you wouldlike to take part in the scheme, please contactyour local RO or Mike Raven at BTO HQ (e-mail: [email protected]).
The BBS is a partnership between the BritishTrust for Ornithology, the Joint NatureConservation Committee (on behalf of EnglishNature, Scottish Natural Heritage and theCountryside Council for Wales, and also onbehalf of the Environment and Heritage Servicein Northern Ireland) and the Royal Society forthe Protection of Birds.
FURTHER READINGCrick, et al. (2004) Breeding Birds in the WiderCountryside: their conservation status 2003. BTOResearch Report No. 353. BTO, Thetford.(www.bto.org/birdtrends) Raven, M J, Noble, D G & Baillie, S R (2004). TheBreeding Bird Survey 2003. BTO Research Report363. BTO, Thetford.
WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS?
[155]
The Waterways Bird Survey (WBS) has justentered its fourth decade of territory mappingalong rivers and canals. It was begun inrecognition of the special importance ofwaterways as a habitat for birds, with some ofits species being found only rarely elsewhere,and also of their vulnerability to pollution andmismanagement. The Breeding Bird Survey nowmeasures the population trends of most UKbreeding birds, but there are several species thatWBS covers better. Further, WBS can producetrends in bird numbers that are specific to thewaterside habitat: these help to indicate thehealth of that ecosystem.
Table 1, drawn directly from the website,shows that six declining species have crossedthresholds (at –25% or –50%) for BTO to raise analert to conservation bodies that action may beneeded to reverse the current trend. Three of thespecies that raise alerts are the wagtails, withYellow Wagtail clearly in serious trouble.Detailed studies have already begun to examinewhy this should be so.
Across these 24 species, the median change isan increase of about one-third. Undoubtedly thewell-documented general improvement in water
quality has contributed to this change. Some ofthe species, initially too scarce in the sample tomonitor, have logged substantial increases overperiods shorter than 25 years. It is surprising tosee Lapwing, which is Amber-listed because ofits strong decline on farmland, as the second-strongest increase — but, perhaps because of itssemicolonial nesting behaviour, the confidenceinterval for this species is exceptionally wide,and the change is not statistically significant. Forthe introduced geese, and maybe also forMallard (many of which along waterways showevidence of domestic ancestry), the increasesmay indicate burgeoning problems forconservation rather than success stories. WBSdoes not monitor the Hebridean or Icelandicpopulations of Greylag, for which the species isAmber-listed in the UK.
A review, just completed at the request of theEnvironment Agency, looks at WBS populationtrajectories in more detail (Newson et al., BTOresearch report 337). The similarity betweenDipper and Grey Wagtail suggests a relationshipto environmental conditions along fast-flowingrivers, although Grey Wagtails occur much morewidely. For Mute Swan, Moorhen, Kingfisher, and
[156]
Bird Populations 8:156-159Reprinted with permissionBTO News 253:14-15© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
MONITORING WATERWAYS BIRDS (AND MAMMALS)
JOHN MARCHANT
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
The BTO’s programme of annual surveys includes two that offer birdwatching walks inwhat is often prime habitat for breeding birds. John Marchant gives the latest news fromthese surveys: Waterways Bird Survey and Waterways Breeding Bird Survey.
MONITOREO DE AVES (Y MAMÍFEROS) A LO LARGO DE CURSOS ACUÁTICOS El programa de conteos anuales del BTO incluye dos que ofrecen paseos de observación
de aves en lo que suele ser hábitat de alta calidad para aves reproductoras. John Marchantaporta las últimas noticias de estos conteos: Conteos de aves en cursos acuáticos, y Conteode aves reproductoras en cursos acuáticos.
Grey and Pied Wagtails, annual changes in abun-dance were related to mean winter temperature.
WBS RESULTS FROM 2003There were 74 plots where results for 2002 and2003 could be paired to assess populationchanges between these two years. Of these, 31(42%) were in counties north of the Mersey andHumber; again, none were in Northern Ireland.Rivers made up 65% of the sample and theothers were canals or mixed sites. Paired countsfrom these sites are summarised in Table 2.
Of the five statistically significant changesbetween these two years, four were increasesand only one, for Sand Martin, a decrease. Onboth WBS and BBS, Sand Martins havedecreased since a population peak in 1996.Among the ‘alert’ species, decreases continued
for Common Sandpiper, but both Pied and GreyWagtails increased significantly. Little Grebe,Redshank and Yellow Wagtail have become tooscarce for annual WBS monitoring. All thewildfowl species that are covered by the indicescontinued their population growth, includingGreylag Goose, for which an increase of 16%was recorded from 13 plots.
WBS NEEDS MORE PLOTS!It is important for waterbird conservation thatthe long run of WBS trend data is continued.The BTO’s keen band of volunteer surveyors isdoing just this –and deserve our thanks! Thenumber of surveys completed annually hasstarted to fall in recent years, however, from 105in 1999 to 98 in 2000, 91 in 2002, and just 83 lastyear. This may be because potential observersare anticipating the survey’s (as yet unplanned)demise. We are very keen to add more new WBSplots in 2005, in all parts of the UK, to reversethis decline. This survey suits people who enjoya riverside walk and can identify the water birdsthey are likely to meet. Volunteers can choosetheir own stretch of river or canal to cover,provided it is at least 3 km long and does notoverlap with existing surveys. If you may beable to help, please ask us for more details.
NEWS FROM WBBSThe Waterways Breeding Bird Survey is a BBS-style transect survey along waterways,introduced as a pilot scheme in 1998, and still indevelopment. The current phase of WBBSdevelopment ends in 2004, and we are nowseeking funding for further work. Eventually,WBBS might supersede WBS, but this dependson the results of studies still in progress, and onwhether funding can be found for WBBS as anongoing scheme. It is vital that WBS mappingcontinues strongly, at least until we understandhow the WBBS’s transects might replace it.
The plan for 2004 was to double the sample ofrandom WBBS sites, and to bring the totalsample up towards 300 sites (see BTO News 249:22). Good progress towards this target wasmade in 2003, with an increase to 261 sites from228 in 2002.
A full analysis of the WBBS data collected sofar will be made before next spring. This will tell
MONITORING WATERWAYS BIRDS (AND MAMMALS)
[157]
TABLE 1. Long-term trends from the Waterways BirdSurvey.
Species % change
Yellow Wagtail –89 *Reed Bunting –68 *Little Grebe –60 *†Redshank –49 *†Pied Wagtail –48 *Grey Wagtail –34 *Common Sandpiper –23 *Sedge Warbler –15Dipper –13Moorhen –13Kingfisher +3Sand Martin +32 *†Tufted Duck +41Coot +49Curlew +64 *Goosander (1981–2000) +65Mute Swan +73 *Canada Goose (1981–2000) +76Whitethroat +81Reed Warbler +81 *†Oystercatcher +112 *Greylag Goose (1993–2000) +145 *†Lapwing +170Mallard +196 *
Data cover 1975–2000 unless stated otherwise. Anasterisk indicates statistical significance, and a daggerwarns that the sample size is small. Species shown asitalic are Amber-listed, and those shown as bold areRed-listed. For more information, see www.bto.org/birdtrends.
us how many plots would be needed to makemonitoring of trends for a range of target speciessufficiently precise. Probably, trends of the sameprecision can be drawn from fewer occupiedWBBS than BBS sites: this is because WBBSobservers walk on average 50% further thanBBS’s standard 2 km, and keep to rich birdhabitats, and so record more birds per site.
Unlike WBS, WBBS covers all bird species.This opens the possibility of producing trendsthat are specific to the waterside habitat forwidespread species like Blackbird and Robin.These could be compared with similar habitat-specific trends for the same species derived fromBBS, for example for farmland and woodland. Bycombining data for a range of species, WBBScould also produce an indicator of birdpopulations generally along waterways. The firstattempts at producing trends from WBBS data,using old-style chain methods, are encouraging— despite the much-reduced sample of sitessurveyed in 2001, when Foot & Mouth struck(Figure 1). These graphs compare the resultsfrom randomly selected sites with those fromsites that were surveyed because they were alsobeing covered for WBS, and show good
consistency with BBS and other schemes.
MAMMALS, TOOBTO is making increasingly valuable contri-butions to mammal as well as bird recording inthe UK. This began in 1995 with BBS observersnoting mammals on their transect walks. Usinga very similar protocol, WBBS has recordedmammals since 1998, its first year. A study isnow under way to investigate whether WBBSmammal data can usefully augment thosecollected by BBS and other schemes. We hopethat WBBS will have a very special part to playin monitoring those mammals that specialise inwaterside habitats — especially Otter, AmericanMink and Water Vole.
WBBS IN 2005How WBBS will operate in spring 2005 will notbe known in detail until the New Year. We fullyexpect, however, that we will be asking for repeatsurveys at all sites already surveyed for thescheme. This will extend the overlap betweenWBS and WBBS monitoring to seven years
JOHN MARCHANT
[158]
TABLE 2. Estimates of population change 2002–03, from WBS data.
Territory totals Number Species 2000 2002 % change lcl ucl of plots
Mute Swan 79 81 +3 –10 +16 46Canada Goose 133 146 +10 –19 +42 34Mallard 1810 1910 +6 –2 +14 74Tufted Duck 57 60 +5 –31 +59 15Goosander 51 61 +20 * 0 +43 25Moorhen 537 586 +9 * +2 +17 65Coot 203 205 +1 –12 +14 34Oystercatcher 232 218 –6 –20 +59 24Lapwing 181 195 +8 –22 +37 33Curlew 54 54 0 –17 +17 17Common Sandpiper 101 90 –11 –19 +3 18Kingfisher 49 43 –12 –34 +12 38Sand Martin 1734 1060 –39 * –66 –3 17Dipper 83 88 +6 –9 +21 29Reed Warbler 222 238 +7 –5 +19 21Sedge Warbler 302 274 –9 –21 +5 35Whitethroat 215 200 –7 –20 +7 45Pied Wagtail 163 186 +14 * +2 +27 53Grey Wagtail 132 159 +20 * +7 +37 48Reed Bunting 210 217 +3 –7 +15 42
lcl and ucl = 95% lower and upper confidence limits; * = statistically significant change. Species listed in italics areAmberlisted, and those in bold Red-listed. Species with fewer than 15 plots contributing paired data are excluded.
(omitting 2001 when FMD restrictions made mostsites inaccessible), and provide seven data pointson WBBS trend graphs — enough to assess thedirection of trends for mammals andnonwaterbirds along waterways for the first time.
If you are interested in helping with WBSand/or WBBS, please contact me at BTOThetford HQ, e-mail: [email protected]
Thank you to the Environment Agency forfunding WBBS.
MONITORING WATERWAYS BIRDS (AND MAMMALS)
[159]
FIGURE 1. Example trend graphs from WBBS — not just waterbirds!
Trends from WBBS data, using old-style chain methods. The blue solid lines are for randomly selected sites, the red dash linesfor sites also being covered for WBS.
INFORMATION ON BIRD POPULATION TRENDSFor information on bird population trends in the UK, the ‘Wider Countryside’ report on theBTO web site (www.bto.org/birdtrends), which combines data from all BTO surveys that lookat changes in population size and productivity, and has only recently been updated andrewritten, is by far the best single source.
The Heronries Census has proved remarkablysuccessful at following trends in the size of theUK Grey Heron population over more thanthree-quarters of a century. The latest graphs(Figure 1) show the gradual increase of thepopulation, interrupted, although not since the1980s, by setbacks caused by extra mortality inhard winters.
The big samples in England give an especiallyclear pattern: the 85% confidence intervals arewider elsewhere, although shrinking. Increasingnumbers of heronries counted annually inScotland allow the calculation of a separatetrend there, but this cannot extend back to theearly decades of the survey. Uniquely, ratherthan an index of population size as is usual forother common birds, the graphs show annualestimates of actual breeding numbers. The newmodel for converting annual nest counts topopulation estimates was recently published inIbis (146:2 323– 335). It produces correctedestimates of uncounted nests that can be addedto the counted nests to produce each annualtotal.
Current estimates of nesting pairs for 2003,
and trends for recent periods, to 2002 from 1977,1992 and 1997 are shown in Table 1. UK figuresinclude the Isle of Man. Trends, which like thegraphs are drawn from the new WiderCountryside Report on the BTO website, arepositive for all the countries and periods forwhich we calculate them, showing how well thisspecies has fared in the recent UK environmentof milder winters and cleaner fresh waters.
THE 2003 SPECIAL SURVEYThe original 1928 survey, covering mostlyEngland and Wales, was followed by further fullsurveys in 1954, 1964 (including the IrishRepublic), and 1985, that ran alongside thenormal annual coverage.
These periodic special heron surveys aredesigned to boost coverage of heronries acrossthe UK beyond that normally achieved by theannual Heronries Census. In 1985, which wasthe most successful previous survey, 727colonies and 7,653 nests were counted —doubling the 360 colonies counted the yearbefore. Nowadays, the background level of
[160]
Bird Populations 8:160-163Reprinted with permissionBTO News 257:12-13© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
CHARTING THE SUCCESS OF UK HERONS
JOHN MARCHANT
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
The long-running BTO Heronries Census was supplemented by a highly successfulspecial survey in 2003, the first such survey since 1985. John Marchant discusses some of theresults that are now emerging.
ANÁLISIS DEL ÉXITO DE LAS GARZAS EN EL REINO UNIDOEl longevo censo de colonias de garzas del BTO fue suplementado por un exitoso censo
especial en 2003, el primero de su clase desde 1985. John Marchant comenta los resultadosque comienzan a emerger.
counting is consistently much higher. It is thiswelcome development that has allowed us topublish trends for UK countries separately, aswell as the UK one. In 2002, for example, 594colonies held 8,447 nests, a higher total than wascounted in any of the special surveys! The aimsof the 2003 survey were not only to boostcoverage still further, but also to collect extrainformation that would help us to refine theestimation of total population size.
As usual in such surveys, we asked theCensus’s regional organisers to find volunteersto count as many as possible of the knownheronries. The way the survey totals havedwarfed earlier figures, with unprecedentedtotals of 772 heronries counted and 10,260 nestsfound, is a measure of their success (see Table 1and Figure 2). The map shows the concen-trations of large heronries in the London areaand on the Cheshire Plain, and in NorthernIreland around Loughs Erne, Neagh andStrangford. A line of heronries marks theEnglish coast from Cornwall to Norfolk. Not allregions were well covered in 2003, however:few of the islands were covered from the Clydenorth to Mull; there are no data from Armagh;most importantly, barely a handful of colonieswere reported from the whole of northeastScotland, including Perthshire, Angus andAberdeen. Surprisingly perhaps, absences fromShetland, Scilly and the Channel Islands arereal.
FROM COUNTS TO POPULATIONESTIMATES
The main problem for estimating the totalpopulation is to know how efficient we are atfinding heronries. In 1928, for example, thecount that was made then, approaching 4,000
nests, was believed at the time to be a realisticestimate of the population, at least for Englandand Wales. We now estimate that almost 40% of
CHARTING THE SUCCESS OF UK HERONS
[161]
Table 1. Grey Heron nest counts, estimates and trends.
Counted 2003 25 10 52003 estimate years years years
England 7,389 8,410 +23% +15% +7%Scotland 1,523 3,980 +7% +16% +19%Wales 780 1,040 +4% +17% +9%N Ireland 525 760 – – –UK 10,260 14,200 +19% +13% +9%
Counts and estimates from the 2003 survey, and trends for the periods 1977–2002, 1992–2002 and 1997–2002.
FIGURE 1. Grey Heron population trends forEngland, Scotland and Wales.
1934 1944 1954 1964 1974 1984 1994
1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998
1953 1963 1973 1983 1983 2003
Breeding pairs
EnglandEngland
Scotland
Wales
The red line is a smoothed trend of the results (blue line),and the dotted lines are the 85% confidence limits. Seeweb site www.bto.org/birdtrends
10000
8000
6000
3000
2000
0
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
the English and Welsh heronries active in 1928were not located by that year ’s surveyors.Ideally, population estimates from new heronsurveys should be proof against futurediscoveries of previously unknown heronries —otherwise, they and their calculated confidenceintervals, like the 1928 figure, may also bewidely inaccurate.
Population estimates from our current modelsare shown in Table 1, alongside the numbers ofnests actually counted. We hope to assess, fromthe 2003 survey, whether these models can beimproved further. The implication of the figurespresented is that, despite tremendous efforts in2003, 1,100 or so nests were missing from theEnglish counts, and around 250 each for Walesand Northern Ireland. In Scotland there seem tohave been around 2,500 nests missed — morethan 60% of the estimated population there.Where could all these missing birds be?
Some of the nests missing from the counts canbe accounted for by the colonies known orassumed to be active in 2003, but not counted inthat year — for example the site by the Ythan
estuary that held 27 nests in 2002. Others will bein the regions, mainly Scottish ones, where fewor no records were received for the 2003 survey— here, estimates can perhaps be made byextrapolation from data collected in 1985 orother previous years. In England at least, suchcolonies will account for only a small fraction ofthe ‘missing’ nests. The remainder would be, bydefinition, at unknown sites never reported tothe Heronries Census.
An innovative feature of the 2003 survey wasa random tetrad survey that was carried outalongside the normal counts. We selected 1,209tetrads not known to hold nesting herons, andasked volunteers to search them for previouslyunknown heronries. More than 700 reports werereceived, including some from the 2004 springseason. Adding in reports from observers andregional organisers that a tetrad held no suitablehabitat for the species, together with similarassessments made by reference to OS maps,raises the total coverage to 72%. Five newheronries were discovered by these randomsearches — one each in Lancashire, Cleveland,Northumberland, Dumfriesshire and Inverness— although none held more than five nests, andthe Inverness-shire site had apparently beenrecently abandoned. It will be possible tomultiply up (maybe by factors of 100 or so) toproduce estimates, regionally and nationally, ofhow many completely unknown heronries existin the countryside. Because there were so fewnew nests found, however, these results cannotbe very precise. Regions covered poorly byheronry counts in 2003 were also generallypoorly covered for the tetrad survey, and thiswill have to be taken into account in the finalanalysis.
HOW WELL IS EACH HERONRYCOUNTED?
A further question about the accuracy of GreyHeron population estimates arises from workorganised by Mick Marquiss in Scotland for thesurvey there in 1985. Intensive studies atcolonies covered throughout the heron’s longbreeding season found more nests than werecounted by the usual few visits made by BTOcounters. Overall, it was estimated that BTOobservers found only 68% of the actual nestingpairs (with 95% confidence limits of 56% and
JOHN MARCHANT
[162]
FIGURE 2. Heronries — special survey 2003.
Heronries from which counts for the 75th anniversaryspecial survey in 2003 have been received. Dots are inthree categories: small, 1–9 nests; medium, 10–19 nests;and large, 20–154 nests.
83%). This result appeared to be independent ofheronry size, and so should not affectpopulation monitoring. If applicable widely,however, it suggests that we may need to addabout a half again to our estimates of populationsize, to allow for under-counting!
New evidence from the 2003 census cardsshows that early and late counts are not veryefficient, compared with those in mid season(Figure 3). Thus, colonies counted only once, inlate March or in late May, should be increasedby about one-third to give a more realistic total.These data do not suggest that such a correctionshould be applied generally.
A second way to address this question isthrough the intensive coverage that was the thirdelement of the special 2003 survey. We asked forvolunteers who could count their heronries atshort intervals throughout the nesting season, tosee how count efficiency related to date. Initialresults, drawn from a subset of eight heronrieswhere the nest count was in double figures, are
presented in Figure 4. The number of active nestscounted, expressed as a proportion of the finalcount for each of the eight heronries, is averagedacross the counts made in each fortnight of thebreeding season. Late February counts can begood (week numbers 7 and 8 in the diary),although visits then may miss around a third ofthe nesting pairs for the whole season. There is aclear peak in counting efficiency in late April toearly May (weeks 17–18). Visits after mid Junefound very few nests still active. Again, thesedata could be used to correct singlevisit countsthat were not made at the peak of the season.
The good news is that a visit in the second halfof April, supplemented if possible by an earlierand a later visit, as has long been the standardprocedure for the Heronries Census, should befinding at least 90% of the active nests at each site.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks to Thames Water and Essex and SuffolkWater for their generous support of this project.Thanks also to everyone who made a donationto the Heron Appeal or volunteered their time toassist with the survey.
CHARTING THE SUCCESS OF UK HERONS
[163]
FIGURE 3. Proportion of overall numbers for eachheronry in 2003.
Proportions of the best overall estimate for each heronry in2003 that were found on single visits at different times ofthe season. Data are from 36 heronries visited on at leastfour occasions.
FIGURE 4. Heronry nest counts as a proportion of theyear’s final total.
Heronry nest counts from eight intensive surveys as aproportion of the year’s final nest total, plotted againstcount date (week numbers from 1 January).
Following a successful breeding season for mostspecies in 2002 and generally mild over-winterweather, the adult populations of some residentspecies in 2003 were high, compared with theprevious year. Southeasterly winds in April ledto the early arrival of some migrants and earlynesting attempts but, later in the month, poorweather in North Africa and Iberia held upmany migrants heading for Britain and Ireland.Table 1 shows the changes on CE sites between2002 and 2003. There were statistically signi-ficant increases in the numbers of adults forWren, Song Thrush, Chiffchaff, Blue Tit, GreatTit and Linnet. For Wren, Chiffchaff and the titsthis reflects a very productive breeding seasonin 2002.
SONG THRUSH ON THE UP?Song Thrush is currently red-listed on thePopulation Status of Birds in the UK list on thebasis of a rapid (>50%) decline in the UKbreeding population in the last 25 years. Thelong-term trend in adult abundance on CE sites(Figure 1) is also downwards but from 1997 hasshown a shallow but consistent upward trend.
Results from the Breeding Bird Survey alsosuggest an increase in Song Thrush abundancebetween 1994 and 2002, so perhaps there is somehope of a recovery for this species. Previouswork by BTO staff has suggested that survival ofbirds during their first year of life was, at least inpart, responsible for the decline. Song Thrushproductivity shows no clear pattern over time(Figure 2), though evidence from the NestRecord Scheme indicates that overall breedingperformance has improved. One explanationcould be that birds may be having fewer nestingattempts as there has been no overall change inpost-fledging survival. It is possible that therecent increase in adult numbers on CE sitesmay be due to their increasing survival rates.
Four species showed a statistically significantdecline in the numbers of adults caughtbetween 2002 and 2003: Sedge Warbler, ReedWarbler, Whitethroat and Willow Warbler.Sedge Warbler and Reed Warbler have shownlarge variations between years but the long-term pattern for Sedge Warbler is stable, whilstReed Warbler showed a decline (see BTO News245). In the longer-term, the number of adultWhitethroats caught on CE sites shows a
[164]
Bird Populations 8:164-167Reprinted with permissionBTO News 251:6-7© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
A POOR BREEDING SEASON — CONSTANT EFFORT SITES, 2003
DAWN BALMER AND STEVE FREEMAN
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Dawn Balmer and Steve Freeman of the BTO’s Demography Unit report on population andproductivity changes between 2002 and 2003 on Constant Effort ringing Sites (CES).
UNA MALA TEMPORADA REPRODUCTIVA – SITIOS DE ESFUERZOCONSTANTE, 2003
Dawn Balmer y Steve Freeman, de la Unidad de Demografía del BTO, informan sobrecambios poblacionales y de productividad entre 2002 y 2003 en los lugares de anillamientode esfuerzo constante (CES).
A POOR BREEDING SEASON — CONSTANT EFFORT SITES, 2003
[165]
FIGURE 1. Adult Song Thrush abundance
Long-term trend in adult abundance on CE sites. (Dottedline represents 95% confidence limits.)
TABLE 1. Changes in captures on CE sites from 2002 to 2003.
Adults Juveniles Adult Productivity n n % change % change
Species 2003 2003 vs 2002 Trend vs 2002 vs 83-02 Trend
Wren 102 105 +13 * ↔ –30 * –17 ↔Dunnock 100 101 +5 ↔ –26 * –22 ↔Robin 101 104 +7 ↑ –20 * –19 ↓Blackbird 102 96 +2 ↓ –24 * –25 ↔Song Thrush 93 79 +18 * ↓ –16 –17 ↔Sedge Warbler 66 67 –11 * ↔ –11 –12 ↓Reed Warbler 55 53 –14 * ↓ –12 * –2 ↔Lesser Whitethroat 31 42 –26 ↓ –32 –29 ↔Whitethroat 62 71 –26 * ↔ –10 –7 ↓Garden Warbler 54 59 0 ↔ –15 –17 ↓Blackcap 96 97 +3 ↑ –33 * –17 ↔Chiffchaff 86 93 +35 * ↑ –36 * –28 ↓Willow Warbler 75 91 –13 * ↓ –3 +15 ↓Long-tailed Tit 84 82 +6 ↔ –45 * –32 ↔Willow Tit 8 15 +1 ↓ –39 –8 ↔Blue Tit 99 103 +14 * ↔ –53 * –33 ↓Great Tit 96 102 +33 * ↔ –44 * –25 ↓Treecreeper 43 77 +16 ↔ –12 +25 ↔Chaffinch 88 68 +4 ↔ –2 +37 ↓Greenfinch 54 36 –1 ↑ +21 +24 ↓Goldfinch 36 25 +13 ↔ +1 +22 ↓Linnet 15 11 +74 * ↓ +90 –6 ↓Bullfinch 83 64 +1 ↓ –20 * +5 ↔Reed Bunting 53 45 –10 ↓ –36 * –24 ↓
n 2003 = number of sites operated in 2003 at which the species was capturedvs 2002 = percentage change between 2002 and 2003vs 83–02 = % change with respect to 1983-2002 average* = significance (at the 5% level) of increase/decrease with respect to previous year onlyLong-term trend = long-term trend during the period of CES ringing. See Wider Countryside Report on theBTO website for further details (www.bto.org/birdtrends)↑ = long-term trend shows an increase↓ = long-term trend shows a decline↔ = long-term trend shows stability
FIGURE 2. Blackbird and Song Thrush productivity.
