August 2017

Summer Birding along Realty Road, Aroostook County, Maine

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Realty Road will first take you through some potato fields. Check these fields for Upland Sandpiper, Horned Lark, Cliff Swallow, Bobolink, and Savannah Sparrow. After about six miles you will reach the Six-mile Checkpoint where you must stop, register, and pay applicable fees. As you continue west along the road, watch for Snowshoe Hare, Woodchuck, Red Fox, Coyote, White-tailed Deer, Moose, and Black Bear.

For three quarters of a mile beginning 1.2 miles beyond mile-marker 17 the spruce-fir forest has little underbrush and no major blowdowns and is relatively easy to walk through. This is probably the best place to enter the forest and the most likely area to find both Black-backed and Three-toed woodpeckers. In 1985, they both nested across the road from the scenic turnout at 18.6 miles. [Author’s note: Miles given in the text such as “18.6 miles” refer to the total miles you have travelled since first entering Realty Road. Therefore, 18.6 miles is equivalent to 1.6 miles beyond mile marker 17.] Also be alert for Pileated Woodpecker, Boreal Chickadee, and Sharp-shinned and Broad-winged hawks.

The common breeding warblers in the forest are Tennessee, Nashville, Magnolia, Yellow-rumped, Cape May, Blackburnian, and Bay-breasted. Other birds commonly found throughout the spruce-fir forest anywhere along Realty Road are Ruffed Grouse, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Blue Jay, Gray Jay, Black-capped Chickadee, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Brown Creeper, Winter Wren, Hermit and Swainson’s thrushes. Ruby-crowned and Golden-crowned kinglets. Purple Finch, Evening Grosbeak, Pine Siskin, American Goldfinch, Dark-eyed Junco, and White-throated Sparrow. Be alert at all times for Red and White-winged crossbills and Pine Grosbeaks to fly overhead.

From the scenic turnout, scan for Common Mergansers in the Machias River below, Olive-sided Flycatcher at the tops of the trees across the river, and Red-tailed Hawk soaring overhead. Also listen here for Northern Waterthrush and Canada Warbler, both commonly found near wet habitats along the road.

Continue west 1.3 miles from the scenic turnout to the Machias Dam Campsites. This is a fine spot to pitch a tent if you are camping. You must, however, reserve the site ahead of time. Information on how to reserve campsites can be found at the end of this article. Of the two campsites here, number 253 is farther from the road and prettier. Even if you are not camping, this is still a nice spot for birds. Listen for Olive-sided and Alder flycatchers singing from across the road. Walk along the path to the river, an excellent site for a swim if it is a hot day. Look for Common Merganser here, and scan the river’s mouth (to the right) for Common Goldeneye, American Black Duck, and Ring-necked Duck. During the summer of 1985 I found a Greater Scaup at this spot, a highly unusual bird for Maine during the breeding season. This is also a good area for Moose. Listen here for Lincoln’s Sparrow and for Swamp Sparrow, singing from the swampy edges of the estuary.

Continue west along Realty Road 0.4 mile. The second driveway on the left after the 20-mile marker is Machias Lake Camps, a sporting camp used for bear hunting in the fall. This is a convenient place to base yourself if you are staying for a few days. Cabins are spacious, comfortable, and well-equipped and cost $12 per person per day. For information about staying here, contact Ivan and Peggy Porter, Ashland, ME 04732, telephone: 207-435-6977, well in advance of your trip. If you are not staying here, you should ask permission to bird on the lakeside property. Birds commonly found on and around this property are Common Loon, Great Blue Heron, American Bittern, Canada Goose, Ring-necked Duck, Common Goldeneye, Common Merganser, Osprey, American Kestrel, Killdeer, Common Snipe, Spotted Sandpiper, Herring Gull, Belted Kingfisher, Eastern Kingbird, Alder and Olive-sided flycatchers. Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, and Chipping, Swamp, and Song sparrows.

At 1.4 miles farther west on Realty Road, there is a small but steep hill. The forest here, as in numerous places along the 20-mile stretch of road you have traveled, is deciduous. Listen here, or at any similar mixed-wood area, for Northern Flicker, Downy Woodpecker, American Robin, Wood Thrush, Veery, Red-eyed Vireo, Black-and-white Warbler, Northern Parula, Black-throated Green and Chestnut-sided warblers, Ovenbird, American Redstart, Scarlet Tanager, and Rose-breasted Grosbeak.

Half a mile farther along on the left, you will see a large cleared area, overgrown with raspberries. If you stop here, remember to park well off the road, because heavy trucks have the right-of-way. It might be a good idea to park on the side road that you can see ahead of you. Like any clearing, this is a fine location for Mourning Warbler and Lincoln’s Sparrow. The forest on the right is prime spruce-fir habitat and easy to walk through. Listen here for Solitary Vireo. I found a Northern Saw-whet Owl here as well.

Continue west on Realty Road, following the signs for McNally’s to avoid taking any wrong forks. At approximately 27.7 miles, a small clearing on the right marks the entrance to an old overgrown logging road. Owling here yielded Northern Saw-whet and Barred owls. About a half-mile along the overgrown path, I saw and heard a Fox Sparrow singing in late May and early June of 1985. Fox Sparrows have not been thought to breed in the eastern United States, but one has been confirmed nesting in the state of Maine. Be alert for this species throughout the region in the proper habitat of shrubby areas associated with streams and thick stands of young spruce and fir. The song is a series of sweet slurred notes with a buzzy note at the end. To me, it sounds like deee dooo cheery cheery cheery dooo dee dee zee with the zee rising at the end. A little farther along the road (0.4 mile) at the Pratt Lake Campsite, listen for Black-throated Blue Warbler. Scan the lake for loons and the sky above for Osprey and Bald Eagle.

If you wish to continue at this point, you will find a pleasant side road to walk down at 36.9 miles, 8.8 miles beyond Pratt Lake Campsite. It is a very pretty road, known locally as Squirrel Pond Loop Road, and birding is good along its entire length. About one mile down this road where the road makes a turn to the right, a Three-toed Woodpecker was seen about 450 feet into the forest on the left. Unfortunately, the forest becomes quite swampy at that spot, and walking is difficult. Listen for Pine Grosbeak and Mourning Warbler in this area as well.

Most wilderness enthusiasts will want to continue west on Realty Road to the famed Allagash Wilderness Waterway (AWW) at 57.2 miles. To do so, you must pass through a locked gate at 44 miles that is staffed only from 6 am to 8 pm Another good place to walk into the forest is at 56 miles, 1.2 miles before you get to the waterway. If you enter the forest here, walk straight in to the right (north), just before the AWW entrance sign comes into view, and you will reach Glazier Brook after about 400 feet. Look for Common Merganser, and listen for Wilson’s and Mourning warblers across the brook. Also, the concentration of Bay-breasted Warblers at this site is phenomenal.

It is not necessary to go as far as the Allagash River to see all the birdlife of this region. However, the Umsaskis Bridge crossing is a scenic site for a picnic, and free camping is also available there. At the bridge, listen for Warbling Vireo and Alder Flycatcher, and scan the lake for loons and Common Merganser. Moose may appear along the waterway early in the morning.

Beyond the bridge about 0.3 mile, red ribbon flags mark an entrance into the woods on the left. From the road, listen for Barred Owl, Swainson’s Thrush, and Black-throated Blue and Mourning warblers. In 1985, Three-toed Woodpeckers nested in the forest on the left, and the chance of seeing Black-backed and Pileated woodpeckers here is also very good. Notice the cedar trees with the deep oval-shaped holes carved out by the Pileated Woodpeckers.

Practical Suggestions

Although Realty Road is a dirt road, it is maintained regularly and can be easily traversed by two-wheel-drive vehicles. A speed of 30 mph is reasonable along most of the road, although some bumpy sections necessitate slower speeds. North Maine Woods Association recommends against trying to average more than 20 mph.

A good map of the North Maine Woods region, showing all roads, overgrown logging roads, and paths can be obtained at the Six-mile Checkpoint. A good compass is an absolute necessity for walking through the forest where there are no paths to guide you. You will find that spruce-fir forest looks remarkably the same in every direction. The use of bright flagging ribbon - buy a roll or two at the Ashland Hardware Store - to mark your route into the forest is a good precaution in the event that you do lose your sense of direction.

Wear heavy shoes when walking in the forest. The forest floor is quite damp, and you must be prepared to get shoes and slacks wet. The mosquitoes and black flies are most abundant in mid-June, so wear protective clothing and carry plenty of insect repellent. Head nets are advisable and are available at Bushey’s Clothing Store in Ashland.

