Archive for the ‘Hummingbirds’ Category

Banders: Brent & Sue Ortego, and Bron Rorex

This is our 3^rd trip of our 5^th season banding hummingbirds in the Texas Hill Country. We make 4 monthly trips during each breeding season. We caught hummingbirds and songbirds for 4 hours at each of 3 ranches during the weekend 7-8 June 2008

Winds ranging from 15-25 mph all weekend made capturing hummingbirds and songbirds very difficult. Capture rates of hummingbirds were very low this trip as compared to past years, and likely much of this was due to the weather. However, not all differences to past years can be explained by the weather.

We did not recapture enough birds from previous trips to be able to make reasonable estimates of the population this month.

Burditt Ranch, Leakey

Caught 239 in June 2006, 200 in June 2007, and 354 in May 2008. We caught 162 Black-chinned Hummingbirds on this trip: 32 adult and 45 immature males, and 59 adult and 26 immature females. We had 44% of the birds as young with only 28% in 2007 and 22% in 2006. Only 35% of the adults were male this month as compared to 54% in 2007 and 42% in 2006.

46% of adult females showed evidence of having nested while 75% did in 2007 and 85% in 2006.

Ranch fed 3.86 gallons per day the week prior to banding in June.

Matter Ranch, Comfort

Caught 65 in June 2006, 104 in June 2007, and 136 in May 2008. We caught 52 Black-chins on this trip: 21 adult and 8 immature males and 22 adult and 1 immature female. We had 17% of the hummingbirds as young with only 4% in 2006 and 2007. 49% of the adults were male this month as compared to 50% in 2006 and 2007.

55% of the adult females showed evidence of having nested while 90% did in 2007 and 74% in 2006.

Ranch fed 1.75 gallons per day the week before banding in June.

Wiedenfeld Ranch, Comfort

Caught 102 in June 2006, 310 in June 2007, and 332 in May 2008. We caught 44 Black-chins on this trip: 5 adult and 10 immature males, and 25 adult and 4 immature females. We had 32% of the hummingbirds as young with only 3% young in 2007. Males represented only 17% of the adults as compared to 44% in 2007 and 35% in 2006.

64% of the adult females showed evidence of having nested while 64% did in 2007 and 92% did in 2006.

Ranch fed 1.88 gallons per day the week before June banding.

Summary:

With low catches caused by the weather, we can only guess as to what is happening and likely will have to wait until our last banding session at the end of June to make any conclusions on production in 2008.

Evidence of nesting females were considerably lower than past years, but percent young higher than normal. Adult males appeared to already be leaving for the year. We did notice a few adult males and one adult females already going through body molt indicating the breeding season for these birds was done and they were getting ready for migration. Some individual hummingbirds molt before migrating south while others will wait until they get to the winter grounds.

While there might have been other factors affecting catch rate, our story will be that the weather caused the low catch.

SONGBIRDS

We spent more time catching songbirds this trip because of low numbers of hummers being brought to the banding tables.

We banded 23 songbirds at the Wiedenfeld Ranch and 121 at the Matter Ranch. Young birds made up a high percentage of the catch indicating nesting was going well for them.

Of particular interest were the 23 Purple Martins we banded at the Matter Ranch. These birds were individually banded with color bands that are readable with spotting scopes. This allows us to identify the birds without having to capture them again and should make it easier for us to learn more about the martins. This martin banding is part of a larger study sponsored by the Purple Martin Conservation Association where attempts are made to band 2,000 Purple Martins per year in Texas with the same protocol.

We spent a good part of Sunday morning watching the young martins in the picture above that left the nest early being fed by the parents.

There is obviously much more to these trips than just the banding. We are participating with some very wildlife conscious landowners that treat their guests very well with their time, food and facilities.

