Archive for June, 2007
.birdlife.org
2007 IUCN Red List Category (as evaluated by BirdLife International - the official Red List Authority for birds for IUCN): Near Threatened
Family/Sub-family Apodidae
Species name author (Gmelin, 1789)
Taxonomic source(s) Dowsett and Forbes-Watson (1993), Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993)
Summary Collocalia francica breeds colonially in caves and lava tunnels3 in RĂ©union (to France) and Mauritius. In the 1970s, the species was much less common on RĂ©union than Mauritius4.
Recent discoveries on RĂ©union of several large colonies indicate that the population has since increased substantially5 to over 10,000 mature individuals2,8, including a small number of sites with more than 1,500 birds1,5,7. On Mauritius, numbers have declined markedly in the last century, continuing through the last 20 years, with surveys in the 1990s indicating habitation of 34 caves, but complete removal of birds from a further 19. The population was estimated to be a minimum of 2,244-2,610 birds9. Collection for birds’ nest soup and vandalism of caves are the principle threats on Mauritius5,6. In an extreme case, the entrance of one cave has been completely filled in6. On RĂ©union, proposed development of canyoning and caving tourism may threaten some colonies, and protected areas may be needed8.
Important Bird Areas Click here to view map showing IBAs where species is recorded, including sites where the species does not meet any IBA criteria.
References 1. Barré et al. (1996). 2. V. Bretagnolle in litt. (1999). 3. Cheke (1987c). 4. Cheke (1987b). 5. A. Cheke verbally (2000). 6. C. Jones in litt. (2000). 7. Le Corre and Safford (2001). 8. M. Le Corre in litt. (1999). 9. G. Middleton per C. Jones in litt. (2000).
Text account compilers Rachel McClellan (BirdLife International), Andrew O’Brien (BirdLife International)
IUCN Red List evaluators Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International), Alison Stattersfield (BirdLife International)
Recommended citation BirdLife International (2007) Species factsheet: Collocalia francica. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 29/6/2007
This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, and BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.
To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife
To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife’s Globally Threatened Bird Forums
June 29th, 2007
accessmylibrary.com
COPYRIGHT 2007 Wilson Ornithological Society
Observations of birds laying eggs in nests of other species are of interest because this behavior, when timed appropriately and directed at nests where parents fail to recognize foreign eggs and offspring, may be the starting point for evolution of interspecific brood parasitism.
Other explanations for this behavior are nest usurpation and egg-dumping, which is the deposition of an egg into another species’ nest without any specific adaptive function. We collected video footage of a Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) laying an egg in an active Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) nest containing nine-day-old nestlings at Hastings Natural History Reservation, Carmel Valley, California (36[degrees] 22′ N, 121[degrees] 34′ W). Nest boxes have been monitored at Hastings and nearby ranches as part of a long-term study of Western Bluebirds since 1983 (Dickinson et al. 1996). Western Bluebirds are the primary box-nesting species at this study site, but other secondary cavity nesters use nest boxes at lower frequencies, including Ash-throated Flycatchers (Myiarchus cinerascens), Oak Titmice (Baeolophus inornatus), House Wrens (Troglodytes aedon), Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) and Violet-green Swallows (Table 1).
We conducted a study of parental feeding behaviors during spring 2005 using video to identify patterns of resource allocation within the nest. The day before filming we replaced the natal nest box and nest material with a box of the same dimensions containing a Western Bluebird nest, but with a Plexiglas side to accommodate the camera. A video camera and small LED light were positioned within a sleeve connected…
June 28th, 2007
environment.newscientist.com
00:01 28 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic
Birds in Chernobyl choose to nest in sites with lower levels of background radioactivity, researchers discover, but how they can tell remains a mystery.
Anders Møller at Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France, and Tim Mousseau at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, US, erected more than 200 nest boxes in the Red Forest, about 3 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor that exploded in 1986.
Using these artificial nests, they studied at the nesting habits of two species of birds – the great tit Parus major and the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca – between 2002 and 2003.