For camping information and to make campsite reservations, write to North Maine Woods Association, P. O. Box 382 [now 425], Ashland, Maine 04732.

Although i have described and recommended specific roadside birding stops, it should be stressed that most of the bird species mentioned can be seen almost anywhere along the road in appropriate habitats. Therefore, if you equip yourself with map, compass, markers, insect repellents, and protective clothing. I urge you to be adventurous and explore as much of the wonderful wilderness area of “Reality Road” as you can.

SUMMER BIRD LIST FOR REALTY ROAD

A
VC
C
U

ABUNDANT
VERY COMMON
COMMON
UNCOMMON

VU
R
VR
O

VERY UNCOMMON
RARE
VERY RARE
OCCASIONAL

SPECIES	STATUS	SPECIES	STATUS
Common Loon	C	Ruby-crowned Kinglet	C
American Bittern	U	Veery	C
Great Blue Heron	U	Swainson’s Thrush	C
Canada Goose	U	Hermit Thrush	C
American Black Duck	R	Wood Thrush	VR
Ring-necked Duck	R	American Robin	C
Greater Scaup	O	Gray Catbird	R
Common Goldeneye	C	Cedar Waxwing	U
Common Merganser	U	European Starling	R
Osprey	U	Solitary Vireo	U
Northern Harrier	VR	Warbling Vireo	VR
Sharp-shinned Hawk	U	Red-eyed Vireo	C
Broad-winged Hawk	C	Tennessee Warbler	C
Red-tailed Hawk	U	Nashville Warbler	VC
American Kestrel	R	Northern Parula	R
Ruffed Grouse	C	Yellow Warbler	U
Killdeer	U	Chestnut-sided Warbler	U
Spotted Sandpiper	C	Magnolia Warbler	VC
Common Snipe	C	Cape May Warbler	VC
American Woodcock	U	Black-throated Blue Warbler	U
Herring Gull	C	Yellow-rumped Warbler	VC
Barred Owl	C	Black-throated Green Warbler	U
Northern Saw-whet Owl	C	Blackburnian Warbler	A
Common Nighthawk	VC	Bay-breasted Warbler	C
Chimney Swift	U	Blackpoll Warbler	R
Ruby-throated Hummingbird	R	Black-and-white Warbler	R
Belted Kingfisher	VU	American Redstart	C
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker	C	Ovenbird	U
Downy Woodpecker	VU	Northern Waterthrush	U
Hairy Woodpecker	VU	Mourning Warbler	U
Three-toed Woodpecker	VU	Common Yellowthroat	U
Black-backed Woodpecker	C	Wilson’s Warbler	R
Northern Flicker	C	Canada Warbler	U
Pileated Woodpecker	U	Scarlet Tanager	U
Olive-sided Flycatcher	U	Rose-breasted Grosbeak	C
Eastern Wood-Pewee	R	Chipping Sparrow	C
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher	VC	Savannah Sparrow	U
Alder Flycatcher	U	Fox Sparrow	O
Eastern Phoebe	VR	Song Sparrow	U
Great-crested Flycatcher	R	Lincoln’s Sparrow	U
Eastern Kingbird	U	Swamp Sparrow	U
Horned Lark	VR	White-throated Sparrow	VC
Tree Swallow	C	Dark-eyed Junco	VC
Cliff Swallow	R	Bobolink	U
Barn Swallow	C	Red-winged Blackbird	C
Gray Jay	C	Common Grackle	C
Blue Jay	C	Brown-headed Cowbird	U
American Crow	C	Northern Oriole	VR
Common Raven	C	Pine Grosbeak	R
Black-capped Chickadee	U	Purple Finch	VC
Boreal Chickadee C VR	C	Red Crossbill	VR
Red-breasted NuthatcH	C	White-winged Crossbill	VU
Brown Creeper	C	Pine Siskin	C
Winter Wren	C	American Goldfinch	U
Golden-crowned Kinglet	VC	Evening Grosbeak	A

This is not an inclusive list of all northern Maine woods species; it includes only those species that the author saw in the vicinity of Realty Road from May 25 to July 5, 1985.

Nicholas Komar, a biochemistry major at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, spent six weeks in the summer of 1985 collecting data on bird territories in spruce-fir plots along the Realty Road as part of a long-term monitoring project sponsored by the state of Maine and private paper companies in an effort to learn more about the effects of pest control and logging on the wildlife of the spruce-fir ecosystem. A skilled birder since boyhood, Nick has birded for thirteen years locally in Newton, extensively in the United States, and abroad in Europe, Israel, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Peru. He served on the Bird Observer Field Studies Committee and has been a contributor to this publication.

Distinctions between Three-toed and Black-backed Woodpeckers

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Both woodpecker species are oblivious to people, as are other boreal species. Sometimes, while walking through the forest, I would hear the distinctive soft tapping of a “three-toed” and would look up to discover a Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) going about its business only a few feet away. More often than not, however, it would fly out of sight as soon as I noticed it. Rarely was I lucky enough to come across the less conspicuous Three-toed Woodpecker (P. tridactylus). However, the few experiences 1 did have with the latter species have enabled me to make some clear distinctions between the two. Although both are tolerant of an observer’s presence, the Black-backed Woodpecker seemed more so and is in every respect a much more conspicuous bird than the slightly smaller and shyer Three-toed Woodpecker.

Field Marks

The Black-backed Woodpecker is a very beautiful bird, much more striking than its counterpart. The completely black back is actually shiny — appearing glossy black. The back of the Three-toed is much less striking than the Black-backed’s, of a very dark brown or black color, but not shiny. The major contribution to the duller aspect of the back is the presence of weak white barring (barely visible on some individuals) in the eastern subspecies of the Three-toed Woodpecker (P. t. bacatus). This fact confused me when 1 located my first Three-toed. Expecting to differentiate the two species by the clear white ladderback shown in the field guides, I was surprised when close scrutiny of this individual Three-toed revealed only faint barring on the back!

The heads of the two species can be contrasted in the same way. The Black-backed has a striking black-and-white head with a well-defined white face pattern. The bright yellow cap is also well-delineated. On the other hand, the head of the Three-toed is less striking. The black-and-white head pattern is characterized by poorly defined borders. The weak eyeline stretches faintly back over the black neck and connects with the faint barring on the upper back. This gives the appearance of the ladder-back creeping up onto the nape. Even the male’s yellow cap always appears ruffled, whereas that of the Black-backed is usually immaculate. Overall, the color pattern of the Three-toed’s head seems rather disorganized, whereas the Black-backed has quite a handsomely marked head.

Calls

The call of both species is kik, although that of the Black-backed is slightly more explosive than that of the Three-toed. The Black-backed has another very distinctive call which sounds like a kingfisher rattle. It often makes this call in flight, and also after alighting near its nest with food, sometimes spreading its wings as it calls.

The Three-toed Woodpecker gives a similar call just before feeding young or when it is excited (as when intruders are near the nest). The call can be described as five rapid kiks, each one getting shorter and lower-pitched but without culminating in a rattle like the Black-backed’s call.

The two woodpeckers have nearly identical drumrolls. The drumroll gets noticeably faster at the end, distinguishing it from the rolls of the Hairy, Downy, or Flicker.

The most common noise you will hear from the “three-toeds” is their distinctive pecking, which sounds like someone tapping out the Morse Code! They make this noise while trying to remove rectangular flaps of bark to get at the morsels of food underneath.

Nesting

Another noise to be alert for is that of the young in the nest. Nestlings of both species make a continuous, high-pitched ticking noise, which gets louder when the parents call, with about 240 ticks per minute. Use this noise as a guide for locating the nest from as far as a hundred feet away. The nests of both species are marked by a small round hole, located about ten to twenty feet up the trunk of a dead softwood tree that is usually well-decorated with the lichen Usnea (“old-man’s beard”), hanging from the dead limbs. Young of both species were still in the nest as of the first week of July (a good time to go looking).

Birders who decide to look for these woodpeckers along Realty Road will thoroughly enjoy the striking beauty and coquettish behavior of the Black-backed Woodpecker. The Three-toed Woodpecker will be much more of a challenge, but equally rewarding. With luck and careful observation, you won’t have to come home with only stories of the probable “three-toed” that got away.

Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond: Coming or Going?

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Figure 1. Maximum numbers of Canvasbacks (solid line) and Ring-Necked Ducks (dotted line) reported at Fresh Pond for 1974–2016. Data from Bird Observer, Barton (1995), and eBird.