Long-term trends in productivity for Blackbird and SongThrush on CE sites.
cyclical pattern (see BTO News 239) whilstWillow Warblers are in longterm decline, so afurther drop in numbers in 2003 is worrying.Such declines could result from unfavourableconditions during migration.
BELOW AVERAGE BREEDINGSEASON FOR MOST
The breeding season got off to a good start witha sunnier and drier February than normal andby March early broods of Robins and thrusheswere reported. Many of these broods were laterlost in sharp night frosts during April.Temperatures fluctuated throughout May andsharp frosts affected tits, finches and warblers.Ringers and nest recorders reported smallclutches for Blue Tits and Great Tits acrossmuch of the UK. The cold and wet weatherreduced the availability of caterpillar prey,which meant that broods were also small withpartial and complete losses in some areas.Heavy rains mid-month caused more losses forearly breeding species (BTO News 245). Warmweather throughout much of June benefitedsecond broods, whilst July and August will beremembered for blistering heat which may havecaused some problems for late nesting birds.
Given this mix of weather, it might not be toosurprising that the overall breeding season wasbelow average (Table 1). There were 12statistically significant decreases in productivitybetween 2002 and 2003 and no significantincreases. Residents (Wren, Robin, Dunnock,Blackbird, Longtailed Tit, Blue Tit, Great Tit,Bullfinch and Reed Bunting) and migrants (ReedWarbler, Blackcap and Chiffchaff) were affected.This year we have introduced a new measure ofproductivity in Table 1, which is the percentagechange between 2003 and the average breedingsuccess for each species during previous years,1983–2002. This gives us a much betterindication of how good a season it has been,relative to the longer-term average.
Figure 3 gives the long-term pattern ofproductivity for Blackcap and shows thatproductivity varies widely between years, as wemight expect, largely because breeding successis heavily dependent on the weather. Theaverage breeding success for Blackcap betweenthe start of the CES index (1983) and thepenultimate year (2002) is shown as a straight
line through the graph. You can then see howproductivity in 2003 compares with the averagefor Blackcap and this shows clearly thatproductivity in 2003 was below the long-termaverage (–17%).
The mix of harsh frosts and rain during theearly part of the season, and later hottemperatures and drought conditions in someareas, is likely to have caused problems for somespecies. Blackbird and Song Thrush both had apoor breeding season in 2003. The cold and wetweather during the first part of the season mayhave caused early broods to suffer and later, thehot weather is likely to have made it difficult forthe adult birds to get the preferred earthwormsfrom the baked ground. The long-termproductivity indices for these two species areremarkably similar suggesting that similarenvironmental conditions affect them (Figure 2).Productivity was low for both species in 1984,1986, 1988–1990, for Song Thrush only in 1995, forBlackbird only in 2001 and for both in 2003. Thesummer weather in these years was characterisedby high temperatures and drought conditions.Breeding success tended to be better in the wettersummers of 1985, 1991, 1993 and 1997.
Overall, 2003 was a poor breeding season formany species. We hope for settled weather andimproved breeding success this year and anenjoyable season’s mistnetting for CES ringers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMany thanks to Rob Robinson for overseeing
the running of the CES scheme and for
DAWN BALMER AND STEVE FREEMAN
[166]
FIGURE 3. Breeding success of Blackcap.
Annual pattern of breeding success for Blackcap from CEsites. The straight line shows the average breeding success1983–2002.
contributing to this report. Jane Waters kindlytyped in CES data received in a non-computerised format.
The Constant Effort Sites scheme wasundertaken within the Partnership between theBTO and JNCC, as part of its programme ofresearch into nature conservation.
THE SURVEY SUMMARYThe Constant Effort Sites Scheme is a key
component of the BTO’s Integrated PopulationMonitoring programme. It is a well-establishedmethod for monitoring population size (usingchanges in the total number of adults caught),breeding success (using the ratio of young birdsto adults) and survival (estimated from retrapsof birds ringed in previous years) for commonsongbirds in scrub, woodland and reedbedhabitats. Dedicated ringers carry out ringing onCE sites, making 12 visits to each site betweenlate April and the end of August, monitoring
early and late breeding attempts for mostspecies.
Results from CES, together with informationfrom other long-running BTO schemes, can befound in the Wider Countryside Report on theBTO web site www.bto.org/birdtrends.
COVERAGE IN 2003 We were delighted that 11 new CES ringing
sites were started in 2003, including seven inEngland, three in Wales and one in Scotland.The results we present above come from the 110sites that have submitted data for 2003 so far: 85from England, 15 from Scotland, six from Walesand four from Ireland. The habitats covered arecomparable to previous years, with sites locatedin dry scrub (35%), wet scrub (27%), reedbed(24%) and deciduous woodland (14%). Nearlyall CES ringers now computerise their own dataand submit them electronically.
A POOR BREEDING SEASON — CONSTANT EFFORT SITES, 2003
[167]
MORE CE SITES NEEDEDNew Constant Effort Sites are welcomed from throughout Britainand Ireland, but particularly from southwest England, Wales,Scotland and Ireland, where there are currently few sites. Thelocations of the CES sites used in this report are shown on the map.Please contact Dawn Balmer at The Nunnery for furtherinformation.
THANK YOUAs with all ongoing BTO projects, the success of the CES scheme depends entirely on thededication, enthusiasm and skill of its volunteers. We are grateful to all the ringers and helperswho participated in the scheme in 2003, some of whom are listed here.
Borders RG, Chew Valley RS, J L Coates, R Cole, G Dagnall, Doncaster RG, Fylde RG, GibraltarPoint BO, J A Glazebrook, Goldcliff RG, Gordano Valley RG, R J Graham, J Heaton, M Hughes, HInsley, A J Johnston, K H Jones, R J Lanaway, Lothian RG, Lower Test RG, Market Weston RG,Pembrokeshire RG, S T Robinson, M H Rogers, Rye Bay RG, Severn Vale RG, South West NottsRG, South West Lancs RG, A Stratford, D J Turner, M J Thompson, T H Walker, N C Williams.
(BO= Bird Observatory, RG= Ringing Group, RS= Ringing Station)
BTO volunteers charted a more productivebreeding season for most resident and migrantspecies in 2002 compared with 2001. The earlysigns for 2003 are very hopeful.
INDIAN SUMMER HELPS LATENESTERS
A pleasantly changeable midsummer mix ofweather in 2002 prolonged the breeding seasonfor many. Observations from nestboxmonitoring revealed the latest ever free-flyingbroods of Little Owl, Great Tit and PiedFlycatcher, a result of repeat layings. The warm,dry Indian summer heat in September sawsuccessful late breeding by a number of species.Arguably, ‘Nestbox of the Year’ was at TreswellWood (Notts), which successfully disgorged itsfinal brood, Tawny Owl spring twins, whichwere followed by one, two and two young StockDove respectively (pers. comm. Chris du Feu).
BLACKBIRD AND ROBIN EXPLOITNEW YEAR WARM SPELLS
Nesting activity continued low key during amild, if very wet December. Most reportsinvolved Woodpigeon and Feral Pigeon,
though there were some surprises. The BTOBarn Owl Monitoring Programme showed that,after a flying start in spring 2002, pairs wereegg-laying a fortnight earlier than normal.About 10% of the monitored birds producedlate clutches, with successes in November(Lincs, Sussex and Notts) and even December2002, defying unfavourable hunting conditions.One unrivalled pair raised broods of four andnine young near Peterborough (Cambs).
Breeding activity was checked in midDecember, as arctic air brought sharp frosts on18–19th. Then over the Christmas week,unseasonably warm air lifted temperatures to abalmy 15°C in sheltered South Devon andNorth Wales, prompting a scatter of nestingattempts into the New Year. Early breedingactivity involved Golden Eagle, Raven, Ring-necked Parakeet, Nuthatch and tits. Nestingwas invariably in the shelter of suburbia andrural hamlets, with egg-laying and activeyoung of Mallard (Herts, Central London),Robin (York, Leicester) and Blackbird (Sout-hampton, Surrey, Pembroke) being reportedfrom parks, shopping malls, allotments andhospital grounds.
A raw northerly chill from 3–11 January 2003,when frosts dipped to –18°C at Aviemore
[168]
Bird Populations 8:168-170Reprinted with permissionBTO News 246:6-7© British Trust for Ornithology 2003
LATE FINISHERS AND EARLY STARTERS
DAVID GLUE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
BTO Research Biologist, David Glue, describes how a mild autumn and winter, led to lateand early nesting activity among UK birds.
TARDONES Y TEMPRANEROS El biólogo investigador del BTO David Glue describe cómo un otoño e invierno suaves
han dado lugar a actividad de nidificación tardía y temprana en aves del Reino Unido.
(Highland), destroyed most early nestingattempts. However, record high monthly tem-peratures in the third week, with temperaturestopping 18°C at Aboyne (Grampian), promptedthe first Tawny Owl clutches and broods, fromCheshire, Gwent, Nottingham and Aberdeen(see Box). This activity was fuelled by plentifulField Voles and Wood Mice, which were in parta product of a bumper beech mast crop.
VALENTINE’S DAY CHILLFRUSTRATES RESIDENTS AND
WINTER VISITORSFrustratingly, temperatures see-sawed violentlyduring February, although overall it was drierand sunnier than normal. Early blizzards andwidespread snowfall extended southwards intoLondon suburbs, followed by a destructive raweasterly chill around St Valentine’s Day.
The recovery of 14 dead Wrens, crammed intoa single roosting ‘pouch’ near Church Stretton(Shrops) was a chilling find. Similarly, emaciatedand oiled corpses, and ailing birds, includingLittle Auk, Puffin, Snipe, Water Rail, Goldcrestand Waxwing, were reported from theBTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC Wetland Bird Survey,or were passed to the BTO’s Ringing Unit orNatural History Museum (Tring). Fortunately,the wintry episodes were short-lived and theabsence of lengthy lying snow and penetratingfrosts helped the survival prospects of unusualover-wintering Ring Ouzel (Derbys), Whinchat(Bucks), Dusky Warbler (Suffolk), Yellow-browed Warbler, Little Stint, Whimbrel andSpoonbill (various sites). High numbers of voleswill have supported larger than usual numbersof Short-eared Owls, Long-eared Owls andGreat Grey Shrikes.
By the end of the month, 13 nesting specieshad been reported (five fewer than this stage in2002). This included egglaying by EgyptianGoose (Southeast), Moorhen (Gloucs), Starling(Co Cork) and Mistle Thrush (Hereford). Thelargest UK winter influx and dispersal of
Bitterns in modern times apparently led to onlya few extra booming males.
MARCH HEAT HELPS RESIDENTSAND SPRING MIGRANTS
March roared in on a mild southwesterlyairflow, prompting a spate of egg-laying as someresident species, including Grey Heron, Robin,thrushes and Rook played ‘catch-up’ in the firstweek. Some noteworthy cases were Cormorant(Isles of Scilly), Dipper (Gwent) and Lapwing(Bucks). Migrants, including Stone Curlew(Breckland, 3rd), Sandwich Tern (Anglesey, 16th)and Ring Ouzel (Durham 17th), were quicklynoted back at traditional breeding sites bycontributors to BTO/BirdWatch IrelandMigration Watch.
Record wintering numbers of Avocet andMediterranean Gulls in certain counties have ledto welcome extra breeding pairs. Peregrines,happily nesting atop Battersea Power Stationsince 2001, were joined by further pairsprospecting in London. The UK PeregrineSurvey 2002 had showed an increasing use ofman-made structures, notably ecclesiasticalbuildings, bridges, chimneys, warehouses,pylons and, most intriguingly, trees. In a similarfashion, Raven, having claimed ChesterCathedral, showed interest in further ‘artificial’structures as nest sites, along with trees andquarries, enhancing prospects of their rangeextension yet farther eastwards in 2003.
With high pressure anchored over the UKmidmonth, temperatures climbed to 19°C atAberystwyth (Dyfed) by St Patrick’s Day. Warm,glorious sunshine, leaf bud burst, and increasedaerial insect food supplies led to a surge in egg-laying of many species, including grebes,dabbling duck, rails, some plovers and corvids,alongside Woodcock (Wilts), Long-eared Owl(Derbys) and Woodlark (Surrey) in the thirdweek.
As in 2002, we look set for a possibly produc-tive breeding season.
LATE FINISHERS AND EARLY STARTERS
[169]
DAVID GLUE
[170]
EARLY EGG-LAYING TAWNY OWLSWhen long-time BTO Nest Recorders, Bryan Perkins and Colin Lythgoe, undertook the annualspring-clean of their nestboxes in Quakers Coppice, Crewe (Cheshire) on 27 February, theywere surprised to be confronted by a large fledgling Tawny Owl and remains of two otherchicks (fratricide is regular in this species). By 3 March the fledged owlet was found happilyroosting alongside two older siblings and an adult in woodland nearby.
Back-calculation, based upon observations made, suggested that a clutch of five eggs, laidduring the unseasonably mild spell between Christmas 2002 and the New Year, produced fivehatchlings, three surviving to leave the nestbox.
Meanwhile, Julie Stevens of Retford (Notts) had chanced across a large, dazed juvenileTawny Owl road casualty. A nearby nestbox was found to be holding another three young.Local owl expert, Derick Scott, considered that the road casualty was fit for release and was theresult of an egg laid around 6–9 January.
Several further clutches were started before the close of January (see above). Tawny Owlsadjust their breeding season around an often fickle food supply but such exceptionally earlyclutches are rare. The bulk of clutches are normally laid in late March, so that foraging parentscan satisfy developing young in early May on an ephemeral crop of larger mammalian prey.Just occasionally, as in Winter 2002/03, a super-abundant food supply and mild weather over-rides this time-table. In Autumn 2002, a huge crop of beech mast and other woodland fruits,fuelled locally high populations of rodent prey, enabling Tawny Owls to take the advantage viaearly egglaying. David Glue
BTO NEST RECORD SCHEMECompleted Nest Record Cards for nests encountered are valued by the BTO. For a free starterpack please contact: Peter Beaven, at BTO Thetford HQ.
Year 2003 demonstrated the inherent dangers ofattempting to foretell nature’s fickle timetable.By the close of a dry, sunny February, BTOsurveyors reported egg-laying by thrushes,corvids, Starlings and Egyptian Geese, amongothers. This was an optimistic start.
STONECHATS PROFIT AS BARNOWLS HIT BY SPRING DROUGHT
Spring blossomed in March, with a remarkable40-day long, essentially rainfree, warm spell formany parts. Early clutches were started byWoodlark on 9th (Thetford Forest, Norfolk) andStonechat on 16th (East Dorset). There was asurge in egg-laying among grebes, Grey Herons,dabbling duck and thrushes in the third week,with reports of clutches laid by Woodcock(Wilts), Dipper (Gwynedd) and Long-eared Owl(Derbys) by the month’s end.
April maintained the warm theme withdaytime temperatures 2°C above the norm(warmest April since 1987). However, broodlosses of Robins, Song Thrushes and PiedWagtails were attributed to sharp night frostsunder clear skies. It was another dry month,
posing nesting problems for some species.Corvids struggled, notably Rook and Chough,with deferred egglaying and small broods, asbaked turf yielded few soil invertebrates.Fortunately, the flagship pair of Choughfrequenting The Lizard (Cornwall), hatchedthree young for a second successive year,although one chick was taken by a gull.
Large areas of tinder dry heath, moor andforest were destroyed in spring fires, the worstsince 1997. Known occupied nests of Curlew(Peak District), Twite (North Staffs), ShortearedOwl and Hen Harrier (Cumbria, Lancashire)were lost in blazes. Breeding owls stuttered, asretarded vegetation, notably grasslands, led to acrash in some key small rodent prey populations,notably Field Vole and Wood Mouse. The BTOBarn Owl Monitoring Programme reportedlightweight hen birds in poor condition, as wellas many cases of non-breeding, and smallbroods.
Southeasterly continental winds in Aprilassisted the prompt return of some Swallows,Sand Martins and Pied Flycatchers, with cases ofeach completing clutches by the end of themonth. Ironically, the bulk of these species, and
[171]
Bird Populations 8:171-172Reprinted with permissionBTO News 249:17© British Trust for Ornithology 2003
FULL OF EARLY PROMISE!
DAVID GLUE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
The early breeding season promised much but BTO Research Biologist, David Glue,describes how weather extremes provided challenging conditions for many UK nestingbirds.
¡TÁNTAS PROMESAS TEMPRANAS! El temprano inicio de la temporada reproductora prometía mucho pero el biólogo
investigador del BTO David Glue describe cómo los altibajos meteorológicos pusieron lascosas difíciles a muchas aves reproductoras en el Reino Unido.
some other migrants, were subsequently delayedby adverse cyclonic weather in North Africa andIberia.
TITS AND PIED FLYS FALTER INCHILLY MAY DOWNPOURS
Temperatures see-sawed in May, to the detrimentof many breeding birds. Damaging prolongedtropical deluges arrived by mid-month. Flashfloods and swollen water courses caused locallyheavy losses among upland plovers, Merlins andRing Ouzels, inland colonies of BlackheadedGulls and Common Terns, streamnestingwagtails, Kingfishers and Reed Buntings(especially along the Severn-Trent complex).
Sharp frosts across much of the UK affectednesting tits, flycatchers, finches, and warblers.Those monitoring nestbox schemes reported apoor year for tits generally. Both Blue Tits andGreat Tits survived the winter in strength,boosted by bumper beech mast. Their highdensities probably contributed, in part, to smallclutches. Damp and chill, which restrictedcaterpillar prey, led to many partial or completebrood losses. Andy Gosler (Edward GreyInstitute, Oxford), described the worst everseason for Great Tits at Wytham Woods (barringtimes of excessive Weasel predation) in some 50years of study, with small broods of youngcomprising skinny bundles of feathers weighingjust 14–15 g (20–21 g being the norm).
Seabirds, as ever, enjoyed mixed success. Many,notably Kittiwakes and certain auks, were slow toreturn in strength to breeding ledges, but persistedsuccessfully. Little Terns reached all-time highnumbers in Wales, while Arctic Terns and othersendured another disastrous year on Shetland,attributed to a lack of sandeels and over-fishing.
PROLIFIC PEREGRINES FLY EAST AS AVOCETS GO WEST
A warm subtropical airflow crossing the UKduring much of June, created generallyimproved nesting conditions. Melodious Warbler(Co Durham), Serin (Beds) and CommonRosefinch (North Yorks) sang strongly but failedto attract mates. Elsewhere, Bittern, GoldenOriole, Firecrest and Marsh Warbler were moresuccessful at fresh haunts. Avocet bred for thefirsttime in Wales (Gwent levels). More sur-
prising was the successful pair, inland at UptonWarren (Worcester), well away from the usualcoastal brackish water.
The UK’s newest gannetry, comprising fivenests, was established on The Noup, Westray(Orkney). Peregrine bred as far east asLincolnshire, while suburban pairs nested atopBattersea Power Station (Central London),Chichester Cathedral (Sussex), Gloucester cityhospital and Nottingham Trent University, to thedelight of the public. Meanwhile, motorists onthe M25, as well as M40, were entertained byincreasing numbers of hunting CommonBuzzards and Red Kites, nesting nearby.
NIGHTJAR AND QUAIL ENJOYMIDSUMMER SCORCHER
Regular warmth in July, with above average dayand night temperatures, initially helped latebreeding birds. Follow-up checks of nestboxesrevealed welcome replacement broods ofNuthatches and Pied Flycatchers, while Swiftseventually fledged families of two and threeyoung, following early losses.
Searing ‘High Summer’ heat midmonth, withtemperatures exceeding 30°C, brought mixedfortunes. Quail summered widely, with familygroups noted in grasslands on airfields, golfcourses and an allotment, as well as in cerealfields. Corncrake profited, notably on sympa-thetically managed wetlands in the Western Islesof Scotland.
Torrid, steamy heat in early August, boostedaerial and aquatic invertebrate prey, fuelling latesecond broods of Nightjars, Reed Warblers andSpotted Flycatchers, while some seed-eaters raisedthird families. Heatwave and severe drought, asstifling tropical temperatures clipped the magical100°F mark for the first time in UK, finally took itstoll on normally heat tolerant, breeding birds. Justas roads melted, rails buckled and humans wilted,so baked mud nests of House Martins crumbled,broods of Swallows in farm outbuildings perished,clutches of Great Crested Grebes and divingducks, exposed by falling water levels, fell prey todehydrated Fox and Badger.
From mid-August, nesting activity amonghitherto persistent resident and migrantinsectivores and seedeaters slowed. The fullresults from BTO nest recorders, ringers andsurveyors for 2003 are eagerly awaited.
DAVID GLUE
[172]
[173]
The female House Sparrow dives quickly into her nesthole — a small hole at the apex of a roof on an oldtimber-framed house. She has a beak full of food forher young and they call noisily at her, trying toattract her attention so that they get fed first. ThisHouse Sparrow family is lucky — they live in a smallvillage where food is abundant – lots of insects in therather neglected gardens surrounding the house anda small yard nearby where chickens and otherlivestock are kept by a hobby farmer. Elsewhere in thecountry, House Sparrow broods are not doing so well.
In fact, the latest results from the BTO’s NestRecord Scheme (NRS) suggest that averagebrood sizes of House Sparrows have now fallensufficiently for there to be a statisticallysignificant downward trend since 1980. In 1980,House Sparrows were producing, on average 3.5young per brood, but by 2003 this has fallen to2.8, with annual averages consistently droppingbelow three young since 1999. This is just one ofa number of disturbing trends that are revealedby the latest analysis of NRS data.
Every year the BTO issues an NRS ConcernList to highlight potentially important decliningtrends in breeding performance. We do thisspecifically for the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee (JNCC), which is the UK Govern-ment’s conservation advisor and jointly fund thescheme as part of the BTO/JNCC partnership tomonitor bird populations. This year the numberof species on the list has increased by 4, bringingthe total to 15 species (see Box 1). The newspecies are Barn Owl, House Sparrow, Wheatearand Pied Wagtail. These join those that havebeen on the list for a number of years: Bullfinch,Dunnock, Grey Wagtail, Lapwing, Linnet,Moorhen, Reed Bunting, Ringed Plover, WillowWarbler, Yellowhammer and Yellow Wagtail.The reasons for their inclusion on the list aregiven in Box 1 and we examine the new speciesin more detail below, the other species havingbeen considered previously (BTO News 249:4–5). Methods of analysis are briefly describedin Box 2. One species, the Red-throated Diver,has had to be removed from the list because theBTO has received too few records since 1999 tobe able to monitor it effectively.
NEWLY DETECTED DECLINESBarn Owl: Barn Owls are now the subject of aspecial scheme, the BTO’s Barn Owl Monitoring
Bird Populations 8:173-176Reprinted with permissionBTO News 255:18-19© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
NEST RECORD SCHEME: LATEST RESULTS
HUMPHREY CRICK, DAVE LEECH AND PETER BEAVEN
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Analysing over 350,000 Nest Records Cards for 94 species brought the total on the NRSConcern List to 15 species. The latest trends and results are reported by Humphrey Crick,Dave Leech and Peter Beaven.
PROGRAMA DE REGISTROS DE NIDIFICACIÓN: ÚLTIMOS RESULTADOS El análisis de 350,000 registros de nidificación de 94 especies aumentó el número total de
especies amenazadas del NRS a 15. Humphrey Crick, Dave Leech y Peter Beaven informansobre las últimas tendencias y resultados.
HUMPHREY CRICK, DAVE LEECH AND PETER BEAVEN
[174]
BOX 2NRS DATA ANALYSIS
NRS data for 94 species were analysed using methods that are outlined in a recent review paperin Bird Study 50:254–270. Trends in laying date, clutch and brood sizes and in daily nest failurerates over egg and chick stages are described by linear or quadratic regression, as appropriate.Trends were not calculated where the mean annual sample size was less than 20 for nest failurerates or less than 10 for the other measures. Breeding performance in 2003 was assessed bycomparing the observed annual mean in 2003 with that predicted from the trend calculatedfrom 1966–2002.
Species are placed on the NRS Concern List if (a) they show statistically significant declines insome aspect of breeding performance over at least the last 15 years and (b) they are on the red oramber list of conservation concern or there is some uncertainty over their population status.
