June 2020 Volume 87, No. 2 - The Missouri Birding Society Missouri's Ornithological Society Since 1901 - Audubon ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
June 2020
Volume 87, No. 2
The Missouri Birding Society
Missouri’s Ornithological Society Since 1901
The Missouri Birding Society
Officers Regional Directors
Bill Eddleman*+, President (2020); Charles Burwick+ (2020)
608 Teton Lane, Cape Girardeau, MO Springfield (417) 860-9505
63701, (573) 579-7978
Lottie Bushmann+ (2021)
eddlemanw@sbcglobal.net
Columbia (573) 445-3942
Dana Ripper*+, Vice President (2020);
27331 Highway WW, Marshall, MO
Jeff Cantrell+ (2020)
65340-0000, (660) 837-3888 Neosho (471) 476-3311
dana.ripper@hotmail.com Cindy Bridges+ (2020)
Couch (417) 938-4567
Phil Wire*+, Secretary (2020)
Sherry Leonardo+ (2021)
1245 Boone St., Troy, MO 63379-2471
Grandview (816) 763-1393
(314) 960-0370
phw222@gmail.com Brent Galliart+ (2021)
St. Joseph (816) 232-6038
Tommy Goodwin*+, Treasurer
(2020); 321 Blanche Dr., St. Charles, Greg Leonard+ (2022)
MO 63303; (417) 241-9189 Columbia (573) 443-8263
tjgbp7@mst.edu Terry McNeely+ (2022)
Honorary Directors Jameson (660) 828-4215
Richard A. Anderson, St. Louis** Mike Grant+ (2022)
Nathan Fay, Ozark** Chesterfield (314) 779-8032
Leo Galloway, St. Joseph**
Jim Jackson, Marthasville**
Chairs
Lisle Jeffrey, Columbia**
Floyd Lawhon, St. Joseph** Bill Clark, Historian
Patrick Mahnkey, Forsyth** 3906 Grace Ellen Dr.
Rebecca Matthews, Springfield** Columbia, MO 65202
Sydney Wade, Jefferson City** (573) 474-4510
Dave Witten, Columbia**
John Wylie, Jefferson City** Kevin Wehner, Membership
Brad Jacobs**, 2016 Recipient of the 510 Ridgeway Ave.
Rudolf Bennitt Award Columbia, MO 65203
(573) 815-0352
Jim Jackson**, 2012 Recipient of the
kevinwehner@gmail.com
Rudolf Bennitt Award
Dr. David Easterla, 2006 Recipient
+ Board Position
of the Rudolf Bennitt Award
* Executive Committee Member
Paul E. Bauer**, 2004 Recipient of **Deceased
the Rudolf Bennitt Award
Page i THE BLUEBIRD
The Bluebird
The Bluebird Editor:
Allen Gathman*+, PO Box 1, Pocahontas, MO 63779, (573)
579-5464, agathman@gmail.com
Christmas Bird Count Compiler:
Randy Korotev, 800 Oakbrook Lane, St. Louis, MO 63132,
(314) 884-2189, rlkorotev@outlook.com
Communication Services:
Kevin Wehner, Webmaster, http://mobirds.org,
Susan Hazelwood and David Scheu, Co-owners Listserve,
mobirds-l-request@po.missouri,edu
MBS Scholarship Committee:
Sue Gustafson, Chair, 429 Belleview Ave., Webster Groves, MO 63119
(314) 882-8006, smgustafson@juno.com
MO Bird Records Committee:
Paul McKenzie+—Chair, 2311 Grandview Circle, Columbia, MO
65203-7240, (573) 445-3019, paulbeckymo@mchsi.com
Bill Rowe—Secretary, 7414 Kenrick Valley Drive, St Louis, MO 63119-
5726 (314) 962-0544, rowemb45@gmail.com
Seasonal Survey Editors:
Spring: Lisa Berger, 1947 South Kings Avenue, Springfield, MO 65807-
2733, (417) 860-9108, goshawk@att.net
Summer: Allen Gathman, PO Box 1, Pocahontas, MO 63779, (573) 579-
5464; agathman@gmail.com
Fall: Mary Nemecek, 7807 N. Merimac Ct, Kansas City MO 64151, (816)
210-5148; msnemecek@aol.com
Winter: Pete Monacell, 2324 West Main Street, Jefferson City MO 65109,
(573) 289-8116; plmonacell@ccis.edu
* Executive Committee Member
+ Board Position
Deadlines for submission of material for publication in The Bluebird
Manuscripts for The Bluebird—to the editor by:
Feb. 1 for March issue; May 1 for June issue;
Aug. 1 for Sept. issue; Nov. 1 for Dec. issue
Deadlines for submissions to the Seasonal Survey Editors
Winter (Dec. 1-Feb. 28)—to Pete Monacell by Mar. 10
Spring (Mar. 1-May 31)—to Lisa Berger by June 10
Summer (June 1-July. 31)—to Allen Gathman by Aug 10
Fall (Aug. 1-Nov. 30)—to Mary Nemecek by Dec. 10
Page ii THE BLUEBIRD
Table of Contents
March 2020 Volume 87, No. 1
51 President’s Corner — Bill Eddleman
52 We welcome our new MBS members — Kevin Wehner
53 Brad Jacobs: An invitation for remembrances — Pete Monacell
55 Landscape effects on individual decision-making and fitness in mid
-continent migratory shorebirds — Sarah Clements
57 Birding in the Classroom—Kendell Loyd
63 Swan Comparison — Donna Lewis
64 Mute Swans in Missouri: An invasive species that merits control —
MBRC
71 Missouri Listing: Missouri life list totals — Josh Uffman
74 Restoring Our Shady Oaks Sanctuary — Margy Terpstra
79 Book Review: Gulls Simplified — Allen Gathman
81 Book Review: The Bird Way — Allen Gathman
83 Peer-reviewed Article: An Observation of a Mass Movement of
White-throated Sparrows at Bonnieview Nature Sanctuary,
Columbia, MO — Paul McKenzie
85 Missouri Christmas Bird Counts, 2019-2020 — Randy L. Korotev
117 Seasonal Report Fall 2019 — Mary Nemecek
125 Birders’ Guide: Cuivre River State Park — Bruce Schuette
129 Birders’ Guide: Blue Spring Branch Conservation Area
— Allen Gathman and Mark Haas
Front Cover— Vermilion Flycatcher, Independence Jackson
25 Nov 2019. Photo Paul McKenzie
Purple Martin, Duck Creek
CA Stoddard 1 Jun 2019.
Photo Mark Haas
THE BLUEBIRD is published quarterly by The Missouri Birding Society. The submission of arti-
cles, photographs, and artwork is welcomed and encouraged. The views and opinions expressed in
this journal are those of each contributing writer and do not necessarily represent the views and
opinions of The Missouri Birding Society or its officers, Board of Directors, or editors. Send ad-
dress corrections to MBS, 2101 W. Broadway, PMB 122, Columbia, MO 65203-1261.