Forty-plus years of Canvasback records at Fresh Pond

Bird Observer began publication in 1973 and since then has continuously published records of bird sightings in Massachusetts. In almost every year, the compilers of these records—for whom I have unbounded admiration—have included the number of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond. In addition, Barton (1995) compiled eleven years of Fresh Pond records and, more recently, many observers including me have contributed their observations of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond to the eBird website. Most records from Bird Observer have also been added to eBird. I used these sources to identify and graph the maximum number of Canvasbacks observed at Fresh Pond during each autumn migration period (October–January) for the years 1974–2016 (Figure 1). For comparison, I also graphed the number of Ring-necked Ducks.

These data show that Canvasback numbers peaked at Fresh Pond in 1988—the very year I first visited—at around 1000. The records also confirmed that Canvasback numbers started decreasing in the mid-1990s. The last time more than 100 birds were seen was in 1997 with 170. The last year with more than 50 was 2006 with 54, the last year with more than 10 was 2013 with 16, and 2014–2016 had four or fewer each year. Though only one bird was reported in 2016, I saw both a female and a male Canvasback on separate visits, so there were at least two different birds. In contrast, Ring-necked Duck numbers have remained stable at approximately 200–300 throughout the period when the Canvasback numbers have been declining. Ruddy Ducks, though more variable than Ring-necks in number—and not shown on the graph—have also maintained their numbers at typically 25–100 throughout this period. Whatever is leading to the decline of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond is clearly not affecting the Ring-necks and Ruddys.

Looking at Figure 1, it appears that Canvasback numbers were increasing throughout the mid-70s. For years prior to 1974, however, I have so far not been able to find records of Canvasback numbers at Fresh Pond. Thus, I don’t know if this rise in numbers began from a pre-1974 period of very few birds (i.e., similar to 2014–2016), or if numbers had been higher in those earlier years. The data in Figure 1 thus raise, but can’t answer, the question of whether it is the low number of Canvasbacks in 2014–2016, rather than the high numbers in 1980s and 1990s, that should be considered the usual state of affairs. To try to answer this question, I turned to earlier historical sources and alternative data sources.

Historical notes about Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond and in Massachusetts

In addition to providing a respite for urban dwellers, Fresh Pond has attracted the sustained attention of botanists (Bigelow 1824), philosophers (Emerson 1910) and, of course, ornithologists (Brewster 1906, Forbush 1912) since the early days of the Commonwealth. Canvasbacks have always been a duck of great interest, for reasons both aesthetic and—during the market gunning era—economic. Canvasbacks that fed on wild celery were good to eat and could sell for two or three dollars (Forbush 1912). So, what do these early sources suggest about the likely numbers of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond?

In his memoir of Cambridge birding, Brewster (1906) includes information about the waterfowl at Fresh Pond both in 1867–1871, an era when hunting was allowed, and during the first years of the 1900s, well after Cambridge banned shooting at the pond in 1884. His descriptions of the pond, the neighboring Great Swamp of Cambridge, the local birds, and his companions are well worth reading, but, for this essay, it is his observations of Canvasbacks that are of interest. Brewster listed the Canvasback as “of very rare occurrence during migration” and was able to provide only three records. One record was from an 1846 meeting of the Boston Society of Natural History at which Dr. S. Cabot Jr. noted that a Canvasback had been taken by Captain N. J. Wyeth at Fresh Pond (Gould 1848). Though the date this bird was taken was not given, the Wyeth family had been at Fresh Pond since 1797 (Sinclair 2009). The other two records of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond provided by Brewster included one bird seen in autumn of 1903 and another single bird seen in December of 1905. Brewster was a comprehensive observer of Cambridge birdlife, so his observations suggest that Canvasbacks were almost vanishingly rare at Fresh Pond throughout the 1800s and into the early 1900s.

The accounts of Job (1897), Fay (1910), and Phillips (1925) show that observations in Massachusetts of even small numbers of Canvasbacks were considered noteworthy, again suggesting that this species was historically rare in our area. Similarly, Forbush (1912) states, “In my early years, the Canvas-back was regarded as little more than a straggler in New England, though occasionally a few were taken.”

Figure 2. Estimated Canvasback populations for the North American continent from Breeding Bird Survey data (BBS, upper solid line) and for wintering Canvasbacks in the Atlantic Flyway from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service midwinter waterfowl surveys (FWS-ATL, lower solid line). Shown for comparison are the numbers for Fresh Pond from Figure 2 (dotted line, but note different scale on right axis).

Though agreeing that the Canvasback was generally rare, these writers also noted that, in some years (e.g., 1896 and 1901–1905), Canvasbacks arrived in noticeably larger numbers than in other years. However, even in what Job (1897) called the “phenomenal flight” of 1896, his note included observations of only eight Canvasbacks.

More Numbers—it’s a New England Phenomenon

Taken together, the historical accounts and the data from the past forty years suggest that Canvasbacks have usually been rare at Fresh Pond. Thus, the high numbers in the late 1980s and early 1990s may have been an anomaly, and the recent low numbers may represent a return to the more common state. To further investigate possible reasons for this very local population change, I turned to more comprehensive surveys of Canvasbacks.

First, I considered whether local Canvasback numbers might be a simple reflection of the total Canvasback population. As shown in Figure 2, however, the total North American population of Canvasbacks, as estimated from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), has been on a slow upward trend, and its fluctuations do not mirror the changes at Fresh Pond. Thus, the decreasing numbers of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond are not due to a decreased total population of Canvasbacks. Barton (1995) similarly concluded that Canvasback numbers at Fresh Pond were not coupled to continental populations.

Figure 3. Estimated wintering Canvasback populations in Massachusetts from the USFWS midwinter waterfowl survey (FWS-MA, top panel, solid line) and from all Massachusetts Christmas Bird Counts combined (CBC-MA, lower panel, solid line). Shown for comparison are the numbers for Fresh Pond from Figure 2 (dotted line in each panel, but note different scale on right axis).

Next, I considered how Canvasback populations in our Atlantic Flyway, as estimated from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) midwinter waterfowl surveys, might correlate with the numbers at Fresh Pond. The data from these surveys, which can be accessed online, have documented a consistent decrease in wintering populations of Canvasbacks in the Atlantic Flyway during the past 60 years (Figure 2). Indeed, as habitat quality has declined in Chesapeake Bay, which was once home to hundreds of thousands of wintering Canvasbacks, their wintering range has been shifting westward into the Central Flyway (Mowbray 2002). Over the past 20 years, the decrease in Atlantic Flyway Canvasbacks has coincided with the decreasing numbers at Fresh Pond. This result is unsurprising, because the birds at Fresh Pond must be drawn from the pool of Atlantic Flyway birds. However, the overall Atlantic Flyway numbers did not show a peak in the 1985–1995 period to correspond with the peak numbers at Fresh Pond. Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, there seems to be no simple one-to-one correlation between the number of Canvasbacks wintering in the Atlantic Flyway and the number that appear at Fresh Pond. This result suggests that factors at less than flyway scale are important in determining Canvasback numbers at the pond.

To examine more local changes, I next examined Massachusetts county-specific records in eBird and found that only on Nantucket have Canvasbacks continued to be consistently reported. For example, each year from 2009–2017, eBird reports from Nantucket have included high counts of 37 or more (range = 37–230) Canvasbacks on the island’s ponds, with peak numbers often in February or March. In contrast, only scattered reports of small numbers of birds were reported during this period from Barnstable County on Cape Cod or from Bristol and Norfolk counties in southeastern Massachusetts. Remarkably, no Canvasbacks have been reported since 2009 from Dukes County, which includes Martha’s Vineyard. Though the data in eBird showed that Canvasbacks continue to be found on Nantucket, I found that there were some years and counties for which eBird lacked data, thus limiting its usefulness.

Finally, to find more complete data for our region, I examined Canvasback records from the Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) for Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as records from the Massachusetts state-specific USFWS midwinter surveys, all of which are available online. These records show that over the past two decades, wintering Canvasbacks have almost disappeared not only from Fresh Pond, but from all of Massachusetts (Figure 3) and Rhode Island (not shown). In addition, these two data sets agree that Canvasbacks were rare in Massachusetts throughout the 1950s and 1960s, more abundant from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, and decreasing from the mid-1990s through 2016. This pattern roughly coincides with the trends at Fresh Pond. For the CBCs, birds on Nantucket composed 70–97% of the Canvasbacks reported in the 2009–2016 period, which is consistent with the eBird data. In contrast, Nantucket birds typically represented <10% of the Canvasbacks in Massachusetts during the 1980s and early 1990s, when Canvasbacks were both more numerous and more widely distributed in Massachusetts. Rather than being a strictly local phenomenon at Fresh Pond, therefore, the decreasing numbers of Canvasbacks over the past two decades appear to have occurred throughout much of southeastern New England, with the notable exception of Nantucket.