Programme (BOMP), but the nest recordinformation from BOMP feeds through into theNRS as well. Worryingly, for the first time wehave detected a downward trend in averagebrood size for the species, down from 3.43chicks in 1987 to 3.16 in 2003 (see Figure 1a). Thetrend is a result of a series of poor years in the1990s and 2000s, particularly in 1998 and 2001.BOMP suggested that the latter was a result ofsevere autumn flooding in 2000 that appeared toaffect the numbers of small mammals that BarnOwls feed on (BTO News 242: 24). Although thiswas a oneoff (we hope!), the overall trend
appears to be for smaller broods. It is possiblethat the trend indicates that breeding seasonfood supplies for Barn Owls are becoming lessabundant.House Sparrow: This species was recently thesubject of a government-funded study (Defra)(BTO News 242: 4–5). One of its conclusions wasthat rural House Sparrow declines were due todeclines in survival rates and that thepopulation decline was eventually haltedmainly by improvements in breedingperformance. The accelerated decline in broodsize since 2000 is thus a cause for concern (see
BOX 1THE NRS CONCERN LIST
Species Years on List Significant decline in Population trend
Moorhen 11 Clutch size & Nest survival (E) FluctuatingRinged Plover 17 Nest survival (E) UncertainLapwing 18 Nest survival (E) Amber ListBarn Owl New Brood size Amber ListYellow Wagtail 14 Brood size Amber ListGrey Wagtail 11 Clutch & Brood size Amber ListPied Wagtail New Clutch & Fluctuating Brood sizeDunnock 15 Nest survival (E) Amber ListWheatear New Brood size Possible declineWillow Warbler 15 Nest survival (E) Amber ListHouse Sparrow New Brood size Red ListLinnet 12 Brood size & Nest survival (C) Red ListBullfinch 18 Nest survival (E) Red ListYellowhammer 11 Nest survival (E) Red ListReed Bunting 12 Nest survival (E) Red List
(Trends come from www.bto.org/birdtrends: Red and Amber Lists are of species with high or mediumconservation concern, respectively, as explained in BTO News 242: 11–14). E indicates nest survival at the egg stage; C at the chick stage.
NEST RECORD SCHEME: LATEST RESULTS
[175]
Figure 1b). Work by Kate Vincent at theUniversity of Leicester has suggested that insectfood for chicks may be limited in certainsituations and the new trend may be amanifestation of this at a wider scale.Pied Wagtail: Pied Wagtail populations havefluctuated a great deal since the 1960s, butpopulations monitored by the Waterways BirdSurvey (WBS) declined by nearly 50% since1975. It is thus of some concern that bothaverage clutch and brood sizes show significantdeclines: clutch size from 5.14 in 1966 to 4.94 in2003, and brood size from 4.52 in 1980 to 4.16 in2003, although these may be counter-balancedsomewhat by improvements in nest survival atthe egg stage (see Figure 1c). The species is littlestudied (surprisingly) and thus the possiblereasons for the new trend can only be speculatedupon at the moment. Wheatear: This charismatic species was not well
monitored by BTO schemes until the inceptionof the BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Surveyin 1994. The only information available camefrom the New Breeding Bird Atlas (1988–1991),which suggested that losses had occurred on themargins of its main range. The decline in itsaverage brood size from 5.1 in 1963 to 4.5 in 2003is relatively large and warrants furtherconsideration, given the lack of informationabout its long-term status.
OTHER TRENDSThe general pattern of long-term trends are asfollows:Laying dates: Trends were estimated for 64species, and nearly half (31) showed statisticallysignificant trends towards earlier laying over atleast the past 15 years. This increases thenumber of species apparently affected byclimate change from the 42% of 60 speciesreported last year. Only one, Yellowhammer,showed a significant trend toward later laying.Clutch sizes: While the majority of the 72species analysed showed no trend in clutch sizeover time, of those that did, twice as manyshowed declines than increases (18 vs. 9). Themajority of those with declining clutch sizes alsohave increasing trends of population abundanceand thus may be experiencing competition forbreeding space, and a greater proportion may bein less suitable habitats than when they wereless numerous.Brood sizes: A similar pattern is evident foraverage brood sizes. 28 species show decliningaverage brood sizes, 16 show increases and 29show no trend. Many of the declines are againassociated with population increases.Failure rates of nests: At the egg stage, trendswere estimable for 74 species: 37 showedsignificant declines, but only 12 showedincreases. At the chick stage, 69 species wereanalysed and 19 showed declines in failure ratesand only 6 showed increases. Generally then, nestsuccess has improved, affecting two main groupsof birds: (a) those suffering from decliningabundance, such as Marsh Tit and Starling andtherefore likely to be affected by reducedcompetition and reduced use of suboptimalhabitats, and (b) those that are no longer affectedby the side-effects of pesticides used in the 1960sand 1970s and those that may have benefited
FIGURE 1. Changes in brood sizes.
Mean brood size
(a)
(b)
(c)
Barn Owl
House Sparrow
Pied Wagtail
Year
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.5
66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02
HUMPHREY CRICK, DAVE LEECH AND PETER BEAVEN
[176]
from the reduction in gamekeeper pressure in theUK, such as raptors and corvids.
THE 2003 SEASONThe 2003 nesting season appeared to be arelatively ‘ordinary’ one for birds breeding inthe UK. Overall 10 species bred significantlyearly compared with the expected datespredicted from long term trends, versus fourspecies breeding later than expected. Clutch andbrood sizes and nest failure rates were generallyunexceptional when compared to recent trends.
THE BENEFITS OF IPMRProbably the most stunning difference betweenthis and previous annual reports has been thehuge additional input made by recordssubmitted on Integrated Population MonitoringReporter (IPMR) software. The number ofrecords analysed this year has tripled as largenumbers have been submitted using the homeinputting program developed by volunteerMark Cubitt. Not only has this increased the
numbers of records of nestbox species that wecould analyse, but there has been a noticeableeffect on the numbers of records of open-nestingspecies received.
This is hugely beneficial for the scheme’s aimof monitoring the breeding performance of theUK’s birds and we would like to thank allvolunteers who made the effort to use the newprogram. We hope that more members will beencouraged to visit and record the nests ofbirds, particularly those of open-nestingspecies such as thrushes, warblers and finchesto help ensure that the BTO can continue totrack the fortunes of our nesting birds for theirfuture.
If you would like a free ‘Starter Pack’ orinformation about IPMR, please contact PeterBeaven at [email protected]
The NRS is funded by a partnership of the BTOand JNCC and we are very grateful to all thevolunteers who send in their valuable records,without whose efforts none of this monitoringwould be possible. We also thank Karen Wrightfor help with the NRS database and to DavidGlue for his contributions to the scheme.
[177]
Of all the bird species in the UK, it is probablywaterbirds that are present in the mostinternationally important numbers. Thegovernment has agreed to meet internationalobligations to protect these birds, butunfortunately the funds available to do so arefinite and it is difficult to know whereconservation resources would be best used.
One way of guiding conservation policy is toidentify those sites that contain the mostimportant numbers of waterbirds and monitorchanges in bird numbers on these sites. If oneknows which species are declining the most, orwhich sites have a large number of decliningspecies, resources can then be directed towardsassessing why these changes have taken place andthen, where possible, managing to reverse them.
Whilst such monitoring is helpful, it does notprovide the full answer. Alerting people todeclines depends upon placing recent popula-
tion changes in a long-term context. Also,declines or increases at any given site may notnecessarily be due to conditions at that site, butcould potentially be linked to large-scale popu-lation changes, perhaps driven by conditions onbreeding grounds. In order to identify whetherlocal problems are responsible for decreasingbird numbers, it is necessary to compare changesat that site with those occurring regionally andnationally.
The WeBS Alerts System provides astandardised method of doing this (Figure 1).The direction and magnitude of changes in birdnumbers are identified at site level and thesetrends are compared to regional and nationaltrends, allowing distinctions to be drawnbetween declines due to sitespecific factors andthose driven by largescale population changes.Species that have undergone major declines canthen be flagged by issuing an Alert.
Bird Populations 8:177-180Reprinted with permissionBTO News 261:4-5© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
WETLAND BIRD SURVEY ALERTS
ILYA MACLEAN AND GRAHAM AUSTIN
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) counters help to reveal the extentof waterbird declines on some of the UK’s important sites.
WeBS data are often used to guide conservation policy and management. Here IlyaMaclean and Graham Austin describe some of the potential conservation concernshighlighted by the latest WeBS Alerts update.
ALERTAS DE LOS CONTEOS DE AVES EN HUMEDALES Los observadores de los conteos de aves en humedales (WeBS) del BTO/WWT/RSPB/
JNCC ayudan a revelar la magnitud de los declives de aves acuáticas en algunos de loslugares más importantes del Reino Unido.
Los datos del programa WeBS son utilizados con frecuencia para guiar políticas deconservación y manejo. Ilya Maclean y Graham Austin describen algunos objetivospotenciales de conservación que emergen de la última alerta de WeBS.
ILYA MACLEAN AND GRAHAM AUSTIN
[178]
THE NEW WEBS ALERTS SYSTEMThe WeBS Alerts System has been running for anumber of years. However this year’s updatehas seen some important changes in the meth-odology and has provided some illuminatinginsights into changes in waterbird numbers. Onprevious occasions, the WeBS Alerts Systemreported trends in bird numbers on all SpecialProtection Areas (SPAs) (aside from a few, whichhaven’t been counted) on a three-year rollingbasis and key Sites of Special Scientific Interest(SSSIs) designated for waterbirds on a six-year
rolling basis. Thus in any given year we reportedon fewer than one third of sites and informationwas sometimes several years out of date.
We now aim to review all sites on an annualbasis. This has been possible because the processhas become increasingly automated. Complexcomputer programs have been developed thatretrieve all the necessary data off the database,spend hours analysing it, and produce ready-formatted graphs ready for displaying on theinternet. This saves tedious hours of manualdata analyses and page formatting. It also means
FIGURE 1. An example illustrating the standardised way of assessing population trends using the WeBS Alertssystem (Grey Plover on the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area).
First, index values are calculated, based on WeBS counts made by volunteers. Then a smoothedtrend is fitted through the data using a Generalised Additive Model. Percentage changes in thesmoothed trend value over the short (5 year), medium (10 year) and long term (25 year) arecalculated. For some Special Protection Areas (SPAs), the percentage change since the site wasdesignated is also calculated. In this instance, the site was designated as an SPA in 2001, soinsufficient time has elapsed for a meaningful change to be calculated. Closed circles representcomplete counts and open circles represent “imputing” missing or incomplete data. Such values arederived by calculating the proportion of the regional population typically occurring on the site whencomplete counts are made and then estimating what the number might be by examining trendselsewhere in the region.
A High-Alert is triggered in instances where declines exceed 50% and a Medium-Alert is triggeredwhen declines exceed 25%. Medium-Increases are reported when increases exceed 50% andHigh-Increases when increases exceed 100%.
- 44%
(Medium-Alert)
+0%
(No-change)
+235%
(High-increase)
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
300
240
180
120
60
0
First of ForthIndex value
WETLAND BIRD SURVEY ALERTS
[179]
that the whole report is much more user friendlyand is available online (www.bto.org/survey/webs/webs-alerts-index.htm). Althoughthe results of the WeBS Alerts System arealready used by government bodies such asJNCC and the statutory conservation agencies, itis hoped that this new format will ensure thatresults are even more widely accessible.
WATERBIRD TRENDSOne of the biggest conservation issueshighlighted by WeBS Alerts is the demise ofdiving ducks on Loughs Neagh and Beg inNorthern Ireland (Figure 2). Species such asPochard and Goldeneye have undergoneprecipitous declines triggering High-Alerts. Thisdrop in numbers is particularly worrying giventhe international importance of this site for thesespecies. To illustrate the scale of the problem,back in the winter of 1990/91, these Loughshosted over 40,000 Pochard, almost 11% of the
northern European wintering population andmore than three quarters of the UK population.In the winter of 2003/04, fewer than 8,000 wererecorded by WeBS counters.
The stories for Goldeneye and Tufted Duckare much the same. Goldeneye numbers peakedin 1990/91, when almost 14,000 were recorded(over 4% of the European wintering populationand almost half the UK population). In thewinter of 2003/ 04, fewer than 4,500 wererecorded. Somewhere along the line, over 55,000individuals of these three species have disap-peared from the site. The Environment andHeritage Service in Northern Ireland has begunto investigate why. Changes in the abundance ofchironomid larvae (the main food supply ofthese diving duck species) in response toeutrophication has been offered as one likelyexplanation.
The most adversely affected site is AbbertonReservoir, however. Of the 14 species evaluated,nine have had High- Alerts triggered and a
FIGURE 2. Pochard and Goldeneye trends on Lough Neagh and Lough Beg.
Diving waterfowl such as Pochard and Goldeneye (shown here), but also Coot and Tufted Duckshave undergone drastic declines. The Lough Neagh and Lough Beg Special Protection Area isthe most important site in the United Kingdom for waterfowl.
Index value
Year
Pochard IndexPochard TrendGoldeneye IndexGoldeneye Trend
1986 1991 1996 2001
500
400
300
200
100
0
ILYA MACLEAN AND GRAHAM AUSTIN
[180]
further species has a Medium-Alert raised(http://blx1.bto.org/ webs/alerts2005/Results/UK9009141/ 9009141.htm). English Nature hasalready begun investigating the reasons forrecent declines, including seeking the views oflocal WeBS counters.
It is not all bad news though. Waders havetended to fare somewhat better than divingducks, and dabbling duck numbers on somesites have increased substantially. In the UK as awhole for example, Gadwall have increasedalmost sixfold in the last 25 years.
The new report is now available online athttp://blx1.bto.org/webs/alerts/.
THANKSThanks to the team of counters who collect datafor WeBS, important conservation monitoringprojects like this one can be undertaken.Acknowledgements at the end of the nextarticle.
[181]
The 2003/04 season was a very successful onefor the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) core counts,with counts carried out at around 2,000 siteswithin the UK during the crucial ‘winter’ periodof September to March. At least 1,500 sites werecounted in each of these months, with almost1,200 covered every month throughout thisperiod. Altogether around 3,000 counters wereinvolved at some time or other. We highlightsome of the main findings.
DIVERS AND GREBESBoth Black-throated and Great Northern Diverswere recorded in similar numbers to those ofthe previous winter, whilst the totals of Red-throated Diver were somewhat lower thanrecent years. Interestingly, very large numberswere recorded flying past Thorpeness, on theSuffolk coast, including an incredible peak of4,710 on 4 January 2004. The numbers of bothLittle and Great Crested Grebe continued attheir current high levels, having increased mostyears since their inclusion as WeBS species in1982/83. In contrast, the counts of two of ourrarer wintering grebes — Red-necked andBlack-necked — were both at their lowest everand the maximum count of the latter was just
under half that of winter 2002/03.
CORMORANTS, HERONS ANDEGRETS
Numbers of Cormorant, Grey Heron and LittleEgret all continued their recent increase, albeiton a small scale for the first two species.
SWANS AND GEESEThere were mixed fortunes among the swanswith no change for Mute Swan, an increase forWhooper Swan and a slight decline for Bewick’sSwan. However, Bewick’s recorded the highestsingle site total ever in the UK with 6,330individuals on the Ouse Washes in earlyJanuary; although this was not an official WeBScount. The numbers of Whooper Swan showedan increase of 35% over the previous winter,with the Ouse Washes, Martin Mere and theRibble Estuary the most important sites. FewerEuropean and Greenland White-fronted Geesewere recorded than during 2002/03, both totalsfalling by around 20%. In contrast, counts ofPink-footed Geese remained high and totals ofIcelandic Greylag, Canada and Barnacle Geesedid not differ greatly from the previous winter.
Bird Populations 8:181-183Reprinted with permissionBTO News 261:5-6© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
LATEST NEWS FROM THE WEBS FRONT
MARK COLLIER, STEVE HOLLOWAY AND ANDY MUSGROVE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Mark Collier, Steve Holloway and Andy Musgrove, from the BTO’s WeBS team, review thefindings for winter 2003/04.
ULTIMAS NOTICIAS DEL PROGRAMA WEBS Mark Collier, Steve Holloway y Andy Musgrove, del equipo WeBS del BTO, revisan los
resultados del invierno 2003-04.
MARK COLLIER, STEVE HOLLOWAY AND ANDY MUSGROVE
[182]
During recent years there has been concernexpressed over the apparent decline in thenumbers of Darkbellied Brent Goose around ourshores, and this trend continued during the2003/ 04 winter, and resulted in the lowest totalfor over 20 years. The most serious declineswere evident from the North Norfolk Coast,Blackwater Estuary, Pagham Harbour, theBeaulieu Estuary and the Medway Estuary.Although the reasons for this decline are notentirely understood, fledging success overrecent years has fallen below the 15% levelneeded to maintain the population. However,there was better news regarding the 2003breeding season, and this was reflected in agreater number of family parties sighted duringwinter 2003/04.
Lindisfarne and Strangford Lough recordedan increase of around 10% in both the Svalbardand East Canadian High Arctic populations ofPale-bellied Brent Geese respectively, with a siterecord of over 21,000 geese at the latter wetlandin October.
DUCKSThe winter populations of Shelduck, Teal,Mallard and Pintail recorded by WeBS wereeach similar to those of the previous winter. Thisis in contrast to Gadwall, which continued itslong-term increase and reached record levels at
over 16,800 individuals in December. TheGadwall is a widespread and increasing speciesthroughout much of the UK, although thestronghold remains central and southernEngland. The wintering population includesbirds from north and east Europe, whilst someof the UK breeding population, which iscurrently estimated at less than 1,000 breedingpairs, winter in southern Europe. Despite somefluctuation in recent years there has been anapproximate doubling of the numbers in thisspecies recorded by WeBS during the last 10years (Figure 1). Similar population growth hasbeen reported across Europe. Numbers recordedin Northern Ireland were slightly higher thanthe previous winter, although the species is stillscarcer here than in much of the rest of the UK.
Over the past couple of years similar patternshave been evident in the peak counts of TuftedDuck, Scaup, Goldeneye, Red-breastedMerganser and Goosander. Following unusuallylow totals of these species in 2002/03, numbersrecovered in 2003/04, although all remain belowtheir average of recent years. Shoveler numbersfell by around 20% from their record peak of2002/03 whilst, conversely, Wigeon rose by asimilar amount to reach 497,000, their highesttotal to date. On the minus side, declines wererecorded in several other duck species, mostnotably Pochard, Common Scoter and VelvetScoter. The government’s Ruddy Duck control
FIGURE 1. Annual and monthly indices for Gadwall.
Index Index100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
065/66 70/71 75/76 80/81 85/86 90/91 95/96 00/01 05/06
a) Annual index and trend for Gadwall forGB.
b) Monthly index for Gadwall for GB.
= 2003/04 = previous five years= range 1998/99 to 2002/03
= annual index= trend
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
LATEST NEWS FROM THE WEBS FRONT
[183]
programme may have contributed to WeBScounters recording its lowest total for eightyears.
WADERSFollowing a Europe-wide trend, Avocetnumbers continued to increase in the UK, bothas a breeding species and as a wintering one.Many of the British breeding birds winterbetween southern Europe and West Africa,whilst our wintering population comprises bothremaining breeders and birds from the nearbycontinent. Britain has experienced a dramaticincrease in Avocet numbers over the past 15years, with nearly 6,000 recorded in December.With this rise, annual indices have more thandoubled in the last decade, with 2003/04 seeinga 12% increase on the preceding year. Of the 18sites that held numbers exceeding the national1% threshold, 14 were in eastern England,underlining this region’s status as the heart ofthe UK range.
Other species of wader exhibited varyingfortunes. Counts of both Oystercatcher andRinged Plover were slightly below those of theprevious year and Grey Plover continued itsrecent downward trend to a population levelmore akin to that of 1989/90. Moreencouragingly, Golden Plover and Lapwingtotals both rose by a quarter, although, as ever,large numbers of both these plovers regularlyoccur on nonwetland habitats that are notcovered by WeBS. Knot numbers remainedsimilar to those of 2002/03. The British index forSanderling fell to its lowest level for over half adecade. Notably, although the overall BritishTurnstone index has been in steady decline since
the high point in 1987/88, there has been anincrease over the past two winters in NorthernIreland. Dunlin, Curlew and Redshank countsremained fairly stable, and similar to recentwinters, whilst a fall in Bar-tailed Godwitnumbers was well within the variabilityexhibited by the species over recent years. Byway of a contrast, Black-tailed Godwitcontinued its 20-year increase in numbers. Themajority of non-breeding Black-tailed Godwitsrecorded in Great Britain and Northern Irelandare of Icelandic origin (islandica). However, asmall proportion of passage birds are of thenominate race, occurring mainly in the east andsouth of England, where small numbers alsobreed. The species has shown a less consistentincrease in Northern Ireland, although indexvalues have risen consecutively for the pastthree years, and the current value represents thehighest ever reported. Peak counts wererecorded during autumn passage (August toOctober) in Great Britain and during Novemberin Northern Ireland.
The forthcoming Wildfowl and Wader Countswill cover the fortunes of all species in moredetail, and is sent free to all participatingcounters. In the future, these reports will also beavailable on the BTO website at www.bto.org/survey/webs/index.htm. The WeBS Office canbe contacted by e-mail at [email protected].
The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) is entirelydependent on the many thousands of dedicatedvolunteer ornithologists who supply the dataand to whom we are extremely grateful. TheLocal Organisers who coordinate these countsdeserve special thanks for their contribution.WeBS is a joint scheme of the BTO, Wildfowl &Wetlands Trust, RSPB and JNCC.
[184]
The methods, scale and impact of supplementaryfeeding birds within UK gardens have escalateddramatically over the last 34 years, as shown bylatest results from the BTO’s Garden BirdFeeding Survey (GBFS). Recent GBFS findingschart fresh species, changes in status and alsobehaviour at UK birdtables — revealing much toencourage, but with some concerns.
RICH RURAL GARDENSAs ever, weekly counts of all species exploitingsupplementary food and water, from October toMarch inclusive, were kept by householders —122 in rural villages, hamlets and farmsteads,143 in areas of high density housing. The sampleis considered broadly representative ofdwellings overall.
Species richness by site over the winter of2003/04 varied widely from just six species at acoastal Ramsgate (Kent) garden, to 39 species inWalbottle village (Newcastle-upon-Tyne).
Interestingly, in the 2003/04 winter, ruralgardens on average supported more speciesthan those in suburbia (23.0 and 20.8 speciesrespectively). This contrasts with recent winters,when the warmer microclimate of suburban
gardens proved more attractive (see BTO News242, 248). A notable feature of the 2003/04winter was a major influx of finches andthrushes, as well as some waterfowl, tits andbuntings into rural gardens during wintry coldsnaps in the New Year, when natural foods wereprematurely diminished.
Overall, an impressive 81 species were recordedtaking food or water. Robin and Blue Tit took foodat all the gardens sampled (Table 1). The ‘TopTwenty’ species in winter 2003/04 took food at half,or more, of sites. A comparison of the relative fre-quency of feeding by these, with the initial decadeof study (1970s), and more recently (1990s), provesilluminating. The majority of species show somemeasure of greater attendance at feeding stations— most strikingly by Goldfinch, Siskin, Long-tailed Tit, Magpie, Woodpigeon and Sparrow-hawk. These reflect healthy populations, rangerecoveries, a greater tolerance of man (often viareduced persecution), and behaviour shifts toexploit fresh foods. On the debit side, HouseSparrow and Starling show a marked decline atfeeders, while the Song Thrush decline looks tohave arrested at a lower level. Changes in feedingflock-sizes provide a more accurate measure oflong-term changes in status at feeders (see Box p39).
Bird Populations 8:184-187Reprinted with permissionBTO News 254:8-9© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
BLACKCAP AND ROSEFINCH — GARDEN STARS
DAVID GLUE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
BTO Research Biologist, David Glue, summarises findings from Winter 2003/04 of theGarden Bird Feeding Survey.
LA CURRUCA CAPIROTADA Y EL CAMACHUELO – ESTRELLAS DEL JARDÍN El biólogo investigador del BTO David Glue resume los resultados del programa de
conteos en comederos de jardín para el invierno de 2003-04.
INDIAN SUMMER HEAT AND NEWYEAR CHILL
Three major features strongly influenced therange of species and flock-sizes at UK birdtablesin winter 2003/04:• modest yields of many wild fruits;• a poor breeding season in 2003 for most
resident tits, thrushes and certain finches;• an eighth successive relatively mild and wet
winter.Searing heat and the driest August-October
quarter since 1972, saw birdbaths in greatdemand. House Sparrow and Blackbird oftendominated, while early Siskin and Redpoll werea bonus for some, with transient WillowWarbler, Black Redstart and Turtle Dove notedby lucky observers. The mildest November since1994 saw late nesting Greenfinch, Collared Doveand Woodpigeon bringing families to feeders.Food caching by Coal Tit, Marsh Tit andNuthatch was frenetic in some gardens, withfirst-ever Jay visits for some, reflecting a scarcityof beech mast and acorns. Chilly episodes, withsome heavy snowfalls in early December andover the New Year, saw Blackbird , Starling and
winter thrushes quick to plunder garden berryand soft-fruit stocks and swiftly turn to birdtablefare. Severe frosts brought the first Blackcap ,Yellowhammer and Reed Bunting to somefeeding stations.
Record-breaking high temperatures in earlyFebruary brought a lull in birdtable activity andsome premature successful garden nestingattempts by Blackbird, Robin and doves, withparent birds relying on provided foods to satisfyhungry young (BTO News 252).
A swift change to uncomfortably cold arcticair in the final fortnight, with regular nightfrosts, generated a marked increase in thrushand finch flocks, Blackbird, Chaffinch andGreenfinch invariably dominating. An old-fashioned mixed bag of weather in March,brought Brambling and Siskin into manygardens, as scarce crops of alder, birch and someconifer seeds were exhausted. Goldfinchcontinued to exploit new birdtables, flocks of20–30 widely, though nowhere topping the 100mark as seen in previous winters. Feeding flocksof Long-tailed Tit, similarly, were generallysmaller than in recent winters.
BLACKCAP AND ROSEFINCH — GARDEN STARS
[185]
TABLE l. GBFS Top Twenty garden birds.