Moller and Mousseau wanted to see if either species would differentiate between nesting sites that had high and low levels of background radioactivity. The patchy distribution of background radioactivity in the area (due to the fact that radioactive material from the explosion did not settle uniformly) meant the nest boxes could be in very similar locations, with similar food supplies, but have widely varying levels of background radioactivity. Levels at some nest sites were as much as 2000 times natural levels elsewhere in the world.
Deformed sperm
The researchers found that both species had a definite preference for nest boxes with low radioactivity, with the pied flycatcher seemingly more sensitive than the great tit (see chart, bottom right).
Previous research done by Mousseau and colleagues (Trends in Ecology and Evolution, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.008) showed that higher radioactivity results in lower levels of antioxidants and also deformed sperm in barn swallows around Chernobyl. It therefore makes sense for birds to avoid more radioactive sites.
“It is not entirely clear exactly how the birds are able to tell which boxes are most contaminated”, says Mousseau, adding that determining this will be very difficult without experimental manipulations.
Wildlife boom
A spokesperson for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds told New Scientist that the study is interesting, but points out the unexpected benefits of the Chernobyl explosion. Reports show that the large human exclusion zone around the site has led to a boom in animal populations, including eagles, wolves and bears.
“Whatever effect the radioactivity is having, it seems to be less of a threat than human activities, such as agriculture,” said the spokesperson.
“There have been few rigorous scientific analyses of background radiation and the natural abundance of species,” responds Mousseau. “But every rock we turn over, every survey we do, we find some previously unreported effect of background radiation.”
Immigrant influx
Mousseau believes that the reports of sustained animal populations around Chernobyl mask fluctuations within the populations.
He says studies he has carried out looking at where the barn swallow populations in Chernobyl come from suggest that “the populations are mostly sustained by immigrant birds”, rather than birds returning to their nesting sites as they normally would.
So an overall picture showing constant population size could hide the fact that the local population is dwindling but being constantly replenished by neighbouring ones.
Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society: B (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0005)
Endangered species - Learn more about the conservation battle in our comprehensive special report.
The Nuclear Age - Learn more about all things nuclear in our explosive special report.
June 27th, 2007
personal.umich.edu
Authentic bird’s nest soup is made using the nests of the swiftlet, a tiny bird found throughout southeast Asia. The swiftlet lives in dark caves, using a method of echolocation similar to the bat to get around. Instead of twigs and straw, the swiftlet makes its nest from strands of its own gummy saliva, which hardens when exposed to air. Humans who harvest the swiftlet nests often come from families that have made their living this way for generations. Prying the nests from the cave walls is extremely dangerous, and many harvesters die each year.
Once the nests are harvested, they are cleaned and sold to restaurants, where they are served simmered in chicken broth. While I have never tried authentic bird’s nest soup, apparently it is an acquired taste - many westerners think it tastes quite rubbery the first time they try it. However it is quite popular throughout Asia, perhaps because it has the reputation of being an aphrodisiac. It is also costly; many western restaurants serve a less expensive version consisting of soup with noodles shaped to resemble a bird’s nest.
June 26th, 2007
Rhinelander Daily News, WI - 3 hours ago
TIGERTON, Wis. - A handful of swallow nests might hold up construction work on a Shawano County bridge indefinitely.
Work on the Tigerton bridge was scheduled to begin Monday. But on Friday the contractor found a number of nests on the structure’s underside, causing a delay until state officials could decide how to work around the federally protected nests.
ADVERTISEMENT
Officials didn’t expect to find nests because county workers had installed nets in early April to prevent birds from nesting there, said County Highway Commissioner Randy Zastrow.
“It’s an unusual situation,” he said. “There was a hole in the netting, but whether it was weather-related or vandalism, we don’t know.”
Federal law prohibits destruction of the nests. So construction has been delayed until the county gets permission from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
“It’s day by day,” Zastrow said. “I’ve been checking my e-mails every half hour to find out.”
