2008 January - About swallow nest, swiftlet, edible bird’s nest

Nesting boxes important to barn owl conservation

Nesting boxes important to barn owl conservation
Gaffney Ledger (subscription), USA - Jan 23, 2008
(Editor’s Note: This article appeared in Monday’s Ledger with the last line of the story inadvertently dropped that contained the name of the barn owl box company’s website and phone number

We have had a number of calls from area residents wanting to know where to purchase the boxes, so we are running the story again in its entirety. To find more interesting facts about barn owls and how to install a barn owl box, go to www.barnowlbox.com or call 1-877- 637-8369.)

* * *

PITTSBURGH, Pa. - Did you know that a family of barn owls consumes over 3,000 rodents per year?

An innovative new nest box for barn owls may enhance rodent control programs and help conserve this large white owl around the world. Designed by a leading owl researcher, the nest box is made of molded plastic, is lightweight and easy to install, and features a landing ledge, an entrance hole, a research window and a removable front.

Mark Browning, a field researcher for the Pittsburgh Zoo who conducted the first satellite telemetry study of the barn owl, designed the box to provide farmers with a longlasting, affordable accessory to their pest management programs and to enhance barn owl conservation efforts.

“The barn owl is being used for pest management in the vineyards of California, sugar cane fields of Australia, dairy and crop farms of the U.S., and the oil-palm plantations of Southeast Asia,” said Browning. “Such enterprises report needing to use less poisons and having less crop damage as a result. The trouble is that wooden boxes are heavy, labor intensive to build and frequently need replaced.”

Two different models of the barn owl box have been devised and each has a different method of mounting according to one’s needs.

The barn model fits within the walls of either wooden or metal buildings. Modern metal barns - which have many advantages over the old wooden barns - have accidentally become one of the downfalls of the barn owl, which has declined in a number of northern states in the U.S.

“Barn owls have always been associated with manmade structures,” said Browning. “But as metal barns increasingly replace old wooden barns, the owls lose prime nesting sites. This is one of the most limiting factors for a large bird like the barn owl that requires a spacious cavity in which to breed.”

The barn box satisfies both the needs of the farmer and the owl by allowing the owls access to their box, but not the interior of the building.

Many choose erect their barn owl boxes on posts in full sun. The problem is the heat that builds up in the interior. The post model combines a number of innovative technologies to keep the box near ambient temperatures. The post box can also be mounted in a tree.

The barn owl, 12 inches tall with a 30-inch wingspan, sports a white face, throat and chest, and has golden wings. Known as the spirit owl, ghost owl or monkey-faced owl, this large predator is the widestspread land bird in the world, and ranges throughout the United States where it prefers open habitat such as meadows, pastures, cultivated fields, and wetlands. They have large broods for a raptor and often produce more than one brood per year.

As farmers move further away from poisons and take the integrated pest management approach, they are finding that barn owls can help reduce crop damage while at the same time reducing the need for poisons, resulting in less toxins entering the ecosystem.

“Barn owls are prolific breeders and voracious hunters,” says Browning. “A family of barn owls can consume thousands of rodents per year. Putting up a box can produce a lot of benefits, not the least of which is attracting these beautiful owls to your property.”

To find some interesting facts about barn owls and how to install a barn owl box, go to www.barnowlbox.com or call 1-877-637-8369.

Add comment January 31st, 2008

Unusual pre-roosting behaviour of Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica during autumn migration

ornitologia.org
Òscar Gordo The abnormal behaviour of a group of Barn Swallows roosting in a maize field is described in detail. Approximately 700 individuals forming a spherical flock performed spectacular manoeuvres over a maize field for several minutes. After sunset, individuals plunged vertically in small groups into the maize field in very fast flight.

Observed behaviour agreed largely with previously reports, although some peculiarities were recorded such as an attempt to roost on sparsely grassed ground, attacks by Yellow Wagtails Motacilla flava on landing swallows and loud twittering during all the aerial manoeuvres. The bad weather conditions are the most likely cause for the roosting of these migrating individuals. Key words: Barn Swallow, Hirundo rustica, roosting, behaviour, maize field, autumn migration, NE Spain Current address: Òscar Gordo, Dept. Ecología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), c/José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28600 Madrid. E-mail: ogordo@mncn.csic.es Received: 17.04.06; Accepted: 03.04.07 / Edited by L. Brotons Communal roosts are typical in the Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica outside the breeding season. In African wintering quarters, large numbers of Barn Swallows are found in a small number of roosting sites, in which thousands or even millions of birds congregate every evening (Vrijdagh 1951, de Bant 1962, Curry-Lindahl 1963, van den Brink et al. 1998, 2000, Deuzeman et al. 2004). These huge aggregations occur typically in reed-beds close to rivers and lakes (Verheyen 1952, de Bant 1962, Curry-Lindahl 1963, van den Brink et al. 2000, Nutall 2000; but see also Cramp 1988, Fry et al. 1988, Nutall 1998), where birds can forage nearby. This gregariousness also benefits individuals as a means of reducing predation risk (Bijlsma & van den Brink 2005). Roosts have been also reported in European breeding grounds, above all in late summer and autumn (Cramp 1988). In these cases, Barn Swallows have been recorded in different types of habitats (e.g. bracken, James 1995; reed-beds, Kose 1993) and also locations such as maize fields on several occasions (Ford & Elphick 1993, Lukac 1994, Spence 1995). These postbreeding roosts are thought to be associated with increased predation risk and/or bad weather conditions (Stagg 2005). Here, the unusual behaviour of a roosting flock of Barn Swallows observed on 29 September 2005 is described in detail. The observation took place in an area of open ground of 40 ha named Pla de Can Morató, between the villages of Cardedeu and Sant Antoni de Vilamajor (Vallès Oriental; UTM 447-4610) at 210 m a.s.l. in NE Spain. The area is covered by a mosaic of crops, pastures and small patches of Pinus pinea woodland, all of which are surrounded by builtup areas and mixed forest. Most of the area was lying fallow at the time of observation and only a maize field of ca. 2 ha was still unharvested. These plants were approximately 1-1.5 m high. The observation took place in the evening between 18:50 h and 20:10 h in bad weather conditions, with a dense cover of dark clouds, intermittent gusts of wind and some rain between 18:55 and 19:05 h.

Unusual behaviour of Barn Swallows 41 At 18:50 h, approximately 100 Barn Swallows appeared in the area and apparently began to forage near the ground (maximum 10 m high). When it started raining five minutes later, more individuals arrived from nearby built-up areas, increasing the number of individuals to ca. 200. When it stopped raining, all of the birds suddenly disappeared northwards. A few minutes later (19:10 h) a large number of birds (about 300) re-appeared. However, on this occasion, all of the birds were flying together in a compact flock that then proceeded to move northwards and southwards, performing spectacular manoeuvres over the fields of Pla de Can Morató. At 19:20 h most of the Barns Swallows began to land on open ground. A number of Yellow Wagtails Motacilla flava, which are regular visitors in small groups of 10-20 individuals to this area during both during spring and autumn passages, attacked the swallows that were attempting to land. Five minutes later all of the swallows took off and formed a compact flock that once again began to perform spectacular aerial movements over the fields. A single Sand Martin Riparia riparia was detected among swallows. At 19:35 h a strong wind from the north (4-5 on the Beaufort scale) dispersed the swallows, which disappeared for ten minutes. The sun set at around 19:40 h, but the swallows soon returned (19:45 h), forming a compact spherical flock, in which birds whirled very fast about 10 m high above the maize field. Unlike the flocks described previously, this group was very noisy. For a few minutes, many individuals arrived from different directions and joined the flock. Eventually, the flock totalled approximately 700 individuals and continued its perfectly synchronised high-speed spiral flight. At 19:55 h small groups of birds (about 20-50 individuals) began to plunge vertically into the maize field at great speed. By 20:00 h all birds were perched in the maize, concentrated in just a few plants in an area of around 30 m 2 in the middle of the field. An intense twittering continued for a few minutes. Some aggressive interaction between individuals was observed, which resulted in some individuals flying from one plant to another. After perching, all individuals began to preen. At 20:10 h the twittering began to fade and I left the area. Similar incidents of birds on autumn migration roosting communally in a maize field have never been observed in the same place either before or subsequently: it was, thus, an isolated and exceptional incident, probably caused by adverse weather conditions (Stagg 2005). This fact could explain the differences between the observed behaviour, that is, the attempts to roost on open ground, the aggressive response by Yellow Wagtails and the aerial manoeuvres with much twittering, and the descriptions of roosting behaviour in Cramp (1988). However, the type of habitat used finally to roost in (Ford & Elphick 1993, Lukac 1994, Spence 1995) and the presence of Sand Martins (Cramp 1988) both agree with previous descriptions. Resum Comportament inusual d’un grup d’orenetes Hirundo rustica durant la migració de tardor abans d’ajocar-se Es fa una descripció detallada del comportament d’un grup d’unes 700 orenetes vulgars abans d’ajocar-se en un camp de blat de moro. Van formar un estol de forma esfèrica i durant varis minuts van fer tota mena de vols sincronitzats força espectaculars per sobre de l’àrea on finalment van aturar-se. Després de la posta de sol, alguns individus van anar baixant en grups petits amb vols molt ràpids per anar a parar-se sobre les plantes de blat de moro. Els comportaments observats es corresponen en general amb el que ja es coneixia, tot i que es van observar alguns fets inèdits, com ara: un intent d’aturar-se al terra, l’atac de les cueretes grogues Motacilla flava durant aquest intent i el continu soroll dels individus durant tot el procés. Aquests individus en pas van haver d’aturar-se probablement a causa de les condicions meteorològiques adverses. Resumen Comportamiento inusual de un grupo de golondrinas comunes Hirundo rustica durante la migración de otoño antes de acceder al dormidero Se hace una descripción detallada del comportamiento de un grupo de unas 700 golondrinas comunes antes de acceder a un dormidero situado en un campo de maíz. Formaron un bando esférico que durante varios minutos realizó todo tipo de vuelos sincronizados muy espectaculares por encima del área en la que finalmente se posaron. Después de la puesta de sol, algunos individuos fueron bajando en peque