Page iii THE BLUEBIRD
President’s Corner—Bill Eddleman
I hope everyone is staying
healthy and is navigating the
social distancing and other re-
strictions to avoid contracting
the coronavirus. One of the first
scheduling changes for me was
postponement of a trip to Costa
Rica in March. We are hoping
we can reschedule this later.
The stay-at-home order, as most
of you know, did not include
being outdoors for exercise, so
I’ve been doing a lot of birding.
I’ve been staying mostly at
home (as of two years ago, home
is 40 acres of woodland and hay-
field just outside Cape). Others
have been birding public lands,
and I think one of the pluses of
this situation will be one of the best-documented spring migrations
we’ve ever experienced. It also should go without saying that you
can all make a great contribution to MBS and to Missouri bird con-
servation by birding at one of our target sites for CACHE and
SPARKS.
All of you know that we had to cancel the Spring Meeting. I’m hop-
ing we can try again next year for Cape Girardeau. The Fall Meet-
ing, which we were aiming for the St. Louis area, will depend on
how the pandemic plays out. Stay tuned, and we will keep communi-
cating via MOBIRDS and email messaging.
Finally, as this issue of The Bluebird was being prepared, all of us
received the terrible news of Brad Jacobs’ passing. Brad influenced
MBS and many of its members in so many capacities and was also a
giant in international bird conservation. I will personally miss the
conversations I always had with him when he called or I saw him,
and his calm, rational contributions to any discussions. Pete Mona-
cell will be assembling your written tributes and remembrances of
Brad for the September issue of The Bluebird. Please send any of
these you would like to contribute to him.
Good Birding! — Bill Eddleman, President
Page 51 THE BLUEBIRD
WE WELCOME OUR NEW MBS MEMBERS!
Kevin Wehner
Remember, new members are our future. If a new member lives
near you, say, “Howdy and welcome to MBS.” In addition, recruit
another new member. Welcome to these 16 new MBS members
in the 1st quarter of 2020!
Ina Bicknell Rolla, MO
Shannon, Nathan & Megan Coles Highlandville, MO
Becky Dewey Kansas City, MO
Lyndon Hostetler Miller, MO
Daniel Lacroix Ballwin, MO
Katie & Steven Lottes Columbia, MO
Becky Lutz Washington, MO
Michelle Randecker Marble Hill, MO
Janet Sanders St. Louis, MO
Robert Schreiber Ashland, MO
Sharon Willen Osage Beach, MO
David & Dana Witten Columbia, MO
Page 52 THE BLUEBIRD
Brad Jacobs:
An Invitation for Remembrances
Pete Monacell
Photo: Rick Thom
On May 1, 2020, Missouri’s birding community lost one of its most
prominent members, Brad Jacobs. Brad has had an outsized influ-
ence on our community. In the late 1980s, birders across the state
helped him to compile The Breeding Bird Atlas, and Brad’s 2001
Missouri Department of Conservation book, Birds in Missouri, has
become a fixture on many of our bookshelves. We got to know Brad
in many ways, including at ASM/MBS meetings, through bumping
into him in the field, and through his facilitation of identification
workshops and bird surveys. We learned from his posts on the MO-
BIRDS listserv and admired his eBird checklists. Brad served our
community as a member and chair of the Missouri Bird Records
Committee and through leadership roles in both the Columbia
Audubon Society and ASM/MBS. Whenever birders were out in the
field with Brad, they benefitted from his extensive knowledge of
field marks, vocalizations, and bird distributions. In 2017 and 2018,
Brad put his expertise to use by completing two remarkable Mis-
souri big years. He found and chased birds, and he frequently
shared his sightings on MOBIRDS, the same forum through which
Page 53 THE BLUEBIRD
so many members of our community have expressed sorrow over his passing. These members have reflected on Brad’s work, knowledge, generosity, enthusiasm, and friendship. One theme that has already emerged is that birding with Brad was at once educational and vali- dating; to Brad, birding was as much about human relationships as it was about birds. We should celebrate Brad’s tireless work on behalf of Missouri’s mi- gratory birds, work that he pursued as the State Ornithologist at the Missouri Department of Conservation. Brad was instrumental in the founding of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' South- ern Wings Program, which facilitates state fish and wildlife agency participation in the conservation of migratory birds across their an- nual lifecycles (at breeding and nonbreeding sites, as well as during migration). And, he held leadership roles within Partners in Flight, a network of over 150 agencies and organizations across the West- ern Hemisphere engaged in multiple aspects of landbird conserva- tion, including science, planning, policy development, land manage- ment, education, and more. To learn more about these conservation initiatives, and to help to keep them funded, you can make a memo- rial donation to the Missouri Conservation Heritage Foundation’s Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation Programs account by visiting https://mochf.org/remembering-brad-jacobs/. I invite you now to join in celebrating Brad’s life through your own written remembrances. Remembrances should be emailed no later than July 15 to Pete Monacell at plmonacell@ccis.edu, preferably as Microsoft Word documents. Contributions will be edited and com- piled into a single, longer tribute to appear in the September 2020 edition of The Bluebird. A good length for these remembrances would be 300 words (comprising about one page in The Bluebird) or less. However, they may be longer if you choose. Any questions about this memorial project may be addressed to Pete at the email address above. Thank you in advance for your contributions, which will help to me- morialize Brad’s extraordinary legacy. Page 54 THE BLUEBIRD
Landscape effects on individual-
decision making and fitness in mid-
continent migratory shorebirds
Sarah Clements
Work Supported in Part by MBS Grant
Introduction: This report will describe the progress made in my
project studying the effects of individual decision-making and carry-
over effects on fitness in shorebirds, supported by funding from the
Audubon Society of Missouri scholarship from 2019. My project is
focused on three species with contrasting migration strategies: the
American avocet (Recurvirostra Americana), black-bellied plover
(Pluvialis squatarola), and Hudsonian godwit (Limosa haemastica),
which are short-, medium-, and long-distance migrants, respectively.
My objective is to quantify effects of individual decisions related to
landscape characteristics, timing of migration, and stopover behav-
ior on survival and productivity in three midcontinent shorebird spe-
cies with contrasting migration strategies and life histories to in-
form community-level wetland conservation and management ef-
forts. This winter, our team has been capturing American avocets
and black-bellied plovers in Louisiana and Texas, and Hudsonian
godwits in Chile. I used funding from the Audubon Society of Mis-
souri Scholarship to rent a field vehicle and pay for fuel for work in
Louisiana, and a smaller portion of it toward travel back from Chile.
I plan to continue collecting data through 2021, and will be finishing
my PhD and publishing the results in 2022.