What about Food?

When I first contemplated this essay, my hypothesis was that Canvasbacks might be decreasing at Fresh Pond due to habitat change, including perhaps a decrease in their preferred foods. As is well known, Canvasbacks have a particular fondness for wild celery (Vallisneria americana)—also known as American eelgrass or tape-grass—especially during the nonbreeding seasons. Historically, wild celery has been found at Fresh Pond. Bigelow (1824) notes that he collected wild celery at Fresh Pond, and in the digital collections of the Harvard University Herbaria I found images of wild celery plants collected at Fresh Pond in 1910 and 1917 (Harvard University Herbaria 2017). Furthermore, writing in 2002, Mowbray noted, “During past 40 yr, Canvasbacks have altered traditional migration routes, changed wintering sites, and modified diets in response to changes in availability and predictability of certain foods.”

So, it seemed plausible that changes in Canvasback numbers at Fresh Pond were following changes in food availability.

Unfortunately, I was not able to determine the current status of wild celery or other potential Canvasback foods at Fresh Pond. I corresponded with Jean Rogers, the chief ranger at the Fresh Pond Reservation, and she wrote that no studies had been made of the aquatic vegetation at Fresh Pond. I have also been unable to find observations that identify what Canvasbacks eat at Fresh Pond—I am embarrassed to say that I never noticed!

Though some key information is missing, I am nonetheless willing to risk concluding that change in food availability is unlikely to have driven the large changes, both up and down, in Canvasback numbers at Fresh Pond. My reason is that, as noted above, Canvasback numbers have changed more or less synchronously throughout all of southeastern New England. It’s hard to believe that region-wide changes in availability of foods such as wild celery would have gone unnoticed. Furthermore, if such food changes had occurred only at Fresh Pond, then I would have expected changes in Canvasback numbers to have been similarly limited to Fresh Pond, rather than changing over the entire region as was the case. Finally, Canvasbacks are able to eat many kinds of foods, including invertebrates such as freshwater clams (Mowbray 2002), and I have noticed Ring-necked Ducks eating shellfish at Fresh Pond.

Changing Migration Patterns?

Could changes in migration patterns have led to the changing numbers of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond and throughout Massachusetts? The general outlines of Canvasback breeding areas and migration routes have been understood for more than 100 years (Forbush 1912), and studies of banded and dye-marked Canvasbacks have provided additional details (Stewart, Geis, and Evans 1958; Serie, Trauger, and Sharp 1983).

Because Canvasbacks do not breed in the Atlantic Flyway, all of the birds that appear in New England originate from breeding areas and migrate via staging areas that are far to the west of us. One study found that autumn migrants destined for New England first congregate at staging areas on the Upper Mississippi River, for example, at the locations known as pools 7 and 8 on the border between southeastern Minnesota and western Wisconsin (Serie, Trauger, and Sharp 1983). From there, the birds head almost due east, likely passing Lake Erie and the Finger Lakes region of New York before entering New England.

For New England, the key fact about this migration is that a large majority of the Canvasbacks that winter in the Atlantic Flyway do not pass through New England at any time. Rather, they follow more southerly routes to the wintering grounds along the mid-Atlantic coast and on the Chesapeake Bay. As noted by Forbush (1912), “Only the most northerly edge of the great fan-shaped migrating movement reaches New England.”

Thus, if we are to see any Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond or other areas of Massachusetts, it’s necessary for the northern edge of the migration to pass into our region. Small displacements of the migration edge to the north or south—on the order of a hundred miles or so—could conceivably cause large changes in Canvasback numbers in New England.

Unfortunately, we lack the data needed to determine if Canvasback migration routes to New England have fluctuated over the past decades, so many questions remain unanswered. Is it possible that a northward shift in the migration route, which was then maintained for a couple of decades, was responsible for the increased number of Canvasbacks seen here from the mid-1970s until the mid-1990s? In years such as 2014–2016 when few Canvasbacks arrived in New England, did the Canvasbacks enter but then overfly New England or did the birds simply bypass New England on a more southerly route? Or did the birds stop before reaching New England, perhaps at Lake Erie or the Finger Lakes of New York? Where do the birds on Nantucket come from? If the migration route shifts northward in the future, will high numbers of Canvasbacks again return to Fresh Pond and southeastern New England? What factors determine where the northern edge of the migration route occurs? Do the birds in New England all originate from a single small breeding area? Has the migration route been affected by a shift to the northwest of breeding sites (Mowbray 2002) or by local changes in breeding success and populations? Have migration staging areas changed? What is the effect of ongoing climate change? To answer such questions, it would seem necessary to track birds with radio transmitters or other real-time tracking devices. Though there has been one study of radio-tracked female Canvasbacks wintering on the Chesapeake (Haramis, Jorde, and Bunck 1993), there have been, to my knowledge, no such studies of Canvasbacks in New England.

Conclusions

I began this essay with a simple question: why have Canvasback numbers decreased at Fresh Pond over the past two decades? Though I haven’t found a simple answer, my investigations did change my understanding of the problem.

First, I found that changes in Canvasback numbers at Fresh Pond are not a strictly local phenomenon, but rather mirror changes occurring throughout southeastern New England, with the exception of Nantucket. On the other hand, the Fresh Pond changes do not appear to be closely coupled to the overall Canvasback population in the Atlantic Flyway or to the total continental population. Thus, we should seek region-wide, in addition to local, understanding of Canvasback population changes.

Second, I found that the abundance of Canvasbacks at Fresh Pond in the late 1980s and early 1990s—when I first visited—was likely to have been historically unusual. Today’s low numbers may thus represent a return to a more common circumstance in which Canvasbacks are rare in our area.

Finally, it seems unlikely that decreased food availability led to the recent decrease in Canvasback numbers. On the other hand, northerly or southerly displacements in migration routes might well have contributed both to the abundance of Canvasbacks twenty years ago and to their rarity today. However, much more information is needed to reach definite conclusions about these possibilities.

Biology is a science in which history counts. Knowing that Canvasbacks are historically rare in our area and that there has not been a catastrophic local habitat change has given me a more optimistic view of the changes at Fresh Pond. In the coming autumn of 2017, it’s likely that only a handful Canvasbacks will appear. 2017 could even be the year when no Canvasbacks come to Fresh Pond. However, it’s also possible that this year—or some future year—will be the year when the trend changes and Canvasbacks start to become more abundant. I live in hope.

References

Barton, J. H. 1995. Ten Years and a Year: The Fall Waterfowl Census at Fresh Pond, Cambridge, 1984-1993, 1994. Bird Observer 23 (1): 11–24.
Bigelow, J. 1824. Florula Bostoniensis. A Collection of the Plants of Boston and its Vicinity with their Generic and Specific Characters, Principal Synonyms, Descriptions, Places of Growth, and Time of Flowering, and Occasional Remarks. Boston: Cummings, Hilliard, & Co.
Brewster, W. 1906. The Birds of the Cambridge Region of Massachusetts. Cambridge: Nuttall Ornithological Club.
Emerson, R. W. 1910. Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson: with Annotations. April 11, 1834. Volume 3. Edited by Edward Waldo Emerson and Waldo Emerson Forbes. Boston and New York. Houghton Mifflin Company and Cambridge: The Riverside Press.
Fay, S.P. 1910. The Canvas-back in Massachusetts. The Auk 27: 369–81.
Forbush, E. H. 1912. A History of the Game Birds, Wild-Fowl, and Shore Birds of Massachusetts and Adjacent States. Boston: Wright & Potter.
Gould A. A., 1848. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History for January 7, 1846. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 2: 89. Boston: Freeman and Bolles.
Harvard University Herbaria. 2017. Specimens of wild celery (Vallisneria americana) collected at Fresh Pond, Cambridge in 1910 and 1917 which are designated with barcodes 00635119 and 00635120 respectively. Accessed May 23, 2017.
Haramis, G. M., D. G. Jorde, and C. M. Bunck. 1993. Survival of Hatching-Year Female Canvasbacks Wintering on Chesapeake Bay. The Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 763-71.
Job, H. K. 1897. The Canvas-back Duck in Massachusetts. The Auk. 14: 206.
Mowbray, T. 2002. Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) in The Birds of North America Online (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
Phillips, John C. 1925. A Natural History of the Ducks. Canvas-back. Volume 3, pages 121-144. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and Cambridge: The University Press.
Robinson, L. 1975. Fresh Pond’s Autumn Waterfowl. Bird Observer 3 (4): 120–22.
Rines, M. W. 2017. Bird Sightings, November–December 2016. Waterfowl through Alcids. Bird Observer 45: 133–34.
Serie, J. R., D. L. Trauger, and D. E. Sharp. 1983. Migration and Winter Distributions of Canvasbacks Staging on the Upper Mississippi River. The Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 741-53.
Sinclair, J. 2009. Fresh Pond. The History of a Cambridge Landscape. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stewart, R. E., A. D. Geis, and C. D. Evans. 1958. Distribution of Populations and Hunting Kill of the Canvasback. The Journal of Wildlife Management 22: 333-70.