Officials could have several options. Adult birds will usually leave on their own once construction begins, Zastrow said, but if there are young birds in the nests, workers may need to wait for them to fly out.
Baby birds could also be removed to a shelter, he added.
“There’s probably three or four alternative ways that they can go,” Zastrow said. “Unless politically someone gets involved, I don’t foresee a big delay.”
Even if the $580,000 project is held up, the contractor might still be able to make progress.
“They can’t disturb the swallows, but they’ve got other work that they can do,” Zastrow said.
Information from: Shawano Leader, http://www.shawanoleader.com
A service of the Associated Press(AP)
June 25th, 2007
roweb.cityu.edu.hk
Principal Investigator
Dr. CHEUNG, Hon Yeung
Associate Professor, Department of Biology and Chemistry
Stage of Technology Transfer: Commercially viable technology
Research Area: Life science ─ biotechnology
Â
Background
Edible bird’s nest (EBN) is essentially the tiny nest woven by Swallows or Collocalia (Apodidae) from gelatinous strands of the bird’s saliva mixed with minor feathers or botanic substances. The birds build their nests wherever they like but mainly on the top of sea caves. Since it contains some of the essential glyconutrients and epidermal growth factors, it is a nourishing food and a booster of health. Southeast Asian people consume it because it promotes tissue and cellular growth as well as speeding up recovery from illness.
Â
Description
Instant bird’s nest is the processed food of bird’s nest ready for immediate consumption. It is a functional food product of bird’s nest based on modern food manufacturing technology. Like other instant foods, such as processed noodles, fruit or dairy products, it has to meet certain legislative criteria. Therefore, a system of quality assurance and protocols of quality control for the entire manufacturing process are critical. From time to time, some manufacturers or dealers get prosecuted by the government because of an inability to meet official standards. Consequently, they are treated as possessing or selling fake instant EBN. We have developed some advanced analytical techniques and formulation strategies to help the manufacturing sector to produce instant EBN that meets the legislative requirements. We can also help people to analyze the authenticity of a bird’s nest product based on an array of scientific methods
Uniqueness and Competitive Advantages
contemporary manufacturing methods adopted by some businessmen are non-scientific and irrational. Even though real bird’s nests are used in the manufacturing process, some important components may be masked or destroyed. Our scientific experience and advice on the manufacture of instant bird’s nest could help customers overcome all problems that may arise during manufacturing.
by adoption of our quality assurance system and protocols of quality control, these products will be assured to meet the official requirements that give customers a peace of mind once the products are launched in the market.
our scientific and rational approach could enhance customers’ competitive strength in the international market.
Â
Applications
offer advice and auditing services for the entire manufacturing process of instant bird’s nest products
scientific analysis and development of instant bird’s nest products
authentic study of materials for use in instant bird’s nest products
provide legal opinions and suggestions relevant to instant bird’s nest products
June 21st, 2007
publish.csiro.au/
MK Tarburton
Abstract
The White-rumped Swiftlet Aerodramus spodiopygius chillagoensis was studied during a good and a poor season at Chillagoe, Queensland. Most of the nests were in totally dark sections of caves where a single nest and colonies containing 4-264 nests were visited.
The clutch of one was incubated for an average of 26.6 days during the better season when 64% of eggs hatched successfully. Lost clutches or young broods were usually replaced within 14 days. Fledging success in the good season was 69% giving a breeding success of 44% or 0.9 young fledged from the two broods of a breeding pair. In the poor season incubation took 27.8 days, hatching success was 60%, fledging success was 50% and the nestling period had increased from 46.1 days in the better year to 51.0 days in the poor year. While the fledging rate for the single-egg clutch of chillagoensis is well below that of the two-egg clutch of A. s. assimilis, the unique practice of laying a second single-egg clutch for the first chick to incubate, increases the breeding rate in good seasons to almost that of arsimih. There is no sexual dimorphism and both sexes share in incubation and feeding nestlings. Chicks were fed an average of 5.2 times a day. Most chick mortality resulted from the chicks falling from their nests, while the major ectoparasites (louse-flies) are thought to be unimportant to survival. Even though immediate energy demands were increased by synchronising moult and breeding, the length of time to complete the moult of primaries was as short as any apodid studied so far and is shorter than some that moult independently of breeding.