ños grupos mediante vuelos muy rápidos a posarse en las plantas del campo de maíz. Las observaciones corresponden en general con lo anteriormente descrito, pese a que se observaron algunos hechos inéditos: el intento de posarse en tierra, el ataque de lavanderas boyeras Motacilla flava durante dicho intento y el ruido continuo de los individuos durante todo el proceso. Las condiciones meteorológicas adversas probablemente fueron la causa de que estos individuos en paso se pararan. References Bijlsma, R. G. & van den Brink, B. 2005. A Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica roost under attack: timing and risks in the presence of African Hobbies Falco cuvieri. Ardea 93: 37–48. De Bont, A. F. 1962. Composition des bandes d’Hirondelles de chemineé, Hirundo rustica rustica L., hivernant au Katanga et analyse de la mue des rémiges primaries. Gerfaut 52: 298–343. Cramp, S. 1988. The birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. V. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Curry-Lindahl, K. 1963. Roosts of Swallows (Hirundo rustica) and House Martins (Delichon urbica) during the migration in Tropical Africa. Ostrich 34: 99–101. Deuzeman, S. B., van der Have. T. M., de Nobel, W. T & van den Brink, B. 2004. European Swallows Hirundo rustica and other songbirds of wetlands in Ghana, December 1997. WIWO report 80: 1–59. Ford, A. A. & Elphick, D. 1993. Barn Swallows roosting in maize. British Birds 86: 95-96. Keith, S. & Urban, E. K. & Fry, C. H.1988. The Birds of Africa. Vol IV. London: Academic Press. James, R. M. R. 1995. Barn swallows roosting away from water, low down in bracken. British Birds 88: 226–227. Kose, M. 1993. Swallows roost in reedbeds. Eesti Loodus 8: 270–272. Lukac, G. 1994. Kultura kukuruza, Zea mays, nociliste lastavice pokucarke, Hirundo rustica. Troglodytes 7: 72. Nuttall, R. J. 1998. European swallows roosting in suburban Bloemfontein. Mirafra 15: 37–38. Nuttall, R. J. 2000. European swallow roosts in the Memel District, Free State, South Africa. Mirafra 17: 57–58. Spence, I. M. 1995. Swallows roosting in maize. Welsh Birds 1: 35. Stagg, A. 2005. Hirundine cold-weather behaviour. British Birds 98: 264. van den Brink, B., Bijlsma, R. G. & van der Have, T. M. 1998. European songbirds and Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica in Ghana: a quest for Constant Effort Sites and swallow roosts in December/January 1996/97. WIWO report 58: 1–55. van den Brink B., Bijlsma R. G. & van der Have T. M. 2000. European Swallows Hirundo rustica in Botswana during three non-breeding seasons: the effects of rainfall on moult. Ostrich 71: 198–204. Verheyen, R. 1952. Nos hirondelles (Riparia riparia, Delichon urbica, Hirundo rustica) dans leus quartiers d’hiver. Gerfaut 42: 92–124. Vrijdagh, J. M. 1951. Comportament des Hirondelles de chimenée dans leur quartier d’hiver, au Nord du Congo Belge. Gerfaut 41:177–195.

Add comment January 30th, 2008

Analisa Insektisida Organoklorin Pada Bulu Walet Sarang Putih (Collocalia fuciphaga Thunberg)/Analysis of Organochlorine Insecticides in The Feather of Swiftlet Edible Nest (Collocalia fuciphaga Thuberg)

Info selengkapnya silahkan hubungi:oktafds@yahoo.com
Nama Penulis/Writer :
1. FX Oktaf Laudensius, NPM : 96 08 00484, Fakultas Biologi Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta, email : oktafds@yahoo.com
2. Ir. Ign. Pramana Yuda, M.Si, Fakultas Biologi Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.
3. Drs. P. Kianto Atmodjo, M.Si, Fakultas Biologi Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui ada tidaknya insektisida organoklorin pada bulu walet sarang putih. Selain itu, bertujuan juga untuk mengetahui besar kandungan insektisida organoklorin pada bulu walet sarang putih. Burung walet yang ditangkap diambil 3 helai bulu yaitu 1 helai pada sayap kanan dan 1 helai pada sayap kiri serta 1 helai pada ekor. Bulu tersebut dijadikan sebagai sampel. Setelah itu, bulu dipersiapkan/dipreparasi melalui proses ekstraksi dengan petroleumbenzine, dievaporasi dengan rotary vacum evaporator dan dimurnikan (clean-up) dengan florisil. Kemudian sampel siap dianalisis dengan menggunakan kromatografi gas-detektor penangkap elektron (GC-ECD). Hasil penelitian mengenai kandungan organoklorin pada sampel berupa bulu walet sarang putih di Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta menunjukkan bahwa 10% sampel (n=10) mengandung heptaklor dan 40% sampel (n=10) mengandung pp-DDD. Kandungan heptaklor pada bulu walet sarang putih berkisar antara 0 sampai 0,5855 ppm dan pp-DDD berkisar antara 0 sampai 0,0929 ppm./This research purpose to know total number organochlorine insecticides in the feather of Swiftlet Edible Nest (Collocalia fuciphaga Thuberg). That bird take three feather, there is one feather in right wing, one feather in left wing and one feather in tail. The feathers take to sample. Preparation of sample in extraction use petroleumbenzine, evaporation with rotary vacum evaporation and than clean up use florisil. Sample is ready to analysis use Gas Chromatography Electron Capture Detector. The result showed that 10% sample (n=10) possitive to be present heptachlor and 40% sample (n=10) to be present pp-DDD. Range of heptachlor is 0 until 0,5855 ppm and pp-DDD is 0 until 0,0929 ppm.

PENDAHULUAN :
Penelitian Kuncoro et.al., (2002) menunjukkan bahwa walet sarang putih di DIY mengandung insektisida organofosfat, yaitu golongan diazinon. Jumlah diazinon pada bulu sebesar 0,159 ppm, saluran pernafasan sebesar 0,150 ppm dan saluran serta kalenjar pencernaan sebesar 0,018 ppm. Hasil penelitian tersebut menunjukkan bahwa kandungan insektisida diazinon pada bulu lebih besar dibandingkan saluran pernapasan dan kalenjar serta saluran pencernaan. Dengan demikian, maka bulu dapat dijadikan organ untuk analisis insektisida tanpa harus membunuh organisme tersebut.
Penelitian ini memilih walet sarang putih karena walet sarang putih menghasilkan liur yang dikonsumsi manusia sebagai makanan. Dengan demikian, data analisis organoklorin pada walet sarang putih dapat digunakan sebagai data kesehatan.
Analisis insektisida organoklorin perlu dilakukan karena sifat persistensinya yang sangat lama di lingkungan dan jaringan tanaman serta hewan. Selain itu, survei menunjukkan bahwa masih ada sebagian petani menggunakan campuran insektisida organoklorin padahal sebagian besar insektisida organoklorin telah dilarang penggunaannya oleh Pemerintah Indonesia.
Permasalahan yang timbul adalah : apakah bulu walet sarang putih di Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta mengandung insektisida organoklorin? Berapa besar kandungan insektisida organoklorin tersebut?
Tujuan penelitian adalah untuk mengetahui ada tidaknya insektisida organoklorin pada bulu walet sarang putih dan mengetahui besar kandungan insektisida organoklorin tersebut.

METODE PENELITIAN
Penelitian dilakukan dengan tiga tahap. Ketiga tahap tersebut adalah pengambilan sampel, preparasi/persiapan sampel dan analisis sampel. Sebelum melakukan ke tiga tahap tersebut perlu dilakukan validasi terhadap kinerja metode (Recovery Rate).
Pengambilan sampel adalah kegiatan menangkap burung walet. Burung walet yang berhasil ditangkap diambil 3 helai bulunya. Bulu tersebut dijadikan sebagai sampel. Burung walet setelah diambil bulunya dilepaskan kembali. Setelah itu, bulu dipersiapkan/dipreparasi melalui proses ekstraksi, evaporasi dan dimurnikan (clean-up). Kemudian sampel siap dianalisis dengan menggunakan kromatografi gas-detektor penangkap elektron (GC-ECD).
Validasi Terhadap Kinerja Metode (Recovery Rate)
Tujuan Recovery Rate adalah untuk mengetahui kevalidan preparasi/persiapan sampel hingga keakuratan kromatografi gas untuk analisis sampel. Recovery Rate berdasarkan metode analisis multiresidu pestisida organoklorin dan organofosfat dalam berbagai matriks hasil pertanian (Anonim, 1997) yaitu metode 5-1 yang diadopsi dari Sawyer et.al., (1990) yaitu nomer 970.52. Menurut Anonim (1997), nilai perolehan kembali senyawa baku pembanding yang ditambahkan harus lebih besar atau sama dengan 80%.
Tata kerja Recovery Rate yaitu pengambilan sampel, preparasi/persiapan sampel dan analisis sampel dengan kromatografi gas-detektor penangkap elektron Setelah itu dilakukan preparasi/persiapan sampel. Sampel dibagi menjadi 2 yaitu 1 sampel negatif dan 1 sampel positif yang berasal dari 1 individu burung. Sampel negatif terdiri atas 3 helai bulu dan sampel positif terdiri atas 3 helai bulu yang berasal dari 1 individu burung walet.
Analisis sampel negatif dan sampel positif dengan kromatografi gas detektor penangkap elektron merek Shimadzu seri GC-14.B. Kromatografi gas yang dipakai untuk menginjeksi standar dan sampel negatif serta positif dengan kondisi sebagai berikut :
· Colum : OV 17-5%
· Panjang Colum : 3 meter
· Temperatur Colum : 1900C stabil
· Temperatur Detektor : 2500C
· Temperatur Injektor : 2400C
· Detektor : Electron Capture Detector
· Gas Nitrogen UHP : 99,999% kecepatan alir 30 ml/menit.