Jeffrey Boone Miller is a Professor of Neurology and Physiology at the Boston University School of Medicine, a member of the Board of Tutors in Biochemical Sciences at Harvard University, and an Associate Editor of Bird Observer. Jeff is an advocate for birding locally and habitat preservation. Primary data used for this article are available by contacting him at jboonemiller@icloud.com. He thanks Jean Rogers, Jim Barton, Wayne Petersen, and Michael R. Miller for helpful information and Kathleen Buckley for first taking him to Fresh Pond.

Bird Sermons: Thomas Green Fessenden and the New England Farmer (1822–1846)

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Fessenden and the New England Farmer (1822–1846)

Thomas Green Fessenden (1771–1837) was raised on a farm in New Hampshire, educated as a lawyer in Vermont, and after settling in England, gained some renown as an inventor and as poet of satirical humorous verse (Perrin 1925). After returning to the United States, he concentrated on writing and editing, though later in his life he served as a judge and as a member of the Massachusetts legislature. Nathaniel Hawthorne, who regarded him as a kindly genius, befriended him two years before his death and wrote a short biography (Hawthorne 1838).

The first issue of the New England Farmer was published by Thomas W. Shepard of Congress Street, Boston, on August 3, 1822. It would be the second enduring agricultural weekly in the United States (the Baltimore-based American Farmer [1819–1834] was the first). In the first issue, Shepard introduced the editor as a “man of science” conversant with both the theory and practice of farming. Fessenden would spend the next fifteen years constructing the paper each week from his own work and that of other associated authorities, adding material copied from other newspapers via an exchange network, and offering a forum for correspondents wishing to relate their own opinions and experiences. Hawthorne (1838) described Fessenden’s home as consumed with such writing and editing:

The table, and great part of the floor, were covered with books and pamphlets on agricultural subjects, newspapers from all quarters, manuscript articles for “The New England Farmer,” and manuscript stanzas for [his poetry].

Fessenden would end up writing several books on gardening and farming topics.

There is no evidence that Fessenden had much scientific knowledge of bird life, though his poetry shows that he was at least conversant with the song of the “bob-o-linkhorn.” Regardless, the New England Farmer quickly became a forum for promoting the value of protecting birds. On November 14, 1822, for example, he ran a correspondent’s letter copying an entry from Wilson on the Scarlet Tanager, introduced as follows:

It will be perceived that this showy stranger, which is indeed more and more to visit us of late, mostly feeds upon the large winged and most noxious and injurious insects. If, however, this bird, so modest and sweetly attired, is not kindly received, we shall lose the visits with which he gratifies us. Why not place him with the Swallow, the Turtle Dove, and other favored harmless birds, who in fond reliance cluster around our houses? But above all, let those who deal out leaden death, consider that as this sweet bird of both song and plumage affords no inducements as game or luxury for food--whether it does not belong to their spirit and gallantry to spare as they wish to be thought its admirers, innocence and beauty. (“W” 1822)

Fessenden was also willing to stretch the category of the useful bird to include crows and blackbirds, editorializing in response to an article on the “Destruction of Crows” via the sewing of horse hairs into corn seed,

We doubt the policy as well as the humanity of destroying crows and blackbirds, if it could be effected by a wish. They sometimes injure the farmer by pulling up a few hills of corn, but they benefit him much more by destroying worms and other insects. And there are other means of preserving Indian corn not only from birds, but from worms, which we believe are more effectual than the above mentioned, and liable to no objection. (“Gloucester” 1825)

Bird Sermons

Of particular note during Fessenden’s term as editor was the inclusion of essays drawn from other papers and contributed by correspondents that plead for the protection of birds. These would eventually be known as “spare the birds” stories (Oehlkers 2017). On September 1, 1826, he reprinted a story from a Massachusetts newspaper calling insect infestations a “judgment from heaven” for killing birds. Throughout the late 1820s correspondents contributed like letters, some with similar religious rhetoric.

Roland Howard of Easton, Massachusetts, called Election Day bird-shooting matches an attack on the “goodness of the Creator:”

A mind not perverted, and sunk in sensuality, cannot be insensible to the vocal music of the feathered songsters of the orchard and the grove, but will insensibly be led to join with them in a song of praise to HIM, whose tender mercies are over all his works, and whose watchful care extends itself even to the sparrow, so “that not one of them falls without his notice.” (Howard 1827)

R. Green of Mansfield, Massachusetts, observed the number of insects destroyed by a single pair of birds and celebrated the balance of nature:

Mr. Fessenden—These are to the farmer and gardener of great value. They were designed by the Creator to check the too great increase of insects; and no farmer ought to suffer them to be wantonly destroyed on his premises. The number of insects destroyed by the robin, swallow, sparrow, mock-bird, and other small birds, is astonishing. One little family will destroy several hundreds in a single day.

He urged farmers to cease their “wars of extermination” against them:

They are not merely useful in destroying insects—for they call the farmer and the gardener to their business—cause the groves to resound with music, and usher in the morning with melodious praise. (Green 1828)

Not all correspondents, however, employed the religious frame. “F” of Danvers, Massachusetts, cited Wilson as his main authority:

[F]or my own part, I think, were we to leave off wantonly destroying our small SINGING BIRDS, we should be less troubled with insects of all kinds. It is a fact well known to every naturalist, that small birds destroy an almost incredible number of noxious insects. The amiable and indefatigable ornithologist, ALEXANDER WILSON, who perhaps was better acquainted with the habits of our birds than any other person, when speaking of the Sturnus Predatorius, or red-winged black bird, which, by the way, is by our farmers considered the most mischievous of birds, says “their food in spring and the early part of summer consists of grub-worms, caterpillars, and various other larvae, the silent but deadly enemies of all vegetation, and whose secret and insidious attacks are more to be dreaded by the husbandman than the combined forces of the whole feathered tribe together….” (“F” 1828)

It was the disruption the balance of nature that was the problem. “F,” like other authors, blamed shooting parties:

I am fully persuaded, as long as farmers and others permit boys to roam over their fields and shoot down every small bird they meet–as long as young men are in the habit, on our anniversaries, of forming themselves into shooting parties, for the purpose of destroying small birds, which they do in immense numbers—I say as long as this wanton destruction of birds is carried on, we must expect innumerable hosts of noxious insects will continue to commit depredations on our orchards, our fields, and our gardens. (“F” 1828)

Fessenden, the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, and Mount Auburn Cemetery

The New England Farmer was integral to the formation of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society in 1829. Fessenden had published the initial notice calling for society members and was an enthusiastic booster, often printing Society proceedings in full, including a report of a special meeting (June 18, 1830) in which, among other things, a committee was chosen to “consider the expediency of recommending some measures to prevent the wanton destruction of useful birds.” The Farmer also printed Zebedee Cook’s famous anniversary speech in which he proposed that the Society create a cemetery in the style of Père la Chaise in Paris. This cemetery would be Mount Auburn.

It is worth noting that immediately preceding this proposal, Cook had taken up the topic of bird protection:

The protection and preservation of useful birds is a subject I would propose for your particular consideration. To those whose souls are attuned to the harmony of their music, who delight to listen to the warbling of nature’s choristers, little need be urged to insure them security in the peaceful possession of their accustomed haunts. But if this consideration is not sufficient, there is another view in which the subject may be presented, that cannot fail to render them the objects of our care and watchfulness. We must either encourage them, or resign our gardens and orchards to the overwhelming ravages of innumerable insatiate insects. We must preserve them and consent to tolerate their minor depredations, or suffer them to be destroyed, and with them all hopes of preserving any portions of our fruits. (Cook 1831)

Cook called on society members to help enforce the existing bird law, in order to “preserve those innocent and useful co-laborers, who amply repay us in the aid they afford.” This suggests that Mount Auburn was designed from the beginning with birds in mind (Linden-Ward 2007).