Louisiana (January-February 2020): Thanks to the Audubon
Society of Missouri Scholarship, I was able to rent a field vehicle
long enough to spend about 7 weeks at Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge
in Louisiana leading our efforts to catch American avocets and
black-bellied plovers there. I left the first week of January and re-
turned to Missouri the last week of February. This was more time
than I was able to spend in 2019, and that allowed me to catch more
birds than I did last year. I assembled a team of Louisiana Depart-
ment of Wildlife & Fisheries (LDWF) staff to help with American
Page 55 THE BLUEBIRD
avocet capture efforts and a team of fellow graduate students and colleagues from the University of Missouri (MU), University of New Hampshire (UNH), and Texas A&M – Kingsville (TAMUK) to help with black-bellied plover capture. Because I was able to pay for my own travel with ASM Scholarship funding, I was able to use differ- ent funding to pay for other students to travel to Louisiana who vol- unteered to be field assistants. Having help from other students benefited my project because I was able to have the personnel I needed to get the work done, and was also a great opportunity to teach others about rocket netting shorebirds and learn from their experiences in other systems. In Louisiana, I deployed tracking de- vices on 20 birds, and captured about 60 total. I plan to go back next year to put out 20 more tracking devices, 10 on American avocets and 10 on black-bellied plovers. Chile (March 2020): I also used Audubon Society of Missouri fund- ing for part of my travel to Chile. We have been working with facul- ty and graduate students from the Universidad Austral de Chile (UACh) and University of South Carolina (UofSC) who have ongoing projects focused on Hudsonian godwits, and we are sharing tracking devices and data with them. I was only in Chile for less than one week due to our fieldwork being cut short by the COVID-19 pandem- ic, but we were able to catch a few birds during that time. I put 2 tracking devices on birds myself to add to several more deployed by collaborators on Hudsonian godwits in January. There are still more tracking devices left that I need to put on Hudsonian godwits, so I will try to get back to Chile in the next field season. Even though I was not able to spend much time in Chile, being there to help and meeting our collaborators was very valuable. Page 56 THE BLUEBIRD
Birding in the Classroom
Kendell Loyd
In mid-April, a student emailed
me: “Mr. Loyd, I found this
feather while taking a walk. I
think it is a Yellow-bellied Sap-
sucker, but I am not sure. Can
you verify this for me?” At-
tached was an image of a large
contour feather, nearly as long
as one of the fingers grasping
it. The feather was uniquely
patterned with uneven dark and
light brown bands, each a differ-
ent width and shape. As soon as
I read the email, I reached for
Figure 1. Feather of a Great Horned Owl
my copy of “Bird Feathers” by S.
found by a student
David Scott & Casey McFarland:
a field guide of feathers of the
birds in North American. Based on its size, the feather was not a
sapsucker, so I flipped through the pages carefully examining each
species’ contour feathers. I was a bit surprised at how difficult it was
to find this unique pattern. Then, I turned to the page of owls and
there it was: Great Horned Owl. I responded to the email and at-
tached pictures of the pages for both Yellow-bellied Sapsucker and
Great Horned Owl. The student was ecstatic that the feather was
from such a unique bird, commenting on how the feathers of both
species did not look like pieces of the completed organism. I agreed.
(Fig. 1)
For a typical 10th grader in a public-school biology class, like the one
I teach, this level of knowledge of bird species, or the natural world
at all, is mostly absent. As a teaching assistant at Missouri State
University, I taught introductory biology lab classes for non-biology
majors and was surprised to see the widespread ignorance of nature
among my students. These students were not science majors, so I
assumed it was just not their passion. However, when I began
teaching the ornithology lab classes, a class for students who hoped
to become biologists, the apathy and disinterest was still present at
levels I had not expected. These experiences made me want to teach
high school biology; I hoped to evangelize nature to students at a
Page 57 THE BLUEBIRDyounger age and show them why the natural world deserves protect- ing. In June 2018, when I was offered my current position at Logan- Rogersville High School, I was in the middle of my record-setting Missouri Big Year. I had spent the first 5 months of the year stu- dent-teaching for 7+ hours per day and then birding an almost equal amount of time in the early mornings and late evenings. I would teach all day, close the door behind my students at the 3:00 PM bell, and then go birding. Some days that meant driving 3+ hours to see a rare bird, only to turn around and drive home again. I would get to bed after midnight and get up for school the next morning. It was an exhausting but rewarding time. As the 2018-2019 school year grew closer, I knew that I wanted to incorporate nature into my classroom by using birds. I was nervous about sharing birding and my Big Year with my students. I was the new teacher and I was not sure I wanted to explain why I was trav- eling all over the state to see birds. I was afraid of being vulnerable with them. I was afraid of their judgment. My birding mentor and good friend Tim Barksdale, however, advised that I be open, tell them everything, and let them be a part of it. So I did. I decorated my room with an Owls of North America mo- bile and a Barn Owl box complete with a plush Barn Owl. I set up a bird feeder outside the classroom window and I shamelessly plas- tered my bulletin boards with bird-related calendars and post- ers. On the first day, using the online quiz game Kahoot, I intro- duced myself. Kahoot is an online program that lets the teacher form multiple choice questions; then students, using a login code, join the game on their phones or laptops and compete to see who can answer the most questions correctly. Since they did not know me yet, they had to guess facts like where I went to high school and col- lege, my favorite color, and what I did in my free time (birding, clearly). The questions grew more topic specific, and by the end each student knew I loved birds, I watched birds, and, as the young- est person to ever do so, I was competing for the Missouri Big Year record. The reactions were mixed. Scanning the room, I saw some of the disinterest that I remembered from teaching university, but mixed into the classes there was intrigue. That sense of curiosity is what I needed to nurture. My wife, Abigail, built me a Bird Counter: a small wooden platform with wooden cubes with numbers on each side. I changed the num- ber with each new year-bird. Each time I spotted a new bird for the year, I posted a picture and the species name at the front of the room. Some students would come in early, before their class period, Page 58 THE BLUEBIRD
just to see if I had found a new bird―too excited to wait. In one
weekend, I found 4 new species and as I entered the room at the be-
ginning of class, the class applauded. I had clearly misjudged their
acceptance of birding. Tim had been right: they were now a part of
it.
In the spring, I added a hummingbird feeder to our other bird feed-
er. We had a single female Ruby-throated that visited for
months. The students affectionately named her Queenie. When
April came, I turned on the “Osprey Cam” that live-streams video of
an Osprey nest at Stockton Lake. I projected the live-stream
throughout class. One day, I heard several students let out a ques-
tioning, concerned groan: “Um...ummm...ummm...what is happen-
ing?!” I looked up to see the birds mating. They mated several
times per day after that until the students were so unbothered by it
they had stopped commenting when it happened. We collectively
rejoiced when the pair laid an egg, and we mourned when the single
chick passed away that May.