Pengambilan Sampel
Burung walet sarang putih ditangkap dengan jala penangkap burung. Burung ditangkap di sawah pada sore hari. Penangkapan dilakukan pada bulan Agustus 2002 sebagai sampel 1, 2, 3, 4 dan 5 dan bulan September 2002 sebagai sampel 6, 7, 8, 9 dan 10. Lokasi penangkapan berada di Desa Siluk dan Desa Sedayu.
Jumlah burung walet yang ditangkap sebanyak 10 ekor tanpa membedakan jenis kelamin karena sulit dibedakan (Mardiastuti et.al., 1998). Setiap Burung walet diambil bulu plumae (Contour feathers) pada sayap kanan dan kiri serta ekor masing-masing sebanyak 1 helai. Total jumlah bulu pada setiap 1 ekor burung walet adalah 3 helai. Bulu tersebut adalah sampel yang siap dianalisis.
Bulu yang digunakan untuk analisis adalah bulu plumae. Alasan digunakan Bulu plumae sebagai sampel karena bulu plumae memiliki bidang yang luas, sehingga diharapkan jumlah insektisida pada bulu berjumlah lebih banyak dibandingakan dengan bulu lain.
Menurut King et.al., (1995) dan Burnie (1992), kenampakkan bulu pada sayap terdiri atas bulu terbang primer, bulu terbang sekunder, bulu terbang tersier, bulu penutup atas dan bulu penutup utama.
Selain bulu pada sayap kiri dan kanan yang diambil sebagai sempel, bulu pada ekor diambil sebanyak 1 helai sebagai sampel untuk dianalisis. Menurut Burnie (1992), kenampakkan bulu pada ekor terdiri atas bulu atas ekor, bulu penutup ekor dan bulu ekor
Persiapan Sampel
Persiapan sampel bulu untuk dianalisis Gas Kromatografi berdasarkan metode analisis multiresidu pestisida organoklorin dan organofosfat dalam berbagai matriks hasil pertanian (Anonim, 1997) yaitu metode 5-1 yang diadopsi dari Sawyer et.al., (1990) yaitu nomer 970.52. Sampel berupa bulu walet sarang putih berjumlah 3 helai. Preparasi sampel dilakukan pada bulan Oktober 2002 di Laboratorium Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengujian Verteriner Wilayah IV Yogyakarta.
Bulu walet sarang putih yang didapatkan tidak dilakukan pencucian. Kemudian setiap sampel bulu ditimbang timbangan analitik Fisher Scientific KXT 210-G. Kemudian bulu dipotong kecil menggunakan gunting, dimasukkan ke dalam botol Teflon volume 10 ml yang memiliki tutup dan direndam dengan Petroleumbenzine GR Merck sebanyak 10 ml selama 1 malam. Bulu direndam dengan petroleumbenzine pada botol teflon yang memiliki tutup. Penutupan ini bertujuan untuk mencegah penguapan petroleumbenzine yang berlebihan.
Setelah itu, bulu digerus menggunakan cawan porselin sampai halus. Tujuan bulu digerus agar senyawa penyusun bulu larut dalam petroleumbenzine. Bulu yang telah halus dimasukkan kembali ke botol Teflon 10 ml yang berbeda. Hal ini bertujuan agar senyawa dalam bulu larut di petroleumbenzine, sedangkan petroleumbenzine sebelumnya tetap ada dan siap dianalisis. Cawan porselin dibersihkan dengan dialirkan 10 ml Petroleumbenzine dan dimasukkan pada botol Teflon 10 ml berisi bulu yang telah halus. Botol Teflon 10 ml yang berisi bulu halus dan Petroleumbenzine tersebut didiamkan selama 1 malam.
Bulu halus dan Petroleumbenzine pada botol Teflon 10 ml disaring dengan kertas saring biasa ditampung di botol evaporator 50 ml. Larutan hasil penyaringan dievaporasi hingga + 2 ml dengan Rotary Vacum Evaporator merek Wheaton Eye LA@ seri NE-1. Residu hasil evaporasi dilarutkan dengan heksana Merck dan sambil dilakukan ultrasonik menggunakan Ultrasonic merek Fisher Scientific seri B-5200E1. Tujuan ultrasonik adalah melepaskan dan melarutkan residu yang masih menempel di dinding kaca dalam botol evaporator dengan heksana Merck. Setelah itu, residu dipindahkan ke tabung reaksi 5 ml.
Setelah itu, residu dimurnikan (cleanup). Cara kerja clean-up adalah residu dialiri pada pipet yang berfungsi sebagai kolom. Pipet berisi glass wool Merck pada mulut pipet, Natrium sulfat Merck dengan panjang 1 cm, florisil Merck dengan panjang 10 cm dan Natrium sulfat Merck dengan panjang 1 cm. Florisil Merck terlebih dahulu diaktivasi selama 24 jam pada oven 1100C. Pipet tersebut dielusi dengan Petroleum Eter + 10 ml dan dibuang.
Residu dimasukkan ke dalam pipet tersebut, kemudian dielusi dengan dietil eter Merck 6% dalam petroleum eter Merck dan ditampung. Setelah itu dielusi dengan dietil eter 15% dalam petroleum eter dan ditampung, kemudian hasil tampungan dicampur sebagai hasil elusi. Diharapkan organoklorin akan terelusi 1/3 dalam dietil eter Merck 6% dan 2/3 dalam dietil eter 15%. Hasil elusi ditampung dalam botol evaporator 10 ml. Hasil elusi dievaporasi dengan Rotary Vacum Evaporator merek Wheaton Eye LA@ seri NE-1 sampai hampir kering. Botol evaporasi diultrasonik menggunakan Ultrasonic merek Fisher Scientific seri B-5200E1 sambil dibilas dan dialiri dengan heksana Merck sebanyak 2 ml yang bertujuan untuk mengambil residu dan ditampung dalam tabung reaksi 5 ml yang sama. Tabung reaksi 5 ml didiamkan semalam. Residu dikeringkan dalam oven 400C sampai hampir kering.
Kemudian residu ditambahkan aldrin 5 μl sebagai standar internal, dilarutkan dengan 0,5 ml heksana Merck. Diharapkan konsentrasi aldrin pada sampel sebesar 0,1884 ppm. Standar internal dibuat sebagai pembanding antara waktu retensi aldrin dalam larutan standar dengan waktu retensi aldrin dalam sampel sehingga diketahui pergeseran waktu retensinya. Setelah itu, residu siap diinjeksikan ke dalam Kromatografi gas. Perhitungan standar internal disajikan pada lampiran 5.

Analisis Sampel
Sebelum injeksi, terlebih dahulu dibuat standar pestisida organoklorin. Larutan standar yang digunakan adalah µBHC, heptaklor, dieldrin, pp-DDE, op-DDT, pp-DDD dan pp-DDT¢. Tujuan dibuatnya standar adalah agar dapat diketahui waktu retensi masing-masing standar, sehingga dapat ditentukan ada/tidaknya serta jumlah konsentrasi.
Analisis sampel menggunakan kromatografi gas detektor penangkap elektron merek Shimadzu seri GC-14.B. Kromatografi gas yang dipakai untuk menginjeksi standar dan sampel dengan kondisi sebagai berikut :
· Colum : OV 17-5%
· Panjang Colum : 3 meter
· Temperatur Colum : 1600C selama 2 menit, naik 20C/menit sampai 1800C, stabil 1800C selama 10 menit, suhu dinaikkan 10C/menit sampai 1950C, stabil selama 10 menit. Suhu pencucian 2400C selama 2 menit.
· Temperatur Detektor : 2500C
· Temperatur Injektor : 2400C
· Detektor : Electron Capture Detector
· Gas Nitrogen UHP : 99,999% kecepatan alir 30 ml/menit.