June 20th, 2007
AllAfrica.com, Washington - 15 hours ago
Mallards Bite Off More Than They Can Chew
By Michael Givant, Email- Givant@adelphi.edu
Until last summer mallards had always seemed placid and boring. Then I began to notice a few in the condo pond where we live. In the early morning when the water’s surface was smooth as glass and shafts of yellow light fell on tall, tan reeds, some male mallards, with their distinctive green heads and yellow bills, were slowly swimming between reeds cut to water level.
They dabbed at the water sticking their heads beneath the surface and coming up with black seed balls in their bills. One took a dozen short fast bites and swallowed leaving its throat quivering. A juvenile allowed a ball to roll to the tip of its bill a few times until it finally rolled into the water. Another seemed to chomp down working the seed ball back toward its throat but it fell into the water. Yet another had a seed ball on the tip of its bill chomping down in more of a pushing manner than a chewing one. Why were they having difficulty swallowing these balls?
Now boredom had turned to curiosity about what and how they ate. Finding some seed balls attached to fallen branches on the ground, which looked exactly like those in the pond, I soaked them for a few days. The balls remained as hard and rough textured as when I had found them. How could the mallards swallow this stuff? No wonder they kept dropping the balls. I was as hooked on knowing what moves they used to swallow these balls as they were on eating them.
I watched the mallards for many hours throughout the summer. Sometimes they were at rest and other times they plucked balls from the water, dropping them back in and finally downing them. When they ate, they ate fast and determining what was a move required patience. However I noted three distinct moves when they were having difficulty swallowing: 1) A fast nip, nip, nip motion accompanied by rolling the ball back towards their throat, 2) Tilting their bills and finally 3) Jerking back their head. Any one or a combination of these moves would finally result in swallowing.
A few weeks after I thought that I had their moves down pat, two mallards showed new moves that were even more exaggerated. A green-headed male struggled so with a seed ball that I wondered if he would choke. Since ducks don’t do Heimlich maneuvers and none came to aid him, he was on his own. Opening his mouth the drake exposed a tongue, which was thinner and shorter than I expected, then shook its head vigorously side to side. No dice. Finally he pushed his head back and jerked his neck up and down quickly like a pump. Down went the seed ball. Then he looked around with nonchalance belying the difficulty he’d just had. Was he showing the others that he was the Alpha male mallard? Was he trying to attract a female with those powerful neck muscles?
Not to be outdone, a nearby female also displayed two new moves. She tilted her head slightly to one side and then to the other. Was she simply trying to ease her throat after a rough swallow? Was she showing off her appealing profile for the males? Or was she displaying to the females that she was the Alpha female?
One morning they displayed an exciting attraction that I never dreamed mallards possessed. All eleven resident mallards began to swim toward the front of the pond bypassing a frog in their path whose eyes were bulging. They didn’t all start at once but a feeding frenzy was in progress. All the mallards were plucking seedballs from the water. A female seemingly had one stuck in her throat; another with its tail up was digging deep in the water for a ball; two mallards side by side were so close and were chewing so fast that they were off focus in my birding scope. A female came up on the grass, turned around, shook her tail in a gauzy blur of white, brown and blue, then returned to the water.
Some minutes later the orgy was over. The mallards swam away having been so wrapped up in feeding, that some had weeds wrapped around their bodies, others had some dangling from their heads and one had a strand hanging around its neck like a Christmas wreath. The lone frog that had witnessed this spectacle looked shocked as they headed to shore. I was wiped out watching their frenetic exertions.