That spring, I worked to further assimilate birds into what I was
already teaching. When teaching how the nucleotides of DNA code
for
Figure 2. By locating genes in a DNA strand, then translating that DNA,
students were able to illustrate the bird from which their strand of DNA
came. Then they described how the bird probably lived and gave it a name.
genes that lead to physical traits, I presented my students with a
DNA sample of a few unknown birds. We transcribed and translat-
ed those DNA strands to find which genes “coded” for specific beaks,
wings, and legs. Then, we documented, described, and named these
species—including sketches of what the bird may look like. It took
very little time for them to realize they had an avocet, a humming-
bird, or a crow. We used our drawings to infer things about how the
Page 59 THE BLUEBIRDbird may have made its living. Does your bird have webbed feet? Perhaps it swims more than walks. Does it have sharp talons and strong wings? Perhaps it is a predator and catches prey as it flies (Fig. 2). To show how an organism’s traits are perfectly suited for their envi- ronment, we used different items to mimic how different bird beaks are able to consume different prey: chopsticks for a shorebird, twee- zers for a finch, and a test tube clamp for a pelican. Students (each with a different beak) collected as much “food”—marbles, rice, beans, pennies, toothpicks—from a tray as they could in short amounts of time and then described how their beak was suited for a certain type of food. As the next school year approached, I realized that if I could teach how to identify common bird species, I could help my students more easily engage with nature. I immediately got to work and made a list of 114 of the more common species that could be seen in Mis- souri. That was enough that we could learn about 3 every week. On Mondays, I introduced the “Birds of the Week” and left them posted at the front of the room. To allow students to have access to photos of the birds at any time, I used Google Slides and created a presen- tation of the birds, their habitats, and some identifying marks. When played in presentation mode, only the photo was shown until the student clicked to reveal the species and com- ments. As an incentive to study, identifying the “Birds of the Week” would be bonus questions on each test. Many students began work- ing to learn the Birds of the Week. Before each test, we would study as a class and their arguments of “That’s a Bufflehead, not a Hooded Merganser!” left me with a bit of pride. After reading the findings of Rosenberg et al. (2019)—bird popula- tions in North America had declined by nearly 3 billion birds since 1970—I felt a deep need to do more to express the needs of conserva- tion to my students. In response to the findings, many articles cited the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s “Seven Simple Actions to Help Birds”. The first of which is “Make Windows Safe”. I had not wit- nessed a bird hit my windows, but I ordered window paint markers and painted safety lines on the outsides anyway. On the inside, I posted an explanation. When my principal asked what I had done, I told her, “What better way to convince students that what you are telling them is important than to set an example yourself.” The next day, a few students murmured things like “Now it feels even more like jail”, but many were very supportive. We have still never had a bird impact and I am more confident now that we will not in the fu- ture. Next, I decided to assign reading the New York Times article “The Page 60 THE BLUEBIRD
Crisis for Birds is a Crisis For All of Us” and the Cornell Lab’s “Seven Simple Actions to Help Birds”. I felt these short articles were vital for allowing students to see why I chose to paint the lines on our windows: the former summarizing Rosenberg’s findings and making a great case for why declines in bird populations is a nega- tive sign for everyone and the latter showing easy ways that every- one can make a positive impact. The reactions were unprecedent- ed. Many students expressed their disbelief that more was not be- ing done to address this issue. One student, in lieu of writing a summary paragraph, wrote a poem. As I read the words he wrote, tears came to my eyes. He had clearly felt something that only a poem could communicate and felt the need to share it. As the year progressed, students began telling me of birds they had noticed on their own. One girl noted she spotted a Red-shouldered Hawk along the side of the road on the way to school. Another men- tioned a Eurasian Collared-Dove on her deck that she was able to identify—to the shock of her parents. One student even made an eBird account because he wanted to track what he was seeing. In late February, I gave him instructions on how to find American Woodcock breeding locations. Just after dark I got an email from him with the title “Heard them!” Now that the COVID-19 pandemic has made it impossible for me to return to my students this semester, I have had to get creative with my teaching. Through online classes, we continue forward. I began filming virtual field trips and posting them to YouTube, taking them birding to a park close to my house and even out to see the Greater Prairie-Chicken lek at Taberville Prairie Conservation Area. Once, I instructed them to go outside for about 20 minutes and observe what they could see around them. Find an organism, identify it, describe it, note its behavior, and explain how it is suited for surviv- ing in its environment. Many of the organisms observed were birds, described using their full common names: American Robin, North- ern Cardinal, American Goldfinch, Mourning Dove. Though I miss my students, I have enjoyed the emails that some of them have sent me with photos of birds they have seen: Rose-breasted Grosbeak, American Goldfinch, Northern Mockingbird, and that Great Horned Owl feather. As I continue teaching, I am still very active in birding and ornithol- ogy through my banding research and programs like GLADE (Green Leadership Academy for Diverse Ecosystems). I hope to continue to saturate my classroom with the outdoors and the importance of con- servation. My biggest hope is that my students go on to make at least one small change toward the betterment of nature, even if it is simply to pause now and then and notice the life around them. Page 61 THE BLUEBIRD
I have learned that we are not all classroom teachers, but we are all teachers to someone. Never be too afraid to share what you love. Help people become a part of it. People will see value in it be- cause they see that you see value in it. Conservation is a daunting task, but we must all make small changes to make big differences. I asked a few of my students to tell me what they thought about learning to identify birds in class: “Since I have learned [to identify birds], I am able to walk outside and be able to figure out what type of bird I was looking at.” - Corbett “Learning how to identify birds has given me the ability and oppor- tunity to understand my environment around me. By understand- ing the environment, it’s easier to know how I can help the world and the organisms, such as birds, that inhabit it.” - Emily “As a student, learning to identify birds has really opened my eyes to the environment around me. Before I learned how to identify birds, I saw them as more of a nuisance, but after learning about them, I appreciate them and their beauty more than ever. An added bonus, I impress adults around me by being able to identify birds on a whim.” - Madelynn “Your decision to bring bird identification into our biology class has helped me and many other students in multiple ways. One part that always stood out to me was when you used it to teach us about read- ing frames, codons, and mutations in birds. It was interesting to see how one mutation could change the whole life of the bird and how hard it had to work to survive. Plus, with Birds of the Week, I've learned to identify so many birds around me and could easily tell what bird I see in my backyard. Sometimes I wonder when I'm ever going to need the quadratic formula in my future, but with biology, I can apply my knowledge of birds to my life anytime I step outside. As someone who wants to pursue a career in genetics, using birds to learn about the basics of it has helped me understand it so much faster. To be able to ask a question and use birds as an example is amazing, as it's using something that I understand to help me learn something I don't.” - Rana Page 62 THE BLUEBIRD
Swan Comparison
Donna Lewis
There are three species of swans that can be present in Mis-
souri. The most common, the Trumpeter Swan, is native to Mis-
souri and a species once thought lost, has made a stunning come-
back through reintroduction and conservation efforts. During the
winter both Loess Bluffs Nationa Wildlife Refuge in NW Missouri,
and Riverlands Migratory Bird Sanctuary in St. Louis now regular-
ly host over a 1,000 Trumpeter Swans. There are also now a few
years of single records of nesting in the state.
Tundra Swans are also native to Missouri and can be harder to dis-
tinguish from Trumpeter Swans. Pay special attention to the
smaller size, shape of the bill and diagnostic yellow lores.
Lastly, Mute Swans are not native to Missouri and are easily differ-
entiated from Missouri's two native swan species. Note the orange
bill with the black knob at the base.