HASIL DAN PEMBAHASAN

Insektisida Organoklorin Pada Bulu Walet Sarang Putih
Hasil penelitian mengenai kandungan organoklorin pada sampel berupa bulu walet sarang putih di Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta menunjukkan bahwa 10% sampel (n=10) mengandung heptaklor dan 40% sampel (n=10) mengandung pp-DDD. Kandungan heptaklor pada bulu walet sarang putih berkisar antara 0 sampai 0,5855 ppm dan pp-DDD berkisar antara 0 sampai 0,0929 ppm
Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa heptaklor terdapat pada bulu walet sarang putih. Hal ini dijelaskan oleh Kamrin (1997) bahwa heptaklor dan metabolitnya yaitu epoxide heptaklor terakumulasi dalam jaringan lemak pada ikan dan burung, bahkan dapat ditemukan pula pada hati, otot dan telur burung. Selain heptaklor, pada bulu mengandung pp-DDD. Menurut Connell & Miller (1995), pp-DDD adalah hasil degradasi yang diturunkan dari dehidroklorinasi biologis dan deklorinasi reduktif DDT. Senyawa pp-DDD bersifat stabil dan aktif secara biologis. Pada Tabel 2 terlihat bahwa terjadi variasi jenis dan jumlah organoklorin pada bulu walet sarang putih. Heptaklor hanya terdapat pada 1 sampel bulu yaitu sampel 3 dan pp-DDD terdapat pada 4 sampel bulu yaitu sampel 3, 5, 6 dan 10. Hasil tersebut menunjukkan pula bahwa sampel 3 mengandung 2 jenis organoklorin yaitu heptaklor dan pp-DDD.
Variasi jenis dan jumlah organoklorin pada bulu walet sarang putih disebabkan karena dua kemungkinan. Kemungkinan pertama adalah perbedaan daerah jelajah masing-masing walet sarang putih yang ditangkap. Menurut Mardiastuti et.al., (1998), daerah jelajah walet sarang putih berkisar antara 25 sampai 40 km. Dengan demikian, semakin jauh daerah jelajah walet sarang putih maka kemungkinan mengalami kontak dengan insektisida semakin besar.
Kemungkinan kedua adalah perbedaan usia masing-masing walet sarang putih yang ditangkap. Hal ini terlihat pada variasi ukuran tubuh walet sarang putih saat pengamatan di lapangan dan variasi berat sampel bulu walet sarang putih yang ditangkap yang tersaji pada tabel. Menurut Mardiastuti et.al., (1998), rata-rata ketahanan hidup walet sarang putih adalah 14 tahun (variasi 10 sampai 20 tahun). Sedangkan daya tahan insektisida organoklorin pada jaringan hewan berkisar antara 3 sampai 5 tahun dan kemudian akan terus mengalami transformasi di dalam jaringan hewan dalam waktu 5 tahun (Hassal, 1990 ; Connell & Miller, 1995). Dengan demikian, semakin besar usia walet sarang putih maka kemungkinan akumulasi insektisida organoklorin dalam tubuhnya semakin tinggi.
Kandungan pp-DDD pada bulu walet dimungkinkan karena masih digunakan DDT. Penggunaan DDT dilarang oleh Pemerintah Indonesia sejak tahun 1973 (Untung, 1993), namun dijelaskan oleh Anonim (2000) dan Kusno (1994) bahwa DDT masih dianjurkan penggunaannya di sektor kesehatan hingga tahun 2000 untuk mengendalikan nyamuk malaria. Alasan larangan tersebut adalah karena sifat persistensinya yang sangat lama di tanah maupun di jaringan tanaman dan jaringan hewan. Hal tersebut dijelaskan Untung (1993) bahwa kurun waktu 17 tahun residu DDT dalam tanah masih 39%.
Selain DDT, sejak tahun 1990 penggunaan heptaklor dilarang oleh Pemerintah Indonesia (Untung 1993 ; Anonim 2001a), sedangkan oleh Pemerintah Amerika Serikat heptaklor dilarang sejak tahun 1983 (Peterle, 1991). Dengan demikian, maka dari data pada Tabel 3 menunjukkan bahwa masih ada sebagian petani yang menggunakan heptaklor.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kisaran kandungan heptaklor pada bulu walet sarang putih antara 0 sampai 0,5855 ppm dan pp-DDD antara 0 sampai 0,0929 ppm. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat 0,5855 mg heptaklor dalam 1 kg bulu walet sarang putih dan 0,0929 mg pp-DDD dalam 1 kg bulu walet sarang putih.

Pemasukan Insektisida ke Burung Walet Sarang Putih
Jumlah pestisida yang terdaftar dan diizinkan oleh Departemen Pertanian menurut Anonim (2001a) sebesar 678 merk dagang. Menurut Anonim (2001b) di Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta terdapat 20 jenis merek dagang insektisida tingkat kios, 19 jenis merek dagang insektisida tingkat lapangan dan 9 jenis merek dagang insektisida tingkat pengguna dari berbagai golongan (organoklorin, organofosfat, carbamat dan golongan lain). Berdasarkan data tersebut, heptaklor dan DDT sudah tidak beredar di kalangan petani. Namun, survei lapangan menunjukkan bahwa petani di Kabupaten Bantul masih menggunakan organoklorin (DDT) yang dicampur dengan insektisida golongan lain sehingga memiliki daya bunuh yang cepat dan tinggi.
Insektisida yang beredar di Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta memiliki formulasi, cara kerja dan susunan kimia yang bervariasi. Insektisida pada tingkat petani, menggunakan 5 jenis insektisida yang memiliki formulasi berupa cairan dan digunakan dengan cara penyemprotan. Kelima jenis insektisida tersebut adalah Decis 25 EC, Fastac 15 EC, Matador 25 EC, Marshall 200 EC dan Rubigan 200 EC. Cara kerja insektisida tersebut menurut Sudarmo (1992) adalah insektisida kontak, lambung/perut dan pernafasan. Hal tersebut berarti bahwa insektisida tersebut mengenai bagian tubuh, masuk melalui mulut dan masuk melalui pernafasan organisme sasaran. Dengan demikian, kemungkinan organisme non target dapat terkena insektisida tersebut. Salah satu contoh organisme non target adalah burung walet sarang putih.
Insektisida masuk dan mengumpul di tubuh burung walet sarang putih sarang putih telah diteliti oleh Kuncoro et.al., (2002). Pemasukkan insektisida organoklorin kepada burung walet sarang putih melalui 2 cara yaitu melalui rantai makanan dan kontak langsung dengan insektisida.
Insektisida masuk ke tubuh walet sarang putih melalui rantai makanan. Hal ini dijelaskan Mardiastuti et.al., (1998) bahwa walet sarang putih menduduki tingkat trofik ketiga yaitu memangsa serangga kecil dari ordo Hymenoptera, Diptera, Homoptera dan Coleoptera yang tertangkap ketika terbang. Serangga yang menjadi makanan utama burung walet sarang putih menurut Sudarmo (1992) dan Anonim (2001a), merupakan target insektisida organofosfat, organoklorin, carbamat dan golongan lain. Dengan demikian, maka Connell (1995) menegaskan bahwa residu insektisida organoklorin yaitu DDT dan turunannya yaitu pp-DDD mengalami kenaikan dalam tingkatan trofik dan terakumulasi dalam rantai makanan.
Selain melalui rantai makanan, insektisida di udara dapat menempel pada bulu burung walet sarang putih dan bahkan terhirup oleh walet sarang putih saat melakukan pernafasan. Hal ini didukung oleh Connell (1995), bahwa kepekatan pestisida seringkali terdapat dalam atmosfer dan dalam udara di sekitar pengguna. Penelitian mengenai kontak langsung insektisida organoklorin atau golongan lain pada bulu burung masih sangat sedikit.
Insektisida di udara dapat menempel pada bulu burung walet sarang putih didukung pula oleh penelitian Chao dan Guangmei (2002), bahwa bulu burung gereja (Passer montanus) di kawasan industri mengandung mangan, magnesium, selenium dan partikel debu. Menurut Furness dan Greenwood (1993), deposit di udara yaitu cadmium dapat menempel pada bulu burung Accipiter gentilis. Penelitian tersebut, memungkinkan adanya kontak langsung insektisida organoklorin atau golongan lain di bulu.

Kesimpulan
Hasil analisis insektisida organoklorin menggunakan kromatografi gas-detektor penangkap elektron menunjukkan adanya insektisida organoklorin pada bulu walet sarang putih di Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Insektisida organoklorin yang terdapat pada bulu walet sarang putih adalah heptaklor dan pp-DDD.
Hasil penelitian mengenai kandungan organoklorin pada sampel berupa bulu walet sarang putih menunjukkan bahwa 10% sampel (n=10) mengandung heptaklor dan 40% sampel (n=10) mengandung pp-DDD. Kandungan heptaklor pada bulu walet sarang putih berkisar antara 0 sampai 0,5855 ppm dan pp-DDD berkisar antara 0 sampai 0,0929 ppm.

Ucapan Terima Kasih
Penelitian ini telah dipresentasikan pada ujian pendadaran periode II Fakultas Biologi Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta tanggal 22 November 2002. Ucapan terima kasih disampaikan kepada drh.Nasirudin di BBPH Regional IV Yogyakarta yang telah membantu dalam preparasi hingga analisis sampel.

Daftar Pustaka

Anonim. 1997. Metode Pengujian Residu Pertanian Dalam Hasil Pertanian. Komisi Pestisida, Departemen Pertanian. Jakarta.

Anonim. 2000. Sekitar 900 Senyawa Kimia Dapat Menimbulkan Kanker. Kompas. Selasa. 31 Oktober 2000.

Anonim. 2001a. Pestisida Untuk Pertanian dan Kehutanan. Direktorat Pupuk dan Pestisida, Direktorat Jendral Bina Sarana Pertanian, Departemen Pertanian. Jakarta.

Anonim. 2001b. Laporan Pengawasan Pestisida : Proyek Pengembangan Sumberdaya Pertanian Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultura. Dinas Pertanian Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Sub Dinas Pertanian Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultural. Yogyakarta.

Anonim. 2001c. Produk Pertanian Ditolak Akibat Residu Pestisida : Sumbar Bebas Pestisida. Kompas. Rabu. 22 Agustus 2001.

Anonim. 2001d. Bantul Kembangkan Varietas Padi Tahan Hama. Kompas.Jumat.24 Agustus 2001.

Ariens, E.J., E. Mutschler & A.M. Simonis. 1994. Pengantar Toksikologi Umum. Terjemahan. Gadjah Mada University Press. Yogyakarta.

Burnie, D. 1992. Burung. PT. Bentara Antar Asia. Jakarta.

Chao.P. & Z. Guangmei. 2002. The Tree Sparrow Passer montanus as an Indicator Species for Monitoring Urban Environments In Abstract Volume, 23rd International Ornitological Congress. Beijing. Chinna.

Connell. Des.W.1995. Bioakumulasi Senyawaan Xenobiotik. Terjemahan. UI-Press. Jakarta.

Connell.D.W & G.J. Miller. 1995. Kimia dan Ekotoksikologi Pencemaran. Terjemahan. Penerbitan Universitas Indonesia. Jakarta.

Drooge,B.L.van. 1998. Organochlorine residues and fatty acid compositions in the livers of Diurnal Raptors From The Iberian Peninsula. Final Project. Van Hall Institute, Environmental Science Leeuwareden, The Netherlands.

Kartosuwondo.U. 2001. Ulasan : Peranan Tumbuhan Bukan Budidaya dalam Pengendalian Hayati Serangga Hama. Jurnal Biosains : Hayati. Vol.8.No.2. Juni. F.MIPA. IPB. Bogor.

