Archive for November, 2007

Brent & Sue Ortego, Shawn Ashbaugh, Susan Beree, Charlie & Olivia Brower, Brad Lirette, Robert & Kay Lookingbill, Sumita Prasad, Bron Rorex, Suzie Ross, Craig Zalk participated in banding.

We use the term habitat frequency in this report rather than preferences because preference is difficult to prove. There are many factors which affect whether a bird uses a particular habitat which includes its preference, availability of the habitat, size of the habitat, season of use, availability of food, competition for that habitat from other hummers and animals as well as individuals of its own species, predators, trapability, etc.

With all of these factors potentially influencing use we choose just to list frequency of use as determined by birds caught by mist-nets versus availability of habitat.

Land of Ortego - Zalk supports a relatively large wintering population of hummingbirds near the Central Gulf Coast of Texas. We have documented 367 BUFH hummer winters, 216 RUHU, 110 BCHU, 67 RTHU, 31 ALHU, 26 BTLH, 21 CAHU, 11 ANHU, 1 BBLH from 1995 thru 2006.

HUMMINGBIRD ARRIVAL DATES FOR FIRST BANDING

AT LAND OF ORTEGO-ZALK

Brent & Sue Ortego, Shawn Ashbaugh, Susan Beree, Charlie & Olivia Brower, Brad Lirette, Robert & Kay Lookingbill, Sumita Prasad, Bron Rorex, Suzie Ross, Craig Zalk

Each month is divided into 3 segments with each segment being roughly 10 days. Number of birds by species banded for the first time by date are listed below. Captures occurred from 8/95 thru 10/07 in Victoria County, TX.
(more…)

Pasted below are a number of abstracts presented at Texas Ornithological Society Science Sessions.

BIRD USAGE OF RUNNING LIVEOAK WOODLANDS NEAR THE COAST IN CALHOUN COUNTY, TX

BRENT ORTEGO, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Victoria, TX

Abstract: Birds were mist-netted during the spring and fall of 2001 and 2002 in expansive running liveoak (Quercus virginiana) woodlands that were 4 and 10 miles inland from Matagorda Bay and Gulf of Mexico, respectively, in Calhoun County Texas. The woodlands were a mosaic of running liveoak less than 10 feet tall and coastal prairie in a 35,000-acre area that was comprised roughly of 50% of each between Powderhorn Lake and Matagorda Bay.

1200 (12-meter long with 30-mm mesh) mist-net hours were used during the spring and 2500 during the fall of two years to sample resident and migrant birds during March and April, and August through October. Although, roughly the same number of species were captured each season (55 in spring and 58 in fall), the frequency of captures were twice as high in the fall (50 per 100 net-hours vs. 24). Fall neotropical migrants and flycatchers were netted 6 times and warblers 4 times more frequent than spring. The only species group more abundant in spring were neotropical thrushes which were caught at .6 birds per 100 net-hours and non were captured in fall. At the distance of the study area from the Gulf, most spring inland bound migrants needing to make emergency landings probably did so prior to reaching the study area and those more fit migrants flew over the study area before making first land fall. In contrast, fall migrants made frequent use of the woodlands for foraging prior to migrating over or around the Gulf.

Impact of a Level 1 Hurricane on nesting Bald Eagles in Texas.

Brent Ortego Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2805 N. Navarro, S600B, Victoria, TX 77901; brent.Ortego@tpwd.state.tx.us

Hurricane Claudette passed through Texas coastal counties during July 2003 as a level 1 hurricane. Bald Eagle nesting data from 8 counties that were not impacted by the hurricane were compared to 7 counties that were. Noticeable hurricane impacts were mostly knocking down nests and tall trees that potentially would serve as nests in the future. Eagles in this part of Texas typically replace nests at 4 year intervals. Thus, about 25% of the nests are normally replaced each year. Seven nests in the 7 counties within the path of the hurricane were known to have been destroyed by the storm and all were rebuilt during the following fall when nesting commenced. The 8 adjoining non-impacted counties had 14 nesting attempts fledge 22 eagles before the hurricane in 2003 and 16 nesting attempts and fledge 32 eagles after the hurricane in 2004. The 7 impacted counties had 19 nesting attempts before the hurricane fledge 31 eagles in 2003, and 20 nesting attempts fledge 33 eagles after the hurricane in 2004. Short term lost of nests was the only noted impact.