Photo Donna Lewis, courtesy of the Trumpeter Swan Society
Page 63 THE BLUEBIRDMute Swans in Missouri:
An Invasive Species
that Merits Control
MBRC
Mute Swan is an invasive, non-native species that was brought to
North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an adorn-
ment for ponds, lakes, zoos, aviary collections, and private residenc-
es. From their original presence in northeastern states, they have
spread into the Midwest, including breeding populations in Illinois
and Michigan (Ciaranca et al. 1997; Arsnoe and Duffiney 2018;
Marks 2018).
Although many perceive Mute Swans as charismatic, they are capa-
ble of disastrous ecological damage. Each swan consumes 4 to 8
pounds of native, submerged aquatic vegetation per day. They use
their feet to expose roots and shoots and consume only half of the
vegetation they remove. Damage to the aquatic substrate is substan-
tial, not only from this action of uprooting vegetation, but also be-
cause their long necks permit them to reach areas deeper than na-
tive geese and dabblers can reach. Mute Swans compete for habitat
with native Trumpeter and Tundra Swans (Arsnoe and Duffiney
2018; Pennsylvania Game Commission 2019; Maryland Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) 2001; Wisconsin DNR 2007).
The negative impact of Mute Swan is not only limited to native vege-
tation; because of the species' aggressive behavior during nesting, it
also displaces native waterfowl and kills adult geese and ducks.
Moreover, this swan has been documented attacking and destroying
nesting colonies of Species of Special Concern, such as Least Tern
and Black Skimmer colonies in Maryland (Maryland DNR 2001). In
Michigan, a single Mute Swan pair displaced almost an entire nest-
ing colony of Black Terns (Marks 2018).
This aggressive behavior does not stop with wildlife. Mute Swans
have been known to cause bruises, sprains, and fractures in people,
and their nesting areas are often closed to the public for safety rea-
sons. One Missouri Bird Records Committee member provided iden-
tification and biological data for a lawsuit involving a landowner
Page 64 THE BLUEBIRDwho suffered injuries from this species. In Illinois, an attack by a pair of nesting Mute Swans resulted in the death of a man in a kay- ak (Delgado and Ruzich 2012; Marks 2018). Thus, this species is a liability to landowners. Recommendation for Eradication of Any Mated Pairs of Mute Swans in Missouri For reasons mentioned above, the Missouri Bird Records Committee (MBRC) recommends that Mute Swans be considered an exotic, in- vasive species and that any mated pairs be eradicated to avoid es- tablishment of breeding populations in the state. In order to control establishment, many states do not allow Mute Swans to be brought into the state without a permit. Captive Mute Swans should be pin- ioned, and free flight of cygnets should be prohibited. Public infor- mation on Mute Swan should be updated to include the ecological threats that they pose, and employees who interface with the public should be informed regarding how to handle questions about Mute Swans and should forward any reports of mated Mute Swans to ap- propriate personnel for purposes of eradication. These steps would prove beneficial in preventing the establishment of this destructive species in Missouri. Recommendations for Mute Swans Observations in Missouri The expansion of breeding populations in northern Illinois and Michigan may be the source of many Missouri Mute Swans. Howev- er, the source of any individual Mute Swan in Missouri remains equivocal. Birders are encouraged to log Mute Swans on eBird lists as a species (rather than simply noting their presence in the Com- ments section). Logging them as a species allows for tracking of Mute Swans in the state. These observations will be accepted into the public output and will be searchable in the eBird database. About the Missouri Bird Records Committee (MBRC) The MBRC, founded in 1987, maintains the Annotated Checklist of Missouri Birds, which provides a brief indication of every bird spe- cies' status by both season and region of the state. This checklist can be accessed at mobirds.org. Additionally, the MBRC reviews reports of rare and unusual birds and stewards the archive of such reports. The committee produces seasonal and annual reports summarizing the records of the prior year. These functions not only give birders the opportunity to know what is expected in the state, but also pro- Page 65 THE BLUEBIRD
vide a database for documentation of changes in bird distribution
and abundance, creating a resource of current and historical occur-
rences for birders, scientists, and researchers.
MRBC members: Lisa Berger, Joseph Eades, Paul McKenzie, Pete
Monacell, Mary Nemecek, Mark Robbins, Bill Rowe, Joshua Uffman
Literature Cited
Arsnoe, D. and Duffiney, A. 2018. From Beauty to Beast. Managing
Mute Swans in Michigan to protect native resources. The
Wildlife Professional May/June 2018: 40–44.
Ciaranca, M. A., C. C. Allin, and G. S. Jones. 1997. Mute Swan
(Cygnus olor), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A.
F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.273
Constanzo, G., et al. 2015. Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Management
Plan.
Delgado, J. and Ruzich, J. 2012. Man caring for swans drowns after
one attacks him near Chicago. Chicago Tribune, 17 April
2012.
Marks, D.M. 2018. Mute Swans. Wildlife Damage Management
Technical Series. USDA, APHIS, WS National Wildlife Re-
search Center. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Maryland Division of Natural Resources. 2001. The Maryland Mute
Swan Task Force Recommendations. https://
dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/
MuteSwan_TaskForceReport.pdf accessed 5 January 2020.
Mississippi Flyway Council. 2012 Policy of Mute Swan Manage-
ment.
Ohio DNR. 2014 Ohio Swan Action Plan
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2019. Tundra Swan Wildlife Note.
Wildlife Note 61: 3.
Wisconsin Division of Natural Resources. Mute Swans Issues in
Wisconsin. Publication WM-473-2007, pg 2, https://
dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0473.pdf accessed 5 Janu-
ary 2020.