Winter 2003/04Species % of gardens % of 70s gardens(*) % of 90s gardens(+)
Robin 100 99 99Blue Tit 100 99 100Blackbird 99 99 99Great Tit 99 93 97Greenfinch 99 92 96Chaffinch 98 92 96Dunnock 98 95 95Coal Tit 92 70 85Collared Dove 88 60 86House Sparrow 83 97 93Starling 83 96 93Magpie 74 29 71Woodpigeon 70 19 53Goldfinch 67 3 37Song Thrush 63 88 64Long-tailed Tit 59 11 44Wren 54 34 51Siskin 54 7 52Jackdaw 52 32 45Sparrowhawk 50 10 46
(*)Figures are the average of 10 winters from 1970/71 to 1979/80,(+) from 1990/91 to 1999/2000.
DAVID GLUE
[186]
TREE SPARROWS GRACE GARDENSThe birdtable community continued to changeover winter 2003/04. Among regular feeders,Greenfinch (99%), Dunnock (98%), Coal Tit(92%), Magpie (74%), Woodpigeon (70%) andJackdaw (52% of gardens) reached all-time highlevels of feeding attendance (Table 1), whileGreat Tit (99%), Pheasant (29%) and Herring Gull(11% of gardens) matched previous record levels.Many observers complained of an increasingphysical dominance by larger species at feedingstations, notably from ever-tamer doves(including Feral Pigeon), gamebirds (chieflyPheasant) and corvids, and a greater need todeploy ‘cages’, ‘baffles’ and robust feeders, tolimit the hoovering up of expensive food stocks.
On the positive side, Bullfinch (21%), TreeSparrow (14%) and Grey Wagtail (13%) achievedhigh attendance levels at feeders, probablyhelped by improved seed mixes. Equallyencouraging was the widespread thin scatter ofGreen Woodpecker, Treecreeper and LesserRedpoll (each to 5% of gardens), attracted towindfall apples, fatty items and water. Blackcappatronized birdtables widely (31% of gardens),their highest level since the cold winter of1995/96, with ringers catching up to a dozendifferent birds within individual gardens. Someobservers attributed the welcome return ofBullfinch, Tree Sparrow and House Sparrow,aided by year-round supplementary feedingwith sunflower hearts, hen corn or rape seed.Nonetheless, House Sparrow (83%), Starling(83%) and Mistle Thrush (14% of gardens),dipped to all-time low levels of attendance,adding to recent worries.
JACK SNIPE AND HAWFINCHAMONG FEEDING CELEBRITIES
Yet again, surprise visitors were noted coming toprovided food and water. Common Rosefinch(Ipswich, Suffolk), a predicted candidate withexpanding UK garden presence, brought the 34-year GBFS tally to 164 species. Elsewhere,feeding Chough (Pwllheli, Gwynedd), Red-legged Partridge (Holyhead, Anglesey), Serin(Blean, Kent) and Hawfinch (Workington,Cumbria) caught the eye. Among water birds ,Common Snipe (Andreas, IOM), Jack Snipe(Beccles, Suffolk) and Kingfisher (New Milton,Hants) were attracted to supplementary foodsduring cold weather. Waxwing (Hyde, GreaterManchester) was part of another majormidwinter influx, now seemingly an annualevent.
Sparrowhawk easily maintained its status astop diurnal predator, hunting at 50% of feedingstations. Red Kite were attracted to meaty scrapsat Little Missenden (Bucks) and Tredegar(Gwent), 20 birds and more circling overfavoured gardens. Equally encouraging,Buzzard continued to spread (3% of gardens),tempted to scraps in gardens fringing the NewForest, Welsh Marches, Chilterns and Borders.
Tawny Owl was the most frequent nocturnalpredator (hunting in just 2% of feeding stations),often drawn initially to small rodents, notablyWood Mice. Sadly, several observers were forcedto limit the scale, or to close ground feeding,due to Brown Rat activity, a product of warmerand wetter winters.
The coming winter is eagerly awaited andlikely to include more tales of the unexpected.
THANK YOUThe BTO extends a large measure of thanks to the dedicated team of GBFS counters whocarefully and keenly contribute each winter to this small but important Trust survey. CarolPovey, Jacky Prior and Frances Bowman kindly helped with the production and collation offorms, Mike Toms helped with the calculation of Peak Count Indices.
BLACKCAP AND ROSEFINCH — GARDEN STARS
[187]
MIXED FORTUNES AT UK BIRDTABLES: GBFS PEAK COUNT INDEX1970–2004
The BTO’s GBFS plays a valuable monitoring role each winter through the Peak Count Index,an assessment of the relative number of birds feeding in the nonbreeding season.
In Winter 2003/04, on the debit side, Starling flock-sizes fell to their lowest levels yet. Thisdip in feeding numbers, accelerated in the 1990s, and is a feature of both rural and suburbangardens. It parallels declines in breeding populations over much of NW Europe, includinglosses in UK farms and woods. Fewer soft-bodied invertebrate prey, affecting young birdsurvival, is a possible causal factor, but further studies are ongoing.
In contrast, Greenfinch has seen a marked upturn in feeding status, most strikingly in opencountry gardens (alongside Chaffinch), coinciding with increased year-round feeding and theintroduction of better seedmixes including sunflower hearts and nyjer. The dramatic surge infeeding numbers of Magpies, that occurred in all garden types since the late 1980s, looks tohave reached a plateau, though a few sites continue to record first-time feeders, notably in moreremote parts of northwestern UK. Blackheaded Gull respond to cold winters, gardenattendance peaking during cold snaps in the mid 1980s (along with species such as Redwingand Fieldfare). In recent years they have tended increasingly to exploit feeding stations intowns and cities, closer to reservoir roosts and municipal rubbish feeding sites. Woodpigeon,likewise, peaked at rural gardens during cold winters in the mid 1980s, but have venturedincreasingly into suburban gardens in recent years, shrugging off their shyness of humans andboosted by population surges. Use of birdtables by Blackcaps has been a welcome feature sincethe 1970s. Their numbers surged in the mid 1990s, being equally at home in the warmermicroclimate of suburbia as in village gardens, where they are seen alongside more Chiffchaffs,the occasional Lesser Whitethroat. If warmer wetter winters are sustained, there is the potentialfor other insectivorous passerines to become birdtable feeders.
[188]
The BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey(BBS) is the main survey that tracks changes innumbers of widespread terrestrial bird speciesacross the UK. Highquality information on thestatus of bird populations is fundamental totheir conservation. BBS results are used bygovernments and non-governmental organi-zations to set conservation priorities.
Although many parts of the country havereached a near-optimum level of coverage, otherareas are still in need of participants. We areparticularly keen to increase the number ofsquares surveyed in Northern Ireland, Scotlandand North East England, where increasing thecoverage would allow us to monitor regionalpopulation changes of more bird species.
Do you live in one of these areas? Do you thinkyou could help out? Contact your local RegionalOrganiser, Regional Representative or MikeRaven for more information about this survey.
SURVEY COVERAGEBecause of its careful design and simplemethods, this survey continues to attract manyparticipants. In the spring of 2004, more than2,000 BBS observers collected information onbird numbers from a record total of 2,512 1-kmsquares. Record coverage was achieved in
England (1,868 squares), Wales (252) and theChannel Islands (11), and there was goodcoverage in Scotland (274), Northern Ireland(101) and the Isle of Man (6). We are able tocalculate population trends for a greater numberof species, with trends produced for England,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and thenine English Government Office Regions as wellas for the UK overall.
SPECIES AND HABITAT COVERAGEA total of 219 species was recorded in 2004 and,of these, 100 species were found in at least 40squares. The population trends of five species ofgull (Black-headed, Common, Herring, LesserBlack-backed and Great Black-backed) are nolonger reported, as a large proportion of thecounts are considered to be of non-breeding,wintering or migratory birds. Trends forCormorant, Grey Heron and Common Tern arereported with the caveat that counts maycontain a high proportion of birds away frombreeding sites, and the trend for Tawny Owlwith the caveat that the BBS method monitorsnocturnal species poorly.
Three species were recorded for the first timeon BBS squares in 2004 (Glossy Ibis inOxfordshire, Wryneck in Hampshire and records
Bird Populations 8:188-193Reprinted with permissionBTO News 260:12-15© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
RECENT CHANGES IN COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS
MIKE RAVEN AND DAVID NOBLE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
The Breeding Bird Survey has now been running for more than a decade. Mike Raven andDavid Noble report on the results from 2004 and review the long-term trends.
CAMBIOS RECIENTES EN POBLACIONES DE AVES COMUNES El conteo de aves reproductoras (BBS) en el Reino Unido ha sido implementado por más
de una década. Mike Raven y David Noble informan sobre los resultados de 2004 y revisan lastendencias de largo plazo.
RECENT CHANGES IN COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS
[189]
of Bittern from four sites in Suffolk, Norfolk andNorth Lincolnshire), reflecting the upturn in thefortune of this species in the UK. Following onfrom the survey’s first Hoopoe seen inHampshire in 2003, another individual waslocated in Sussex in 2004. On a less positivenote, a wide range of presumably escapedspecies were recorded, including Black Swan,Redbreasted Goose, Bar-headed Goose, RuddyShelduck, Wood Duck, Muscovy Duck, MarbledDuck, Reeves’s Pheasant, Guineafowl andPeacock.
The habitat details from more than 23,000 200-m transect sections were recorded in 2004. Workis under way to use this extensive data set ofhabitat information to generate habitat-specifictrends for individual species. This will furtherhelp us to identify possible reasons forpopulation changes.
POPULATION TRENDSTable 1 shows the population changes betweenthe last two seasons (2003 and 2004) and for theentire survey period to date (1994 to 2004).Trends are estimated using a log–linearregression model that corrects for differences incoverage among regions. Across the UK, 49species increased significantly, 23 speciesdeclined significantly, and 28 species showed nosignificant change in numbers between 1994 and2004. The following are some of the moreinteresting ups and downs.
MIGRANTS BOUNCE BACKSeveral migratory species of bird showed amarked increase in numbers between 2003 and2004. Over three times as many Sand Martinswere encountered (representing a massiveincrease of 247%) and numbers of Cuckoo (aspecies in long-term decline) were up by 31%.Whitethroats were up by 19%, Chiffchaff by 17%and Willow Warbler by 12%. Of 25 summervisitors from Africa that are monitored by theBBS, all but three increased in numbers between2003 and 2004. For many migratory species, thisyear-to-year variation is driven predominantlyby conditions on the African wintering grounds.Whitethroat, Cuckoo, Willow Warbler and SandMartin all winter south of the Sahara, and yearsof poor rainfall have been shown to coincide
with falls in the British breeding populations.The current increases presumably reflect better-than-averageconditions in Africa during thewinter of 2003/04, a good breeding season in2003, or maybe both.
LESSER REDPOLLThe Lesser Redpoll was newly classified as adistinct species as recently as 2001, and has beenamber-listed in Birds of Conservation Concern onthe basis that nearly one quarter of the Europeanpopulation resides in the UK. Numbers havedeclined significantly by 21% in the UK since1994. Regionally, there have been declines of 29%in England and 20% in Scotland and, althoughneither of these results were significant, they dopoint towards a downward trend in bothcountries. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggeststhat Lesser Redpolls have declined dramaticallyas a breeding species in most southern andmidland counties of England, to the point of nearextinction in some. Historically, however,populations have shown cycles of expansion andcontraction in lowland England. Numbersdeclined to a low point during the 1920s, afterwhich an increase and expansion into lowlandareas occurred from the 1950s until the mid-1970s, when the population was thought to behigher than at any time during the past 100 years.The joint Common Birds Census/BBS trendshows a massive 97% decline since 1977 andresults from the Constant Effort Sites Schemehave shown that both productivity and survivalrates have declined since the early 1980s.
YELLOW WAGTAILOf the 25 summer-visitor species monitored bythe BBS, the Yellow Wagtail was the only one toshow a substantial decline in numbers (down13%) between 2003 and 2004. Numbers ofYellow Wagtail have declined by 27% in the UKsince 1994, continuing a trend that started in the1970s. Britain holds almost the entire populationof the distinctive race flavissima, (aptly translatedas “the yellowest”) and so population changesin the UK are of special significance. This specieshas disappeared or become very scarce in manyof the lowland wet meadow haunts where it wastraditionally found only 20 years ago. Farmlanddrainage, the conversion of pasture to arable
MIKE RAVEN AND DAVID NOBLE
[190]
land, the change from spring-sown to winter-sown cereals, and the loss of insects associatedwith cattle have been cited as potential causes.However, this species remains locally commonin some intensively farmed areas, such as partsof the East Anglian fens.
SPARROWHAWKNumbers of one of our most commonlyencountered predators, the Sparrowhawk, fellby 17% between 2003 and 2004, accounting formost of the decline of 21% over the entiresurvey period (1994– 2004). Numbers fell by21% in England over the same period, and inthe English regions where enough records wereobtained to calculate a trend, declines werenoted in the East of England (down 41%) andSouth West (down 31%). Sparrowhawknumbers increased strongly in the UK duringthe 1970s and 1980s as the population recoveredfrom the crash caused by organochlorinepesticides in the 1950s and 1960s. During therecovery period, many eastern counties fromwhich it had all but disappeared wererecolonised. Numbers reached a peak in themid-1990s, after which they have remainedrelatively stable, until now.
GOOD NEWS FOR CORN BUNTING?Numbers of Corn Bunting increased by 21%between 2003 and 2004. After many years ofdecline, the first signs of a possible recovery areemerging from BBS data (see Figure 1). In theperiod between the mid- 1970s and 2000, CornBunting numbers fell by nearly 90%, with manyparts of the country being abandoned. Thecauses of this dramatic decline are linked toagricultural intensification, and in particular, thereduced amount of seed available to them in thewinter. However, numbers have begun tostabilise in the last four years, possibly inresponse to conservation efforts and sympatheticfarm management. With the anticipatedwidespread adoption of newly introducedGovernment-funded agri-environment schemes,such as the Entry Level Scheme (ELS) inEngland, which encourage farmers to adoptmore ‘wildlife friendly’ farm managementoptions, we may yet see a recovery in thefortunes of our largest bunting.
PIED FLYCATCHERNumbers of Pied Flycatcher have declinedsignificantly by 35% on BBS sites in the UK since1994 (see Figure 2). In common with WoodWarbler, which has experienced a decline of 55%over the same period (see Figure 3), both specieshave predominantly western distributions. A
FIGURE 1. Corn Bunting: UK BBS index 1994–2004.
FIGURE 2 .Pied Flycatcher: UK BBS index 1994–2004.
Index: 1994=1.0
Year
Year
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Index: 1994=1.0
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
FIGURE 3. Wood Warbler: UK BBS index 1994–2004.
Year
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Index: 1994=1.0
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
RECENT CHANGES IN COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS
[191]
TABLE 1. Population changes of common and widespread species 2003–04 and 1994–2004.
Change Change lcl uclSpecies Sample 2003-2004 1994-2004 1994-2004 1994-2004
Little Grebe 52 –14 24 –11 73Great Crested Grebe 58 97 * 38 * 5 80Cormorant 166 22 40 * 19 66Grey Heron 513 –16 17 * 5 31Mute Swan 185 –14 0 –14 16Greylag Goose 99 –5 179 * 119 257Canada Goose 331 –31 * 74 * 53 98Shelduck 118 2 –38 * –49 –26Mallard 982 –2 23 * 15 31Tufted Duck 124 –13 27 * 4 56Sparrowhawk 277 –17 –21 * –32 –8Buzzard 544 0 53 * 38 68Kestrel 528 –14 –19 * –27 –10Red Grouse 101 –22 –4 –23 19Red-legged Partridge 404 18 53 * 37 70Grey Partridge 212 13 –30 * –40 –17Pheasant 1318 5 39 * 32 46Moorhen 526 –5 25 * 13 38Coot 205 –11 77 * 53 105Oystercatcher 244 9 –5 –14 4Golden Plover 53 12 2 –23 36Lapwing 559 –1 –13 * –20 –6Snipe 124 8 54 * 29 84Curlew 431 –10 –34 * –39 –28Redshank 70 58 23 –2 54Common Sandpiper 60 –4 –15 –34 8Common Tern 48 19 17 –14 59Feral Pigeon 555 –5 7 –3 17Stock Dove 618 13 30 * 18 43Wood Pigeon 1913 –2 12 * 8 16Collared Dove 1044 8 41 * 34 49Turtle Dove 183 0 –45 * –54 –34Cuckoo 712 31 * –19 * –26 –12Little Owl 91 –17 –14 –34 12Tawny Owl 77 –13 –38 * –54 –18Swift 870 8 –22 * –28 –15Kingfisher 43 –25 –11 –40 32Green Woodpecker 592 6 34 * 23 47Gt. Spotted Woodpecker 666 13 108 * 90 129Skylark 1407 3 –10 * –13 –6Sand Martin 99 247 * 84 * 48 127Swallow 1486 11 22 * 16 28House Martin 766 11 31 * 20 42Tree Pipit 119 18 16 –4 40Meadow Pipit 640 –4 0 –5 5Yellow Wagtail 152 –13 –27 * –38 –14Grey Wagtail 167 –29 14 –6 38Pied Wagtail 1015 –10 21 * 13 30Dipper 46 –22 4 –29 52Wren 1879 –3 14 * 11 18Dunnock 1568 –8 13 * 8 19Robin 1813 –3 15 * 11 19Redstart 132 19 30 * 10 55
MIKE RAVEN AND DAVID NOBLE
[192]
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Change Change lcl uclSpecies Sample 2003-2004 1994-2004 1994-2004 1994-2004
LittleWhinchat 74 4 –15 –33 8Stonechat 94 7 135 * 78 209Wheatear 243 11 7 –6 21Blackbird 1896 –3 17 * 14 20Song Thrush 1488 –5 14 * 8 20Mistle Thrush 992 –2 –2 –9 6Grasshopper Warbler 60 54 59 * 17 118Sedge Warbler 248 22 15 * 2 31Reed Warbler 92 28 48 * 22 78Lesser Whitethroat 209 13 –30 * –41 –18Whitethroat 1024 19 * 39 * 31 48Garden Warbler 373 14 –4 –14 9Blackcap 1123 12 54 * 45 63Wood Warbler 53 109 * –52 * –64 –35Chiffchaff 1040 17 * 76 * 66 86Willow Warbler 1205 12 * 0 –4 5Goldcrest 582 –4 60 * 47 74Spotted Flycatcher 194 12 –35 * –45 –23Pied Flycatcher 41 14 –35 * –53 –10Long-tailed Tit 677 0 12 * 1 24Marsh Tit 126 4 26 * 1 56Willow Tit 54 –26 –65 * –75 –50Coal Tit 585 –12 14 * 5 23Blue Tit 1772 –2 17 * 13 22Great Tit 1632 5 35 * 29 41Nuthatch 325 7 52 * 34 73Treecreeper 276 –5 7 –8 25Jay 553 5 1 –9 11Magpie 1470 –3 –1 –5 4Jackdaw 1256 –3 19 * 12 26Rook 1038 –12 –3 –10 6Carrion Crow 1795 1 11 * 6 17Hooded Crow 114 –10 –13 –31 9Raven 182 –6 91 * 58 130Starling 1499 –5 –30 * –34 –25House Sparrow 1275 –1 –3 –7 2Tree Sparrow 136 –1 48 * 22 80Chaffinch 1898 0 9 * 6 12Greenfinch 1387 4 37 * 30 44Goldfinch 1104 –6 28 * 19 37Siskin 112 –12 –40 * –52 –25Linnet 1045 –14 * –14 * –20 –8Lesser Redpoll 121 –29 –21 * –37 –1Bullfinch 463 11 –9 –18 2Yellowhammer 1008 –7 –22 * –26 –18Reed Bunting 351 –9 4 –6 16Corn Bunting 138 21 –24 * –35 –10
Population changes of widespread species 2003–04 and 1994–2004. The sample size indicated is the meannumber of squares occupied each year over the 10 years (excluding 2001, and squares which were surveyed inonly one year). The figures presented are the percentage changes in population levels for the respective timeperiods: those marked with an asterisk were significantly different at a 5% level. For the 1994–2004 period, thelower and upper 95% confidence limits (lcl, ucl) are given. Species in bold are red-listed, and species in italicsamber-listed in The Population Status of Birds in the UK, Birds of conservation concern: 2002–2007.
RECENT CHANGES IN COMMON BIRD POPULATIONS
[193]
large proportion of the UK Pied Flycatcherpopulation resides in Wales, with smallernumbers in southwest England, the Lake Districtand southwest Scotland. Even in the Welshstrongholds, where there is not quite enough datato produce trends, the occurrence of this specieshas declined from 20% of squares in 1994 to only8% in 2004. Very little historical data exist for PiedFlycatcher, although a small expansion in rangewas noted between the two BTO breeding atlases(1968–72 and 1988–91), possibly aided by theprovision of nest boxes at new sites. The cause ofthis decline remains largely unknown, buthopefully, results from the Scarce Woodland BirdSurvey being run in 2005 and 2006 will shed lighton the habitat needs of this species.
BBS-ONLINE UPDATELast year (2004) was the first full survey yearfor which BBS observers were able to submittheir counts electronically using the BBS-Onlineapplication. Uptake of the new system washigher than anticipated, with data submittedelectronically for 29% of the total number ofsquares surveyed. As well as allowing BBSobservers to submit their BBS bird, habitat andmammal data electronically, the application alsoallows the user to view historical data for theirsquares. The BBS web pages, which areavailable to all visitors to the BTO website,provide a wide range of information about thescheme, including details on how to participate,species distribution maps, trends tables andgraphs and county and regional species lists.The web pages are proving to be a verysuccessful way of promoting the scheme topotential new participants. To date, more than170 people have enquired to take part in BBSusing the web application. Many thanks to theRSPB for generously funding the developmentof BBS-Online, and to members of the BTO’sInformation Systems Unit who have continuedto develop the system and provided technicalsupport over the past year. For more
information about BBS-Online, visitwww.bto.org/bbs
THE FUTUREThe success of BBS in 2004 is mainly due to theBTO’s network of Regional Organisers whohave recruited many new BBS observers acrossthe UK. Other new volunteers have beenencouraged to participate in the scheme via theBTO’s website, and by e-mailing MigrationWatch users. By continuing to increase BBScoverage across the UK and in a variety of otherhabitats, we are improving our ability tomonitor what is happening to bird populations.Birdwatchers can make few greater contri-butions to conservation science.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are extremely grateful to all the ROs,observers and BTO members who took part inthe BBS last year. We would also like to thankthe farmers and landowners for their supportand co-operation in allowing BBS volunteersonto their land. The BBS continues to be anenormous success and is now the primarysource of information on national and regionaltrends in common breeding birds.
If you would like to take part in the scheme,please contact your local RO, RegionalRepresentative or Mike Raven at BTO HQ (e-mail: [email protected]).
The BBS is a partnership between the BTO,JNCC and RSPB.
FURTHER READINGBaillie, et al. (2005) Breeding Birds in the WiderCountryside: their conservation status 2004. BTOResearch Report 385. BTO, Thetford. (www.bto.org/birdtrends) Raven, M J, Noble, D G & Baillie, S R (2005). TheBreeding Bird Survey 2004. BTO Research Report403. BTO, Thetford. (www.bto.org/bbs/results).
BBS METHODSThe BBS is an annual survey with randomly selected 1-km squares allocated to participantswithin each BTO Region by volunteer Regional Organisers (ROs). It uses line-transect methods,with each observer visiting their square on two occasions between April and June to count allthe birds they see and hear along a 2-km route.
[194]
Following seven years of overlap between theCommon Birds Census (CBC) and the BreedingBird Survey (BBS), the long-running mappingCBC ceased in 2000 and passed the baton toBBS as the ongoing scheme for bird monitoringin the UK’s wider countryside. The processinvolved a detailed statistical comparison ofthe trends detected by the two schemes. Fornearly every species, it has proved possible tolink CBC and BBS trends together to produce ajoint trend, beginning in the 1960s andmaintained now solely by BBS transects. Thesejoint CBC/BBS trends represent both thehistory and the future of bird populationmonitoring in the UK (see www.bto.org/birdtrends).
The mapping Waterways Bird Survey (WBS),covering linear waters (rivers and canals), filledgaps in species and habitat coverage left by CBCand now performs the same valuable functionalongside BBS. For 14 species, the headlinetrends on the BTO’s birdtrends web pages, arefrom WBS rather than BBS. WBS now has itsown new rival in the shape of WBBS, a transectscheme modelled closely on BBS, that was first
trialled seven years ago, in 1998. There are manyparallels between CBC/BBS and WBS/WBBS:WBBS brings the same advantages of randomplot selection, and a much larger annual sample,that BBS had over CBC. It also brings coverageof all bird and mammal species, whereas WBSmapping includes only waterbirds. Will thepattern now be repeated, with the long-established mapping survey being dropped infavour of the new transect survey?
The outcome is far from clear, however, and inthe short term both surveys are planned tocontinue in 2006. One further field season, in2005, has already been added to the overlapperiod and will help to overcome the effects ofFoot & Mouth Disease (FMD), which reducedthe value of data collection in 2001. Continu-ation in 2006 will increase to seven the numberof seasons in which WBS observers haveconducted surveys using both mapping andtransect methodologies. A decision on whetherto pursue WBBS or WBS into the future willneed to be taken within a year or two, duringwhich time we hope that extra valuable datawill have been gathered.
Bird Populations 8:194-197Reprinted with permissionBTO News 261:8-10© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
WATERWAYS SURVEYS IN 2004
JOHN MARCHANT
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Support for both the BTO’s annual breeding surveys along waterways gained strength in2004, and another stage of Waterways Breeding Bird Survey (WBBS) development went justswimmingly. John Marchant reports.
CONTEOS EN CURSOS ACUÁTICOS EN 2004 El apoyo a ambos conteos de aves en cursos acuáticos del BTO ganó fuerza en 2004, y una
nueva etapa del conteo de aves reproductoras en cursos acuáticos (WBBS) dio sus frutos.John Marchant informa.