Khopkar. S. M. 1990. Konsep Dasar Kimia Analitik.Terjemahan. Penerbit Universitas Indonesia Press. Jakarta.

Kuncara. J.H., Y. Aida & P. Yuda. 2002. Akumulasi Organofosfat pada Walet Sarang Putih (Collocalia fuciphaga Thunberg). Biota.Vol.VII(2):89.

Mardiastuti. A., Mulyani.Y.A. Sugarjito. J., Ginoga. LN. Maryanto. I., Nugraha. A. & Ismail. , 1998, Tehnik Pengusahaan Walet Rumah, Pemanenan Sarang dan Penanganan Pasca Panen. Laporan Riset. Riset Unggulan Terpadu IV Bidang Tehnologi Perlindungan Lingkungan (1995-1997). Kantor Menteri Negara Riset dan Tehnologi. Dewan Riset nasional. Bogor.

Marshall, A.J., 1960. Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds. Volume I. Academic Press. New York and London.

Martini.F.H. & E.F. Bartholomew. 1998. Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology.Prentice-Hall International, Inc. New York.

Nur.M.N., H. Adijuwana & Kosasih. 1992. Teknik Laboratorium : Petunjuk Laboratorium. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Pusat Antar Universitas Ilmu Hayati, Institut Pertanian Bogor. Jakarta dan Bogor.

Sawyer. L.D., B.M. McMahon., W.H. Newsome & G.A. Parker. 1990. Pesticides and Industrial Chemical Residues in Official Methods of Analysis of The Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Twelfth Edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington DC.

Sudjana.M.A. 1992. Metode Statistika. Edisi Ke 5. Penerbit Tarsito. Bandung.

Add comment January 29th, 2008

Arrests made in bird’s nest robbery

Canada.com, Canada - Jan 18, 2008
Randy Shore, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, January 19, 2008
METRO VANCOUVER / Bird’s nest is supposed to be good for your skin, your tongue and even your sex life. It is also the fuel for a string of daring robberies in Metro Vancouver.

Three armed bandits wearing masks and ball caps confronted staff at a Chinese herbal medicine store in Richmond at 1:40 p.m. Wednesday afternoon and made off with a quantity of dried bird’s nest, which can sell for as much as $2,000 an ounce.
It was the third robbery targeting bird’s nest in the past 12 months, according to Richmond RCMP.

One adult and two youths were arrested Friday in connection with the latest robbery at Richmond’s Ming Heng Ginseng Dry Foods, said RCMP spokeswoman Nycki Basra.
The Mounties have recommended charges of robbery against all three and one will face a charge of robbery with violence. No one was injured in the robbery.
RCMP are seeking more suspects related to the crimes and are investigating whether a criminal organization is behind the robbery, or robberies, and sale of stolen nests. RCMP do not know whether all three robberies were committed by the same group.
Witnesses said that the group brandished weapons, but it is not yet clear what kind. No gun-related charges have been recommended.
Basra said language barriers have slowed the investigation.
Considered a gourmet delicacy with medicinal properties, the nests sell on local store shelves for $4,000 to $5,000 a kilo. The most expensive varieties go for as much as $1,500 to $2,000 an ounce, Basra said.
Violent armed robberies of bird’s nest brokers and retailers are not uncommon in Hong Kong and Malaysia.
Two people were shot dead in Kuala Lumpur in a heist in 2002. In 2003, Hong Kong robbers tied up store staff and stole nests worth $75,000 Cdn.
Hong Kong customs officials have also made several seizures of counterfeit bird’s nest products in recent years, valued at several million dollars. Large quantities of bird’s nest are routinely intercepted by customs agents as part of their fight against an international black market in the rare medicinal food.
Most Chinese herbalists in Metro Vancouver stock six to 12 different varieties of bird’s nest. The nests are made from dried layers of saliva produced by swiftlets, a small bird that lives in caves of Thailand and Malaysia. At the high end of the market, cave-harvested red-coloured nests (called “red blood”) cost up to $400 per tael (a Chinese ounce, about 38 grams). More common white nests harvested from commercial swiftlet barns can cost as little as $50 per tael.
The health benefits claimed for bird’s nest vary with the herbalist consulted. Staff at one store on Vancouver’s Main Street claimed regular consumption of bird’s nest, which may be served as a silky soup or a sweetened dessert, makes you look younger. Staff at the next store said it would be good for the tongue.
Most people use bird’s nest for a clear complexion and “to sharpen the appetite of the old or the sick,” according to Raymond Pang of Hang Loon Herbal Products in Vancouver. But the high price means he only sees one or two customers a day for bird’s nest.
Pharmacist Darwin Law said the nests do contain unusual proteins and enzymes that may improve health, but the benefits are mostly “mental.”
“People believe it will help them,” said Law, a western pharmacist who has practised in Chinatown for 39 years. “Most people eat bird’s nest to be big shots.”
rshore@png.canwest.com

Add comment January 28th, 2008

The status and conservation of the Edible-nest Swiftlet (Collocalia fuciphaga) in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands

linkinghub.elsevier.com
R. Sankaran
Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatty PO, Coimbatore 641 108, India
Received 19 January 1999; revised 18 June 1999; accepted 22 June 2000. Available online 12 December 2000.

Abstract

The nests of the Edible-nest Swiftlet (Collocalia fuciphaga) rank amongst the world’s most expensive animal products, which has resulted in high levels of exploitation of its nests in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. The population of the Edible-nest Swiftlet was assessed through nest counts, and declines in population were estimated through changes in nest yields. The minimum breeding population of C. fuciphaga was estimated to be 13,260 birds, and the species currently bred in 291 caves, and had abandoned 31 caves. Nest collection in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands had taken place in 95% of breeding sites. Less than 2% of the nests counted had either eggs or chicks in them. The decline in swiftlet nest yields in the Andaman islands, between the present and 5–8 years ago (195 caves) has been 61%, and between the present and over 10 years ago (45 caves) has been 83%. Depending on the patterns of nest collection, declines in yield in the Nicobar Islands range between 40 and 95%, with only one cave apparently not having undergone a significant loss. The Edible-nest Swiftlet is critically threatened (IUCN criteria A1c) in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, as it has undergone a reduction in numbers greater than 80% over the last 10 years. To arrest continuing declines, protective measures need to be urgently implemented. Concomitantly, the house farming of the Edible-nest Swiftlet, as has been established in Indonesia, needs to be developed as an ex-situ conservation measure in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Author Keywords: Swiftlet; Andaman and Nicobar Islands; Conservation; Sustainable exploitation

Add comment January 25th, 2008

Digit ratios, secondary sexual characters and condition in barn swallows Hirundo rustica

beheco.oxfordjournals.org
Amélie N. Dreissa, Carlos Navarrob, Florentino de Lopec and Anders P. Møllerd
a Laboratoire Fonctionnement et Evolution des Systèmes Ecologiques, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, Paris, France b Departamento Ecología Funcional y Evolutiva, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Almería, Spain c Departamento de Biología Animal, Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain d Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, Paris, France

Address correspondence to A.N. Dreiss, who is now at the Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biology Building, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: amelie.dreiss@unil.ch.

Abstract

The second and fourth digit length ratio (2D:4D) is sexually dimorphic in many vertebrates. This ratio has been suggested to provide an estimate of steroid levels encountered during prenatal development, which may have organizational consequences for physiology and behavior of adults. However, recent studies showed that the relation between digit ratio and steroids seems inconsistent and may vary among species and populations. We tested the hypothesis that digit ratios would be correlated with the expression of secondary sexual characters, using the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) as a model system. This was done by testing whether variation in 2D:4D ratio was correlated with tail length and features of song, which are important secondary sexual characters positively correlated with circulating steroid concentration in adult birds. Furthermore, we examined the prediction that male and female digit ratios would correlate with body mass in an antagonistic way. There was no significant sexual dimorphism in digit ratio, which may be due to low levels of sexual selection in this population. Adult right 2D:4D ratio was negatively linked to tail length but not to male song output. Moreover, right 2D:4D ratio was negatively correlated with body mass in male and positively in females. These results are consistent with high digit ratios reflecting low levels of testosterone in this bird species.

Key words: bird song, digit ratio, Hirundo rustica, morphology, secondary sexual characters.

Received 16 November 2006; revised 11 September 2007; accepted 17 September 2007.

Add comment January 24th, 2008

Review of Scientific Research on Edible Bird’s Nest

www.hkfsta.com.hk
Department of Applied Biology and Chemical Technology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Shun Wan CHAN

Abstract: Edible bird’s nest is one of the widely used health foods in Chinese communities. The market generated by it is increasing because it exhibits a lot of beneficial effects to human beings.

For its high market value, fake edible bird’s nest and misleading promotional description emerged. This article briefly reviews the scientific research on authentication technologies and pharmacological effects of edible bird’s nest. It is expected that people’s knowledge on edible bird’s nest could be enhanced.
Background

Swiftlets (collocaliini) are tiny insectivorous birds that are distributed from the Indian Ocean , through Southeast Asia and North Australia to the Pacific[1]. Amongst various species of swiftlets in the genus of Collocalia, only the nests of four species habituating in the Southeast Asian region have commercial value because of human consumption. They are Collocalia fuciphaga, Collocalia germanis, Collocalia maxima and Collocalia unicolor[2]. Collocalia species, average 6.5g in weight, have glossy plumage[1]. Their nests are constructed with salivary glue, a cementing substance, and may incorporate other materials such as vegetation or feathers. It takes about 20 days to finish the nest. The edible bird’s nest ( 燕窩 in Chinese) making up with purely salivary glue are much more expensive than those incorporating with other materials (see Figure 1 in p.40).