Page 66 THE BLUEBIRDSupplemental Information Excerpts from Mississippi Flyway Council Policy Manage- ment of Mute Swans (2012) [Objectives listed include preventing] Mute Swans from establishing new breeding population in areas where they do not currently exist. Strategies Encourage states and provinces within the Flyway to: Monitor populations of Mute Swans (preferred survey methods in- clude spring breeding waterfowl survey or summer brood survey) Remove pioneering Mute Swans Reduce existing Mute Swan populations Set state and provincial Mute Swan population objectives Discourage possession of captive Mute Swans Prohibit the release to the wild of rehabilitated Mute Swans Prevent the escape or release of Mute Swan from captive breeding pairs Develop partnerships to assist in the management of Mute Swans Develop programs to raise public awareness (impacts to native wa- terfowl and waterbirds, their habitats, and associated recreational use and appreciation) Develop a Flyway-wide publication that informs the public about the threats associated with Mute Swans Excerpts from the Ohio Swan Action Plan: Competition between Mute Swans and the state-threatened Trum- peter Swan occurs frequently in the Lake Erie marshes (Dave Sher- man, Ohio Division of Wildlife, pers. observ.). Mute Swans establish territories (3-15 acres) and initiate nesting about 3 weeks earlier than Trumpeter Swans and then successfully defend these areas against Trumpeter Swans. With only about 100,000 acres of marsh existing in Ohio (National Wetland Inventory), competition for lim- ited habitat has the potential to negatively impact the success of ODNR Division of Wildlife’s (Division) Trumpeter Swan restoration program. This is even more likely to occur as the Mute Swan popula- tion continues to increase. Petrie and Francis (2003) estimated that the Great Lakes Mute Swan population had an annual growth rate of at least 10% which would cause the population to double every 7 or 8 years. Christmas Bird Counts (Fig. 1) and Midwinter Waterfowl Surveys (Fig. 2) conducted in Ohio have also indicated a general Page 67 THE BLUEBIRD
trend of increasing Mute Swan abundance. (pg. 1) The management goals for the Mute Swan are to have zero Mute Swans on public lands and zero population growth on all other lands by 2020 in an effort to: 1) minimize the impacts to Ohio’s native wildlife, important habitats, and local economies; 2) minimize con- flicts with humans; 3) comply with Policy 41 (Invasive Non-native Free-ranging Terrestrial Vertebrate Policy); and 4) comply with the Mississippi Flyway Council’s Policy. These goals will be achieved by conducting Mute Swan management in a manner that is effective, efficient, and in accordance with accepted wildlife management practices. These goals can be broken down into the following catego- ries: (A) Public Outreach and Education, (B) Feral Population Man- agement and Resource Protection, (C) Relief of Human Safety and Nuisance Conflicts. (pg 4) Strategy C-1.1: Remove Mute Swans through humane lethal take on DOW owned and managed lands. Population modeling and experi- ence in other states demonstrates that the use of only non-lethal controls, while a valuable tool, is unlikely to reduce the size of the Mute Swan population (Maryland Dept. Natural Resources 2001). Further, egg addling does not address the competition with Ohio’s threatened Trumpeter Swans nor the impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and other living resources caused by an overabun- dance of Mute Swans. To achieve the management goals, it is essen- tial to remove sub-adult and adult swans. Lethal methods will in- clude shooting or capture and euthanasia. (pg. 6) Excerpts from the Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Management Plan: In Maryland, wintering Tundra Swans declined about 40% since the 1990s. This time period coincided with when Mute Swans reached peak abundance in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. As such, there is a concern that the decline in Tundra Swans in Maryland may be at- tributable to the decline in SAV [submerged aquatic vegetation] par- tially due to Mute Swan grazing and/or aggressive interactions of Mute Swans toward Tundra Swans. Mute Swan pairs have been ob- served exhibiting aggression toward wintering Tundra Swans, driv- ing them from foraging areas and protected coves used for winter shelter (L. Hindman, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, personal communication). (pg. 8) Page 68 THE BLUEBIRD
Over 200 bird species carry Newcastle’s Disease Virus (NDV) but most birds do not exhibit clinical signs of disease (Kaleta and Bal- dauf 1988). Despite several outbreaks of NDV since the 1990s in Canada and the U.S., little is known about the role of wild birds in disease maintenance and transmission. Pedersen et al. (2014) found that 60% of Mute Swans were exposed to NDV but detection of ac- tive viral shedding was less common (8.7%). The role that Mute Swans might serve in the maintenance of NDV is concerning given the demonstrated ability of wild birds to transmit NDV to commer- cial poultry flocks (Heckert et al. 1996), the high mortality experi- enced by poultry infected with NDV (Alexander 1997), and the tre- mendous value of the poultry industry in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Further, Pedersen et al. (2014) recommended additional Mute Swan disease monitoring in an effort to protect the multi-billion dollar poultry business. (pg. 9) Figure 1. Distribution of Mute Swans in North America. Ciaranca, M. A., C. C. Allin, and G. S. Jones. 1997. Mute Swan (Cygnus olor), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.273 Page 69 THE BLUEBIRD
Fig. 2. Mute Swan Observations Reported in eBird. www.ebird.org. Accessed
January 11, 2020
Page 70 THE BLUEBIRDMissouri Listing: Missouri Life List Totals
Last updated May 5, 2020
Josh Uffman
335 Dick Anderson*
365 and Above Club 335 Mike Grant
397 David Easterla 335 Peter Monacell
370 Tim Barksdale (1997) 334 Kendell Loyd
370 Paul Bauer* 333 Phoebe Snetsinger*
369 Edge Wade 330 Joyce Bathke (VA) (2019)
368 Brad Jacobs* 330 Vivian Liddell (2000)
368 Jack Hilsabeck
367 Bill Reeves (2016) 330 Patrick Harrison (2010)
367 Stephen Dilks (2016) 328 Carmen Patterson (1992)
328 Jim Zellmer (2016)