We used 2 Russell Traps (mist-net tent) at the Burditt Ranch and caught 354 BCHU.  They are feeding 4 gallons of sugar water per day with a large bee population consuming an unknown portion of the food.  We estimated the population at this site to be 2500 based on the ratio of recaptures to new birds.

We used 1 Russell Trap, 1 Hall Trap (drop trap), and 2 passive 6-meter mist-nets at Matter Ranch and caught 137 hummers and 64 songbirds.  They are providing 1 gallon of sugar water per day and we estimate they are feeding about 800 hummingbirds.

We used 2 Russells and 1 Hall trap at the Wiedenfeld Ranch and caught 333 hummers while they were feeding 2 gallons of sugar water per day.  We estimate they are feeding about 1350 Black-chins.

Many females (40%) had worn tail tips from feeding young or eggs visible within their bodies.  Seven young hummers were caught which is just the beginning of this year’s crop of hummers.  Ruby-throats were passing through in small numbers.

We caught a hummingbird wearing somebody else’s band at the Burditt Ranch and we are checking to determine its history.  We also caught one of Sue Wiedenfeld’s birds taking advantage of the hummer resources on the Matter Ranch which is about 7 miles across the hills.

SPECIES                                                BURDITT              MATTER              WIEDENFELD

BCHU male                                            190                          82                            149

BCHU female                                        164                          54                            183

Ruby-throat                                          0                              1                              1

Golden-fronted Woodpecker                 0                              1                              0

Ladder-backed Woodpecker                 0                              1                              0

B-c Titmouse                                       0                              4                              0

Chipping Sparrow                                0                              3                              0

Field Sparrow                                      0                              5                              0

Lark Sparrow                                      0                              2                              0

N. Cardinal                                          0                              8                              0

Painted Bunting                                  0                              9                              0

House Finch                                       0                              15                            0

Lesser Goldfinch                                0                              20                            0
 
 
Brent Ortego
near Raisin, TX

Our team of banders will be visiting cooperating landowners with mega feeding stations during the breeding season again this year. We will be visiting our good friends Bob & Sudie Burditt near Leakey in Real County, Annie & Corky Matter and Egon & Sue Widenfeld near Comfort in Kendall County once each month. We will also be visiting Dan and Cathy Brown’s Hummer House in Tom Green County during June. Our main focus will be continuing research on Black-chinned Hummingbird site fidelity and breeding success. We will also be banding songbirds at these sites and at other conservation areas.

Our first trip was made by Brent & Sue Ortego from 12-13 April 2008. Temperature ranged from 40-75 during each day with 15-25 mph north winds. We conducted 4-hour banding sessions at each ranch which is what is usually done each year. We used 2 modified Russell Traps at Burditt Ranch, 1 modified Russell & 1 Hall Trap and 2 6-meter nets at Matter Ranch, and 2 modified Russell & 1 Hall Trap, and 1 6-meter net at Widenfeld Ranch.

We caught:

BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRDS

Artied and Hanna Richard originally banded at these ranches from 2000 - 2002 and we are still recapturing some of the birds they originally banded. Our research started in 2004.

One exciting band return during this trip was a female originally banded at Matter Ranch in 2006, recaptured there in 2007 and recaptured this year at Burditt Ranch which is about 50 miles SW of Comfort. We will be looking for this female to determine if she stayed at Burditt or continued her migration to Matter.

Burditt Ranch

We banded 99 males and recaptured 25 from previous years, and banded 50 females and recaptured 27 females during the morning. Female return rates are consistently higher than males and this ranch is feeding almost 2 gallons of sugar water per day.

Matter Ranch

We banded 54 males and recaptured 17, and banded 29 females and recaptured 16 in the afternoon. This ranch is feeding about ½ gallon per day.

Wiedenfeld Ranch

We banded 49 males and recaptured 22, and banded 31 females and recaptured 34 in the morning. This ranch is feeding about ½ gallon per day.