T.G. Fessenden monument inscription: “This monument is erected by the Massachusetts Society for promoting agriculture, by the Horticultural Society of Massachusetts and by Individuals as a testimony or respect for the literary talents and acquirements of the deceased and his untiring labor in promoting the objects of the above Institutions. Photograph by the author.

A letter from “A Cultivator” printed the following May, endorsed Cook’s call. It was members’ moral duty to enforce the law:

It is a common practice with these sportsmen through the summer to range the groves and orchards, in this vicinity, almost every pleasant day and more numerously on holidays, and to shoot every bird that comes within their reach.

It is not, however, a small nor an easy task for one individual, to get their names, residence, and the evidence necessary for their conviction; but it requires the united efforts of all who are immediately interested. Already have these sportsmen commenced their wanton destruction of these useful creatures, even before they had time to build a nest for rearing of their young—Birds that have survived the dreary winter in a more genial clime, having now returned to bless our efforts by their industry and to cheer our days with their melody, are scarcely permitted to commence their vernal song, ere they must fall victims to a WANTON IDLENESS that is as destitute of moral feeling, as of useful employment. (“A Cultivator” 1831)

Fessenden would reprint this letter as part of his section on “Birds” in his 1834 book, The Complete Farmer and Rural Economist. After his sudden death in 1837, Fessenden would be among the first generation buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery.

Fessenden’s pro-bird editorial direction would be continued by subsequent editors of the Farmer, including Henry Colman, Allen Putnam, and the seed company magnate Joseph Breck, who also served as the paper’s publisher. After the paper ceased publication in 1846, a second New England Farmer (1848–1864) emerged with a similar editorial position. It would be notable in its own right for being on Henry David Thoreau’s reading list and for providing a very young J.A. Allen with a place to publish his ornithological writing.

Agricultural papers across the country, with total circulations in the hundreds of thousands by mid-century, followed the New England Farmer in urging bird protection. These efforts would influence the wave of state-level bird protection legislation in the 1850s and 1860s and would ultimately inform the Audubon Society movement at the end of the century (Judd 1997).

Note: Sections of this paper are adapted from the author’s blog, available at wingedwardens.blogspot.com.

References

“A Cultivator.” 1831. Sporting. New England Farmer 9 (43): 337.
“Amicus.” 1826. Flies, Bugs, Worms and Grasshoppers, New England Farmer ٥ (٦): 45.
Barton, B. S. 1799. Fragments of the Natural History of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: Way & Groff.
Benson, A. B., ed. 1987. Peter Kalm’s Travels in North America. The English Version of 1770. New York, NY: Dover.
Cook, Z. 1831. Mr. Cook’s Address, New England Farmer 9 (27): 211.
“F.” 1828. Insectiverous birds, New England Farmer 7 (1): 2.
Fessenden, T. G. 1829. Bird Shooting, New England Farmer 8 (2): 16.
Fessenden, T. G. 1834. The Complete Farmer and Rural Economist. Boston, MA: Russell, Odiorne & Co.
“Gloucester.” 1825. Destruction of Crows, New England Farmer 3 (37): 289.
Green, R. 1828. Insectivorous Birds, New England Farmer 6 (37): 289.
Hawthorne, N. 1838. Thomas Green Fessenden, American Monthly Magazine, 5: 228-35.
Howard, R. 1827. Wanton Destruction of Birds, New England Farmer 5: 386.
Judd, R. W. 1997. Common Lands, Common People: The Origins of Conservation in Northern New England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Linden-Ward, B. 2007. Silent City on a Hill: Picturesque Landscapes of Memory and Boston’s Mount Auburn Cemetery. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Oehlkers, P.W. 2017. “Spare the Birds” Stories and Bird-Friendly Editors (1819-1855). Paper read at Conference on Communication and the Environment, June 30, 2017, Leicester, UK.
Perrin, P.G. 1925. The Life and Works of Thomas Green Fessenden, 1771-1837. Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press.
“W.” 1822. The Scarlet Tanager, New England Farmer 1 (20): 158.
Wilson, A. 1808. American Ornithology. Philadelphia, PA: Bradford and Inskeep.

Peter W. Oehlkers is chair of the Communications Department at Salem State University and vice chair of Needham’s Conservation Commission. He manages nesting boxes and monitors grassland birds for the Trustees of Reservations at Charles River Peninsula and other properties. Peter is the Production Editor of Bird Observer.

The Increase in Wintering Hooded Mergansers in New England from 1986 to 2015 as Recorded by the Christmas Bird Counts

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

In a prior article in this journal (Davis 2000), I discussed the status of Hooded Mergansers in New England as reported in the CBCs for the late 1980s and late 1990s. That article, which demonstrated significant increases during that decade, serves as a baseline for this analysis. This article documents the continuing increase in reported Hooded Mergansers in all six New England states. As the numbers and graphs below show, each state has had a roughly linear increase in numbers through the past thirty years, although the rates of increase have been different for each state.

Data on Hooded Merganser counts from the six New England states for the years 1986 to 2015 (CBC numbers 87 to 116) were provided by the National Audubon Society. They also provided measures of effort by count; that is, the number of driving and walking party-hours and hours at feeders. These data are also available on their website.

Figure 1. Upper panel. Hooded Mergansers per party-hour for Connecticut (CT, dotted line), Massachusetts (MA, solid line), and Rhode Island (RI, dashed line). Lower panel. Hooded Mergansers per party-hour for Maine (ME, dotted line), New Hampshire (NH, solid line), and Vermont (VT, dashed line). Note different scales on y-axes.

For the first part of this analysis for the six New England states, I considered both the number of Hooded Mergansers per count circle each year from 1986 to 2015 and the number of Hooded Mergansers per party-hour per count circle. For the second part of this analysis, which looks in more detail at the counts for Massachusetts, I also considered the number of count circles reporting Hooded Mergansers and the total number of count circles each year.

More Hooded Mergansers are being counted, but are there really more Hooded Mergansers in New England? Although there are increases in reported Hooded Mergansers, there are many reasons why the number of birds identified could increase without there being an increase in the actual population of the species. During the past thirty years, there has been an increase in the number of count circles in each state. Consequently, there has been an increase in the number of party-hours and party-miles, two of the effort factors. There has also been an increase in the percentage of counts that have reported Hooded Mergansers. The analysis of the Massachusetts data in the second part of this article addresses some of these issues.

Part 1: The New England States

Table 1. Comparative Values for the Six New England States

I analyzed the numbers of Hooded Mergansers and the number of Hooded Mergansers per party-hour from each state with Statistix7 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee FL) and Microsoft Excel. As discussed below, the resulting graphs and statistical data are striking in that there have been increases in both categories in each New England state for the past 30 years. In general, the values contain yearly variations but seem to be generally increasing.

I also calculated average values for the number of Hooded Mergansers and of Hooded Mergansers per party-hour for the first three years and for the last three years of the 30 year period. The average yearly increases in these values for each state were derived from linear regressions done on the data. Also, I graphed the values for the thirty years for each state. Figure 1 shows the values of the number of Hooded Mergansers per party-hour for the six states.

The results of the numerical analyses for each of the New England states are shown in Table 1. In all of the states, the average number of Hooded Mergansers for the last three years of CBC counts (2013, 2014, and 2015) increased from the average number for the first three years (1986, 1987, and 1988), as did the average number of count circles reporting Hoodeds over the same three-year periods. The number of Hooded Mergansers identified per party-hour increased as well. Over 30 years, the average yearly increase in the number of Hooded Mergansers identified varied state by state. Connecticut saw an annual average increase of 74.1 Hoodeds, Maine averaged 15.4, Massachusetts 103, New Hampshire 14.8, Rhode Island 26.4, and Vermont 10.1

Part 2: Massachusetts

Figure 2. Total number of Hooded Mergansers in Massachusetts reported by Christmas Bird Counts.

Although the increases in reported Hooded Mergansers for each state are statistically significant as demonstrated by the linear regression analysis, as mentioned above, there are many reasons why the number of birds reported could increase without there being an increase in the actual population of the species. First, there have been increases in the number of CBCs conducted in each state. In the first three years of this analysis, Massachusetts averaged 16 counts per year; in the last three years, the average was 31, almost twice as many. There have also been increases in the number of party-hours and party-miles. Even with increases in the number of count circles, the percentage of counts that have reported Hooded Mergansers has increased, suggesting that Hooded Mergansers have expanded their winter locations. In the first three years of this analysis about 60% of the count circles in Massachusetts reported Hooded Mergansers; for the last five years, the average has been about 97%, with about one count circle per year not reporting Hoodeds.