WBS LATESTWe were worried this time last year by therecent gradual decline in support for thisscheme, evident since the launch of WBBS in1998. Disregarding 2001, the year of FMD, therewas a progressive drop in the number of sites,down to just 85 in 2003 (Figure 1). It is pleasingthen that, in 2004, a good number of new plotseasily surpassed those dropping out, and theWBS sample rose to 91. There was another largeintake of new sites in 2005, which if continued,will greatly aid the comparisons.
For 2003’s 85 WBS submissions, all but fiveobservers provided comparable data also for2004. There were thus 80 plots helping toestimate population change for 2003–04,signifying an increase from the low point of 74paired sites for the previous year-to-yearcomparison (BTO News 253: 14). The results ofthis comparison are set out in Table 1.
There were 21 species for which WBS couldestimate population change between 2003 and2004. Of these, two-thirds increased. Increases forSedge Warbler and Whitethroat, both statisticallysignificant, were the most striking. The upturnfor Reed Bunting, a Red-listed species, was alsosignificant. In contrast, Pied and Grey Wagtailsboth declined significantly. No other decreasesreached statistical significance, but the 22%decline estimated for Lapwings is also worthy ofnote. By far the largest sample sizes among thewaterbirds covered are for Mallard, where thealmost ubiquitous domestictype birds areincluded in the counts, and for Sand Martin,where the counts tabulated are of apparentlyoccupied nest holes. Yellow Wagtail, Little Grebeand Redshank have become too scarce now onrivers and canals for annual estimates of changeto be made.
Including these three scarce species, there are24 species for which a long-term estimate ofchange can be made, typically for the period1975–2003 (Table 2): seven species require a laterstart year, having been recorded too infrequentlyat the start of the survey. Winners and losersmore-orless balance in this table. Four specieshave halved in number, but five have doubled.The virtually complete loss of Yellow Wagtailsfrom the waterway habitat stands out as themost remarkable of these changes, but at theother end of the scale the rapid rise of introducedGreylag Geese is also astonishing — especially
given that, as recently as 1992, the species wastoo infrequent on WBS plots to be indexed.
Table 2 sets the background to the latestannual changes. For example, the decreasesamong wagtails in 2004 follow a long period ofoverall decline for these species. Interestingly,however, CBC/BBS has detected little changeover the same period for Pied Wagtail in theother habitats in which it occurs. The longtermrises of Canada Goose, along withOystercatcher, Whitethroat, Goosander, MuteSwan and Reed Warbler were evident on WBSplots in 2004.
WBBS PHASE 3A further three seasons of WBBS transectfieldwork, funded again by the EnvironmentAgency, were completed in 2004. Our aims forthis phase were to develop the overlap betweenWBS and WBBS, to encourage more volunteersupport for WBBS, and to compare populationtrends emerging from WBBS with those fromother monitoring schemes.
Figure 1 charts WBBS development. 2001 aside,the number of stretches covered each year forWBBS has continued to grow, reaching 285 in2004. We are pleased with this success, and hopethis number can grow still further over future sea-sons. Given that we want both schemes to beoperating fully during their overlap period, it wasencouraging that both WBBS and WBS enjoyed anupturn in support in 2004. We are very grateful toeveryone who helped to achieve this.
With an annual sample size approaching 300,WBBS has the potential to replace WBS as a
WATERWAYS SURVEYS IN 2004
[195]
FIGURE 1. Numbers of plots surveyed for WBS andWBBS, 1998–2004.
JOHN MARCHANT
[196]
monitoring programme. Comparison of thetrends detected by the two schemes is presentlyhampered by the relatively short overlap of sixyears — three before and three after 2001, fromwhich year the data could not be used. We areseeking funding to extend this period, so we cancompare WBS and WBBS trends more fully.
The results so far are encouraging, however. InFigure 2, trends from WBS mapping data arecompared with those from all WBBS sites for afew example species. The data are completelyindependent between the two trend lines, butabout a quarter of the WBBS data have beencollected from stretches also covered by the sameobservers for the WBS mapping survey. Evenallowing for this, the similarities in trends arevery striking. It is especially pleasing that theSand Martin graphs, with WBS data drawn fromcounts of nest holes, and WBBS data being birdsseen, show such close correspondence. If thetrend data continue to be similar over the rest ofthe overlap period, there should be no problemsin constructing joint WBS/WBBS trend lines like those of CBC/BBS, at least for most of
the waterways birds presently monitored.Additionally, WBBS will create new indices for amuch wider range of species using the watersidehabitat than was possible through the WBS.
Earlier analyses had shown very closesimilarities, within the WBBS data, between theWBS-linked stretches, selfselected by theobservers, and those selected randomly. For thisreason, we are happy to combine all the WBBSdata for indexing purposes. At the end of thisphase of WBBS development, therefore, we knowthat BTO volunteers can provide enough effort toproduce results to match those of WBS, and weknow a good deal about how best to use the data.
WATERSIDE MAMMALSWBBS observers have recorded mammals since1998, adding to the relatively scant knowledgeof distribution and abundance among this groupof animals. Riparian species, especially WaterVole, American Mink and Otter, are of particularinterest in this context. Power analyses of WBBSdata for 1998–2003 for these three species
TABLE 1. Estimates of population change 2003–04, from WBS data.
Territory totals Number Species 2003 2004 % change lcl ucl of plots
Mute Swan 90 98 +9 –6 +26 50Greylag Goose 61 50 –18 –57 +97 15Canada Goose 166 184 +11 –16 +54 41Mallard 2085 1987 –5 –11 +2 79Tufted Duck 74 68 –8 –37 +24 17Goosander 59 64 +8 –11 +37 24Moorhen 628 648 +3 –7 +14 71Coot 242 277 +14 –6 +39 39Oystercatcher 216 255 +18 –4 +32 23Lapwing 194 152 –22 –39 +5 32Curlew 52 54 +4 –19 +27 17Common Sandpiper 90 96 +7 –5 +17 18Kingfisher 44 50 +14 –9 +47 36Sand Martin 1173 1343 +14 –32 +160 18Grey Wagtail 173 143 –17 * –30 –3 53Pied Wagtail 191 152 –20 * –35 –7 53Dipper 89 79 –11 –24 +6 28Sedge Warbler 306 389 +27 * +9 +50 41Reed Warbler 265 292 +10 –11 +39 21Whitethroat 203 252 +24 * +3 +49 47Reed Bunting 216 247 +14 * +1 +32 44
Lcl and ucl = 95% lower and upper confidence limits; * = statistically significant change. Species shown as italicare Amber-listed, and those shown as bold are Red-listed, according to the 2002–07 assessments. Species withfewer than 15 plots contributing paired data are excluded.
WATERWAYS SURVEYS IN 2004
[197]
demonstrate that, with 300 WBBS stretchessurveyed annually, the data would allow a 33%decline in presence to be detected. While this is along way short of what we can do with the birddata, it represents a significant input to mammalmonitoring in the UK.
THE 2006 SEASONWBS and WBBS will enjoy another full season in2006. New plots would therefore be welcome forboth schemes, especially WBBS. The BTO’sRegional Representatives have lists of therandomly selected sites that need WBBS transectcoverage, with just two counting visits to be madeto a stretch that may be as short as 500 metres:WBBS is not open to selfselected sites, unless youalso plan to conduct a mapping WBS there.
If you have a stretch of river or canal in mindwhere you can make a regular birdwatchingwalk during the spring months, the WBS couldbe for you. A minimum length of 3 km applies.
Please contact me at the Nunnery for moreinformation, or e-mail [email protected].
THANK YOUWe are very grateful to all contributors towaterways monitoring, and to the EnvironmentAgency for funding WBBS.
FIGURE 2. Population trends from WBBS transects.
TABLE 2 Long-term trends from the Waterways BirdSurvey
Species % change
Yellow Wagtail –92 *Little Grebe –74 *†Reed Bunting –67 *Pied Wagtail –51 *Redshank –46 *†Common Sandpiper –28 *Grey Wagtail –23SandMartin (1978) –14 †Moorhen –13Sedge Warbler –10Dipper –7Lapwing (1980) –3Kingfisher +4Curlew (1980) +16Coot +34Tufted Duck +48Reed Warbler (1981) +66 *Mute Swan +71 *Goosander (1981) +97 *Canada Goose (1981) +108 *Whitethroat +110Oystercatcher +114 *Mallard +185 *Greylag Goose (1993) +279 *†
Data cover 1975–2003 unless a different start year isgiven. An asterisk indicates statistical significance,and a dagger warns that the sample size is small.Species shown as orange are Amber-listed, and thoseshown as red are Red-listed. For more information,see www.bto.org/birdtrends.
Dashed lines = all WBBS sites; solid lines = WBS mapping
Little Grebe
Index (1998=100)
Year
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
100
80
60
40
100
90
80
70
140
130
120
110
100
90
130
110
90
70
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Index (1998=100)
Common Sandpiper
Sand Martin Reed Bunting
[198]
The BTO/CJ Garden BirdWatch is a fascinatingproject, now with 10 years of excellent data. It isthe largest yearround mass participation studyof garden birds anywhere in the world.
EXTENSIVE HABITATWithin the UK, private gardens represent animportant habitat for many bird species,occupying somewhere in excess of 500,000 ha.Results from the BTO/JNCC/ RSPB BreedingBird Survey (BBS), demonstrate that humanresidential habitats (in which gardens are theprimary resource) support important popu-lations of many bird species. Understandinghow birds use gardens, particularly in thecontext of changing bird populations in otherhabitats, is therefore of tremendous importanceand a national scheme to monitor garden birdscan make a valuable contribution to our overallunderstanding of bird populations within theUK.
THE HISTORY OF GARDENBIRDWATCH
The idea behind the BTO/CJ Garden BirdWatchproject arose from discussions between NigelClark and the late Chris Mead, both of the BTO,
and Chris Whittles of CJ WildBird Foods. Earlierattempts to monitor garden bird populations atthe regional level, such as the Garden BirdEnquiry, had always encountered the problem offunding the scheme for more than a couple ofyears. If we were to look at long-term trends inthe use made of gardens by birds, then whatwas needed was long-term funding. Thisproblem was solved by making what wasregarded at the time as a very brave decision —namely to ask participants in the scheme tomake an annual contribution towards itsrunning costs. It must have been with sometrepidation that the BTO first asked itssupporters if they would take part in the projectand make a contribution towards costs.However, such is the generosity of BTOsupporters that, by the end of the first year ofrecording, some 5,028 participants had becomeinvolved.
Since then, Garden BirdWatch has gone fromstrength to strength and, with continued growthin the numbers of participants, there has been anassociated growth in the resources and range oftechnologies employed to administer anddevelop the scheme. There are currently over17,000 participants in the scheme and in anygiven week we receive observations from abouttwo thirds of them.
Bird Populations 8:198-201Reprinted with permissionBTO News 257:10-11© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
CLOSER TO HOME
MIKE TOMS
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Mike Toms, organiser of the BTO/CJ Garden BirdWatch, reports on its first 10 years.
MÁS CERCA DE CASA Mike Toms, organizador del programa de observación de aves en jardines del BTO/CJ,
informa sobre los primeros 10 años del programa.
CLOSER TO HOME
[199]
THE GARDEN BIRDWATCHMETHOD
Garden BirdWatch gathers information in a waythat makes it possible to measure relativechange in the use birds make of gardens. Thisapproach is similar to that behind other long-running BTO projects and it is particularlysuited to large-scale projects covering a widerange of species at many different recordinglocations. The sheer size of Garden BirdWatchimposes some constraints on the way in whichdata may be collected and on the type ofresearch questions that can be addressed.Fortunately, the type of information gatheredcan be readily coded onto special forms that canbe scanned by a machine capable of opticalmark recognition.
Garden BirdWatchers are asked to record birdsusing their gardens, making records from thesame place (their defined ‘recording area’) atmore or less the same time or times each week.Continuity of recording effort is more importantthan the quantity of recording. Nearly 25% ofactive Garden BirdWatchers submit their weeklyobservations over the Internet by using GardenBirdWatch Online. Online participation offersgreater flexibility in the terms of the range ofinformation being collected and also enablesindividuals to enter and view all their own data(including those originally submitted on paperforms). In effect, Garden BirdWatch Online acts asan electronic notebook for the observer.Observations are validated as they are enteredand the information is then loaded automaticallyonto the Garden BirdWatch database. Overnight,various computer scripts run to generate webpages containing summary tables, scrolling mapsand reporting rate graphs, so the online resultsare always up to date.
THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OFGARDEN BIRDWATCH
The wealth of information gathered throughGarden BirdWatch is being used to answer awide range of different ecological questionsabout the ways in which birds use gardens andhow this use may change over time.
The weekly recording allows us to look atseasonal patterns in the use made of gardens by
different species at different times of the year.Most of these patterns, such as the spring peak inGoldfinch reporting rate (Figure 1) or the autumntrough in Blackbird reporting rate, are consistentfrom one year to the next, something that we havecommented on previously in BTO News (see issue244) and which can be seen in the reporting rategraphs presented online (www.bto.org/gbw).Other patterns highlight the subtle differencesbetween years that result from the weather andfrom variations in food availability. Take lastautumn for example, an abundance of wild fruitand tree seeds meant that garden feeding stationshave been especially quiet over recent months,noticeably so when compared with 2003, and allthe more pronounced because of the spell of mildweather in many areas.
We might expect such seasonal patterns tovary between different types of gardens,perhaps because of where they are located (ruralvs urban) or because of the features presentwithin the garden itself. An examination of theaverage seasonal reporting rate for a commonspecies like Robin (Figure 2) shows differencesbetween habitats, being highest in rural gardensand lowest in urban habitats. In all three typesof garden there is a similar seasonal pattern,although the magnitude of the summer troughis more pronounced in urban and suburbangardens than rural ones — a clear indicationthat, while urban and suburban gardens mayprovide appropriate resources during winter,they provide less suitable habitats for breedingbirds. For an urban species like House Sparrow,the pattern of reporting rates is reversed acrossthe three garden types.
We have also been looking in more detail atthe way in which birds may respond to habitatsin and around gardens. The results of this work,published recently in the journal Ecography (Vol26: 589–600), have highlighted that thelikelihood of many species occurring in gardensis dependent on the surrounding local habitatrather than on the habitat features presentwithin the garden itself. By understanding thefactors that make gardens more attractive tobirds, we may be able to make recom-mendations about ways in which we canimprove the quality of the human environmentfor wildlife. It is also worth noting that urbanbird communities are becoming of increasing
MIKE TOMS
[200]
interest to conservation biologists, in partbecause of concern over urban encroachmentinto other habitats, but also because we arebecoming increasingly aware of the size andvalue of bird populations within humanhabitats. In fact, another recently publishedpaper (Bland et al. 2004 *) stemming from theefforts of BTO/CJ Garden BirdWatchers, hascaused us to re-evaluate the importance ofgardens for supporting breeding populations ofmany species.
Longer-term patterns are equally important,not least because they may reflect changes inthe population sizes of those bird species usinggardens. However, it is worth noting thatchange in the use made of gardens may alsoreflect changes in behaviour, migration patternsand/or food abundance. Teasing out thesedifferent factors would be difficult if GardenBirdWatch existed in isolation. Fortunately, wehave information from other BTO schemes and,collectively, this puts us in a strong position tolook at changes in garden use and how this mayrelate to population change in other habitats.
An analysis of trends in Garden BirdWatchreporting rates over the last 10 years has been
FIGURE 1. Use of Gardens by Goldfinch.
Goldfinch is one of several species for which the use of gardens has increased over the last 10 years.
FIGURE 2. Annual patterns in the use of gardens byRobin.
Reporting rate is a simple measure of the use made ofgardens. It is the number of gardens reporting the speciesdivided by the number of gardens making submissions thatweek.
CLOSER TO HOME
[201]
completed and is currently in the process ofpublication within a leading journal — moreevidence of the scientific value of mass-participation surveys like Garden BirdWatch.
THE FUTURE OF GARDENBIRDWATCH
Garden BirdWatch is all about getting involvedand gathering scientifically robust and valuableinformation. The sheer size of GardenBirdWatch allows us to ask questions at theregional level, something that is very importantif we are to address the issues of regionaldifferences in the decline of species like HouseSparrow and Starling. The question hassometimes been asked as to how big shouldGarden BirdWatch be. Well, we are currentlyable to produce robust reporting rate trends for
virtually all of the Government Office Regions.What we want to do next is to get ourselves intoa position where we can produce such trends atthe county level. We can already do this forsome of the larger counties: e.g. Norfolk (718gardens), Hampshire (655 gardens), GreaterLondon (1,031 gardens), Suffolk (584 gardens)and Kent (485 gardens) but we really need torecruit more Garden BirdWatchers in manyother counties, for example, places like the Isleof Wight, Pembrokeshire, Durham and the WestMidlands. If you, or someone you know, has aninterest in garden birds, then Garden BirdWatchcould be just the project to support. With yourhelp, Garden BirdWatch looks set to enjoyanother decade of success.* Bland R L, Tully J, Greenwood J J D. 2004. BirdStudy 51:96–106
[202]
After a below average breeding season in 2003for many of the common songbirds monitoredby CES, ringers headed out with high hopes fora better year. Each year between May andSeptember, trained and enthusiastic ringers visittheir wellestablished sites about once every tendays. Nets are erected in the same place on eachvisit and run for the same length of time. Thisstandard approach allows us to compare catchesfrom one year to the next and therefore get agood estimate of changes in adult numbers andbreeding success. We can also use these capturesof ringed and retrapped birds to investigatechanges in survival; recent work developing thiswas described in the last issue of BTO News. Formost ringers, 2004 was a busy season with manyspecies having a successful breeding year.
UPS AND DOWNS FOR ADULTSThe results we present here come fromstandardised catches at 105 sites that submitteddata for 2004 by early January. As in previousyears, the majority of sites were in England (81sites) with smaller numbers in Scotland (15),Wales (five) and Ireland (four). Table 1 showsthe changes on CE sites between 2003 and 2004.
Two factors can influence the level of the adult
population each year: breeding success in theprevious year, with subsequent recruitment intothe adult population, and over-winter survival.There were statistically significant increases inthe numbers of adults caught between 2003 and2004 for Sedge Warbler, Reed Warbler, White-throat, Blackcap, Willow Warbler and ReedBunting. Interestingly all these species had abelow average breeding season in 2003 whichimplies over-winter survival must have beengood. All, except Reed Bunting, are longdistancemigrants, and may have benefited from highrainfall in Africa in 2003. Four species showed astatistically significant decline in the number ofadults caught between 2003 and 2004: Dunnock,Blackbird, Song Thrush and Blue Tit.
Dunnock is currently amber-listed on thePopulation Status of Birds in the UK list on thebasis of a moderate (25–49%) decline in the UKbreeding population in the last 25 years. TheDunnock population fell substantially duringthe late 1970s and early 1980s (Common BirdsCensus data) after a period of stability. Since thelate 1990s there has been some recovery. Thelong-term trend in adult abundance on CE sites(Figure 1) shows a shallow decline during the1980s followed by a shallow increase from theearly 1990s. The decline in 2004 may be a knock-
Bird Populations 8:202-205Reprinted with permissionBTO News 257:4-5© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
CES NOW MONITORING CETTI’S WARBLER
DAWN BALMER
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Dawn Balmer reports on changes in the populations and productivity of commonsongbirds between 2003 and 2004 on Constant Effort Sites (CES).
EL PROGRAMA CES MONITOREA AL RUISEÑOR BASTARDO Dawn Balmer informa sobre cambios poblacionales y productividad en aves canoras
comunes entre 2003 y 2004 según los Sitios de Esfuerzo Constante (CES).
on effect from a poor breeding season in 2003.Figure 1 also shows the long-term trend in
catches of adult Robins. Like the Dunnock, theRobin is a fairly common resident insectivorewith a similar breeding ecology. On CE sites,Robins have increased steadily since theinception of CES in 1983. It is interesting to notehow similar the pattern in adult numbers is forRobin and Dunnock, particularly in the earlyyears. Declines due to the cold winter of1990/91 and the poor breeding season in 1996(reflected in a decline in adult numbers in 1997)can be clearly seen. The long-term trend forRobin from CBC/BBS data shows a largeincrease since the mid- 1980s. Information fromthe Nest Record Scheme suggests improvedbreeding success (reductions in nest failure rates
at both egg and chick stages) although the CESproductivity index (Figure 2) shows a shallowdecline over the same period. Recent research(see BTO News 255) shows that the number ofsnow days in a year is the key variable thataffects survival for Robins and Dunnocks. Long-term survival is tending to increase for Robinsbut decrease for Dunnocks.
GOOD BREEDING SEASONLooking back over the weather reports for springand summer 2004 (British Wildlife) highlightswhat a mixed season it was and how extremeregional variation can be. March started off withhigh pressure, producing sunny spells andovernight frosts, but became unsettled mid-
CES NOW MONITORING CETTI’S WARBLER
[203]
TABLE 1. Changes in captures on CE sites from 2003 to 2004.
Adults Juveniles Adult Productivity n n % change % change
Species 2004 2004 vs 2003 Trend vs 2003 vs 83-03 Trend
Wren 100 101 –7 ↑ +15 * 0 ↔Dunnock 98 96 –13 * ↔ +33 * +10 ↔Robin 96 100 –10 ↑ +16 * –3 ↓Blackbird 100 97 –9 * ↓ +41 * +10 ↓Song Thrush 85 77 –22 * ↓ +57 * +40 ↓Cetti’s Warbler 11 14 –2 ↑ +113 * +63 ↔Sedge Warbler 64 67 +31 * ↔ +7 +1 ↓Reed Warbler 56 55 +22 * ↓ +1 +4 ↔Lesser Whitethroat 37 45 +15 ↓ +14 –12 ↔Whitethroat 63 69 +33 * ↓ +9 +7 ↓Garden Warbler 53 62 +2 ↓ +19 +3 ↓Blackcap 90 95 +18 * ↑ +19 * +4 ↔Chiffchaff 87 90 –3 ↑ +39 * +11 ↔Willow Warbler 84 90 +30 * ↓ –19 * –7 ↓Long-tailed Tit 77 80 –4 ↑ +27 * –5 ↔Willow Tit 9 14 +41 ↓ –45 –50 ↔Blue Tit 97 100 –11 * ↔ +58 * +16 ↓Great Tit 96 100 –5 ↔ +56 * +24 ↓Treecreeper 41 67 +1 ↔ +7 +24 ↔Chaffinch 81 71 –6 ↔ +22 +51 ↔Greenfinch 46 42 +1 ↑ –6 +8 ↓Goldfinch 44 21 +30 ↔ –57 * –45 ↔Linnet 18 14 –14 ↓ –33 –29 ↓Bullfinch 77 62 –3 ↓ –4 0 ↔Reed Bunting 62 46 +25 * ↓ +6 –10 ↓
n 2004 = number of sites operated in 2004 at which the species was capturedvs 2003 = percentage change between 2003 and 2004vs 83–03 = % change with respect to 1983–2003 average* = significance (at the 5% level) of increase/decrease with respect to previous year onlyLong-term trend = long-term trend during the period of CES ringing↑ = long-term trend shows an increase, ↓ = decrease, ↔ = stability
month. April and May were generally fine mildmonths but there were periods of very heavy rainand some flooding, particularly in the north andwest. The first half of June was generally mild inEngland and unsettled in Scotland and later acold front moved in bringing rain and gales tonorthern Britain. July started off unsettled but, bymid-month, high pressure had moved in overmost of Britain, although cold fronts continued inthe north. For many, August was the wettestmonth since 1956 and the floods at Boscastle inCornwall will be long remembered; Scotland,though, had below average rainfall.
It is somewhat surprising, given the mix ofweather, that productivity was quite good formost species. Comparing productivity with thatof 2003 (which was below average) 11 speciesshowed a statistically significant increase: Wren,
Dunnock, Robin, Blackbird, Song Thrush,Cetti’s Warbler, Blackcap, Chiffchaff, Long-tailed Tit, Blue Tit and Great Tit. Table 1 alsopresents a measure of how good or bad thebreeding season was in 2004 compared with theaverage in previous years (1983–2003). Thishelps us to put the results from the 2004breeding season into a long-term perspective.For many species, breeding success in 2004 wasabove average.
Resident insectivores had a good breedingseason, compared to 2003, although Robinproductivity was slightly below the long-termaverage. Blackbirds had a slow start to theseason with some failure of first broods;subsequent broods were more successful andoverall productivity was 10% above the long-term average. Song Thrush had an excellentbreeding season with productivity 40% abovethe long-term average, which is a welcomeupturn in fortunes. Despite increasing trends inadult abundance for Chiffchaff and Blackcap,breeding success remains fairly constant withlarge annual fluctuations.
Only Willow Warbler and Goldfinch showeda statistically significant decline in productivitybetween 2003 and 2004 and for both speciesbreeding success was below the long-termaverage. Willow Warbler shows a long-termdecline in productivity although in 2002 and2003 productivity was actually above average.Goldfinch shows quite large annual variation inbreeding success and has shown a shallowincrease over the last 10 years.
CES MONITORS CETTI’S WARBLERFor the first time CES has been able to
monitor Cetti’s Warbler. Sufficient numbers arenow caught on CE sites for us to be able toproduce an index of adult abundance andproductivity. The number of birds caught atpresent is quite low, with most sites catching justone or two birds. The CES at The Nunnery inThetford caught its first Cetti’s Warbler in lateJuly; a dispersing juvenile male that stayedaround for a few weeks. We will monitor closelythe number of sites contributing records and theusefulness of these data. The long-term trend inadult Cetti’s Warbler is presented in Figure 3.They have really taken off since 1998.