In Hong Kong and in Chinese societies throughout the world, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is commonly used to treat diseases and enhance health. It is believed that TCM herbs have wide-ranging effects for enhancing health, lowering risk of diseases and promoting life span [3,4,5]. Being one of the TCMs, edible bird’s nest is believed to have health enhancing effects such as anti-ageing, growth promoting and immunoenhancing properties. In fact, the medicinal use of edible bird’s nest can be traced back to 17th century[6]. However, edible bird’s nest is different from most of the TCMs. It is not only a medicine to make people healthy but also a pleasant food. Traditionally, it is double boiled with rocky sugar to make a delicacy known as “bird’s nest soup”.

Although the size of Collocalia is small, the market generated by it is tremendous. The estimated market of edible bird’s nest in 2004 is worth about HK$ 3 billions in Hong Kong . The local market is the world’s largest consumer of edible bird’s nest[2,7]. The annual percentage increase of the local market is in doubledigit[7]. It may be due to the fact that Hong Kong people are more and more concerned about their health and the status of TCM has risen after a series of government policies on TCM. Moreover, a dual nature of edible bird’s nest, that could be treated as medicine or/and food, may play a role. In the past, people could only buy dried edible bird’s nests. For the advancement in food technology, large variety of edible bird’s nest related products emerge to the market. They are readily to serve products. No cooking process is required. Amongst those new products, most of them are still in the traditional form as bird’s nest soup, such as instant bird’s nest in different concentrations. Some instant bird’s nest may also supplement with other TCMs. Apart from the traditional form, there is a trend of using edible bird’s nest extract as one of the chief ingredients of the products. These products focus mainly on the medicinal use of edible bird’s nest. However, some of them may exaggerate the therapeutic use of edible bird’s nest. For the limited supply and high price of edible bird’s nest, it is not uncommon to hear reports of fake edible bird’s nest in the market. The imitation substitute commonly used is the edible plant-exude, gum karaya or sterculia[8]. Recently, there are reports of fake edible bird’s nest made from fishes’ skin, mushroom or algae in China [9]. Therefore, it is a great concern on authenticating the genuineness of edible bird’s nest. In this review, the author will briefly summarize some advanced technologies in authenticating edible bird’s nest. The medicinal benefits of edible bird’s nest with contemporary scientific evidence will also be given.

Authenticity of Edible Bird’s Nest

The first comprehensive report on authentication of edible bird’s nest can be traced back to the early 1990s. Sam et al., (1991) demonstrated the possibility to use scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis, flame atomic emission spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy and other physico-chemical techniques to ascertain the authenticity of edible bird’s nest[8]. Since they only made a comparison with some imitation bird’s nest with substances from plant origins, it limited the generalizing ability of the techniques to other imitation materials. In addition, they relied on sophisticated equipment. It is hard for commercial testing laboratories to carry out. Recently, a research team in China has developed a simple but accurate and reliable spectrophotometry method to determine edible bird’s nest content[10]. It could also be used to differentiate genuine edible bird’s nest with saliva, pig’s skin and Tremella fucifomis[10]. The method is based on the reaction between N-acetylneuramic acid and ninhydrin in acid solution. The method evaluates the internal content of N-acetylneuramic acid, a nine-carbon sugars, which is one of the major components in edible bird’s nest.

Nutritional Content and Medicinal Use

Edible bird’s nest contains mainly carbohydrates, amino acids and mineral salts. The major ingredients of edible bird’s nest are glycoproteins[11]. Amongst the carbohydrates in edible bird’s nest, sialic acid (9%) is the major one. It was found that exogenous source of sialic acid may contribute to neurological and intellectual advantages in infants[12]. However, the nutritional and biological mechanisms of sialic acid in human body are still under investigation. The other major carbohydrates include 7.2% galactosamine, 5.3% glucosamine, 16.9% galactose and 0.7% fucose[11].

Amino acids and mineral salts are also important components in edible bird’s nest. Three non-essential amino acids (aspartic acid, glutamic acid, praline) and two essential amino acids (threonine and valine) can be found[11]. They could facilitate normal body functions such as repairing and immunity. Edible bird’s nest is rich in mineral salts. It contains high content of sodium and calcium. It is because the source of edible bird’s nest is derived from saliva Collocalia inhabiting mainly in limestone caves. In addition, low levels of magnesium, zinc, manganese and iron are also detected in edible bird’s nest[8].

In spite of the long history of using edible bird’s nest for medicinal purposes, there are not many scientific researches related to the therapeutic use of it in literature. The first scientific evidence was given by Ng et al. (1986) in Hong Kong. Edible bird’s nest aqueous extract was found to potentiate mitogenic response of human peripheral blood monocytes to stimulation with proliferative agents, Concanavalin A and Phytohemagglutinin A[13]. It suggested that edible bird’s nest might possess immunoenhancing effect by aiding cell division of immune cells.

One year later, other scientific evidence was published by Kong et al. They demonstrated an epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like activity in aqueous extract of edible bird’s nest that stimulated the DNA synthesis in 3T3 fibroblast in a dose dependent manner in vitro[6]. EGF is a 6,000 Da polypeptide hormone produced by glands of the gastrointestinal tract, namely the salivary and Brunner’s glands. It appears to play a crucial role in major normal cellular processes such as proliferation, differentiation and development[14]. It may offer a rationale for the medicinal use of edible bird’s nest in ageing resistance. Since the receptor for EGF is highly expressed in a number of solid tumors, including breast, head-and-neck, non-small-cell lung, renal, ovarian and colon cancer[15], people are worried about a possibility to induce tumor progression and to resist chemotherapy/radiation treatment in tumor cells; in consequence, suggest that cancer patients should avoid edible bird’s nest. In fact, there is no evidence supporting this suggestion. Currently we have evaluated the effects of aqueous extract of edible bird’s nest on the viability on two human cancer cell lines, human breast cancer MCF-7 (ATCC HTB-22) and human liver cancer HepG2 (ATCC HB-8065). There was no observable effect on cell viability when comparing with the control group (unpublished data).

In 1994, a research team in China, evaluated the pharmacological effects of edible bird’s nest and pearl powder containing formulation. The formulation was demonstrated to have immunoenhancing effects by elevating DNA synthesis of T-lymphacytes and circulating immunoglobulin M content in mice. In addition, the formulation also showed ageing retardation by increasing the level of superoxide dimutase[16]. However, the study did not explore whether the effects came from either edible bird’s nest, pearl powder or both.

Further Studies

Edible bird’s nest has been used for several hundred years. Its usage is based mainly on historical, anecdotal and observational reports of its benefit. Scientific evidence for its efficacy is still limited. The putative health benefits such as resisting ageing and improving immunity of edible bird’s nest may be linked, at least in part, to EGF-like activity and mitogenic factor. However, there may be other mechanisms involved. In addition, there may be additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects between different components of edible bird’s nest. Work is needed to establish health-related effects of edible bird’s nest, for example, through assessing biomarker response, isolating and identifying the active components and investigating their possible interaction. In Hong Kong, many people take edible bird’s nest regularly. It is worth establishing epidemiological study to measure relationship of consistent use of edible bird’s nest and its putative beneficial effects in human beings. For the large market of edible bird’s nest, developing a systematic method to identify the sources of edible bird’s nest and check the authenticity of its sample is, undoubtedly, indispensable.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Imperial Bird’s Nest International Company Limited for providing intact bird’s nests and their photos. Special thanks go to Ms. Siu-Hung Tsui for editorial assistance.

References

[1] Lee, P.L., Clayton, D.H., Griffiths, R. & Page, R.D. (1996) Does behavior reflect phylogeny in swiftlets (Aves: Apodidae)? A test using cytochrome b mitochondrial DNA sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 93:7091(7096.

[2] Lau, A.S.M. & Melville, D.S. (1994) International Trade in Swiftlet Nests with Special Reference to Hong Kong (Traffic Inter-national, Cambridge, U.K.).

[3] O’Hara, M.A., Kiefer, D., Farrel, K. & Kemper, K. (1998) A review of 12 commonly used herbs. Arch Fam Med. 7:523(536.

[4] Craig, W.J. (1997) Health-promoting properties of common herbs. Am J Clin Nutr. 70:491S(499S. [5] Yuan, R. & Yuan, L. (2000) Traditional Chinese medicine: an approach to scientific proof and clinical validation. Pharm Therapeut. 86:191(198.

[6] Kong, Y.C., Keung, W.M., Yip, T.T., Ko, K.M., Tsao, S.W. & Ng, M.H. (1987) Evidence that epidermal growth factor is present in swiftlet’s (Collocalia) nest. Comp Biochem Physiol B. 87:221(226.

[7] Leung, C.Y. (2004) Three billions market competition for edible bird’s nest shops. Economic Digest. 1197:68(69.

[8] Sam, C.T., Tan, P.H. & Lim, C.H. (1991) Establishing the authenticity of edible bird’s Nest. ISFM Medicine Scientific Review. 3:1(4.

[9] Li, X., Xi, X. & Che, W. (2003) Analysis and assessment of quality in import-export bird nest. Guangzhou Food Science and Technology. 19:72 & 89.

[10] Huang, H, Xi, X., Chen, W. & Chen, J. (2003) Determination of content of bird nest by spectrophotometer. Guangzhou Food Science and Technology. 19:68.

[11] Kathan, R.I.I. & Weeks, D.I. (1969) Structure studies of collocalia mucoid. I. Carbohydrate and amino acid composition. Arch Biochem Biophys. 134:572(576.

[12] Colombo, J.P., Garcia-Rodenas, C., Guesry, P.R. & Rey, J. (2003) Potential effects of supplementation with amino acids, choline or sialic acid on cognitive development in young infants. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 92:42(46.

[13] Ng, M.H., Chan, K.H. & Kong, Y.C. (1986) Potentiation of mitogenic response by extracts of the swiftlet’s (Collocalia) nest. Biochem Int. 13:521(531.