Jim Berry published a thoughtful discussion of these issues a while back in this journal (Berry 1992). As Berry wrote, the increased number of species reported in CBCs was likely due to:

…better birders using better optics and better field guides. There can be little question that species totals would have increased significantly over the years for these reasons even if all other factors had been constant.

Today, his list might also include more birders in more circles using internet-communicated locations. Berry and others, however, have determined that the number of birds of a species recorded per party-hour is the most reliable measure for comparative analyses over time.

Although the effects of the above factors on the apparent increases in the numbers of Hooded Mergansers identified cannot be definitively assessed, a comparison of the numbers of Hooded Mergansers and the number per party-hour is informative. When the graph of the actual number of Hooded Mergansers counted in Massachusetts through the years (Figure 2) is compared with the number of Hooded Mergansers per party-Hour through the years for Massachusetts (upper panel, Figure 1), the visual impression is that there is a close correlation. The calculated correlation coefficient is actually 0.98. The correlation coefficients of these two recording methods for the other five New England states are: Connecticut 0.98; Maine 0.97; New Hampshire 0.98; Rhode Island 0.93; and Vermont 0.97. Because the correlation coefficients are so close to 1.00 for New England Hooded Merganser counts, then, the trends for the total numbers reported and the numbers per party-hour are essentially interchangeable. Using the per party-hour correction, however, probably makes for a more accurate representation of the slopes of the increases since it takes into consideration increased numbers of counts and increased total effort.

In summary, this analysis of the number of Hooded Mergansers identified on New England Christmas Bird Counts for the past 30 years demonstrates increases for each state. Each of the six states has shown an increase through the years both in the number of Hooded Mergansers found and in the number of Hooded Mergansers found per party-hour. The average increase in the number of birds per year has ranged from 10.1 birds per year for Vermont to 103 birds per year for Massachusetts. Although there are factors that influence the number of Hooded Mergansers identified, the party-hour calculation helps to standardize the trends.

Why have the reported numbers of wintering Hooded Mergansers been increasing in our region? Similar to the CBCs, the Breeding Bird Survey has documented an increasing number of Hooded Mergansers, including in New England, over the past several decades (Sauer et al. 2017). While the underlying reasons for this increase are unknown, possibilities include the increased amount of beaver-created breeding habitat, increased open water during the CBCs consequent to warming winter temperatures, as well as the increased coverage and skill of counters. It will be interesting to see what the numbers of Hooded Mergansers in New England do over the next 30 years.

References

Berry, J. 1992. A Selective Analysis of Data From the Newburyport Christmas Bird Count. Bird Observer 20: 314-322.
Davis, S. 2000. The Change in Numbers of Wintering Hooded Mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus) in New England. Bird Observer 28: 164-168.
Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr, K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Laurel, MD. Accessed June 5, 2017.

Steve Davis is a retired family doctor who has birded extensively in Swansea. He thanks Kathy Dale and Geoff LeBaron of the National Audubon Society for providing the CBC data, and Cody and Cameron Bernier of Swansea, MA for help with data extraction.

Photo Essay: Common Yellowthroat Courtship and Mating Display

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

5. The male vocalizes.

6. The male completes his task.

7. The male retreats while the female holds position.

8. The male swoops across the female’s field of view.

9. The male vocalizes one final time.

10. The female prepares to depart.

11. The male hops to a nearby branch and provides a final display.

12. The male resumes his typical form and habit.

Musings from the Blind Birder: Migration

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

But what really strikes at my heart is seeing a bird that has returned to the same spot at our Vermont home, indicating that it had made it to its wintering grounds, survived the winter, and overcame all obstacles to get back to our mutual home. For every disheartening story of birds killed during their migrations from man-made obstacles, such as tall buildings, wind turbines, or high tension wires, there are the heart-warming stories of individuals successfully navigating across the hemispheres despite natural and man-made dangers.

Even though I can listen to lectures or read about how and why birds migrate, it still sends shivers up my spine to think about what long-distance migrants are able to do. I vividly remember a passage in Scott Weidensaul’s superb book, Living on the Wind: Across the Hemisphere with Migratory Birds, where he describes setting up a scope on his deck in Pennsylvania on a clear autumn night with a full moon. He set the scope sights directly on the moon, and over the next hour counted the birds he saw passing across the light of the moon. He then used his count to estimate how many birds migrated over his area during that one hour based on what he saw in the tiny sphere of the moon in the sky, and came up with an approximate count of 8,340 birds. The scene evokes awe, wonderment, amazement, and deep appreciation for these migratory feats and the sheer number of birds involved.

It is not just the distance the birds travel, be it 46,000 miles covered in annual migrations by the Arctic Tern or mere miles by short-distance migrants. It is how they do it, most notably as a first-year bird setting off for a place it does not know, perhaps relatively nearby or perhaps thousands of miles away. This is one of the most impressive phenomena in the animal kingdom. Those of us in New England know that birds setting off from the East Coast in late August and September over the Atlantic Ocean toward South America may well encounter tropical storms or hurricanes during their journey. Tracking data on Whimbrels revealed that the birds are even able to fly—at a clip of 31 miles an hour—through the heart of massive oceanic storms to get to their destinations.

Recognition of the importance of all segments of a bird’s annual cycle has led to a relatively new field in ornithology, migratory connectivity. Weidensaul, in a 2012 article (http://www.audubon.org/magazine/march-april-2012/unlocking-migrations-secrets), noted that ornithological research for centuries had focused primarily on the bird’s breeding grounds. The study of migratory connectivity links individuals and populations throughout their annual cycle. Data from all locations that a bird navigates throughout the year enables more focused and effective conservation efforts to stem declines in bird populations. Weidensaul discussed the example of the American Redstart, where the quality of its wintering habitat in Jamaica (the wetter and buggier the mangrove swamp, the better) was the primary predictor of its breeding success in North America. Thus, conservation efforts on the summer breeding grounds of the American Redstart would be to little avail if declining winter habitats in Jamaica were not addressed.

To me, one of the most amazing migrants is the Blackpoll Warbler. I cannot imagine this tiny bird flying non-stop for three days over the Atlantic Ocean before landing in South America. It is difficult enough for our Blackpoll Warblers in New England, but even more astonishing is that Blackpoll Warblers that breed in Alaska fly clear across the North American continent to the East Coast to join their eastern counterparts before heading down to South America.

I am truly humbled by the epic flights of long-distance migratory birds. This is one reason that I so often say, when listening to a returning migrant, “Welcome back, and good luck, little fellow!” These birds deserve our respect and appreciation beyond our simple pleasure of seeing their beauty and reveling in their song. Their migratory wanderings evoke strong emotions for me and help sustain my connection to each and every bird that I hear. That is a wonderful thing and a pillar of my passion for birding.

Martha Steele, a former editor of Bird Observer, has been progressively losing vision due to retinitis pigmentosa and is legally blind. Thanks to a cochlear implant, she is now learning to identify birds from their songs and calls. Martha lives with her husband, Bob Stymeist, in Arlington. Martha can be reached at marthajs@verizon.net.

Field Note: Confusing Fall Blackpoll Warbler

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

What terminology should we use to describe this bird? A variety of related terms have been used to describe the condition in which plumage has excess yellow coloration including xanthochroism, xanthochromism, and xanthism (Leahy 2004, Davis 2007, Wikipedia 2017). A xanthic bird would thus be excessively yellow. In aviculture, xanthic birds are also called lutinos. Xanthochroism in wild birds has been recorded in a number of species including Cape May Warbler (Schnell and Caldwell 1966). By analogy, the bird we captured, which apparently lacked the carotenoids required for yellow pigments, would be an axanthic Blackpoll. Jeff N. Davis, who wrote the article referenced above, kindly examined our photographs and was not aware of a published case specifically addressing this phenomenon (Davis personal communication). He commented that genetic mutation, physiological factors, or both may have disrupted normal carotenoid metabolism or expression. Dr. Jocelyn Hudon, Curator of Ornithology at the Royal Alberta Museum, agreed that the cause could be diet or a genetic anomaly. He agreed with the descriptor axanthic and suggested that retention of the melanins—dark pigments—would also make the bird schizochroic.

Axanthic Blackpoll Warbler (left). Close-up of Blackpoll Warbler soles (right). Photographs by Alex Bartolo, Manomet Staff.