350-364 327 Earl “Mick” McHugh (2006)
362 Robert Lewis* 327 Lisa Owens
361 Joshua Uffman 326 Leo Galloway* (1993)
360 Chris Hobbs (KS) (2007) 326 Tommie Rogers (TN) (2016)
357 Bob Fisher* 325 Matthew Gearheart (KS)
357 Connie Alwood (2016) (2016)
356 Joe Eades (2016)
356 Al Smith 300-324
352 Larry Lade (2016) 324 Kirby Goslee
350 Susan Hazelwood (2009) 323 Greg Swick
350 Jean Leonatti 321 Bonnie Heidy (2007)
318 Richard Parker (2005)
325-349 318 James Hickner
348 Dave Rogles (2009) 316 Steven Crawford (KS) (
348 Debbie Martin 2016)
348 Steve Martin 316 Eugenia Larson (CA) (
346 Pat Lueders 2016)
346 Donald Hazelwood* 316 Linda Williams
346 Kathleen Anderson 314 Lloyd Moore (KS) (2000)
345 Kyle Driggers (2016) 312 Mark Corder (KS) (1997)
345 Peter Kondrashov 312 James F. Comfort*
344 Paul McKenzie (2007) 312 Scott Schuette (2016)
343 JoAnn Garrett* (2002) 312 Mike Beck (2010)
343 Doug Willis (2016) 309 Torrey Berger*
341 Robert Brundage 309 Margot Holsen*
339 Floyd R. Lawhon* 310 Kelly Hobbs* (FL)
339 Kristi Mayo 310 Gene Jr. Wilhelm (PA)
339 Chrissy McClarren (1983)
338 Charlene Malone (2009) 310 Ryan Douglas
337 Jim Malone (2009) 309 Mary Wiese (1986)
Page 71 THE BLUEBIRD308 Terry McNeely (2016) 275 Theodore Rights (2005)
306 Galen Pittman (KS) (2016)
306 Andy Forbes (2009) 250-274
305 Elizabeth Cole* (KS) (2008) 273 W.D. Leip (FL) (2004)
304 Floyd Hallett (1986) 273 Ken Hollinga (CA) (2019)
304 Kyrle Boldt* 272 Richard Cunningham (FL)
304 Greg Leonard (2004)
303 Neal Young (2007) 272 Harold Ferris (1992)
303 Christian Hagenlacher 271 Walter George (1974)
(2017) 271 George Barker *
302 Violet Hallett (1986) 271 Vera Leip (FL) (2009)
302 Emily Bever (FL) (2005) 271 Linda Childers (2010)
301 Bryan Prather 270 Kevin Breault (2019)
301 Melda Lashley (1997) 269 Paul Lehman (CA) (2009)
301 Ralph Pike (FL) (2016) 268 Art Stilwell (KS) (2000)
300 Mark Goodman (MS) (2013) 268 Chadwick Rittenhouse (WI)
300 Shawn Clubb (2010) (2008)
267 Jean Braley (IA) (1992)
275-299 266 Kay Mueller (TX) (1986)
299 Donald Hays (2016) 266 Andrew Bromet*
297 John L. Hamilton (CA) 266 Laura Gilchrist (2008)
(2016) 265 David Silverman (CO)
296 Tim Kavan (2004)
295 J. Earl Comfort* 265 Alan Godwin (KS) (2004)
291 Mark Land (KS) (2016) 265 Terry Barker (1980)
290 Robert McFall (WI) (2010) 264 Dave Williams (KS) (2016)
289 Paul Habiger (2016) 264 William Bremser Jr. (FL)
287 Jo Ann Eldridge (2005) (2016)
287 Cecil Kersting (RI) (2010) 264 Ernest W. Mueller (TX)
286 Mel Cooksey (TX) (1996) (1986)
286 Kathryn Arhos* 262 James Haw (IN) (2016)
286 Harry Gregory (1995) 261 Anne Downing*
286 David Gibson 260 Joseph Mosley (2014)
285 Steve Hanselman (TX) 255 A.A. Moshovski (1986)
(1986) 255 Dave Faintich*
285 Mark Robbins (KS) (1974) 253 Victor Moss (1986)
285 Richard Rowlett (MD) 252 Michael Stewart (2014)
(1980) 251 Craig Litteken (AL) (2007)
285 Nanette C. Johnson (1980) 250 Larry Herbert (2007)
284 Ronald Goetz (1986)
283 Richard Coles (1986) 200-249
283 Dean Cole* (KS) 247 Lester Pannell (2001)
279 Richard Palmer (2016) 246 Tim Schallberg (1992)
278 John Hartman (MT) (1986) 248 Harley Winfrey (2016)
278 B.J. Rose (2008) 245 Susan Cook (1992)
277 Sebastian Patti (IL) (1982) 244 Keith McMullen (IL) (2005)
276 Bertha Massie* 243 Nancy Strickling* (TX)
275 Jim Rathert (1980) (2007)
243 Alan Mueller (AR) (2006)
Page 72 THE BLUEBIRD241 Leif Anderson (AR) (2019) 206 Jim Eidel (NV) (2006)
240 Dan Jones (TX) (1996) 205 Mark Krauss (NJ) (1993)
239 Clyde Sorenson (1996) 205 Robert Walton (IN) (2013)
239 Tracy A.G. Rittenhouse 205 Joe Hanfman (2017)
(WI) (2009) 204 Douglas Rose (IA) (1997)
237 J. Pat Valentik (AR) (2013) 202 Richard Decoster (IL) (1992)
236 Jananne M. McNitt (KS) 201 Ira Sanders (2013)
(1976)
235 Joe Roller (CO) (2016)
235 John H. Tripp (IL) (1980)
235 Nick Varvel (2018)
232 Thomas Crabtree (OR)
(1995)
232 Matt Pike (1997) *indicates inactive birder
231 C.S. Lawson (NV) (1978) (deceased or other).
231 Ted Cable (KS) (2015) Numbers in italics indicate total
227 John Tripp (NC) (1994) as reported in the ABA’s Annual
227 Peter Peterson* (IA) Big Day and Listing Reports.
224 Walter Krauss (1993) Those MO life list numbers in-
224 Mark McNeely (2016) cluded in prior years, but not
223 Todd Dilley (CO) (1998) included in the most recent ABA
222 Clark Talkington (ND) report, are indicated in paren-
(2003) thesis for the last year reported.
222 John Getgood (VA) (2016) Missouri resident unless indicat-
222 Michael Resch (MA) (2016) ed by other state abbreviation
222 Steve Matherly (2016) All ABA lists reports, except
220 Leslie Koller (AR) (2016) 1988-1991, were referenced for
219 Deuane Hoffman (PA) preparing this list.
(2007)
If you would like your number
217 Robert Odear (TN) (2009)
included/updated or noticed an
217 Nate Swick (2013)
error, please e-mail Josh Uffman
216 Caroline Eastman (SC)
at Birdsandbugs@sbcglobal.net
(2013)
with your update/correction (200
216 Robin Carter (SC) (2007)
minimum).
216 Thomas Heatley (MI) (2013)
215 Tanya Bray (OR) (2002)
215 Jim Rowoth (CA) (2007)
215 Laraine Wright (IL) (2009)
215 Kenneth Ward (VT) (2016)
213 Jeffrey Sanders (IL) (2007)
212 Elton Stilwell (TX) (2016)
212 Rick Waldrop (TN) (2013)
211 Helen Wuestenfeld* (IL)
210 Jan Neale (2007)
208 Ruth O. Phipps (IA) (1985)
207 David C. Riek (2007)
206 Elizabeth Krauss (MD)
(1993)
Page 73 THE BLUEBIRDRestoring Our Shady Oaks Sanctuary
Margy Terpstra
The path of life is full of serendipity and curveballs; either can hap-
pen when we least expect it. My path has included my willing and
capable partner, Dan, and wonderful mentors, with timely opportu-
nities to learn about the relationships between plants, insects and
birds. It is all coming together now, but in the beginning, there was
a bird.
A Bird: I came to birding through an accidental encounter. I had
always enjoyed hummingbirds and had a garden filled with plants
that would attract them. Sometimes, I would spot tiny, colorful birds
in an oak or elm, but didn’t know what they were. In the spring of
1987, I was weeding a bed in front of the house when I found a beau-
tiful, but dead little bird, a Kentucky Warbler. It grabbed my heart!
The need to know these beautiful birds took over. Dan gave me bin-
oculars, I bought my first Peterson’s, and signed up for a birding
class. I was hooked.