Cetti’s Warblers have been expanding their
DAWN BALMER
[204]
Trends in adult abundance on CE sites.
FIGURE 2. Robin and Dunnock productivity.
Trends in productivity on CE sites.
Index
Robin
83 88 93 98 03
83 88 93 98 03
1.8
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
2
1.8
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
Dunnock
Robin Dunnock
Year
Year
Index
FIGURE 1. Robin and Dunnock adult. abundance.
CES NOW MONITORING CETTI’S WARBLER
[205]
range over the last few years. Productivity fromCES is fairly constant so it is likely that theexpansion has been partly fuelled by mildwinter weather and good over-winter survival.
Cetti’s Warbler is not currently monitored byany other scheme, although their distribution
and numbers are reasonably well covered bycounty bird reports. It will be interesting to seewhat happens when (if!) we get a really coldwinter like the one in 1981/82.
In 2000 we dropped Redpoll from the listbecause too few sites caught them to be able toconfidently report on their fortunes. Willow Titis perilously close to dropping off as well. It ispleasing, therefore, to be able to report on aspecies such as Cetti’s doing so well.
FIND OUT MORE AND GET INVOLVEDThe CES Scheme is a key component of theBTO’s Integrated Population Monitoringprogramme. Results from CES, together withinformation from other longrunning BTOschemes can be found in the Wider CountrysideReport on the BTO website www.bto.org/birdtrends.
To find out more about ringing and how tobecome a trainee ringer visit the websitewww.bto.org/ringing or contact the RingingUnit at BTO Thetford HQ.
FIGURE 3. Adult Cetti’s Warbler abundance.
Long-term trends in adult abundance on CE sites. (Dottedlines represent 95% confidence limits.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMany thanks to Rob Robinson for overseeing the running of the CES Scheme and forcontributing to this report and to Steve Freeman for help with analysis. Jane Waters kindlyentered CES data received in a noncomputerised format.
The Constant Effort Sites Scheme was undertaken within the Partnership between the BTOand JNCC as part of its programme of research into nature conservation.
THANK YOUAs with all ongoing BTO projects, the success of the CES Scheme depends entirely on thededication, enthusiasm and skill of its volunteers. We are grateful to all the ringers and helperswho participated in the scheme in 2004, some of whom are listed here.
Aylesbury Vale RG, Barnsley RG, Brandon RG, John Calladine, Jim Cobb, Dartford RG,Durham RG, Durham Dales RG, Dave Francis, Ian Grier, Steve Hales, Chris Harris, KeithHerber, Chris Hughes, Bob Husbands, Tom Kittle, Simon Lane, Market Weston RG, DougMiller, Natural History Society of Northumbria, Newbury RG, North Lancashire RG,Northumbria RG, Nunnery RG, Runnymede RG, Rutland Water RG, Chris Sharpe, Brian Shaw,Roger Short, Bob Swann, Nick & Gill Tardivel, Tay RG, Bill Taylor, Tring RG, Chris Wernham,Mark Woodhead, Wychavon RG.
(RG= Ringing Group).
86 91 96 01
1.8
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
Year
Index
[206]
Populations usually change in size for one oftwo reasons: there has been a change in eitherthe productivity of breeders, or their survivalrates. Recent analyses of data gathered by BTOvolunteers show that the importance of each ofthese differs between species, depending on itsparticular ecology. One of the great strengths ofBTO data is that, through our various schemes,we can monitor changes in both productivityand survival on a more or less annual basis. Inthis article, we present some of the first resultsfrom Retrapping Adults for Survival (RAS), oneof our newest monitoring schemes.
Through the RAS scheme, licensed ringers areencouraged to focus their efforts on collectingdata that can be used to monitor the survivalrates of breeding birds. In a series ofindependent RAS projects, ringers concentrateon a particular species within a defined area,which might be a collection of farms, or an areaof woodland. Each breeding season, the projectattempts to record every breeding adult withinthe study area as an individual — by ringing it
or by noting a ring or colour rings placed earlier.The turnover of breeding adults betweenseasons measures survival rates, site by site, in away that is not possible through general ringing.The procedures for estimating annual rates arequite datahungry — that is they requireinformation about a lot of birds, over a numberof years in order to produce reliable estimates ofsurvival.
Although RAS was started in 1998, manypeople were, in effect, running RAStype studiesalready, and they have kindly submitted theirdata from previous years, greatly increasing thevalue of their project. In one case, data stretch asfar back as 1968, pre-dating RAS by 30 years!
RAS is especially useful for species that arenot caught as part of other programmes,particularly the Constant Effort Sites (CES)scheme. The species for which we are most keento get RAS studies going are listed in the boxbelow — some of these will certainly be morechallenging than others! Ideally, we would liketo see at least five studies for each of these
Bird Populations 8:206-209Reprinted with permissionBTO News 265:10-11© British Trust for Ornithology 2006
RAS COMES OF AGE
ROB ROBINSON, STUART NEWSON AND JOHN MARCHANT
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
For several years now, many BTO ringers have been assiduously catching adult birdseach summer to gather data on annual survival rates. Now, thanks to all their hard work,we are in a position to produce estimates of annual survival for a number of species. RobRobinson, Stuart Newson and John Marchant report.
EL PROGRAMA RAS ALCANZA LA MADUREZ Durante varios años ya, numerosos anilladores del BTO han estado capturando
asiduamente adultos en la temporada de cría para recopilar datos sobre tasas desobrevivencia. Ahora, gracias a sus esfuerzos, podemos generar estimas de sobrevivenciaanual para varias especies. Rob Robinson, Stuart Newson y John Marchant informan.
RAS COMES OF AGE
[207]
species, spread throughout their range, so wecan gauge whether regional differences arelikely to be important. So far, the speciesinspiring the most projects have been PiedFlycatcher, Sand Martin, Swallow and HouseSparrow.
PIED FLYCATCHERSFirst, we looked at survival rates in PiedFlycatcher, which is one of the most popularspecies for RAS. We were able to update theanalysis that we ran a few years ago. Becausethere are so many sites (more than 15), somewith data going back to 1980 or even earlier, theanalysis represented a real challenge for ourcomputers. Locations of these projects aremapped in Figure 1.
The average adult survival rate over all sitesis shown in Figure 2. There does not seem tohave been much change overall; since 1980,annual survival has remained at around35–40%, which is about what would have beenexpected from other, mostly Scandinavianstudies. Most of the individual sites arecorrelated with this overall trend, although onthree sites the pattern of survival appears todiffer somewhat. Perhaps unexpectedly,geographically close sites, except those innortheast England, do not seem to showespecially similar patterns between years. Thismay indicate that other factors, such as habitattype, are often more important than region.
HIRUNDINESWe also looked at adult survival rates in thethree hirundine species: Sand Martin, HouseMartin and Swallow. Sand Martin is the secondmost popular species for RAS projects, andcapture totals can be well into treble figures eachyear. Although we have fewer sites for the othertwo species, and each site tends to catch fewerbirds, we can estimate survival rate reasonablywell for these too (Figure 3). Average survivalrates over the whole period are broadly similarto those in Pied Flycatcher, probably because allfour are trans-Saharan migrants (we mightexpect annual survival rates of resident birds tobe around 50–60%). The estimate for HouseMartins, averaging 28% over all years, doesseem to be rather lower, however. This might be
a real difference in survival, or an indication thatHouse Martins are less site-faithful than theother species – our methods cannot distinguishbetween deaths and permanent emigration froma site, since in neither case will a bird berecaptured.
Only for Sand Martin do we have enoughhistorical data to calculate reliable estimates ofsurvival before 1998. Since then, however, thepatterns of survival rate between years for eachof the three species have been remarkablysimilar (Figure 3). This is perhaps surprising,given that they winter in different areas, but onthe other hand all hirundines do share agenerally very similar ecology. Initial resultssuggest that these changes in survival are notrelated to rainfall in the Sahel region, as hasbeen reported for example for UK SedgeWarblers, Hungarian Sand Martins, and DutchPurple Herons. Interestingly, the annual changes
FIGURE 1. Locations of RAS projects.
RAS projects that contributed to the analyses reportedhere: black triangle = Sand Martin; yellow diamond =Swallow; purple circle = House Martin; orange square =Pied Flycatcher. These are a small subset of around 100projects currently active across Britain & Ireland.
ROB ROBINSON, STUART NEWSON AND JOHN MARCHANT
[208]
in survival rates of hirundines and PiedFlycatcher do not seem to follow a similarpattern, which also suggests that mortality onmigration may be relatively less important.These results will clearly repay further analysis.
Recent comprehensive assessments of thepopulation status of woodland birds in Britain,and of birds more generally across Europe, havehighlighted the finding that many long-distancemigrant birds have declined markedly. The
Wider Countryside Report www.bto.org/birdtrends suggests that Pied Flycatcher andSand Martin have undergone declines in the lastten years, while Sand Martin experienced a bigdecline in the late 1980s and early 1990s andSwallow numbers, though variable betweenyears, have experienced no overall trend. On thebasis of these results, the decline in numbers ofPied Flycatcher does not appear to be related tochanges in survival, and nor do the changes inthe two martin species, though we do not reallyhave a long enough time series to say this withmuch confidence.
There is good evidence, however, that PiedFlycatchers may be responding adversely toclimate change. The timing of peak caterpillarabundance is occurring earlier each year, asspring temperatures increase, and birds are notable to adjust their laying schedules accordingly,meaning there is a shortage of food for thechicks when they hatch. In the latestdevelopment to a long-running study of PiedFlycatchers and caterpillars at nine sites in theNetherlands, Christian Both and colleagueshave recently reported (Nature, May 2006) thatpopulation decline has occurred mostly at thosesites where the peak of caterpillar abundancehas advanced markedly and where breedingattempts are most mistimed. A decline inproductivity, rather than survival, may be thekey to population change, therefore.
If you are a ringer and would like achallenging but rewarding project, and thinkyou could catch enough breeding adults of anyof the species listed in the Box to generate atleast 25 retraps each year within a study areathen contact the RAS organiser ([email protected]) formore details.
We would like to thank all those who havetaken part in RAS so far for all their efforts,particularly those whose studies we have usedin these analyses, including David Boddington,whose Pied Flycatcher study dates back to1968.
FIGURE 2. Adult survival rates of Pied Flycatcherfrom RAS studies.
FIGURE 3. Adult survival rates of hirundines fromRAS studies.
The dotted lines represent 95% confidence limits.
RAS COMES OF AGE
[209]
TARGET SPECIES FOR RASNew RAS projects for the following species would be especially welcome (number of projectsknown to be active in 2005 in brackets).• Seabirds: Eider (4), Manx Shearwater (1), Kittiwake (1), Common and Arctic Terns (0)• Waders: Ringed Plover (1), Common Sandpiper (2) and Oystercatcher (0)• Hirundines: Sand Martin (15), House Martin (3), Swallow (6)• Open-ground nesters: Whinchat (0), Stonechat (1), Wheatear (2)• Finches & sparrows: House Sparrow (4), Tree Sparrow (0), Chaffi nch (3), Linnet (0)• Hole-nesters: Starling (1), Pied Flycatcher (17)• Other species: Dipper (2), Ring Ouzel (0).
[210]
During the course of the breeding season, anumber of BTO members, nest recorders andringers contact us to let us know how the seasonis progressing. Nest records from 2003 are beingcollated and readied for formal analysis. Theseobservations contribute to the following report.
Unseasonal nesting, mainly from Octoberthrough to February, often involving grebes,ducks, doves and some finches, has long beenan occasional feature. Increasingly, it appearsthat nesting attempts during the ‘non-breeding’season by a range of species, including somewaterfowl, owls and thrushes, may be a moreregular event and worthy of a careful eye. Thisapparent trend, in tandem with increasednumbers of certain insectivorous species over-wintering (notably warblers), is due primarily toincreasing winter temperatures, although theincrease in supplementary feeding during thewinter, may also have played a role.
Winter temperatures may also be influencingbreeding ranges. In 2003, extralimital nestingattempts by Avocet (Wales), Peregrine (Lincs)and Gannet (Orkney) stole the limelight, butrange extensions on a local scale emphasized thespeed of change currently among the UK’savifauna. Buckinghamshire, for example, noted
first-time successful breeding in the modern eraby five species — Little Egret, Raven, HerringGull, Lesser Black-backed Gull and DartfordWarbler.
BARN OWL AND FINCHES PROFITFROM LATE SUMMER HEAT
Overall, BTO nest recorders charted a below-parbreeding season for many species in 2003(especially compared to 2002). This was notablefor many resident insectivores and most migrantsongbirds, with mixed fortunes for manyraptors, waterfowl and gamebirds (BTO News250, 251).
Thanks to consistent dry summer heat, itappeared to be a more productive year forcertain resident seed-eaters (includingChaffinch, Greenfinch and Goldfinch). Triple-brood successes were reported among TreeSparrows and Yellowhammers during IndianSummer warmth in September, parallellingevents of the hot dry summer of 1976. A warmNovember, with daily temperatures 2°C abovenormal, helped Great Crested Grebe, GreyHeron, diving duck and doves that weretending late families.
Bird Populations 8:210-212Reprinted with permissionBTO News 252:22© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
MILD CONDITIONS BENEFIT BREEDING OWLS
DAVID GLUE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
BTO Research Biologist, David Glue, presents the fieldworkers’ view of the breedingactivity since autumn 2003.
LAS BENÉVOLAS CONDICIONES METEOROLÓGICAS BENEFICIAN LAREPRODUCCIÓN DE BÚHOS Y LECHUZAS
El biólogo investigador del BTO David Glue presenta la visión del ornitólogo de campo dela reproducción desdel el otoño de 2003.
MILD CONDITIONS BENEFIT BREEDING OWLS
[211]
The BTO Barn Owl Monitoring Programmealso noted a welcome late upturn in fortunes. Avery poor breeding season had been reportedfor 2003, with lightweight females and non-breeding pairs a feature. A number of Barn Owlclutches, laid from July–August 2003, werereported, from North Lincs and Cambridge toNorfolk and East Sussex (pers comm PeterBeaven, Colin Shawyer), with clement weatheraiding foraging parents with broods duringNovember and early December.
TAWNY OWL AND WARBLERSAMONG YULETIDE STARS
Many insectivorous summer visitors, includingflycatchers, Redstarts and some species ofwarbler, prematurely vacated the increasinglyparched UK countryside in autumn (in contrastto 2002). Healthy populations of Cetti’s Warblerand Dartford Warbler had shown further gains.Some House Martins and Swallows successfullyraised late broods into October, as far afield asShetland and South Hams (Devon).
These were replaced by an impressivespectrum of vagrant insectivores, chieflywarblers. An influx of scarce eastern vagrantsreached unprecedented levels, notably Yellow-browed Warbler and Pallas’s Warbler andHume’s Leaf Warbler. Many were assisted bystiff easterly airstream in mid October. Othermigrants lingered well into the winter, helped byan absence of sustained mid-winter cold spells.
Given ongoing warmer winters, other speciesmay join established populations of Blackcapand Chiffchaff in the UK’s winter gardens andcountryside. Meanwhile, balmy episodes inDecember, culminating in the warmestChristmas break in a decade, led to regularreports from Garden BirdWatch observers ofWoodpigeon and Collared Dove bringing youngto feeding stations. Less unexpected wereclutches started by Mallard (several sites),Pheasant (Oxon), Tawny Owl (Cheshire) andBlackbird (Co Kerry).
TROPICAL AIR TRIGGERS FALSESPRING HOPES
Frequent spring-like -spells in January, withtemperatures 1.2°C above long-term average,led to further nesting attempts. Most werelocated in warmer suburbia alongside man, withregular food supplies. Doves dominated, butother species included Mallard and Blackbird(several sites), Muscovy Duck (window box —Okehampton, Devon), Robin (garden plantcentre — Newbury, Berks) and Mistle Thrush(lamp standard — Liverpool city).
Two nestbox checks provided remarkablerevelations. Ring-necked Parakeets (Burnham,Bucks) were actively egg-laying mid month,while Blue Tits in south Kent were found withfour downy young. Bubble-wrapping the boxand supplying live food for the parents savedthe day. Further nest-building, cavity claimingand song was depressed prematurely as Januaryclosed with a raw blast of arctic air, snow,blizzards, thunder and lightning, astemperatures dipped to –7°C at Carter Bar inCheviot Hills on 28th. Temperatures recoveredin spectacular style and the UK was blanketedby a warm southwesterly airstream of tropicalAtlantic origin in first week of February, withrecord temperatures.
An unprecedented influx to southcoastcounties of over 40 House Martins, someSwallows and Wheatears caused a stir. Dovesand thrushes were prompted to start laying,Long-tailed Tit, Starling, Rook and Raven torepair and line nests. By St Valentine’s Day animpressive 17 species were reported with activenests. Colder weather in the second half ofFebruary failed to offset an abnormal start, withvegetation some 2–3 weeks advanced, butwintery chill in March appeared to slow nestingoperations. This is perhaps no bad thing, with2003 and other recent years, demonstrating howNew Year warmth and early spring heat are notnecessarily the prime ingredients for a highlyproductive breeding season.
DAVID GLUE
[212]
THE NEST RECORD SCHEME (NRS)The NRS plays a vital role in monitoring changes in the breeding performance of the UK’sbirds.
This is one survey in which anyone can participate. Each nest record details a single breedingattempt at a nest. Observers record visit date, nest contents, location and habitat onstandardised nest record cards or a new computer program IPMR (Integrated PopulationMonitoring Reporter). Nest recorders are encouraged to visit the nest on at least two occasions,preferably during both the egg and the chick stages, to give an estimate of hatching/fledgingsuccess.
Productivity tables are produced for the annual Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside reportwww.bto.org/birdtrends/index.htm
To obtain a free ‘Starter Pack’, an IPMR disc or further information, please contact the NestRecords Unit [email protected]. Peter Beaven
[213]
Following the relatively poor breeding seasonfor many species in 2003 (BTO News 249), it ispleasing to outline a more productive currentseason for many of the UK’s breeding birds. Theearly breeding events were reported in BTONews 252.
MANDARIN AND STONE CURLEWOCCUPY FRESH HAUNTS
A dull, wet April was tempered by regularwarmth, 1–2°C above average. Attempts by apair of White Stork to breed in the Calder Valley,west of Wakefield (West Yorks) atop a hastilyerected pole and pallet, substituting for an elec-tricity pylon, led to frustration and failure. Theycarried Continental rings, the female fitted nearLille (France) and male at Mechelen (Belgium).
Wandering birds elsewhere in the UK suggestthat the first successful breeding, since that on StGiles’ Cathedral (Edinburgh) in 1416, may notbe far away. The naturally recolonising Chough,on the Lizard peninsula (Cornwall) were moresuccessful with four young hatched in this, thethird year.
Periodic heavy rains mid month and duringthe last week, with flash-flooding in the SevernComplex and northeast, led to locally heavylosses among nesting duck, Black-headed Gull,plovers and Reed Bunting. Sadly, yet anotherspring buildup of water in the Ouse Washeswashed out a nationally significant populationof more than 1,000 pairs of waders, includingLapwing, Redshank, Snipe and BlacktailedGodwit.
Stone Curlew fared better in Breckland andWessex populations, with signs that a ‘dumbell’distribution may form via the Ridgewaycounties. Warm spells in the final week, withtemperatures touching 23°C in London on 24th,saw a surge in reported active nests of dabblingduck, tits, thrushes and finches. Those checkingnestboxes were delighted to find Goosander(Devon, Montgomery), Mandarin (Bucks,Hants) and Black Redstart (Birmingham).Among spring migrants, Chiffchaff andBlackcap maintained their recent strength,Yellow Wagtail and Tree Pipit reappeared inimproved numbers but Cuckoo were againwoefully few in parts.
Bird Populations 8:213-214Reprinted with permissionBTO News 255:26© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
WHITE STORK FAILS TO DELIVER
DAVID GLUE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Intriguing New Year breeding successes, exciting range extensions, and productivenestbox projects: all features of an upbeat 2004 breeding season, outlined by BTO ResearchBiologist, David Glue.
LA CIGÜEÑA BLANCA NO CUMPLE Intrigantes éxitos reproductivos en Año Nuevo, excitantes extensiones de rango, y
productivos proyectos con cajas nido: características de una temporada 2004 muy animada,resumida por el biólogo del BTO David Glue.
DAVID GLUE
[214]
WARM MAY SUITS OWLS, TITS AND
FLYCATCHERSMay was the driest such month since 1998 andthe warmest and sunniest since 1991. Consistentcomfortable heat, moist soils and clear blue skiesfavoured early nesting residents and summervisitors alike. Daily temperatures 1–2°C aboveaverage in all regions, topping 25°C in GreaterLondon on 24th, boosted aphid, caterpillar andmidge prey. The mercury dipped to –4°C atKinbrace (Sutherland) early on 27th, butfortunately the spring remained largely frost-free (unlike 2003).
Tits survived the winter in modest numbersand average sized clutches were laid. Fledgingsuccess though was generally high, withrelatively few broods of Great Tit, Blue Tit,Long-tailed Tit and Pied Flycatcher predated byweasel, pine marten, wood mouse or GreatSpotted Woodpecker, in contrast with theprevious season. Checking nestboxes in rampantvegetation was hard work, but lush grassgrowth resulted in plenty of prey that fuelledegg-laying Buzzards, Kestrels, Tawny Owls andLong-eared Owls.
Progressively drier conditions, especially inwestern parts, checked some invertebratenumbers and limited mud for nest buildingsupplies, but rain-bearing Atlantic fronts fromthe 28th relieved matters.
A warm first-half to June, with temperaturestopping the 30°C mark, helped Swallow,Dipper, Pied Wagtail and Spotted Flycatcher tofledge first broods and to lay repeat clutches.Delighted homeowners in Liss Forest (Hants),Great Gaddesden (Herts) and Church Stretton(Shrops) attracted families of Siskins tofeeders.
Elsewhere, onlookers in Chichester (Sussex),inner city Gloucester and Nottingham, watchednesting Peregrine. Melodious Warbler(Cornwall), Icterine Warbler (Suffolk) and GreatReed Warbler (Essex) sang well but failed toattract mates, Spotted Crake, Serin andCommon Rosefinch in new haunts provedsuccessful.
OSPREY AND HOBBY CHECKED BYMIDSUMMER RAINS
Winds veered to the north on 17th June,introducing sharp showers and a cooler theme,revitalizing parched soils and drying water-bodies. The period mid-June to mid- July provedthe chilliest since 1981 (daily temperatures 0.7°Cbelow average) but many thrushes, Robins,Wrens, hirundines, chats and pipits rearedsuccessive broods. Avocet, Little Egret andMediterranean Gull made significant rangeextensions, chiefly to the northeast, inland, andsouth coast populations respectively. A record-breaking ‘autumnal’ low, crossed southern partson 7/8th, with torrential rains and winds to 50knots. Crown-heavy trees were uprooted, withyoung Grey Heron, Cormorant, Osprey, Hobbyand doves reported lost, as well as swampedbroods of ground-nesting divers, Merlin, HenHarrier and Nightjar, among others. Some BarnOwl young starved, but the Barn Owl Monitor-ing Programme reported modest numbers offree-flying youngsters, eclipsing the grim season2003 (pers com. Colin Shawyer, Peter Beaven).
Seabirds, as ever, enjoyed mixed fortunes, but‘catastrophic’ stories from northern sitesdominated. Initially east coast mixed colonies,including Sandwich Tern and Little Tern, weredecimated at the chick stage by tidal stormsurges. Longterm nest-recorder Eric Meek, onOrkney, described “the worst season in livingmemory”, with thousands of Guillemot, Shagand Kittiwake missing from traditional ledges.Arctic Tern, Arctic Skua and Great Skua wereinactive, while starving chicks were a feature.Debate centred around climate change and anorthward shift of plankton and fish prey towarmer waters. Gannet provided one brightspot, 14 pairs occupying the UK’s newest colonyon The Noup, Westray. On land, healthy nestboxbroods of Great Tit, Pied Flycatcher andNuthatch in the third week of July, reflectedrepeat layings and second brood successes.Gathering heat in late July, temperaturesclipping 30°C at the month’s end (Cardiff),boosted aerial insect supplies, enabling martins,Spotted Flycatcher and Nightjar, among others,to fledge late broods in August, before nestingactivity wound down in torrential midsummerrains, the wettest August since 1956.
[215]
One of the perks for the predominantly desk-bound staff working at the BTO is the chance toexperience the birding year by proxy via themany e-mails, phone calls and letters receivedfrom nest recorders, ringers and surveyors outin the field. This summer, for example, fewerLong-tailed Tits were caught at our regularringing site on The Nunnery reserve, aninteresting observation in itself, but one made allthe more intriguing by the fact that several nestrecorders have mentioned that it has been aproductive year for the species on their localpatches.
So, was it a good year for Long-tailed Tits ornot? While knowledge of what is happeninglocally is important, it is vital that we collate andanalyse the information we receive at a nationalscale if we are to identify species that are in needof conservation action. This is where theBreeding Birds in the Wider Countryside Report(WCR) comes in. The purpose of this web-basedreport (www.bto.org/birdtrends2005) is tosummarise and to publicise annual trends inpopulation sizes and breeding success for over100 British bird species. Information about thesuccess of individual breeding attempts isprovided by the Nest Record Scheme (NRS) andeach year trends in laying date, clutch size,brood size and nest failure rates for over 90
species, based on information collected by nestrecorders, are published in the WCR. And whata data source this is — the most recent analysisutilised over 365,000 records collected between1966 and 2004!