The mallards rested on shore where they would remain for a long time as their gizzards, using great pressure, crushed the seed balls. I watched, enjoying the warm sun on my face, realizing how little I knew about these birds. What I did know is that I would never think of mallards or ducks as mundane or boring again.
A year later I still have no real idea if those seed balls were a departure from their regular diet of pondweed and seeds or if their exaggerated moves were routine or an adaptation to difficult- to-swallow food. I’ve already begun to watch the few that are here. This morning one paddled toward me and came out of the water onto the grass. As it clambered onto shore, its smooth black crown and green cheeks turned to a satiny violet in the strong morning sunlight. Look at those cheek pouches! I never noticed them before. Bettcha this guy doesn’t have a problem biting off more than he can chew.
June 19th, 2007
The Daily Yomiuri, Japan - 12 hours ago
The Yomiuri Shimbun
A private group that observes swallows has discovered the birds begin building nests simultaneously in three regions each year, a finding that challenges the established theory that their nest-building areas move north as the temperature rises.
The regions are in eastern and western Japan divided by a line connecting Chiba and Niigata prefectures, and Kyushu. Until now, it had been assumed areas where swallows begin building nests go northward across the Japanese archipelago as temperatures rise, and a line called the “swallow front” would move northward gradually.
However, findings of the group, Tsubame Kansatsu Zenkoku Network, or national network of swallow observers, might pull the rug from under this theory.
The network examined the times and places where the swallows began building nests each year. About 630 cases over three years were reported to the network.
According to the network, swallows begin building nests in Kyushu in the middle of February. In the region west of the line between Chiba and Niigata prefectures, nest-building begins between the middle of March and the first half of April. In the region east of the line including Hokkaido, nest-building begins about one month later, or in the first half or latter half of April.
A nest-building front was not observed in any of the three regions. There does not seem to be a relationship between nest-building time and temperatures that influence the emergence of insects the swallows eat, the network said.
“There hasn’t been any reliable nationwide research on the issue. It would be interesting if the [swallow] front doesn’t exist,” said Assistant Prof. Go Fujita at Tokyo University’s School of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
June 18th, 2007
TheHorse.com, KY - Jun 13, 2007
by: Multiple Authors
June 13 2007 Article # 9786
With a resident entomologist as its owner, Windrose Stables, a boarding facility in central California, was armed against insects, but biting stable, horse, and deerflies continued to be a serious problem.
The number of manure-associated flies was also increasing. Manure flies serve as intermediate hosts for roundworms (Habronema muscae) and can transmit diseases. As Windrose is an organic farm, owners Erin Borden, PhD (entomology), and Mark Borden, MD, were unwilling to use pesticides. They tried sticky tape, attractant traps, parasitoids (insects whose larvae are parasites that eventually kill their hosts–in this case, the unwanted flies), and manure management strategies, but frequent application of citronella spray was still required to prevent hair loss and continuous irritation to the farm’s horses and mules.
In their fourth year at the farm, the Bordens erected a free-standing nesting box intended to attract bluebirds. Before the box was introduced there were no cavity nesting birds on the property, although one pair of Western Bluebirds (Sialia mexicana) had been using the tack shed as a “base of operations,” and they had been seen eating insects around the pipe pens.
The Bordens made the box from some remnant vinyl fence post, and erected it on a 10-foot section of one-inch galvanized electrical conduit (see figure 1). The box was seven feet above the ground. On the same day that it was erected, a pair of Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) moved into the box. The box was located a few feet from the riding arena, and it was easily observed. The bird fledged three sets of nestlings in the first season.
A dozen Tree Swallows were in competition for the nest box the following spring. The Bordens constructed six other identical boxes, assembly-line style, and erected these in a line, about ten meters apart. Swallows were entering the boxes as the owners were pushing the conduit into the soft Davis, Calif., clay soil. All seven of the nestboxes were occupied within a week. Tree Swallows eat only insects, and at this point the Bordens had recruited quite a squadron of insect-eating birds.