A Yard: Years later, in May, 1996, we were looking for a house on a
Page 74 THE BLUEBIRDlarger lot. We walked through this house, stepped out onto the deck and the birdsong was overwhelming. Migrants were high in the canopy finding caterpillars to eat in the oaks, black cherries, sugar maples and hickories. With my rose-colored glasses on, we signed the contract on the trunk of the agent’s car. We had much work to do; the understory of the woodland was completely filled with invasive bush honeysuckle to eradicate, along with lawn to transform into garden areas. It would take time, working together to restore habitat in this 0.6 acre yard. I was optimistic. We would do it for the birds. A Passion: We both felt a strong desire to be good stewards of this parcel of land, and that required learning about plants that were new to us, learning from our mistakes and changing how we did things. The goal was to make an oasis where birds and wildlife would feel safe, and find cover, food and fresh water, with minimal disturbance from us. It felt right. How to begin? We had areas that were sunny and dry, shady and wet, with everything in between, which meant we had potential for lots of diversity. Over the next few years, Dan tackled the honey- suckle, and native plants began to emerge and rebound. Blackhaw viburnum, rough-leaf dogwood and Virginia creeper began to thrive. Page 75 THE BLUEBIRD
Dave Tylka’s book, Native Landscaping for Wildlife and People, was extremely helpful in choosing plants that had multiple functions - attract pollinators, provide seeds, fruit, berries, nectar and sap. When possible, I took additional classes. As the design took shape, Dave began to include our yard on the field trips for his classes. A Bubbler: In October, 2000, we added the Bubbler Pond, using a boulder that had been unearthed in the construction of a breakfast room addition. The Bubbler has been a virtual magnet in attracting birds, bringing them down through the canopy where we could see them more easily. The cliché stands. ‘If you build it, they will come.’ As of today, the Bubbler List stands at 121 species plus 2 hybrids. A Varied Thrush came to drink at the Bubbler on January 23, 2003. It was the tenth record for Missouri, and to document it, I had to draw what I saw. Now, I am not an artist. So, the decision to learn how to photograph birds was easy. We looked into the new digiscop- ing methods, where a small digital camera is mounted to a spotting scope. Dan set me up and I began to document birds. On May 13, 2005, a rare Black-throated Blue Warbler popped into view at the Bubbler. What a lovely surprise, but that invasive hon- eysuckle behind it in the photo really bothered me. Our habitat was a work in progress, far from perfect, but I longed to be able to cap- ture birds finding food in the native plants. We got rid of that honey- suckle and replaced it with native smooth hydrangeas, where a fe- male Black-throated Blue Warbler found food 12 years later. A Revelation: In 2007, we read Doug Tallamy’s first book, Bringing Nature Home, and it gave a fuller meaning to what we were trying to accomplish. Aha! It wasn’t just about putting in a bunch of native plants! We needed to choose plants that supported the highest num- bers of Lepidoptera (species of moth and butterfly caterpillars) to have the most beneficial impact on our local ecosystem. His newest book, Nature’s Best Hope, goes further to say that there are “Keystone” plants in every ecosystem. “Keystone Native Plants” are essential for they preserve and stabi- Page 76 THE BLUEBIRD
lize local ecosystems. Just 5% of native plants provide 75% of the food! Oak (Quercus) species are at the top of the list of Key- stone Native Plants, and they are found in 84% of the counties across the United States. Here in the St. Louis area, Oak species support 429 Lepidoptera. These caterpillars are the most essential food for birds because the insects have co-evolved with the native plants and native birds. So, the bottom line is that the OAKS in our Shady Oaks Sanctuary have been providing the bulk of the food all along for the birds and other wildlife! Black cherries, maples, and hickories follow close be- hind. We went on to add a Water Garden consisting of a 1500 gallon pond with a stream and waterfalls. We converted more than half the lawn in the meadow area and installed a 1500 sq. ft. Bird and Butterfly Garden, because Dan said, “Make it bigger!” These areas are filled with native plants, increasing the biodiversity in our sanctuary. Full circle: In June, 2016, I was invited by Abigail Lambert to take part in MDC’s Bird Identification and Conservation Biology Work- shop at Shaw Nature Reserve. Brad Jacobs, Sarah Kendrick and Andrea Schuhmann led the walks and classes. It was a great three Page 77 THE BLUEBIRD
days, and I learned so much about the full life-cycle conservation of our native birds. Just two weeks later, the State of the Birds Report was released. https://www.stateofthebirds.org/2016/resources/species-assessments/ In part, the report said, “The Watch List includes 432 species with concern scores of 14 or higher, or with a concern score of 13 and a steeply declining population trend—these are the species most at risk of extinction without significant conservation actions to reverse declines and reduce threats.” On Easter Sunday evening, April 12, 2020, we added species #152, an Eastern Whip-poor-will as it called, loud and clear, just outside our back door. This species is on the Watch List with a concern score of 14. Of the 152 species plus 2 hybrids on our yard list, 14 species are on the Watch List with a score of 13 or higher. This is what means the most to me, knowing that our yard is truly helping birds that are most at risk. Life is full of serendipity and curveballs, but this path has been right for us and good for the birds. We continue to be gratefully amazed at Nature’s resilient and bountiful response to our efforts. Visit our website: https://hummerhavenunltd.com (All photos in this article © Margy Terpstra) Page 78 THE BLUEBIRD
Book Review: Gulls
Simplified
by Pete Dunne and Kevin T. Karlson
Allen Gathman
I once saw a cartoon showing
the spine of a book that says
“Biochemistry Made Simple.”
Underneath it says “vol. 1,”
and the volumes next to it
stretch out endlessly into the
distance. This is pretty much
what came to mind when I
first saw the title of this book.
The authors acknowledge that
many birders, including those
a lot more experienced than I,
find gulls to present insur-
mountable identification is-
sues. Nevertheless, they take
up the challenge.
The key to their approach is
to “embrace the nature of
probability,” for starters. If
you know the geographical ranges of gull species, you can reduce the
choices to a handful, often separable by size and structure rather
than fine nuances of plumage. The authors recommend starting
there, and then studying the rarities that might be found afterward.
The book goes through the 22 species of gulls that breed in North
America, and the authors don’t actually stint on the fine details – all
the information about plumage of immatures and successive molts is
there. But they start with a single paragraph “Profile” giving a few
simple characters that distinguish each species from the other likely
candidates in its range. This is followed for each species with a sec-
tion on Status and Distribution, then features of Adult Breeding
birds, Adult Nonbreeding, Immature, and Subadults. A section at
the end of the book covers hybrids, and another treats “Dark Horse
Gulls” – the rare vagrants in North America.
The book is copiously illustrated with photos, each species has a
Page 79 THE BLUEBIRDrange map, and the text is both informative and readable. There are numerous small quizzes. After one such quiz, they say “If you con- cluded that our mystery bird is anything but an immature Lesser Black-backed Gull, you are wrong, but look how far you have come already. Only yesterday you wouldn’t even have looked at the bird, and now you’ve progressed to misidentifying it.” Every species section in the book starts with Pete Dunne’s one- sentence summary of the bird. And how can you resist a book that says of Laughing Gull, for instance, “It’s the medium-sized, charcoal gray-backed, black-headed gull with the last of your boardwalk hot dog in its mouth and three noisy accomplices standing nearby.” This book will be a useful addition to the library of any birder who finds gulls a bit daunting, which suggests to me that it should sell pretty well. Dunne, Pete and Kevin T. Karlson. Gulls Simplifed: A comparative approach to identification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. Princeton University Press is now offering Missouri Birding Society members a 30% discount on its complete list of birding field guides, photographic guides, reference works, and bird- watching products (such as illustrated birding checklists, calen- dars, and flash cards). Enter promo code BIRD30 on the PUP website to get 30% off through 9/30/20. Page 80 THE BLUEBIRD
You can also read