[14] Yano, S., Kondo, K., Yamaguchi, M., Richmond, G., Hutchison, M., Wakeling, A., Averbuch, S. & Wadsworth, P. (2003) Distribution and function of EGFR in human tissue and the effect of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibition. Anticancer Res. 23: 3639(3650.

[15] Herbst, R.S. & Langer, C.J. (2002) Epidermal growth factor receptors as a target for cancer treatment: The emerging role of IMC-C225 in the treatment of lung and head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol. 29:27(36.

[16] Zhang, M., Wang, D. & Wang, J. (1994) The effect of the ZHENZHU-YANWO extracts on animal function. Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. 1:49(51.

Add comment January 22nd, 2008

Anyone know why swiftlet’ nest is so expensive?

www.foodaq.com
Swiftlet is a type of swallow that produces nest from its saliva. The nest is normally found in traditional chinese food

Swiftlet is a type of swallow that produces nest from its saliva. The nest is normally found in traditional chinese food

Edible-nest Swiftlet (Collocalia fuciphaga), also called Andaman Grey-rumped Swiftlet, is part of a group of birds called the Cave Swiftlets. They form the Collocaliini tribe within the Apodidae family. The group contains around thirty species mostly confined to southern Asia, south Pacific islands and north eastern Australia. Edible-nest Swiftlet is found in the Andaman and Nicobar islands of India. These birds are more common in Andaman as compared to the Nicobar islands and they inhabit rock caves near the shore. The Cave Swiftlets use a simple but effective form of echolocation to navigate in total darkness through the chasms and shafts of the caves they utilize for night time roosting and breeding.

Edible-nest Swiftlets are small, dark brown, slightly fork-tailed birds (size 12 cm). They are in many respects typical members of the Apodidae having narrow swallow-like wings for fast flight, with a wide gape and small reduced beak surrounded by bristles for hawking insects in flight. The breeding season is mainly March and April. The nests are white, opaque, 6 cm across and of the best commercial (edible) quality. During the breeding season, the salivary glands of this species expand to produce the special inspissated saliva for binding twigs and other detritus together for building the nest, which is a shallow cup stuck to the cave wall. Only those species whose nests are ‘white’ and made purely or almost purely of saliva are the most prized. The nests are harvested from cave walls.

Edible Nests

The Edible-nest Swiftlet is renowned for the fact that their nests are used for making bird’s nest soup in Chinese cuisine. When cooked, the birds’ nests have a gelatinous texture. In Chinese cuisine, high medicinal and aphrodisiac qualities are ascribed to these nests. Scientific investigations reveal these nests to be high in protein with about 7% lime. Many consumers of bird nest soup report significant improvement in appetite. However, some others noticed excessive secretion of gastric acid that may cause acid reflux symptoms.

There is some concern that over-harvesting is causing several species of cave swiftlets to become scarce. Bird nest merchants in southeast Asia (including Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand etc.) have started to raise and breed the swiftlets in house-like structures. They build the shelters to attract wild swiftlets to build nests in them. The wrong kind of nests are then destroyed along with the eggs inside. Over time, the selection process only leaves behind a colony of swiftlets that produce the right kind of nest for the trade. “House nests” are priced much lower than the “cave nests” due to the level of risks involved in the harvesting process.

Guano from the Swiftlets and the many bats that inhabit the caves supports an array of specialized animals that feed on the dung. There are yet other creatures that have evolved to feed on these dung eaters as well as the bats and the swiftlets themselves including among others, snakes that can climb the sheer walls to snatch a passing meal and huge carnivorous crickets that prey on chicks and bat pups. This ecosystem is totally self sustaining, the only link being the birds and the bats that bring the nutrients into the caves in the first place.

Because the swifts build their nests high up on cave walls and the nests are very difficult and dangerous to reach. This is why the cost is so high.

Also demand is high and yeild is low, especially as the birds are becoming an endangered species.

because the ‘nest-harvesters’ as they’re called have to risk their lives to get the nests. the nests are usually found very high up in treacherous caves, and these workers have to either construct a flimsy bamboo support structure to get up there or climb up a ladder which rests against the inside of the cave. then they have to scrape off the nest from the walls of the cave. more than a few workers have fallen to their deaths while on duty. it’s why the nest is considered a chinese delicacy, along with abalone and shark’s fin.

I think it comes down to economics.

Supply and Demand.
The nest are in limited supply so the gatherers can charge more (which probably a few dollars, isn’t a lot by our standards of living), but more IMPORTANTLY the demand is their because people are willing to pay outrageous prices because they think it has some type of medicinal healing properties.

It’s wild what people will pay for foods that are supposedly “healthy” and help with one’s libido.

Similar to the vitamin, health supplement industry in the USA (and around the world). We pay how much for a bottle of filtered tap water!?!?

From wikipedia:
The white nests and the “red blood” nests are supposedly rich in nutrients which are traditionally believed to provide health benefits, such as aiding digestion, raising libido, improving the voice, alleviating asthma, increasing concentration, and an overall benefit to the immune system.

Have you ever seen how they get those nest !

Add comment January 21st, 2008

Phylogeny of early tertiary swifts and hummingbirds (Aves: Apodiformes)

findarticles.com
Auk, The, Jan 2003 by Mayr, Gerald

The Auk 120(1):145-151, 2003

ABSTRACT.-The phylogenetic relationships between early Tertiary and extant apodiform birds are only poorly understood, and this study is the first cladistic approach to this problem in which the Trochilidae are included.

The analysis supports monophyly of the Lower Oligocene Jungornis and extant Trochilidae, as well as monophyly of the Middle Eocene Scaniacypselus and extant Apodidae. The “Jungornithidae” sensu Karhu (1999) are shown to be paraphyletic with the Upper Eocene Argornis being the sister taxon of the taxon (Jungornis + extant Trochilidae). The osteology of Jungornis provides a transition between that of the highly derived extant Trochilidae and that of more generalized apodiform birds. An Argornis-like apodiform bird from the Middle Eocene of Messel shows a completely unexpected combination of a greatly abbreviated, apodiform humerus with a short and broad wing, and might indicate that the Trochilidae evolved from a short-winged ancestor. Received 8 April 2002, accepted 26 October 2002.
THERE IS INCREASING consensus that tree swifts (Hemiprocnidae), true swifts (Apodidae), and hummingbirds (Trochilidae) form a monophyletic clade that is supported by derived anatomical features and most biochemical and molecular analyses (see Johansson et al. 2001, Livezey and Zusi 2001, Mayr 2002). As shown by a recent phylogenetic analysis (Mayr 2002), owlet-nightjars (Aegothelidae) are the sister group of swifts and hummingbirds. Although Apodiformes have a comparatively extensive early Tertiary fossil record, phylogenetic relationships between the fossil and the extant taxa are only insufficiently understood.

One of the earliest swift-like birds described so far is Eocypselus vincenti Harrison 1984 from the lower Eocene of England. That species, which is known from a few isolated bones of only a single individual, was classified into a monotypic taxon, Eocypselidae, by Harrison (1984) but included in the Hemiprocnidae by Mourer-Chauvire (1988).

Much better represented by numerous isolated bones are the early Tertiary Aegialornithidae Lydekker 1891, which exhibit a rather generalized overall osteology resembling both extant Hemiprocnidae and-apart from the more abbreviated humerus and tarsometatarsus-extant Aegothelidae. The Aegialornithidae are either considered to be closely related to the Hemiprocnidae (e.g. Harrison 1984; Karhu 1988, 1992; Mlikovsky 2002) or “the last representatives of an old radiation directed toward the realization of the type ‘True Swifts’” (Mourer-Chauvire 1988:369).

A few isolated bones from the Upper Eocene to Lower Oligocene deposits of the Quercy were assigned to Cypselavus gallicus Gaillard 1908 (Mourer-Chauvire 1978) which is currently recognized as the earliest taxon of the Hemiprocnidae (Harrison 1984, Peters 1985, Mourer-Chauvire 1988). The earliest certain members of the Apodidae belong to Scaniacypselus Harrison 1984, which includes two species from the Middle Eocene of Denmark and Germany (Harrison 1984, Peters 1985, Mayr and Peters 1999).

Crown group Trochilidae have no early Tertiary fossil record. However, Karhu (1988) described a new apodiform taxon, Jungornis tesselatus, from the Lower Oligocene of the Northern Caucasus which agrees with extant Trochilidae in highly characteristic derived features of the humerus (Karhu 1988, 1992). Karhu (1988) classified J. tesselatus into a new taxon, Jungornithidae, to which he later (Karhu 1999) assigned the Upper Eocene species Argornis caucasicus Karhu 1999. Both Jungornis and Argornis are known from wing elements of a single individual only, and A. caucasicus clearly exhibits a less specialized wing morphology than J. tesselatus.

The only phylogenetic analysis of fossil apodiform birds in which the proposed relationships are depicted in some sort of phylogenetic tree is by Harrison (1984) who assumed a major split between a hemiprocnid and an apodid lineage (a recent cladistic analysis of apodiform birds by Dyke [2001] is based on a largely incorrect character matrix [see Mayr 2001] and is thus not discussed in the following). However, whereas Harrison (1984) listed some derived characters to support the apodid lineage, assignment of the taxa Eocypselus, Aegialornis, and Cypselavus to the hemiprocnid lineage was based on plesiomorphic characters (”more generalized humeral structure,” “long slender ulna” with “more generalized proximal end;” see Harrison 1984:172).