Texas Breeding Bird Survey

BRENT ORTEGO, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Victoria, TX; brent.Ortego@tpwd.state.tx.us

The U. S. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a highly standardized 24.5 mile survey randomly located along public roads throughout Texas, and is used to monitor population trends and estimate densities of breeding birds in Texas by ecoregion. The survey started in Texas in 1967. It was coordinated by Warren Pulich until 1993 and was taken over by me with periodic assistance from co-coordinators.

BBS volunteers work primarily anonymously. They get very little recognition, but produce the data on which many conservation organizations depend. Their common theme is that they love counting birds and are concerned about their status. 417 birders have conducted the 195 BBS routes in Texas since its beginning. Kenneth Seyffert has conducted the most surveys in TX by running BBS routes 149 times. Other noteworthy surveyors are Francis Williams conducting 74, James Middleton 65, Richard Albert 63, Brent Ortego 61, Charles Crabtree, Jr., 59, Peggy Accord & Kenneth Nanney 58, and Andrew O’Neil 54.

The survey tracks 151 species very well state-wide. 24 of these are significantly increasing in numbers and 38 are significantly declining. Greatest rates of significant declines are found in grassland, scrub and woodland habitats, neotropical migrants, and open cup & ground or lower nesters.

White-winged Dove Distribution From a Recently Colonized Town in the Coastal Prairie of Texas

Lyndon Schatz, 608 Blyth, Victoria, TX 77904

Brent Ortego, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2805 N. Navarro, Suite 600B, Victoria, TX 77901

White-winged Doves (Zenaida asiatica) have been expanding their population and range in Texas from the Rio Grande Valley for the last several decades. The largest breeding population containing over 1 million birds is in San Antonio. Aside from larger urban areas being colonized, many smaller more suburban towns have been occupied by white-wings for decades. The population dynamics of these residential populations are not very well understood. The objective of this study was to determine if the white-wings spent the entire year at Victoria, and if there was any difference in survival and distribution of hatch year and adult birds. The senior author opportunistically banded 1796 white-wings from his yard in Victoria during 10 of 11 breeding season from 1995 through 2005. 49 birds were recaptured at the banding station and 44 were harvested by hunters. No foreign recaptures were obtained from this project, but 19 of 44 birds harvested were from distances greater than 50 miles. Six of these were harvested >100 miles and occurred at sites like San Antonio, Mexico, Guatemala and Florida. Adults had a greater tendency to be recaptured/harvested, 8.5% of 520, than young white-wings, 3.8% of 1276; P<.05.

Banding

White-winged Doves were opportunistically banded as they came in to feed at a permanent ground bird feeding station in the north side of Victoria, Texas, from March through September from 1995 thru 2004, with 1996 having no banding. Two standard walk-in traps were used for l hour each banding day from 1995 thru 2000. Starting in 2001, a drop trap (8 X 3 X 1- foot) was fabricated using 1.25-inch PVC pipe for framing and 1.5 inch bar mesh netting for walls, and was used to diversify the trapping methods. Trap shy birds appeared to be more vulnerable to capture by alternating the capture technique. However, birds caught per day did not differ, but number of days when birds were available did.

OVERVIEW OF BANDING IN THE CONSERVATION OF PURPLE MARTINS IN SAN ANTONIO AND SOUTH TEXAS

Louise Chambers, Education Director, Purple Martin Conservation Association, 301 Peninsula Drive, Ste. 6, Erie, PA 16505; louise@purplemartin.org

John Barrow, Purple Martin Banding Coordinator-South Texas, 4146 Congressional Dr., Corpus Christi, TX 78471; barrow@chilitech.com;

Abstract: In eastern North America, Purple Martins (Progne subis) nest almost exclusively in housing provided by people. This dependency, their tractable nature, and their strong fidelity to nesting colonies, make Purple Martins ready subjects for banding based studies. An overview of the study being conducted in San Antonio and South Texas, now in its fifth year, is presented as example of what can be obtained through a concerted banding effort. Emphasis is on general biology and management of Purple Martins, migratory roost development and movement, and inclusion of educational opportunities at the elementary school level. A number of other Canadian and US banders, primarily in northern states, having similar objectives independently band and color-mark Purple Martins. Purple Martin Conservation Association promotes standardization and coordination of data, so that it can be pooled for population monitoring and studies at different geographic scales. Results could be useful in addressing regional declines and population variances of Purple Martins. The situation with Purple Martins in South Texas is presented as an example.