RECAPTURES

About the same number of birds are banded each year and number recaptured gives us an indication of survival and site fidelity at each of the ranches. Survival of Black-chins by studies like this one at mega feeding stations are showing that small hummingbirds survive much longer than previously believed. Banding results from this first trip of the season was very similar to 2007. There is a noticeable reduction in recaptures at every ranch during the 2^nd year following banding which is either mortality or dispersal related.

We again would like to thank our Ranch Host for their providing food and lodging during our trip, their management of our hummingbird resources and their special friendship.

The 2007-2008 winter season finished with the lowest number of captured hummingbirds since the winter of 2000-2001 (Land of Ortego/Zalk Winter Hummingbirds/); a year when we only maintained 50 feeders. Today, we manage 75 hummingbird feeders during winter and consistently net 9 times during each winter to capture hummers and other wintering birds. Thanks are extended to Susan Heath, Sue Ortego, Bron Rorex and Suzie Ross who assisted with banding.

Buff-bellied Hummingbirds continued to be the most abundant species at the banding station with 51 individuals captured which is close to normal levels. Rufous was the 2^nd most abundant with 19 which is about the normal number for a bad winter and about ½ of what is expected during good winters. There were 6 Black-chins which is well below average, 5 Ruby-throats which is below average, and 4 Allen’s & Broad-tails which is what is expected.

Buff-bellies had 18 new birds for the yard and 33 returning veterans. Eight were originally banded during 2006, 12 from 2005, 5 from 2004, 3 from 2003 and 5 from 2002 or earlier. Our most frequently captured Buff-bellied (band # R57800) continued on his habit of being captured by visiting the banding table 7 of the 9 netting sessions. Y44101 who is the “Old Man” (11 years old) of the yard during winter made an appearance in September and October, but was not captured since. The banding station appears to be saturated with Buff-bellies during winter.

Rufous was the 2^nd most abundant with 11 new birds and 8 veterans. This is the 4^th most we have had during winter and is well below expected numbers, but not part of an apparent long term decline for this site. Two veterans were from 2006, 3 from 2005, 2 from 2004 and 1 from 2003.

Only 6 Black-chins were captured and this is well below expected numbers. This is the 2^nd winter in a row of below average numbers for this species. Only 1 bird was new for the yard, and 5 were veterans; 1 from 2006, 3 from 2005 and 1 from 2002. Our team bands significant numbers of Black-chins in the Texas Hill Country during summer and there is no apparent lack of reproduction from this population. The only foreign Black-chinned recapture we have during winter on the Texas Coast is from a population in the Rocky Mountains and we wonder if this is the source for our winter birds. One bander, Susan Wethington, noted below average reproduction for western Black-chins this summer.

Five new Ruby-throats were banded this winter. We have never had a returning winter Ruby-throat at this site. In general, there was a more westward migration of Ruby-throats this fall and the migration at the Land of OZ finished earlier than expected. A Ruby-throat for only the 2^nd time was known to survive the winter here.

We caught 5 Allen’s with one being a veteran from last year. This is the expected number for this species.

We caught 4 Broad-tails with two originally banded in 2006 and one in 2005. This is twice the number nearly captured at this site.

We did not capture any Calliope or Anna’s Hummingbirds this winter which was very disappointing. A few Anna’s were reported along the Coast, but Calliope’s were extremely rare this winter.

The banding station continues to be a very significant site for wintering hummingbirds in the eastern United States. Data on returning species provide information on their life history.

So, why did we have lower numbers? The winter had about the same number of freezing days as in past years, but was generally warmer. We maintained 75 feeders as in the past, and the habitat did not significantly change in our area. We do not believe weather was a factor. Our best guess is that the populations supporting our winter grounds had poor reproduction last summer. Our returning veteran numbers are about the same as past years. Further banding and research may reveal the answer.

Winter banding data since we started maintaining at least 70 feeders occurs below. First Number = total individuals captured; Second Number = total returning veterans.

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…)

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.