Not just a confusing fall warbler, but also a splendid confusion of terms to describe its coloration and the causal factors.

I would like to thank the banding staff and members of Manomet who staff or support our migration banding studies, and also Jocelyn Hudon, Jeff Davis, and David Sibley for their expert opinions on this unusual Blackpoll.

References

Davis, J. N. 2007. Color abnormalities in birds: A proposed nomenclature for birders. Birding 39: 36–46.
Leahy, C. W. 2004. The Birdwatcher’s Companion to North American Birdlife. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schnell, G. D. and L. D. Caldwell. 1966. Xanthochroism in a Cape May Warbler. The Auk. 83: 667–8.
Wikipedia. 2017. Xanthochromism. Accessed June 14, 2017.

About Books: Where Tanagers and Butterflies Sport About

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Which brings us to The New Neotropical Companion. Since 1989, Kricher has written much more about rain forest ecology and has taken and led many more trips to the jungle. This is a greatly expanded version of the original book filled with beautiful color photography on almost every page that makes the text come alive. The text has been thoroughly updated to include the latest information on subjects like the importance of rain forests as carbon sinks or how the El Nino/Southern Oscillation affects the climate of the region. This book is nothing short of a thorough undergraduate course on rain forest ecology. But don’t think that it is a dry, technical text. Kricher has added the meaningful word “companion” to the title. Unlike an academic course, this book is thoroughly enjoyable to read and really geared for the interested novice. On every page Kricher conveys his excitement, his wonder of this unique place. Kricher is personally taking you on a tour of the tropics, and he is great company.

Early on, the reader is taken on “A Sample Walk in a Panamanian Rainforest” (pp. 62–68), which will have you booking your next trip as soon as you can get away.

Rain begins, soft at first, soon more intense. We are surprised at how little of it seems to wet us. The dense, leafy rain forest canopy intercepts most of the rain. Soon the shower ceases, though for a while the steady dripping from the canopy makes it seem as if it is still raining. A loud snap, not too distant, indicates that a big branch or perhaps a full-size tree, has fallen. (p.62)

Later in the text, there will be in-depth discussions about rain forest leaves with their drip tips and about how forest gaps are formed and why they are important. A new section will be appreciated by anyone who has gone on an organized field trip anywhere: “Trail Etiquette: Top Ten Tips” (pp. 68–70) includes:

7. Be aware that you may not be the only one in the group with a camera. Digital photography has provided unrivaled opportunities to document wildlife. The illustrations that grace this book are a testament to that reality. Even small point-and-shoot digital cameras are now available with extremely good telephoto capacity. But, alas, I have seen some overzealous photographers push folks out of the way to get positioned for a clear shot. So please don’t thrust your 500mm lens in front of someone’s field of vision so you can get the “perfect shot” of the Swallow Tanager (Tersina viridis; plate 435) perched in the open. Of course, if you are alone, shoot away.” (p.70)

There is so much interesting information in this book it is impossible for any review to summarize it. But Kricher’s goal is this: “There are two words to keep in mind as I accompany you through the pages of this book: observation and interpretation” (p.12). “My goal will be to teach you how to spot patterns, to observe, to see, and to understand a tropical ecosystem as an ecologist does” (p.13).

My only caveat about this wonderful book is a minor one. With all the new information and the abundant color photography, The New Neotropical Companion is really too big to put in a back pack and probably too heavy for some of you to even consider packing. No matter, plan your trip and read chapters as you count down the weeks and days.

The New Neotropical Companion gives you the information and the concepts you will need so that on your next trip to the rain forest you are not simply ticking species. You will enjoy the whole spectacle of a place with the most species of almost everything including “one third of the world’s approximately 10,000 bird species” (p.12). Whether in the dark depths of a rain forest, or in a unique elfin forest, or on the foggy and windy heights of the páramo, Kricher teaches you why this environment is important, what needs to be sustained, and what bird and wildlife to look for there. Yes, there is even a photograph of a lantern fly (p. 360).

Literature Cited

Bates, Henry Wallace. 1962. The Naturalist On the River Amazons. University of California Press.
Kricher, John. 1989. A Neotropical Companion. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Life Magazine editors and Lincoln Barnett. 1960. The Wonders of Life On Earth. Special De Luxe Golden Book Edition. New York: Time Inc. and Golden Press.

Bird Sightings: March-April 2017

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

April averaged 52° in Boston, four degrees above the average for the month with a high of 86° on April 16. The low was 33°, recorded on April 1, when some folks on the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border woke up to a foot of snow while others on Cape Cod and the Islands had none. Gusts of up to 60 mph were noted on Nantucket, with power outages on Cape Cod and winds reaching 40–50 mph. Precipitation totaled 3.74 inches in Boston, two inches more than the norm, most of it following the storm on April 1. Snowfall was 1.2 inches in Boston, all on April 1. Strong southwest winds on April 27 and 28 brought major fallout of migrants throughout the state.

At a Glance

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Can you identify the birds in this photograph?

Identification will be discussed in next issue’s AT A GLANCE.

At a Glance: June 2017 Revealed

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

A closer examination shows that the two birds have plain, un-patterned faces, and that there is some fine streaking visible on the sides of the neck of both individuals. Also, the on-line version of the photograph shows dark spotting on the wing coverts of the back-facing bird. And finally, the short straight bills of the birds are clearly bicolored with pinkish-orange bases and dark tips. The small, round-headed appearance of the birds, their distinctive bill shape, and the chubby appearance of the front-facing bird all suggest that the birds might be doves or pigeons of some sort. However the short, rounded, slightly notched appearance of the right-facing bird’s tail is very different from the familiar Mourning Dove’s long, pointed, and prominently white-bordered tail.

With the features described above, there are a number of things that are atypical of a Mourning Dove of any age. Instead, the birds’ short tails, scaly breasts, dark-spotted wing coverts, and dark-tipped pinkish-orange bills are collectively typical features of Common Ground-Doves (Columbina passerina).

Common Ground-Doves are vagrants in Massachusetts with only two records for the Commonwealth, the most recent being one in Lexington observed from November 13 – December 3, 2015. The author photographed the pictured Common Ground-Doves in Key West, Florida, on April 22, 2009.

Wayne R. Petersen

Advertisers 45-4

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

In this ussue:

Hot Birds: August 2017

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Larry Therrien found a Golden-winged Warbler singing near the Quabbin Reservoir on May 31. It initially gave hope that it might be singing on territory and planning to stay, but on June 2 the bird flew away and was not seen again. Larry took the photo above.

Joe Bourget found a second-cycle Franklin’s Gull at Race Point June 2. This turned out to be just the first; extensive photography and discussion of plumages indicated that four or more individuals were present at various times throughout most of the month of June. Peter Flood took the photo above.

A Mississippi Kite that arrived over the Province Lands Visitor Center on June 4 was joined after a short time by two others, and the trio soared over Provincetown for a while before departing. Sean Williams took the photo above.

Zaps: 45-4

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

Bird Observer Volunteer Job Opening

Where to Go Birding Editor

Bird Observer has an opening for a Where to Go Birding Editor. The position requires generating—not writing— six articles per year that highlight a wide range of places to bird in New England, particularly Massachusetts. The editor must know and be able to network with a lot of birders in our region.

Primary job responsibilities:

Solicit and schedule articles about where to go birding throughout Massachusetts and New England.
Work with authors to get their articles ready for editing and publication.
Be the liaison between authors and Bird Observer’s mapmaker to generate site and trail maps.
Communicate with authors as often as it takes so that they meet their deadlines.

This is a job that requires excellent organizational and communication skills, attention to detail, and the ability to meet multiple deadlines.

If you are interested or have questions, please contact Marsha Salett at msalett@gmail.com.

Mass Audubon Birders Survey

Mass Audubon invites birders to take a brief survey designed to help us collect information on:

The different types of birding activities they engage in.
Their familiarity with environmental issues affecting local and global bird populations.
Their understanding of the impacts associated with these conservation issues.
Their familiarity and engagement with conservation actions that can help mediate these impacts.

Here is the link for taking the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ZHCD3HX.

What we learn from the survey responses, collected throughout spring and summer of 2017, will help us develop educational materials that build on birders familiarity with conservation issues, and that are relevant to birders current levels of engagement with certain conservation actions. By taking this survey, you will help us to develop materials that will be effective and applicable to fellow birders.

Lucy Gertz
Statewide Education Projects Manager
Education Department
Massachusetts Audubon Society
208 South Great Road
Lincoln, MA 01773

Phone 781-259-2177
Fax 781-259-2377
Email lgertz@massaudubon.org