The abstract below was presented at the 6th International Hummingbird Banding Workshop held at Dan Brown’s “Hummer House” ranch near Christoval, TX, during 2005.

Black-chinned Hummingbird Sugar Water Consumption Rates at 4 Ranches in the Edward’s Plateau Ecoregion in Texas during 2005.

Brent Ortego¹ and Ross Dawkins²

¹Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2805 N. Navarro, Suite 600B, Victoria, TX 77901

²Chemistry Department, Angelo State University, Box 10892, San Angelo, TX 76909

Black-chinned Hummingbird (BCHU) (Archilochus alexandri) sugar water consumption were studied at 4 rural ranch banding sites in the Edward’s Plateau during the 2005 breeding season. Dan Brown Ranch, Tom Green County, was located at the edge of the S. Concho River floodplain in the western Edward’s Plateau in a deciduous park-like yard with 19+ 48-oz hummingbird feeders. Due to livestock grazing and high white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) densities there were few hummingbird nectar producing plants. In the southeastern Edward’s Plateau, Bob and Sudie Burditt Ranch, Real County, was at the edge of the Frio River floodplain with park-like deciduous yard with 12 96-oz hummingbird feeders. Few hummingbird nectar producing plants were present for the same reasons as the Brown Ranch. Annie and Corky Matter Ranch, Kendall County, was on the top of a hill about ½ mile (.8 km) from a very small Flat Rock Creek in a cedar/hardwood savannah with 10 quart hummingbird feeders. Numerous hummingbird nectar plants were available in the residential yard of the banding site, but not in the rest of the ranch because of livestock and deer grazing. Egon and Sue Wiedenfeld Ranch, Kendall County, was at the edge of the floodplain of Big Joshua Creek in a park-like hardwood setting. Many hummingbird nectar plants were available in the 10-acre (4 ha) residential yard as well as regular occurrence in the surrounding pastures because of lower livestock and deer numbers.

At the Burditt, Matter and Wiedenfeld Ranches 1270 BCHU were captured during visits once per month from April through June using modified Russell traps, and sugar water consumption was recorded daily and summed weekly. Banding was discontinued after June because of the beginning of migration. The Lincoln’s Index was used to calculate hummingbird densities in May and June (69 recaptures from birds previously banded) and compared to sugar water consumption for the week of the banding. Sugar to water ratios of 1:4 was used at 2 ranches, and 1:5 and 1:3 at other ranches. All sugar water consumption was converted to 1:4 equivalents because this is the rate used at most hummingbird feeders.

Sugar water consumption at each ranch is graphed below in gallons consumed per week. Pattern of sugar water use at each ranch is fairly similar, but consumption rate varied by ranch.

Fig. 1 Gallons of sugar water consumed per week at 4 ranches in the Edward’s Plateau, TX, during 2005.

BCHU estimates per site varied from a low of 1542 at the Matter Ranch to 3000 at the Brown Ranch. Highest consumption rate by hummingbird was at the Brown and Burditt ranches with the lowest availability of hummingbird nectar producing plants.

Table 1. Sugar Water Consumption and the Lincoln’s Index BCHU Estimated Population.

The abstract below was presented at the 6th Biennial International Hummingbird Banders Workshop held at Dan Brown’s “Hummer House” ranch near Christoval, TX

Sugar Preferences of Black-chinned Hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) at a mega feeding station in Texas.

Ross Dawkins¹ and Brent Ortego²

¹Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Angelo State University Box 10892, San Angelo, Texas

²Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2805 N. Navarro, Suite 600B, Victoria, Texas

At Dan Brown’s ranch near Christoval, Texas approximately 3,000 Black-chinned hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) regularly feed during the breeding season. Dan feeds more than 800 pounds of cane sugar (sucrose) during the year. At this location we tested various sources and types of sugar and different concentrations of sugar to see if preferences existed. The sugars tested were sucrose from beet sugar (Albertson’s Granulated Sugar), cane sugar (Imperial Pure Cane Sugar), fructose (Eastman Organic Chemicals), glucose (Reagent Grade), and high fructose corn syrup (Betty Crocker Corn Syrup). One cane sugar solution was 80.0 mL of deionized water (80.0 g) added to 20 mL of dry, granular sugar (17.7 g sucrose) and this was designated as CS4. A second cane sugar solution was 90.0 mL of deionized water (90.0 g) added to 30mL (26.5 g sucrose) of cane sugar. This was designated as CS3.