The pair of Western Bluebirds was seen entering the original nestbox the next spring (the Borden’s sixth year on the farm), but the Tree Swallow pair was also attempting to occupy the box, and an intense competition arose. The vinyl arena fence was only a few feet away, and, although lower to the ground, an existing hollow post was easily modified to form a comfortable “fencebox.” Within a day the Bluebirds were busy constructing a tightly woven grass nest within the post. Construction of this fencebox was much quicker than the pole type, at less than five minutes per box, and the Bordens constructed 27 additional boxes within the next week (see figure 2). The boxes were spread across the pasture and perimeter fence as well. Within the first week three pairs of Tree Swallows, and another Bluebird pair had taken up residence. These boxes transformed an attractive–but environmentally neutral–vinyl fence into a lasting, wildlife-enhancing asset.
That year and the following year, without changing the number of horses on the property or introducing other fly control measures, the aerial fly population was visibly reduced.
Several of the boarders noticed the decrease in flies, and one asked the Bordens what had been done to cure the fly problem.
Nestbox Design
The size of the entrance hole is possibly the most important factor in determining which species of bird will occupy fenceboxes. For Western Bluebirds and Tree Swallows, a 1.5-inch diameter hole is ideal. If the hole is 1 5/8 inches or larger in size, a European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) may be able to enter. If Mountain Bluebirds (Sialia currucoides) are found in your area, a 1 9/16-inch hole might be ideal. House Sparrows (Passer domesticus) can also enter the 1.5-inch hole and might occupy some boxes.
The sparrows will likely occupy the boxes that are closest to the barn, because, unlike the swallows, they cannot outfly an aerial predator such as a Coopers Hawk (Accipiter cooperi), and they must rely on cover to escape. Sparrows also prefer a box with a larger volume, so placing the opening slightly lower on the post, or decreasing the box volume by using more cedar shavings or a thicker floor material will also decrease their tendency to compete with the swallows and bluebirds. Having a few pairs of House Sparrows around the barn is likely to be beneficial, as they will eat insects and clean up spilled grain, thus competing with any rodents that might try to move in.
Nestbox Construction
Constructing a nestbox within a hollow vinyl fence post is a quick and easy task.
The caps along the top of the fence posts are glued in place, but a gentle tap will generally remove them without damage.
First create a fencebox floor by using two, two-inch small-diameter stainless screws at the level of the top of the second rail. Drill before inserting the screws to minimize stress on the post. A square piece of exterior plywood cut to loosely (about ÂĽ-inch clearance) within the post is then dropped in from the top. This will securely rest upon the middle rail of the fence and the screws, forming the floor.
Another way to form the floor is to cut a piece of hardware cloth to fit snugly within the post, and then use a slender piece of wood to pack it down to rest on the screws and rail. Drop in a handful of cedar shavings and replace the top. Cedar shavings have insect-repellent properties, are absorbent, and resist decay.
Next, use a 1.5-inch diameter hole saw to drill the entrance hole. The hole can be located nearer to the top rail for Bluebirds, or close to the middle for Tree Swallows. Bluebirds are very agile on their feet, whereas the Tree Swallows seem to prefer the hole a few inches lower. Perches at the entry hole are not needed, and they could allow predators to access the fencebox. The boxes do not need to be cleaned, as the birds will do their own housekeeping. The fence strength and integrity is not significantly affected by this modification. The Bordens have also used a single small screw to secure the cap. This screw allows easy inspection and photos, while preventing curious humans from observing the nest too frequently.
The rail openings, entrance hole, and high ceiling allow ventilation and cooling in hot weather, and the fencebox doubles as a winter refuge from the cold and wind.
Take-Home Message
Recruiting attractive insect-eating birds to a horse facility is an easy way to increase insect control. In areas such as California’s Central Valley, where removal of the native oaks has decreased available nesting holes, the cavity-dwelling species are in desperate need of nestboxes, and they will quickly occupy available housing.–Mark and Erin BordenÂ
June 15th, 2007
Previous Posts