Except for Karhu (1988, 1992, 1999), most authors further omitted the Trochilidae from their comparisons, and the present study is the first cladistic approach to the phylogeny of early Tertiary Apodiformes in which hummingbirds are included.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Anatomical terminology follows Baumel and Witmer (1993) and Vanden Berge and Zweers (1993), if not indicated otherwise. Comparisons with extant taxa are based on skeletons in the collection of Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg; concerning extant Apodiformes the following species were studied: Aegothelidae: Aegotheles cristatus; Hemiprocnidae: Hemiprocne comata; Apodidae: Chaetura vauxi, Apus apus, Collocalia vanikorensis, Co. salangana; Trochilidae: Phaethornis pretrei, Glaucis hirsuta, Amazilia versicolor, Archilochus colubris, Calypte anna, Anthracothorax sp., and Chrysolampis mosquitus. Information on osteology of the Cypseloidinae (Apodidae) is based on illustrations and descriptions in Cohn (1968), Ballmann (1976), and Collins (1976a).
The phylogenetic tree was constructed with the phylogenetic software PAUP (version 3.1; Swofford 1993), using a data set of 27 anatomical characters (see Appendix and Table 1 for character descriptions and data matrix). The only multistate character was coded as “ordered”. Unknown characters for particular taxa were coded as “missing”. The shortest tree was found with the exhaustive search option, and the analysis was run with the delayed transformation (DELTRAN) mode. The consistency index (CI), retention index (RI), and rescaled consistency index (RC) were calculated. Robustness of the tree was tested with a bootstrap analysis of 1,000 replicates. Extant Podargidae (Podargus strigoides) and Aegothelidae (Aegotheles cristatus) were used for outgroup comparisons.

RESULTS

The phylogenetic analysis of the character matrix (Table 1) resulted in 10 most-parsimonious trees, the consensus tree of which is shown in Figure 1.

The analysis supported monophyly of a clade including all apodiform taxa except Eocypselus and Aegialornis. Within that group, two lineages can be distinguished that include swifts and tree-swifts on the one hand, and hummingbirds on the other.

Monophyly of a clade including extant Hemiprocnidae, the fossil Scaniacypselus, and extant Apodidae is in concordance with previous phylogenetic hypotheses. Monophyly of the taxon (Scaniacypselus + extant Apodidae) received high bootstrap support; derived characters that support monophyly of extant Apodidae to the exclusion of Scaniacypselus are the greatly abbreviated proximal pedal phalanges (see figure 4 in Peters 1985 for absence of this feature in Scaniacypselus szarskii) and the absence of a well-marked fossa musculi brachialis (that fossa is visible in the type specimen of S. wardi).
The analysis further showed that the Jungornithidae sensu Karhu (1999) are paraphyletic and resulted in monophyly of the taxon (Argornis + [Jungornis + extant Trochilidae]). Sister group relationship between Argornis and the taxon (Jungornis + extant Trochilidae) is in concordance with the temporal occurrence of the fossil genera, with the Upper Eocene Argornis being geologically older than the Lower Oligocene Jungornis. Monophyly of Jungornis and extant Trochilidae is further supported by the fact that in Jungornis, as in extant hummingbirds, the M. biceps brachii has a single insertion on the ulna, whereas that muscle inserts on the radius only in extant Apodidae, and on both the ulna and the radius in extant Hemiprocnidae, the fossil Argornis, and most other birds (see Karhu 1999). Monophyly of extant Trochilidae to the exclusion of Jungornis is supported by numerous derived features including a peculiar morphology of the coracoid in which the processus procoracoideus is connected to the processus acrocoracoideus by an osseous bridge (Fig. 2).

DISCUSSION

As already noted by Karhu (1999), the fossil record of apodiform birds is in agreement with monophyly of swifts and hummingbirds. Monophyly of the taxon (Jungornis + Trochilidae) is supported by unique derived characters, and the osteology of Jungornis provides a transition between the highly derived morphology of extant Trochilidae and that of a more generalized apodiform bird (Figs. 2 and 3).The nectarivorous hummingbirds evolved a derived mode of hovering flight that allows them to remain virtually motionless in front of flowers. Probably as an adaptation to their unique way of locomotion, extant Trochilidae have unusually short wings (Rayner 1988) that differ from the long and pointed wings of swifts.

The feathering of either Argornis or Jungornis is unknown, but there is a specimen (Fig. 4) of an apodiform bird from the Middle Eocene of Messel, Germany, which is osteologically very similar to Argornis and in which the wing and tail feathers are excellently preserved (Mayr 2003). As in Argornis, the robust humerus is strongly abbreviated and bears a poorly developed processus musculi extensor metacarpi radialis which is much more protruding in other apodiform taxa with a similarly abbreviated humerus (i.e. Jungornis, extant Trochilidae, and the Apodidae; see Fig. 3). The Messel apodiform further exhibits the diagnostic characters that support monophyly of the taxon (Argornis + [Jungornis + extant Trochilidae]) (see Fig. 1). Most unusual and completely unexpected is the combination of a short and stout humerus with a short and broad wing, the tip of which is completely preserved in the specimen. If it is a stem group representative of the Trochilidae, the Messel apodiform might indicate that strongly elongated wings indeed are synapomorphic for the taxon (Hemiprocnidae + Apodidae) and that the Trochilidae evolved from a rather short-winged ancestor.
It has been assumed that hummingbirds evolved from insectivorous ancestors (e.g. Cohn 1968) and underlying the phylogeny in Figure 1, a “swift-like” or “aegothelid” beak almost certainly was present in the last common ancestor of the Apodiformes and is thus plesiomorphic for the taxon (Jungornis + Trochilidae). Hovering ability of hummingbirds might have primarily evolved as an adaptation for gleaning insects from the underside of leaves (Cohn 1968) or around flowers and was a preadaptation for the highly derived nectarivory of extant Trochilidae (Mayr and Manegold 2002).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank S. Chapman (The Natural History Museum, London) for access to fossil specimens and R. Prum, K. Smith, R. Zusi, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. S. Trankner (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg) took the photograph.

LITERATURE CITED

BALLMANN, P. 1976. Fossile Vogel aus dem Neogen der Halbinsel Gargano (Italien), zweiter Teil. Scripta Geologica 38:1-59.

BAUMEL, J. J., AND L. M. WITMER. 1993. Osteologia. Pages 45-132 in Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina Anatomica Avium (J. J. Baumel, A. S. King, J. E. Breazile, H. E. Evans, and J. C. Vanden Berge, Eds.). Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, no. 23.

COHN, J. M. W. 1968. The convergent flight mechanism of swifts (Apodi) and hummingbirds (Trochili) (Aves). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

COLLINS, C. T. 1976a. A review of the Lower Miocene swifts (Aves: Apodiformes). Pages 129-132 in Collected Papers in Avian Paleontology Honoring the 90th Birthday of Alexander Wetmore (S. L. Olson, Ed.). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, no. 27.
COLLINS, C. T. 1976b. Two new species of Aegialornis from France, with comments on the ordinal affinities of the Aegialornithidae. Pages 121-127 in Collected Papers in Avian Paleontology Honoring the 90th Birthday of Alexander Wetmore (S. L. Olson, Ed.). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, no. 27.

DYKE, G. 2001. A primitive swift from the London Clay and the relationships of fossil apodiform birds. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21:195-200.

HARRISON, C. J. O. 1984. A revision of the fossil swifts (Vertebrata, Aves, suborder Apodi), with descriptions of three new genera and two new species. Mededelingen van de Werkgroep voor Tertiaire en Kwartaire Geologie 21:157-177.

JOHANSSON, U. S., T. J. PARSONS, M. IRESTEDT, AND P. G. P. ERICSON. 2001. Clades within the “higher land birds”, evaluated by nuclear DNA sequences. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 39:37-51.

KARHU, A. 1988. Novoye semeystvo strizheo-braznykh iz paleogena Yevropy [A new family of swift-like birds from the Paleogene of Europe]. Paleontologicheskii zhurnal 3:78-88.

KARHU, A. 1992. Morphological divergence within the order Apodiformes as revealed by the structure of the humerus. Pages 379-384 in Papers in Avian Paleontology Honoring Pierce Brodkorb (K. E. Campbell, Ed.). Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series, no. 36.KARHU, A. 1999. A new genus and species of the family Jungornithidae (Apodiformes) from the Late Eocene of the Northern Caucasus, with comments on the ancestry of hummingbirds. Pages 207-216 in Avian Paleontology at the Close of the 20th Century: Proceedings of the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution (S. L. Olson, Ed.). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, no. 89.

LIVEZEY, B. C., AND R. L. ZUSI. 2001. Higher-order phylogenetics of modern Aves based on comparative anatomy. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 51:179-205.

MAYR, G. 2001. The relationships of fossil apodiform birds: A comment on Dyke (2001). Senckenbergiana lethaea 81:1-2.

MAYR, G. 2002. Osteological evidence for paraphyly of the avian order Caprimulgiformes (nightjars and allies). Journal fur Ornithologie 143:82-97.

MAYR, G. 2003. A new Eocene swift-like bird with a peculiar feathering. Ibis 145: in press.

MAYR, G., AND A. MANEGOLD. 2002. Eozane Stammlinienvertreter von Schwalmvogeln und Seglern aus der Grube Messel bei Darmstadt. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin (Neue Folge) 41:21-35.

MAYR, G., AND D. S. PETERS. 1999. On the systematic position of the Middle Eocene swift Aegialornis szarskii Peters 1985 with description of a new swift-like bird from Messel (Aves: Apodiformes). Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Monatshefte 1999:312-320.

MLIKOWSKY, J. 2002. Cenozoic Birds of the World. Part 1: Europe. Ninox Press, Praha, Czech Republic.

MOURER-CHAUVIRE, C. 1978. La poche a phosphate de Ste. Neboule (Lot) et sa faune de vertebres du Ludien Superieur. Oiseaux. Palaeovertebrata 8:217-229.MOURER-CHAUVIRE, C. 1988. Les Aegialornithidae (Aves: Apodiformes) des Phosphorites du Quercy. Comparaison avec la forme de Messel. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 107:369-381
Mayr, Gerald “Phylogeny of early tertiary swifts and hummingbirds (Aves: Apodiformes)”. Auk, The. Jan 2003. FindArticles.com. 17 Jan. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3793/is_200301/ai_n9214314

Add comment January 18th, 2008