The other solutions were like CS4 with 80.0 mL of deionized water added to 17.7 g. of sugar. These solutions were BS (beet sugar), G (glucose), F (fructose), and K (Karo-type high fructose corn syrup).

70.0 mL of each solution were placed in clear, new Perky Pet single port feeders with a bee guard. A six feeder array was assembled in oak (Quercus fusiformis) shade in a 2×3 arrangement. Feeders were 2 meters above the ground and 1.5-2 meters apart. A second six feeder array was set up under the back eaves of Dan’s house in a linear arrangement. Again feeders were 1.5-2 meters apart. After each sample period, volumes were measured and feeders switched with higher and lower usage feeders exchanged to zero out positional variables. In addition, sampling periods were varied as to time of day from July 8^th- July 11^th. Dan’s normal complement of about 20 two-liter feeders were also available the whole time.

Results were tallied by place of finish in each time period. The places of finish were then averaged over the four-day period. The results were fructose (average place 1.7) slightly preferred to beet sugar (average place 1.8). Next were Cane Sugar 3 (average place 2.8) followed by Cane Sugar 4 (average place 3.8). Last were glucose (average place 5) and high fructose corn syrup (average place 5.9).

A second method of comparison was by total volume of solution consumed over all trials. Beet sugar was preferred with 177 mL consumed. Next came fructose with 134.5 mL consumed. Cane Sugar 3 with 117.5 mL and Cane Sugar 4 at a 104.5 mL follow. Least preferred were glucose at 36 mL and high fructose corn syrup with only 19 mL consumed.

The preference of fructose was surprising in light of other studies that rarely show a preference for fructose. It might be explained by the fact that fructose is about 170%

as sweet as sucrose and more than twice as sweet as glucose. Any preference of beet sugar over cane sugar is surprising because both are very pure sucrose with only slight traces of other sugars or salts. If any preference really exists it must be due to trace impurities and their taste. The preference of 3:1 cane sugar over 4:1 cane sugar is expected and has been shown by others.

The discrimination against glucose is in accord with some other studies and possibly due to its lack of sweetness. The rejection of high fructose corn syrup is most puzzling, especially in light of the preference for fructose.

A second study was done with CS4 solutions. Three feeders had a drop of red food coloring added and three remained colorless. In a second run all red and colorless solutions were positionally switched. No preference at all was observed.

The abstract below was presented during the 6th Biennial International Hummingbird Banding Workshop held at Dan Brown’s “Hummer House” ranch near San Angelo, TX, during 2005.

Physical and Chemical Properties of Various Sugar Water Ratios for Hummingbird Feeders

Ross Dawkins¹ and Brent Ortego²

¹Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Angelo State University, Box 10892, San Angelo, Texas.

²Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2805 N. Navarro, Suite 600 B, Victoria, Texas

Most people using sugar water for hummingbird feeders use a recipe ratio involving volumes of water (solvent) to volumes of dry granular sugar (solute) or they measure the final volume of the solution instead of added solvent. In either case it is not easy to compare one recipe to another as far as energy content or total amount of sugar.

We have made up a series of sugar (sucrose, Imperial Pure Cane granulated) solutions using the volume % of water and the volume % of dry sugar. We have then measured the density, molarity, molality, Calories/ gallon and freezing point of various ratios. Density (or the similar specific gravity) is easily measured in the field. The molarity (M) is a normalized method of measuring the moles of solute per volume of final solution. This makes comparisons between solutions easy. The molality (m) measured the moles of solute per kilogram of solvent. This helps calculate colligative properties such as freezing point or boiling point of any solution. From the molarity, the number of Calories per gallon can be calculated. This can be converted to calories or to joules easily.

The results are in tabular form and interpolated into graphic form.

Table of Characteristics

The abstract below was submitted at the 6th Biennial International Hummingbird Banding Workshop held at Dan Brown’s “Hummer House” ranch near San Angelo, TX, during 2005.

Black-chinned Hummingbird Band Return Rates from Ingram, Kerr County, Texas.