CHANGES TO THE NRS CONCERNLIST
Each year the BTO produces the NRS ConcernList incorporating those species that arecurrently demonstrating statistically significantdeclines in both breeding performance andabundance (see Box 1 for details). The list isintended to act as an early-warning system,focusing attention on those species that may bein greatest need of conservation action in thefuture and, as such, it is sent to the Joint NatureConservation Committee (JNCC), the UKgovernment’s conservation adviser and jointfunding body of the NRS under the BTO/JNCCpartnership.
The number of species on the latest NRSConcern List (Box 2) has increased by two, withtwo species being dropped and four beingadded, bringing the total to 17. The reasons forthe inclusion of Moorhen, Ringed Plover, YellowWagtail, Grey Wagtail, Dunnock, WillowWarbler, Linnet, Yellowhammer and Reed
Bird Populations 8:215-218Reprinted with permissionBTO News 261:18-19© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
NEST RECORD SCHEME BREEDING TRENDS — LATEST RESULTS
DAVE LEECH AND HUMPHREY CRICK
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Dave Leech and Humphrey Crick summarise the latest findings from the Scheme.
TENDENCIAS REPRODUCTIVAS DEL PROGRAMA DE REGISTRO DE NIDOS –ÚLTIMOS RESULTADOS
Dave Leech y Humphrey Crick resumen los últimos hallazgos del programa.
DAVE LEECH AND HUMPHREY CRICK
[216]
Bunting, all of which have been included on thelist for at least three consecutive years, arediscussed in BTO News 249: 4–5. Barn Owl, PiedWagtail, Wheatear and House Sparrow were alladded to the Concern List last year. Thereasoning behind these additions is discussed inBTO News 255:18–19.
Both Lapwing and Bullfinch were added tothe list in 1996 but have been dropped in 2005.Lapwing was originally placed on the ConcernList due to a steady increase in egg-stage failure
rates between the mid-1980s and late 1990s,possibly related to increasing rates of predationand destruction by livestock (Chamberlain &Crick 2003). However, success rates at the eggstage have been consistently higher over the lastfour years and the trend is no longerstatistically significant. While this could begood news for Lapwings, it is important toremember that improvements in averagebreeding performance might also be due todecreasing competition between individuals as
BOX 2 – NRS CONCERN LISTSpecies Years on list Significant decline in: Population trend
Moorhen 12 Clutch size & Nest survival (E) FluctuatingRinged Plover 8 Nest survival (E) UncertainBarn Owl 1 Brood size Amber ListSkylark New Nest survival (E) Red ListYellow Wagtail 5 Brood size Amber ListGrey Wagtail 2 Clutch size & Brood size Amber ListPied Wagtail 1 Clutch size & Brood size FluctuatingDunnock 6 Nest survival (E) Amber ListWheatear 1 Brood size Possible declineMistle Thrush New Brood size Amber ListWillow Warbler 6 Nest survival (E) Amber ListSpotted Flycatcher New Brood size & Nest survival (C) Red ListStarling New Brood size Red ListHouse Sparrow 1 Brood size Red ListLinnet 13 Brood size and Nest survival (C) Red ListYellowhammer 2 Nest survival (E & C) Red ListReed Bunting 13 Nest survival (E) Red List
(E) indicates nest survival at the egg stage and (C) indicates nest survival at the chick stage. Populationtrends are taken from www.bto.org/birdtrends. Criteria for inclusion on the Red (bold) and Amber (italic)Lists (High and Medium Conservation Concern respectively) are explained in BTO News 242: 11–14.
BOX 1 – NRS DATA ANALYSISNRS data for 94 species were analysed using the methods outlined in a recent review paper inBird Study 50: 254–270. Trends in laying date, clutch and brood sizes, and in daily nest failurerates over the egg and chick periods are described by linear or quadratic regression, asappropriate. Failure rate trends were not calculated for those species having a mean annualsample size of fewer than 20 records and species with a mean annual sample size of fewer than10 records were excluded from analyses of laying date, clutch size and brood size.
Relative breeding performance in the current year was assessed by comparing the meanvalues for laying date, clutch/brood size and failure rate in 2004 with those values predictedfrom the trend calculated between 1966 and 2003.
Species are placed on the NRS Concern List if a) they demonstrate significant declines in someaspect of breeding performance over at least the last 15 years, and b) they are on the Red orAmber Birds of Conservation Concern list or there is some uncertainty over their population status.
NEST RECORD SCHEME BREEDING TRENDS — LATEST RESULTS
[217]
the population declines, or to a decreasedproportion of birds breeding in marginalhabitats as the population contracts. Bullfinchwas also previously included on the ConcernList because of increasing egg-stage failure ratesbut, again, failure rates for this species have
decreased over the last five years (see Newadditions box).
THE 2004 SEASONThe 2004 season appeared to get off to a bit of a
NEW ADDITIONSThree of the four species added to the Concern List this year are on the Birds of ConservationConcern Red List as they have exhibited population declines of greater than 50% over the last 25years:Skylark: Common Birds Census (CBC) and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate thatSkylark numbers in England fell by 59% between 1978 and 2003. An increase in the sowing ofwinter cereals over this period may have decreased the availability of stubble fields in winterand also reduced opportunities for late-season breeding attempts (Chamberlain & Siriwardena2000). It is therefore worrying that the latest NRS trends suggest that eggstage failure rates haveincreased significantly over the last 15 years, although both clutch and brood sizes are currentlyincreasing.Spotted Flycatcher: This is one of the UK’s most rapidly declining species, with a decline of81% over the past 25 years. The fall innumbers has been linked to decliningsurvival rates of first-year birds (Freeman &Crick 2003). Now we find that productivity inthe UK also seems to be falling, with broodsizes declining significantly since the mid-1990s (Figure 1) and failure rates at the chickstage increasing slowly but steadily since themid-1960s.Starling: While it is still thought of as arelatively common garden bird, CBC/ BBStrends indicate that the breeding Starlingpopulation in England has decreased by 78%over the last 25 years. During this period,clutch sizes and brood sizes increased andfailure rates fell, indicating that fallingsurvival rates, and not a reduction inproductivity, were responsible for the decline(Freeman et al. 2002). However, since themid-1990s brood sizes have started to fallrapidly (Figure 1) and the species has nowbeen added to the NRS Concern List.Mistle Thrush: This Amber-listed species,which has declined by 32% in the UK over thelast 25 years, has also been added to theConcern List due to a significant decline inbrood size of greater than 5%, despite anincrease in average clutch size over the sameperiod. This decline appears to have beenparticularly severe over the last 10 years(Figure 1). FIGURE 1. Changes in brood size.
DAVE LEECH AND HUMPHREY CRICK
[218]
slow start, with eight species breeding on averagelater than was predicted from laying dates inprevious years, and only two — Kestrel and ReedBunting — breeding earlier. In terms of clutchsizes, larger birds seemed to have a better year,with Barn Owl, Little Owl, Jackdaw and Magpieall laying relatively large clutches whilst clutchsizes were comparatively small for Skylark,Chiffchaff and House Sparrow. Brood sizes werelower than predicted for eight species, but werehigh relative to previous years for Wheatear,Whinchat and House Sparrow (despite smallerclutch sizes for House Sparrow, suggesting thathatching success was actually rather high). Ingeneral, failure rates seemed to be relatively low,with the proportion of nests failing at the eggstage lower than predicted for nine species andthe proportion failing at the chick stage lowerthan predicted for 13 species. In comparison, egg-stage failure rates exceeded predictions for fivespecies and chick-stage failure rates exceededpredictions for only two species.
THANK YOUNone of this research would be possible withoutthe fantastic amount of time and energy thatnest recorders invest in collecting these dataeach year, so thank you very much to everyone
who has contributed to the NRS data set. If youhave not yet contributed, but would like to inthe future, contact us at [email protected] orlook at our web pages at www.bto.org/survey/nest_records/index.htm for more information.
Thanks to Dorian Moss for his help in produc-ing the latest NRS trends. Thanks also to MarkCubitt for the design and continued develop-ment of the IPMR home-inputting program,which has revolutionised record submission, toKaren Wright for all her work on the NRSdatabase and to David Glue for his contributionsto the Scheme. The Nest Record Scheme isfunded by the BTO/ JNCC partnership.
REFERENCES:Chamberlain, D E & Crick, H Q P. (2003). Ardea91: 183–196. Chamberlain, D E & Siriwardena, G M. (2000).Environmental Reviews 8: 95–113. Freeman, S N, Robinson, R A, Clark, J A, Griffin,B M & Adams, S Y. (2002). in Crick, H Q P ,Robinson, R A, Appleton, G F, Clark, N A &Rickard, A D (eds). Investigation into the causes ofthe decline of starlings and house sparrows in GreatBritain. Research Report 290. BTO, Thetford. Freeman, S N & Crick, H Q P. (2003). Ibis 145:400–412.
[219]
The UK hosts internationally important numbersof overwintering waterbirds. In total about 100sites have been designated as protected areasbecause of the waterbirds present there. Thegovernment has a legal obligation to monitorthese sites and ensure they are maintained in afavourable status. If their status becomesunfavourable, the causes of declines must beidentified and remedial action taken.
WEBS ALERTSWeBS Alerts is an online information source thatallows users to check how waterbird species arefaring in protected areas and is used bygovernment bodies such as JNCC. It is updatedannually, and the updated report, which coversthe winter of 2004/05 is now available online.
The WeBS Alerts system was developed toprovide a standardised method of identifyingthe direction and magnitude of changes in birdnumbers at a variety of spatial and temporalscales for a range of waterbird species. For eachprotected area monitored by the WeBS and foreach waterbird species for which an area is
designated, a statistical technique is used tosmooth out short-term fluctuations in numbersand produce a trend line. Site trends are thencompared to regional and national trends,allowing distinction between declines due tosite-specific factors and those driven by large-scale population changes. Species that haveundergone major declines can then be flaggedby issuing an Alert.
WATERBIRD TRENDSTwo major conservation issues have beenhighlighted by this year’s Alerts report. The firstis that Pintail numbers wintering on the MerseyEstuary have declined precipitously (see Figure1). Almost 20,000 used to overwinter in the early1980s, but numbers have declined to about 200.This site, which once hosted almost half the UKpopulation, now no longer hosts even nationallyimportant numbers of Pintail. The other majorcause for concern is the continued decline inPochard at Loughs Neagh and Beg. In the mid1990s, these Loughs hosted almost 30,000Pochard, but numbers have subsequently
Bird Populations 8:219-220Reprinted with permissionBTO News 269:18© British Trust for Ornithology 2007
WEBS ALERTS: WATERBIRD TRENDS ON PROTECTED AREAS
ILYA MACLEAN AND GRAHAM AUSTIN
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Ilya Maclean and Graham Austin describe how data collected as part of theBTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC Wetland Bird Survey are used to help the government monitorprotected areas.
ALERTAS DE WEBS: TENDENCIAS DE AVES ACUÁTICAS EN ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS Ilya Maclean y Graham Austin describen cómo los datos colectados a través del programa
de conteo de aves de humedales de BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC son utilizados para ayudar algobierno a monitorear las áreas protegidas.
ILYA MACLEAN AND GRAHAM AUSTIN
[220]
dropped to fewer than 7,000.There is some good news though. There is
evidence the declines in other diving ducks atthis site have ceased. Goldeneye and TuftedDuck numbers are slightly up on the winter of2003/04 and Scaup numbers on the site arehigher than ever before.
The full report can be obtained by going to thefollowing webpage: www.bto. org/webs/alerts/alerts/index.htm.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are extremely grateful to all the volunteerswho take part in the Wetland Bird Survey(WeBS). WeBS is a joint scheme of BTO, WWT,RSPB and JNCC. If you would like to take part
in the scheme contact your local WeBS organiseror Andy Musgrove at the BTO Thetford HQ, oremail: [email protected].
FURTHER READINGBanks, A N, Collier, M, Austin, G, Hearn, R &Musgrove, A. (2006) Waterbirds in the UK 2004/05The Wetland Bird Survey. BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Thetford. Maclean, I M D & Austin, G E. (2006) WeBSAlerts 2004/2005: Changes in numbers of winteringwaterbirds in the United Kingdom, its ConstituentCountries, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Sitesof Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). BTO ResearchReport No. 458 to the WeBS partnership. BTO,Thetford.
FIGURE 1. Wintering Pintail on the Mersey Estuary.
Annual indices and smoothed trends for Pintail on the Mersey Estuary. The index is scaled such that its value is 100 in themost recent winter and is based on WeBS counts conducted between October and January inclusive.
[221]
The UK garden bird care market continues toexpand. It is currently considered to be worthsome £150–180 million per annum, with inexcess of 18 million home-owners providingsupplementary food of some type. The BTO’sGarden Bird Feeding Survey (GBFS), whichstarted in winter 1970/71, has provided long-term data for this increasingly importanthabitat.
BARE UK BIRDTABLESCOUNTRYWIDE
In winter 2004/05, observers recorded allspecies coming to take food or water provided,on a weekly basis from October to Marchinclusive. The gardens sampled totalled 241,with 113 in rural villages, hamlets andfarmsteads and 128 of city houses, suburbansemis and maisonettes. Collectively these areconsidered to be broadly representative of UKdwellings by type across all regions. Gardenspecies richness was comparatively low for thiswinter, on average just 16.7 species in suburbanand 19.8 species in rural sites, compared to theprevious winter 2003/04 (20.8 and 23.0 speciesfor suburban and rural respectively). This isgenerally 2–3 species fewer than has been
recorded in recent winters (see BTO News 242,248, 254) and is largely a consequence of prolificfruiting yields in UK hedges and woods and amild winter.
As ever, species richness varied widelybetween gardens, extreme examples featuringfamiliar long-term core counters. A coastalgarden in Ramsgate (Kent) attracted a meagrefour species (House Sparrow and Collared Dovebeing the highlights). The richest suburbangarden in Walbottle Village (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) attracted 34 species (including GreyWagtail and Yellowhammer). This total of 34species was matched by the top rural garden inMold (Flint), a mobile miniwaterfall featureattracting Chiffchaff, Meadow Pipit and Linnetto drink.
In total, a modest 76 species were chartedtaking food or water. Robin was the only speciesto feature at every feeding station (Table 1). The‘Top Twelve’ species, by composition andrelative frequency, were very similar to that ofwinter 2003/04 (BTO News 254). Compared towinters averaged across the 1990s, though,Collared Dove, Coal Tit and Magpie showedincreased attendance, while House Sparrow andStarling continued to slip back, probably as aresult of population declines (Table 1).
Bird Populations 8:221-224Reprinted with permissionBTO News 260:8-9© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
BLACK REDSTARTS BRIGHTEN WINTER BIRDTABLES
DAVID GLUE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
For 35 years, the BTO’s Garden Bird Feeding Survey has been monitoring garden birds inwinter. BTO Research Biologist, David Glue, looks at the findings of winter 2004/05.
LOS COLIROJOS TIZONES DAN COLORIDO A LOS COMEDEROS DE INVIERNO Durante 35 años, el conteo de aves de jardín en comederos ha monitoreado las aves de
jardín en invierno. El biólogo investigador del BTO David Glue revisa los resultados delinvierno 2004-05.
DAVID GLUE
[222]
CHILLY WINTER EPISODES LEADTO BUSIER FEEDERS
Four major features moulded the spectrum ofspecies feeding and flock sizes of birds at UKbirdtables in winter 2004/05:
• an autumn legacy of unharvested arablecrops in open country: chiefly oilseed rapeand spring-sown barley, following aprotracted wet summer.
• widespread high yields of many woodlandand hedgerow fruits, notably beech mast(best crop since 2000), acorns, cob nuts, hipsand haws.
• prolific conifer seed yields, notably spruce,pine and larch, the largest for a decade.
• another largely mild winter, lacking anyprolonged spells of lying snow and ground-penetrating frosts.
Several noteworthy weather events affectedfeeding patterns of birds over the winter.Initially, a balmy warm start to October, addingto an Indian Summer in September, sawCollared Doves, Stock Doves, Greenfinches andTree Sparrows bringing families to feeders. Achilly, stiff easterly continental wind during 9–llOctober swept a large movement of winterthrushes (chiefly Redwing) and Goldcrest to UK,eventually some turning to feeding stations.Food hoarding by Coal Tit, Marsh Tit, Magpieand a few other species remained low key.Persistent mild westerly winds during much of
the mid winter (November–January) depressednumbers of tits, thrushes, Starlings and finchesat feeders. A bitter blast of arctic air during19–23 November enticed the first BlackheadedGull, Blackcap, Pied Wagtail and Reed Buntingto favoured sites. This same weather patternalso prompted a major influx of Waxwings,exceeding that of recent winters and that of1985/86. New Year monsoon-like downpours,which saturated gardens, and caused seriousflooding in Snowdonia, Cumbria and WestHighland, brought Mallard, Moorhen, GreyWagtail, and other less usual birds to feedingstations. Violent storms in mid January,hurricane force in western parts (rivallingconditions in 1987 in some areas), damagedhousing fabric, flattened fencing and feeders,and depressed bird feeding activity.
Spring-like heat early in February limitedfurther feeding by tits, thrushes (notablyBlackbirds), corvids and finches. Prematurenesting saw Collared Dove, Woodpigeon andRobin bringing young to feeders (BTO News258). From 10 February, cold arctic air fromGreenland, then North Russia, brought anuncomfortable four-week late winter snowyspell. Livelier birdtables supported winterthrushes, Long-tailed Tits, Yellowhammers andReed Buntings but Brambling, Redpoll andSiskin remained in short supply. Spring properarrived around 16–l8 March, with southerlywinds sweeping warm tropical air to UK. Manyfeeders were vacated, residents paired and eggslaid, though parent Robin and Greenfinch,among others, relied on suitable extra foodrations.
GOLDCREST AND LONG-TAILEDTIT ADD SPARKLE TO EXTRA
FEEDERSThe status of birdtable visitors, and aspects oftheir behaviour, continued to change in winter2004/05. Among the regulars, opportunisticLong-tailed Tit (69% of sites), Carrion Crow(38%), Pheasant (32%) and Goldfinch (72%)equalled or exceeded alltime high levels ofattendance at GBFS feeders, contrary to thegeneral downward trend in feeding rates.Encouragingly, adaptable Great SpottedWoodpecker (50%), Jackdaw (51%) andWoodpigeon (69%) now feed at half or more
TABLE 1. GBFS Top Twelve 1994–2004 gardenfeeding species.
Winter 2004/05 and average for 1990s% of gdns % of gdns
Rank Species 2004/05 1990s*
1 Robin 100 992 Blue Tit 99 1003 Blackbird 99 994 Great Tit 98 975 Greenfinch 97 966 Dunnock 97 957 Chaffinch 95 968 Collared Dove 91 869 Coal Tit 88 8510 House Sparrow 86 9311 Starling 81 9312 Magpie 75 71
(*) Figures are the average of 10 winters from1990/91 to 1999/2000.
BLACK REDSTARTS BRIGHTEN WINTER BIRDTABLES
[223]
garden feeding stations, while Tree Sparrow(10%), Goldcrest (13%) and Bullfinch (20%) nowfeed at onetenth or more. In Kyle, Ross-shire,Waxwings drank at a bird bath ‘puddle’, part ofthe recordbreaking influx (see above).
Sparrowhawk (53% of sites) comfortablymaintained its status as chief diurnal gardenavian predator and was observed taking preyranging in size from Blue Tit to Pheasant andHerring Gull (the latter two being lame andemaciated individuals respectively). Observersnoted Sparrowhawks, variously, hunting ‘in
tandem’, ground-running through bushes tosnatch songbirds, and repeatedly claimingCollared Doves that had been dashed and dazedagainst windows and walls. Kestrel (just 4% ofsites), with its perch-and-pounce huntingstrategy, is less well suited to operate effectivelywithin the garden environment. Buzzards (2% ofsites) scavenged for food at a scatter of gardens,from the fringes of Dartmoor and WelshMarches, to New Forest and Borders. Red Kitesvisited gardens in the Chilterns, Thames Valleyand Mid Wales. Elsewhere, lucky observers
FLUCTUATING FORTUNES AT UK BIRDTABLES: GBFS PEAK COUNT INDEX 1970–2005
GBFS continues to provide the BTO with a valuable indicator of the changing status of gardenbirds in the non-breeding season.
Jay numbers at feeders fluctuate erratically by winter, inversely related to the volume of theacorn crop. Birds from parks and cemeteries, especially in suburbia, have turned increasingly tobirdtable fare: a modest corvid success story compared to other corvids — Rook, Carrion Crow,Magpie, Jackdaw, and even Raven in places.
Mistle Thrush, like its cousin the Song Thrush, has been on the slide in gardens long-term;today it is absent from most feeding stations in towns and cities.
Coal Tit and Nuthatch (like Great Tit), display marked peaks and troughs in winterattendance levels at seed feeders and nut baskets, dictated by the volume of beech mast (andother woodland tree fruits) available in the countryside. Low levels of feeder visits in winter2004/05 were similar to the patterns in previous winters with beechnut bonanzas, notably 1976,1985, 1991 and 2000.
Siskin numbers, similarly, dipped sharply in winter 2004/05, reflecting the largest coniferseed yield in a decade, following a marked upturn in this fine-billed finch’s fortunes since the1990s.
Goldfinch, in contrast, sustained its recent meteoric rise in UK garden feeder-use, flocks20–30 strong reported widely in winter 2004/05 though none exceeded the 100 mark.
The Peak Count Index is the average maximum count per week.Scales of vertical axes vary greatly between species.
= rural= suburban
DAVID GLUE
[224]
observed hunting Hen Harrier (Castletown, Isleof Man), Peregrine snatching Feral Pigeon(Canterbury, Kent) and Merlin (Holyhead,Anglesey).
Winter 2004/05 brought further cases of theunexpected at UK birdtables. The transientQuail attracted to grain at Runcton, Chichester(Sussex) in late October (sadly later found deadon a nearby road), brought the 35-year GBFStally to 165 species. Elsewhere, Black Redstarts(Tredegar, South Wales; Budleigh Salterton,Devon) helped to liven lacklustre winterbirdtables.
Some GBFS observers complained, variously,of feeding stations ‘dominated’ or ‘plagued’ by a
spectrum of birds, hoovering up costly materials.These range from ‘problem’ Woodpigeon, FeralPigeon and Pheasant (many sites), local HerringGull, Black-headed Gull, Rook and Mallard, evenRed-legged Partridge (Rhostyllen, Wrexham),Goldfinch (Hillsborough, Co Down) and TreeSparrow (Gresford, Clwyd) — but one man’sperceived ‘problem species’ surely providesanother with ‘treasured pleasure’. Achieving acomfortably diverse and attractive feedingcommunity close to hand via a range of feedersand foods, for bird conservation and humansatisfaction is a laudable aim. GBFS will continueto chart the changing picture in winter 2005/06,that beckons.
THANK YOUThe BTO extends a huge measure of thanks to the dedicated team of GBFS counters, a small keycore extending back to formative years of this survey: one that has yielded much useful data forthe Trust. Thanks also go to Jacky Prior, Carol Povey, Margaret Askew and Frances Bowmanwho helped to distribute and collate forms, and to Mike Toms for help in calculation of PeakCount Indices.
[225]
BTO volunteers have a long history of collectingvaluable survey data, allowing us to generatelong-term trends and so monitor the status of birdsin the UK. These are reviewed annually, species byspecies (see www.bto.org/birdtrends) and wererecently used to update the red and amber lists(see The Population Status of Birds in the UK).
For this information to be readily accessible ata government level, masses of data must becondensed into simple statistics. Bird populationtrends, summarised into wild bird indicators,simplify patterns of change in groups of species.These have been adopted for the government’sheadline indicators of sustainable developmentand ‘Quality of Life’, alongside similar trendsfor other social, economic and environmentalfactors (www.sustainabledevelopment. gov.uk/ar2002/index.htm). The ‘wild bird index’incorporates the population trends of 105 UKbreeding species, with separate trends forfarmland and woodland species.
INDICATORS FOR THE ENGLISHBIODIVERSITY STRATEGY (EBS)
Recently, BTO, together with RSPB, developednew wild bird indicators for the government’snew strategy for biodiversity in England,
‘Working With the Grain of Nature’. Launchedin December 2003, the strategy aims to engagesociety in biodiversity issues, and specifically tomake biodiversity an essential consideration inthe management of key habitats. To help achievethis goal, we developed wild bird indicators forthe five broad habitats in the strategy:
• Agricultural land• Marine/coastal environment• Urban areas• Water and wetlands• WoodlandThese indicators will be used to monitor
progress towards specified biodiversitytargets.
CONSTRUCTING WATER &WETLAND BIRD INDICATORS
Following the techniques used for generating‘Quality of Life’ indicators, we relied upon thosedata sources most appropriate for the targethabitat. For the water and wetland indicator,data from the BTO’s Common Birds Census(CBC) and Waterways Bird Survey (WBS) wereused. We calculated population trends forspecies typically associated with wetlands or
Bird Populations 8:225-227Reprinted with permissionBTO News 251:22-23© British Trust for Ornithology 2004
NEW WILD BIRD INDICATORS FOR ENGLAND
DAVID NOBLE, ALEX BANKS AND STUART NEWSON
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
The BTO’s David Noble, Alex Banks and Stuart Newson explain how these new indicatorswill be used.
NUEVOS INDICADORES DE AVES SILVESTRES PARA INGLATERRA David Noble, Alex Banks y Stuart Newson, del BTO, explican cómo estos nuevos indicadores
serán utilizados.
waterways, where data were sufficient to do so,for the period 1975 to 2000. From theseindividual species indices, a mean trend acrossspecies was calculated.
