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.

Winter hummingbird banding near Raisin started in 1995 on our 2-acre lot. We initially trapped and mist-netted hummers in the vicinity of the house where we maintained a dozen feeders during winter. We caught about 1 dozen different hummers each winter and we were proud of this high density of wintering hummingbirds for this location.

Perky Pet donated to us numerous small feeders in 1999 for use in our field research and we expanded the number of feeders and the area we managed during the winter to 30 feeders on 4-acres. The 4-acres took in areas much larger than just our yard. It required acquisition and managment of an adjoining 2-acres of undeveloped land that was mostly brush and vines. We caught 29 hummers during the winter and this started our research on high density of feeders during winter.

In 2000, we added additional feeders during the winter for a total of 50. Well, we caught 62 hummers that winter.

We decided to increase the number of feeders and improve the style of feeders. We went with a different brand that we purchased to minimize bee problems we were having with the small feeders which tended to leak. We installed and maintained 70 feeders during 2001 and the number of hummers we were catching during the winter greatly increased. The response of the hummingbirds to the large number of feeders in areas of just deciduous brush and vines was phenomenal. It dramatically changed our perspective of what was suitable hummingbird habitat, and what you needed to provide to over winter hummingbirds.

We will be sharing with you some of this information in the coming months as we make time to post results from our research.

In the meantine, another winter season has started and we will be sampling The Land of Ortego-Zalk bird banding station bi-weekly with mist-nets for hummingbirds. We will post results after each session.

Data from previous years can be found below.

 This is the first in a series of questions where we are going to try to use bird banding data to firm up answers.  Data from The Texas Bird Banding Team will be used to address questions.

Question One.  Do western hummingbirds which survive the winter in Southeast arrive earlier on their wintering grounds in subsequent years?

General observations indicate hummingbirds do arrive earlier during each year following the first winter.  The belief is that first year birds which are the ones that are pioneering wintering in the Southeast do considerable wandering before they find a place to winter.  It is logical to assume that they will spend less time wandering in future years and will likely return to their wintering site earlier.  Is this fact or do we just remember the ones who arrive early?  Let’s see what the data from the Land of Ortego - Zalk bird banding station shows since this is a constant effort bird banding station where capture effort is the same from year to year.

Hummingbird Arrival Date Deviations

The Rufous Hummingbird is the classic western hummer which is most likely to visit homes in Texas.

RUHU

Males = 4 recaptures later and 9 recaptures earlier than original banding

Averages 25 days earlier; early arrivals = 39 days; later arrivals = 8

Females = 3 recaptures later and 13 recaptures earlier than original banding

Averages 32 days earlier; early arrivals = 56 days; later arrivals = 66 days

Overall, the Rufous appears to arrive earlier to winter in years following first banding.  The classical pattern is shown from one bird who arrived 13 days earlier than original banding date in its 2^nd year, 24 days earlier in its 3^rd year, and 49 day earlier in its 4^th year.  However, there is variation to this pattern and some birds just like to be different.  One bird in our study showed up at the same date as original banding in the 2^nd year, 26 days later in the third year and 11 days earlier in the 4^th year.

* * *

What about other western species?

ALHU

There is not enough returning birds for this uncommon winter species to break it down by sex.  5 birds were recaptured during the year after banding; 4 arrived earlier and one 8 days later.

Average of 28 days earlier than original date of banding one year later.

This is pretty similar to the pattern used by Rufous.

CAHU

One recapture male 57 days earlier than date of banding.

While Calliope’s are almost as common as Allen’s, not many return to the same site to winter in following years.  The exception is the data from the bird above.  This male returned for 5 years.

BTLH

One recapture male 6 days later than date of banding

Same could be said for the Broad-tailed as for the Calliope.

General summary for all species is that returning early to winter the year following first arrival by western breeding hummers is fairly common, but not consistent with all individuals.

* * *

What about a species which breeds locally in small numbers, has numerous individuals pass through in migration, and has a larger population which winters.  Would it have similar patterns as those species breeding to the northwest?

BUFH

Male = 15 arriving later and 18 arriving earlier

Late arrivers average 28 days later; early arrivals average 29 days early

There are some males with plus and minus arrival times as shown by one male which showed up 8 days earlier than date of banding in 2^nd year, but 51 days later in 3^rd year and 36 days earlier in 4^th year.

Females = 1 earlier and 2 later than original date of banding.

There is no predominant strategy to arrive earlier or later than first capture date with the Buff-bellied.

What about Black-chinned which marginally breeds in the area, but is primarily a migrant with a dozen or so birds wintering each year.

BCHU

Male = All 5 arrived earlier than first banding with an average of 31 days early.

Female = 10  arrived earlier and 3 arrived later than original banding date.  Early birds were 41 days before banding date and late birds were 48 days late on average.  Mean for all females were 20 days early.

* * *

DISCUSSION:  Adding to the variation in this data set is that the banding station is only 6 acres and there are residences nearby which feed hummers, so birds might return to the same wintering site to them, but might not be the same as the banding station.  They could be wintering in the neighborhood, but not just going back into the war zone with high density feeders and hummingbirds.  As a general rule, we do not try to catch hummers near the banding station.  However, we did document one BTLH we banded wintering the next year at our neighbors and a Calliope wintering in Houston instead of returning to Raisin.

Thus, it is fairly safe to presume that western breeding hummers wintering on the Texas Coast will likely return earlier the 2^nd year to winter, except for Buff-bellied.

The 107^th CBC edition was recently mailed by National Audubon Society. It includes several very good articles and the normal summaries for each state, and the highest counts of individual species (national highs). Many birders only look at the species tally for each count as a measure of its success. However, as a biologist I am more impressed with the number of high counts of each species a CBC reports as a measure of its value to birds.

I receive the 5 highest tallies of each species from Audubon to write the National High article each year. Texas did well in acquiring national highs; trailing only California in this category. Texas posted 437 records in the top 5 counts of each species with 69 CBCs representing Texas. Mad Island again led the nation with the most species National Highs with 29. It also had 16 2^nd places, 9 3rds, 9 4ths and 7 5^th places. Texas’s 2^nd best CBC forVswas Anzalduas-Bentsen. This CBC produced 9 1^st, 10 2^nd, 7 3^rd, 7 4^th & 2 5^th. Third place went to Santa Ana who posted 10 1^st, 6 2^nd, 7 3^rd, 1 4^th & 1 5^th. Fourth in Texas was Freeport 3 1^st, 5 2^nd, 8 3^rd, 3 4^th & 4 5^th. Tied for 5^th was Guadalupe River Delta and Weslaco with 22 Top 5 Finishes.

There is a definite trend of highest tallies being along the central coast and in the Valley. However, many CBCs scattered across Texas posted at least one Top V finish. Scroll through the list below and see how your count did. Get a copy of the American Birds 107th CBC edition and enjoy the stories. Hope to see you this winter on Texas CBCs.

Brent Ortego

Read the rest of this entry »