Brent Ortego¹, and Artie and Hannie Richard²

¹Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2805 N. Navarro, Suite 600B, Victoria, TX 77901

²elfowl@omniglobal.net

Black-chinned Hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) were banded multiple times per week with “Bonnet”, and cage traps during the months March through September from 1996 to 2002 within a subdivision at Ingram, Kerr County, Texas. The banding site is comprised of a trailer park with ¼-acre (.1 ha) lots or smaller in park-like cedar/deciduous hardwood habitat, and is ½ mile (.8 km) from Johnson Creek and 2 miles (3.2 km) from the Guadalupe River. Initial date of banding was pooled for each month across 1996 through 2000. Black-chins were still captured and banded during 2001 and 2002, but the data was only used for tabulating recaptures. Thus, each banded bird in this report would have at least 2 years after banding to be recaptured. Percent recapture rates were calculated for monthly age and sex in the table. First number is percent recaptured and 2^nd number is sample size.

Site fidelity, survivorship and effects of migrants on the data set will be discussed.

BUFH R53318 and the gang of 30

Many of you know our team of banders manages the Land of Ortego - Zalk banding station near Raisin, Victoria County, TX.

Nancy Newfield captured a Buff-bellied Hummingbird (band # R53318) last week (2/14/07) in New Orleans, LA, that I originally banded on 19 May of 2002. This provided me an opportunity to re-visit the day of banding and check on what happened to the birds encountered on that day.

First, we run a banding station and band all birds captured with mist-nets; not just hummers. 19 May 2002 was an extraordinary day.

15 species, 76 newly banded and 28 recaptured.

Buff-bellied Hummingbirds were especially abundant this day as they stage at the Land of OZ banding station feeding on many hummingbird feeders while waiting for the Turk’s-caps to bloom in the area so they can disperse throughout their breeding grounds.

The “Gang of 30″ Buff-bellied caught on this day had an interesting history. Buff-bellies can typically be described as using the banding station in 4 primary styles: 1 = winter resident, 2 = seasonal migrant, 3 = summer resident, 4 = transient [The bird is presumed to be just a transient if we only caught it once]. Each BUFH can be within either of these 4 categories during May.

Of the 30 BUFHs, 9 were originally captured prior to 2002. Each of these birds had been captured at the Land of OZ from 3 to 29 times during their history with us. They visited us from 1 to 5 years. 8 were males and 5 of these were winter residents and 3 spring & fall migrants. The lone historic female was a spring and fall migrant. Within this group of returning males was a very special spring and fall migrant male that traveled to Lafayette each winter and spent the winter with Dave Patton who bands hummingbirds in Louisiana. He hosted this bird for two winters and I caught it before and after it traveled to Louisiana each winter. We lost tract of the bird for one year when the habitat of its winter home was modified. It came back to Raisin for another spring and fall after the one year of absence.

Of the 21 BUFHs that were originally caught during the spring of 2002:

Eight (transients?) were only observed during the 1st day of capture and these were all males. This is the category of the bird Nancy Newfield captured in New Orleans last week. It was only handed once at Raisin. The rest of the hummers were caught multiple times. Two of the 4 females banded multiple times were spring and fall migrants, 1 was a summer resident and 1 was a winter resident. Five of the males ended up being spring and fall migrants, 1 summered, and 1 wintered with us for 5 seasons and was captured 31 times.

This “Gang of 30″ has quite a resume and the information we gather through banding helps us learn more about the dynamics of the life history of the species in which we study. Its pretty spectacular that two of the birds we hosted on that day were later caught in Lousiana by other banders.

Brent Ortego

Buff-bellied Hummingbird Bill Color Variation by Age, Sex and Season

By Brent Ortego

Measurements of color variation in upper mandible of Buff-bellied Hummingbird (Amazilia yucatanensis) were taken from a population of 500 banded and 450 recaptured Buff-bellied Hummingbirds at Raisin, Victoria County, Texas from August 1995 through June 2001. This population was male dominated and was made up of 83% males. Adult Buff-bellied Hummingbirds normally have a red base and distal black tip on the upper mandible. The variation of color between sexes and ages has not been reported in the literature. Adult males in this study had at least 80% of upper mandible red during breeding season while adult females had 50-60% red. During winter there was overlap of percent red with adult males having from 40-60% and adult females 40-50%. Young of both sexes typically had no red until August with gradual increases until about 20% in November when the amount of red advanced fairly rapidly to where second year males had 40% red in January as compared to 60% in adult males. The color of second year birds was the same as adults by April. The sample size for second year females was too small to draw conclusions. Another difference between bill coloration in the sexes was that the upper mandible color of adult males was typically bright red while females was a duller blood red.