This trend was positive (see Figure 1),increasing 7% by 2000. One of the disadvantagesof ‘all species’ trends is that they can maskinteresting patterns of change, because rapidlyincreasing populations of one bird species canhide the declines of other species. More than athird of the species were actually declining overthe same period (see Figure 2).
To explore these differences, we producedseparate trends for birds connected with runningwater, birds of slow moving or still water, andbirds of wet meadows (Figure 1). These trendsreveal that species of slow or still water haveincreased markedly over the past 25 years,largely due to the influence of rising populationsof Mallard, Mute Swan, Tufted Duck and alsoCetti’s Warbler — a species that colonisedEngland within the last 30 years. However, fastwater species — essentially birds of uplandstreams such as Common Sandpiper, Dipper andGrey Wagtail — have declined by over 20% (seealso Marchant, 2001; BTO News 236), and popu-lations of wet meadow species — predominantlywaders such as Lapwing, Redshank and Snipecounted in floodplains — have declined by morethan 50%. Although the latter two groups featureonly four species each, these indicatorsnevertheless raise concerns about these habitats,confirmed by the results of the recent survey ofbreeding waders on lowland grassland (Wilson& Vickery, 2003; BTO News 247).
As the UK also provides important habitat fornon-breeding waterbirds, such as waders andgeese from all over Europe, Greenland andCanada, a second indicator was produced toillustrate trends in wintering populations (seeFigure 3). This indicator utilises data collectedfrom the BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC WetlandBird Survey and the WWT/JNCC NationalGoose Counts. Non-breeding waterbirdsunderwent consistent increases over the period1970/71–1997/98. Although that is a positivemessage, these counts are derived mainly fromlarge concentrations on estuaries. Analyses ofcounts that also include nonestuarine coastlinehave revealed declines in a number of winteringwader species such as Turnstone and PurpleSandpiper (see Rehfisch et al., BTO News 248)
CONSTRUCTING THE REMAININGEBS INDICATORS
Like the ‘Quality of Life’ indicators, provisionalfarmland and woodland bird indicators for
DAVID NOBLE, ALEX BANKS AND STUART NEWSON
[226]
FIGURE 1. Water and wetland indicator.
FIGURE 2. Status of populations in water andwetland indicator.
FIGURE 3. Wintering waterbird indicator.
NEW WILD BIRD INDICATORS FOR ENGLAND
[227]
England were based on a combination of CBCand BTO/JNCC/ RSPB Breeding Bird Survey(BBS) data covering the period 1970 to 2002,and were separated into generalist andspecialist species (depending on nesting habitatand feeding preferences). The farmland birdindicator declined by almost 50% and thewoodland bird indicator by almost 20%. Inboth habitats, specialist species are decliningmore steeply.
To formulate an indicator for town andgarden birds, we looked at the results of public-participation surveys such as the BTO’s GardenBirdWatch (GBW) and the RSPB’s Big GardenBird Watch (BGBW). Focusing on commonspecies in participants’ gardens, these surveyscompensate for their non-random design withthe sheer amount of data. The GBW version,based on reporting rates in participating gardensof 16 common species, showed a slight declinebetween 1995 and 2002. The BGBW version,based on maximum numbers during a singletimed count in each garden since 1979,fluctuated but showed little overall change in asuite of 10 species. In both versions, HouseSparrows and Starlings showed steeper declinesthan other species.
For the coastal and seas indicator, trends inmarine bird species were calculated using datafrom the JNCC Seabird Monitoring Programmeand special surveys such as tern nest counts onRSPB reserves. The provisional indicator, basedon population trends of nine species, was
broadly stable between 1986 and 2002.
THE FUTURE FOR EBS INDICATORSThe government will use these wild birdindicators, along with other information on thestatus of wildlife, to monitor progress towardstheir biodiversity targets. The EBS indicatorsdescribed here are provisional, and new datasources will be incorporated as they becomeavailable, to update trends on a yearly basis.None of this could be accomplished without thehuge effort of the network of volunteersassociated with the BTO and other organ-isations. Your contributions to BTO surveys, andinitiatives such as the development ofindicators, should have increasingly importantand direct consequences for bird conservation inthe UK.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWork on the EBS wild bird indicators wassupported by Defra, and carried out in collab-oration with RSPB.
REPORT AVAILABILITYThe biodiversity strategy for England,containing these indicators is available at:www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/biostrat/indicators031201.pdf
[228]
In November 2004, the European Commissionadopted six new structural indicators forassessing progress towards its policy targets. Intheir ‘long list’, alongside such measures as ‘hightech exports’ and ‘life expectancy’ is the‘Farmland Bird Index’ — based on populationchanges in a suite of farmland bird speciesmonitored across Europe since 1990. The EU hasset an objective to halt loss of biodiversity by2010 and this index, if it progresses to the ‘shortlist’, will be used as a proxy for overallbiodiversity with which to assess progresstowards that goal. This is an important milestonefor the Pan European Common Bird Monitoring(PECBM) project because it raises the profile ofthe plight of farmland birds across Europe(which have declined by almost 30% since 1980,see Figure 1) and increases the pressure forindividual countries to support their birdmonitoring programmes. We also hope thatfunds might be raised from European sources toinitiate some level of bird monitoring incountries without such schemes, such as many ofthe countries recently joining the EU (e.g.Slovenia) or in line for accession (e.g. Romania).
THE NEW INDICESProducing habitat-based European-scaleindicators is a complex process. First, national
trends for bird species typical of the habitat areaggregated into a supranational index for eachspecies, using methods that take into accountthe relative population size in each country.Where the species is absent or rare, such asRedbacked Shrike in the UK, it does notcontribute to the trend. The supranationalspecies indices are then combined in the sameway as the UK Quality of Life wild birdindicators to produce multi-species indices forEurope — such as the Farmland Bird Index andthe Woodland Bird Index shown in Figure 1. Incontrast to the declining Farmland Bird Index,the Woodland version shows surprisingly littleevidence of decline. Disaggregation of this index
Bird Populations 8:228-229Reprinted with permissionBTO News 256:15© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
EUROPEAN BIRD INDICATORS
DAVID NOBLE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
David Noble reports on the development of wild bird indices across Europe.
INDICADORES DE AVES EUROPEAS David Noble informa sobre el desarrollo de índices de aves silvestres en toda Europa.
FIGURE 1. European bird indices.
Farmland
Woodland
Index (1980=100)
Year1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
110
100
90
80
70
60
EUROPEAN BIRD INDICATORS
[229]
suggests a decline in forest specialists and anincrease in more generalist species associatedwith woodlands, parks and gardens, and workis to continue to explore this issue. The start yearfor European bird indicators is usually set to1980 but because countries differ in the durationof their long-term bird monitoring schemes,trends for missing country-year combinationshave to be interpolated from trends in adjacentcountries within the same geographic region.Details and plots of all the supranational speciestrends (for 47 species) can be viewed on theEBCC website (www.ebcc.info).
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTSThose involved with the PECBM project areextremely pleased with this development, butthere are plans to continue to develop theseindicators further, to re-assess species inclusionacross countries, to consider the use of otherlandscape classifications and to constantly
improve methods for calculating the populationtrends. Workshops are planned where nationalbird monitoring coordinators can discuss theprotocols for species selection and potentialoutputs of the project.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe PECBM project, funded by RSPB, is coordi-nated by a partnership between the EuropeanBird Census Council (EBCC), RSPB, StatisticsNetherlands, Birdlife International and theCzech Society for Ornithology, with scientificand technical input from SOVON in The Nether-lands and BTO in the UK. The data were kindlyprovided by national monitoring schemes inmore than 18 countries, including the UK,themselves dependent on the efforts of an armyof volunteer birdwatchers. Further informationcan be obtained from the PECBM coordinator,Dr Petr Vorisek ([email protected]) oron the EBCC website (www.ebcc.info).
SPECIES IN THE EUROPEAN INDICESFARMLANDKestrel Yellow Wagtail Tree Sparrow HobbyWhinchat Greenfinch Lapwing WhitethroatGoldfinch Woodpigeon Red-backed Shrike LinnetTurtle Dove Magpie Yellowhammer Little OwlJackdaw Reed Bunting Skylark Carrion CrowCorn Bunting Swallow Starling
WOODLANDSparrowhawk Redstart Willow Warbler BuzzardBlackbird Chiffchaff Gr Sp Woodpecker Song ThrushGoldcrest Wryneck Mistle Thrush Long-tailed TitTree Pipit Wren Great Tit JaySpotted Flycatcher Blue Tit Dunnock BlackcapCoal Tit Robin Garden Warbler Chaffinch
[230]
In March 2006 Defra released updated regionalwild bird indicators for England. These areproduced by the BTO, in collaboration with theRSPB, and are based primarily on data from theBTO/JNCC/ RSPB Breeding Bird Survey (BBS).The BBS is a national survey, which started in 1994,designed to monitor changes in the breedingpopulations of widespread bird species in the UK.There are currently more than 2,200 participants,the vast majority being volunteers, who surveyover 2,800 randomly selected 1 km by 1 kmsquares across the UK. This provides enough datato monitor the population trends of over 100 birdspecies. These population trends are generated,not only for the UK, but also for England,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and thenine English Government Office regions.
The English regional versions of the wild birdindicators cover the period of 1994– 2004 andare calculated for North West, North East,Yorkshire and Humberside, East Midlands,West Midlands, East of England, South East,South West and London. The London regionindicator uses a relatively large proportion ofdata from neighbouring areas, potentiallybiasing the indicator, and so has not beenincluded in this report. They are producedusing a similar approach to that used to
produce the UK Sustainable DevelopmentFramework wild bird indicators, with separatecomposite indices for all native bird species, forfarmland species and woodland species. Theindex is therefore an ‘average trend’ beingcomposed of the population trends for eachconstituent species.
Due to the relatively short time periodcovered by the regional indicators caution mustbe used in their interpretation. The largedeclines in farmland and woodland birds,which occurred between the mid 1970s andearly 1990s, as can be seen in the EnglandBiodiversity Strategy Indicator (see Figure 1),have slowed down, and populations havestabilised at a much lower level than in 1970.
The indicators for several regions havechanged by more than 10% over this 10-yearperiod, which earlier work suggests representsa significant change.
Interestingly, there appears to be a roughlynorth–south pattern in the changes in birdpopulations between 1994 and 2004 (see Figure2). However, drawing comparisons betweenregions should be undertaken with somecaution as some species do not occur in allregions, leading to small differences in speciescomposition. Moreover, for a species where
Bird Populations 8:230-232Reprinted with permissionBTO News 265:14-15© British Trust for Ornithology 2006
WILD BIRD INDICATORS FOR THE ENGLISH REGIONS
SARAH DAVIS, DAVID NOBLE AND ANDREW JOYS
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Sarah Davis, David Noble and Andrew Joys, of the BTO’s Census Unit, report on thegeneration and value of these new indices.
INDICADORES DE AVES SILVESTRES PARA LAS REGIONES INGLESAS Sarah Davis, David Noble y Andrew Joys, de la unidad de censos del BTO, informan sobre el
desarrollo y el valor de estos nuevos índices.
there are insufficient data to generate a regionaltrend, estimates of population changes in areasoutside the specific region are incorporated, inorder to generate a population trend for abroader region. This approach was employed tominimise differences in species composition.
FARMLAND BIRD INDICATORSThe regional farmland bird index increased by
15% in the North West, decreased by 14% in theWest Midlands and 12% in the South East,whilst changing less than 10% in the otherregions between 1994 and 2004.
Comparison of the regional farmland birdindices are probably fairly reliable as five of theregions include all 19 farmland species,including two of the three regions that show themost significant changes (West Midlands and
South East). Due to scarcity (defined asoccurring on less than 2% of the BBS squaressurveyed in that region) Turtle Dove is excludedfrom the North West and North East regions andTurtle Dove, Tree Sparrow and Yellow Wagtailare excluded from the South West region.However, as Turtle Dove and Yellow Wagtail aredeclining, and Tree Sparrow is increasing inEngland, if these species had been included thenthe South West regional index would probablybe slightly more negative. Including Turtle Dovein the North West and North East indices wouldmake them slightly less positive.
The reason for the north–south gradient infarmland bird change (partly reflected byregional trends for Kestrel and Stock Dove) isnot clear. Skylark, Yellowhammer and Starlingdo not show this north–south gradient anddeclines are similar across England.
WOODLAND BIRD INDICATORSThe regional woodland bird index increased by26% in the North West, 17% in the EastMidlands, and 15% in Yorkshire andHumberside, and decreased by 12% in the SouthEast, whilst changing less than 10% in the otherregions between 1994 and 2004.
WILD BIRD INDICATORS FOR THE ENGLISH REGIONS
[231]
Figure 1. England Biodiversity Strategy Indicator forfarmland, woodland and all species.
Figure 2. Percentage change in wild bird indicatorsby region between 1994 and 2004.
Figure 3. Farmland bird indicators for the North Westand the South East compared to the England indicator.
SARAH DAVIS, DAVID NOBLE & ANDREW JOYS
[232]
None of the regional indices include all of thewoodland bird species used to generate theEngland woodland bird indicator. However, ofthe species used for the woodland bird index,Nightingale, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker andHawfinch are too scarce to be included in any ofthe regional indices, and therefore do not affectregional comparisons. Also, of the regions withgreater than 10% changes in woodland birdpopulations, only the North West and South Eastare missing any species with significantlychanging English populations (Willow Tit andRedstart respectively). The reason for thenorth–south gradient in woodland birdpopulation changes is also not clear. Bothresident species such as Jay, Chaffinch and Long-tailed Tit, as well as migrants such as WillowWarbler and Chiffchaff exhibit this trend.
USING THIS INFORMATIONIndicators such as these are very useful inproviding a ‘snapshot’ of the state of theenvironment and wider countryside, as theysummarise complex information, which oftendiffers across species. However, because of thisapproach, the trends for individual species are,to an extent, hidden. It is usually necessary tocarefully investigate the changes in theabundance of particular species to best under-stand responses to changes in land managementpractices.
The Farmland Bird Indicator has beenadopted by the government as a Public ServiceAgreement target, with a commitment to reversethe decline in farmland birds by 2020. TheForestry Commission also has a target to reversethe decline in numbers of woodland birds, by
2020, using the woodland bird indicator.Further information on wild bird indicators
can be found on the BTO website (www.bto.org/research/indicators/index. htm) and the full reporton the production of these BBS-based RegionalIndicators is available on the Defra websitewww.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/060316a.htm
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLike their constituent BBS trends, the productionof these indicators is dependent ultimately on thehard work of BBS participants and we thank themall for that.
Figure 4. Woodland bird indicators for the NorthWest and South East regions compared to theEngland indicator.
[233]
Agri-environment schemes currently exist in 26out of 44 European countries, costing theEuropean Union (EU) over 24 billion Euros since1994. Despite the cost and the importance ofsuch schemes in maintaining healthy wildlifepopulations within farmland, very few rigorous,scientific studies have attempted to assess theireffectiveness, and those that exist have yieldedequivocal results (Kleijn & Sutherland 2003). Asa result, key questions such as “ is this moneywell spent?” and “are the options within theseschemes delivering their wildlife targets, and ifnot why not?” remain largely unanswered.
THE NEW SCHEMEIn March 2005, Defra launched EnvironmentalStewardship (see Box 1), an agri-environmentscheme that could herald big changes in thefarmed countryside in England. Not only hasDefra committed a great deal of money to thescheme itself, it has also now committed toresearch designed to monitor the effectiveness ofthe entry level component through an excitingnew BTO project.
Environmental Stewardship has a number ofprimary objectives, one of which is wildlife
conservation (see Box 1). An index of long-termtrends in farmland bird populations has beenadopted by the UK government as one of the 15headline Quality of Life Indicators — anindicator in this case of declines in biodiversityin the wider countryside (see Figure 1). Of the 19species in the Farmland Bird Indicator (FBI),seven (Woodpigeon, Stock Dove, Jackdaw, Rook,Whitethroat, Goldfinch and Greenfinch) haveincreased, and 12 (Grey Partridge, Kestrel,Lapwing, Turtle Dove, Skylark, Yellow Wagtail,Starling, Tree Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer,Reed Bunting and Corn Bunting) have declinedsince 1970. The government has set a target ofreversal of the decline in the FBI by 2020 andsympathetic habitat management, underEnvironmental Stewardship, will be a key toolin achieving this goal.
ASSESSING ITS EFFECTIVENESSThe FBI is now based largely on data from theBTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey (BBS),so this survey will provide the means by whichthe long-term success of Entry Level Steward-ship is judged with respect to farmland biodi-versity. However, 2020 is a long way off and it is
Bird Populations 8:233-236Reprinted with permissionBTO News 259:12-14© British Trust for Ornithology 2005
DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OFENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
JULIET VICKERY, DAN CHAMBERLAIN AND DAVID NOBLE
British Trust for OrnithologyThe National Centre for Ornithology
The Nunnery, ThetfordNorfolk, IP24 2PU, United Kingdom
Juliet Vickery, Dan Chamberlain and David Noble review the new scheme and explain theBTO’s involvement in assessing its effectiveness.
DETERMINACIÓN DE LA EFECTIVIDAD DE ACTIVIDADES DE PROTECCIÓN AMBIENTAL
Juliet Vickery, Dan Chamberlain y David Noble revisan el nuevo programa y explican elpapel del BTO a la hora de evaluar su efectividad.
JULIET VICKERY, DAN CHAMBERLAIN AND DAVID NOBLE
[234]
clearly important to assess the effectiveness ofthe scheme in the shorter term in order, forexample, to modify or promote certain keymanagement prescriptions. To this end, Defraapproached the BTO with the question: Howmany BBS squares would be adequate to detectpopulation changes in farmland birds (as aresult of ELS) with a 90% degree of certainty?Power analysis (see Box 2) estimated that 2,000BBS squares would provide adequate power todetect short-term population changes over timein two important landscapes — arable andpastoral farmland. This sample size would alsoallow the detection of differences between ELSand non-ELS squares for two key species,Skylark and Yellowhammer, and for at least oneof Lapwing, Starling and Linnet.
A crucial component of a rigorous assessmentof the effectiveness of ELS is to have a baseline inplace before any habitat management occurs.Although ELS was launched in March, there willbe little management on the ground until after
harvest 2005. This summer was then a crucialbaseline year during which these 2,000 BBSsquares needed to be surveyed. BTO volunteerscurrently cover c. 1,000 arable or pastoral farm-land squares in lowland England. Findingvolunteers to cover the 1,000 extra BBS squaresrequired, at relatively short notice, was obviouslygoing to be impossible, so Defra agreed to fundprofessional fieldworkers to undertake the taskof surveying the extra squares in spring andsummer 2005. Even so, finding a team offieldworkers was still a major undertaking, butwe managed to get a team of 24 ornithologistsout in the field by early April. As the data wereto be used to augment the standard BBS sample,the methods were identical. Squares wereselected randomly, the only caveats being thateach square had to be lowland and predom-inantly farmland (66% coverage of arable orpastoral land) and within England (Wales,Scotland and Northern Ireland are covered bydifferent agri-environment schemes).
FIGURE 1.
The downward trend in theFarmland Bird Indicator (seeleft, red line) shows somerecent evidence of slowingdown, but remains at lessthan 50% of its start point.
Since 2001 (see above),the indicator has started torise (i.e. the year-to-yearchange is greater than 1).Sources: BTO/RSPB/Defra
Quality of Life Wild Bird.Indicator 1970–2003
Year-to-year change in theFarmland Bird Indicator
DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
[235]
BASELINE DATAThe outputs from this year will be summarystatistics of the current state of England’sfarmland bird populations, based jointly on thedata gathered by the professional fieldworkerand the core BBS data. Funding permitting,these same squares will be re-surveyed in 2008and 2011. The scheme will be reviewed in 2010and thus data from the 2008 resurvey will be fedinto this review process. Next year the RSPB willcommence a parallel study focusing on theeffectiveness of Higher Level Stewardship(HLS), carrying out more intensive studies onkey target bird species, in a smaller number oflocations. Once again this will ensure a good
baseline year as HLS will only be available at theend of this year.
Scientists and policy makers have been callingfor effective monitoring of ELS and HLS forsome time now. This Defrafunded packagepaves the way for just this and provides addedoptimism that Environmental Stewardshipreally will deliver the goods for farmland birds.
REFERENCEKleijn, D & Sutherland, W J. 2003. How effectiveare European agri-environment schemes inconserving and promoting biodiversity? Journalof Applied Ecology 40, 947–969.
BOX 1ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
The ‘Curry Report’ (Curry 2000) made two key recommendations with respect to Agri-Environment Schemes (AES). First, that there should be a new ‘broad and shallow’ schemeavailable to all farmers and landowners and second, that current schemes (such asEnvironmentally Sensitive Areas [ESA] and Countryside Stewardship Scheme [CSS]) should bestreamlined into a single scheme (to act as the higher level of the broad and shallow scheme).These recommendations have largely shaped the new AES launched in March 2005 —Environmental Stewardship. The scheme has three elements: Entry Level Stewardship (ELS),Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) and Higher Level Stewardship (HLS). (For moredetails see www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/es/default.htm)
ENTRY LEVEL STEWARDSHIP is a ‘whole farm scheme’ open to all farmers and landmanagers in England. In line with the idea of a ‘broad and shallow’ approach it is designed toencourage as many farmers as possible to adopt simple environmental management options.The scheme has four objectives, to: (i) conserve wildlife; (ii) protect historic features; (iii)maintain landscape character; and (iv) improve water quality and reduce soil erosion.
Farmers can choose from a range of options including in-field, margins or boundary options, eachof which earns a number of points per hectare. Once a farmer has selected enough of these optionsto score the minimum of 30 points per hectare, entry to the scheme is guaranteed resulting in a flat-rate payment of £30 per hectare per year. Agreements last five years and there is a total of 60 optionsto choose from, including options for hedgerow or ditch management, protecting in-field trees,historic and landscape features (e.g. managing scrub on archaeological sites), buffer strips, beetlebanks, wild bird seed mix, Skylark scrapes, stubbles, soil protection and grassland management(lowlands and uplands). Farmers can earn points for any of these already in place on a farm.
ELS will cost around £150 million annually and hopes for ‘delivery’ are high. Evaluation ofthe ELS pilot showed that the scheme was practical and farmers were positive about it. Defrapredict an uptake of around 80% of farmers/land owners over the next five years. If this provesto be the case, it will pave the way for major change in the farmed environment. (For moredetails see www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/ schemes/els/default.htm)
HIGHER LEVEL STEWARDSHIP has the same four objectives as ELS (although ‘improvewater quality and reduce soil erosion’ is replaced with ‘natural resource protection’) but it
JULIET VICKERY, DAN CHAMBERLAIN AND DAVID NOBLE
[236]
BOX 1 (Continued)
includes a fifth of ‘promoting public access and understanding of the countryside’. Farmers willusually have to be in ELS or OELS in order to enter HLS. HLS will be offered to farmers fromNovember 2005.
HLS is designed to deliver significant environmental benefits in high priority sites. Themanagement is more complex, often requiring a higher level of advice and support. Thus, whileELS options are referred to as ‘broad and shallow’, HLS options are ‘narrow and deep’.Agreements last for 10 years and must be accompanied by a Farm Environmental Plan (FEP)which identifies features on the farm, their condition and the most appropriate management.Entry to HLS is not guaranteed. It is awarded on merit depending on where the mostenvironmental benefit is likely to be achieved. As for ELS, there is a very wide range of optionsincluding creation and maintenance of wood pasture, restoration of traditional orchards,maintenance of traditional water meadows, fallow plots for ground nesting birds [‘Lapwingplots’], low input cereal followed by stubble and a spring crop, arable reversion to unfertilisedgrass, maintenance of species rich seminatural grassland, creation of wet grassland for breedingwaders, maintenance or creation of upland heath for rough grazing, educational access,maintenance or restoration of lowland heath, creation of inter-tidal saline habitat on grassland,and maintenance or creation of reed beds.
HLS options will also be more ‘targeted’ and tailored to meet the needs of priority speciesand habitats. Targeting for the scheme will be done on the basis of Joint Character Areas. These were first devised as a means of describing the essential character of distinct areas of the English Countryside, based on the landscape, wildlife and natural features(www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/sssis/ default.htm). For birds, the targeting is partly basedon the Farmland Bird Database (FBD) which identifies regions (and JCAs) with the highestconcentrations of target farmland bird species (see BTO News 255 p25). Existing ESA and CSSschemes will be allowed to run to their conclusion, agreement holders will then have to decidewhether ELS only or ELS and HLS is most appropriate for their holding.
The amount of money spent annually on HLS will be £15 million plus the money ‘released’from expiring ESA and CSS agreements. (For more details on HLS see www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/
BOX 2POWER ANALYSIS
Put simply, power analysis is a statistical way of answering questions such as “how many BBSsquares would I need to detect a given change in bird numbers (i) over six years and (ii) between1-km squares with land under ELS and 1-km squares with no land under ELS?” Power to detectchange tends to increase as sample size increases. A high level of power (90%) was used in theanalysis, giving us a 90% chance of detecting an existing effect of ELS on bird populations. Theanalysis uses current abundance for each species as the basis for simulating different scenariosbased around assumptions about the likely effect of ELS. In this case, it was assumed that theuptake of ELS would be 70% of farms, that ELS would result in 10% more birds on these farmsand that overall population increase (ELS and non-ELS land combined) would be relativelysubtle i.e. 5% over a period of six years. These figures are conservative and the level of power ishigh. It is quite conceivable that the ELS may result in population increases of over 5% for certainspecies, in which case, the chances of detecting significant effects are higher than 90%.
