Missouri Breeding Bird Atlas 1986-1992 Brad Jacobs James D. Wilson Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Tennessee Charles P. Nicholson

The Condor ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 725-726
Author(s):  
Keith A. Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Breeding Birds ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Breeding Bird Atlas

scholarly journals Understanding testosterone variation in a tropical lek-breeding bird

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 506-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas B. Ryder ◽  
Brent M. Horton ◽  
Ignacio T. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Breeding Birds ◽  
Male Dominance ◽  
Surprising Result ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Dominance Hierarchies ◽  
Testosterone Levels ◽  
Male Display ◽  
Pipra Filicauda

Male reproductive coalitions, in which males cooperate to attract females, are a rare strategy among vertebrates. While some studies have investigated ultimate aspects of these relationships, little is known about the mechanistic role that hormones play in modulating cooperative behaviours. Here, we examined male testosterone variation in a tropical lekking bird, the wire-tailed manakin ( Pipra filicauda ), which exhibits cooperative male–male display coalitions. We found that testosterone levels in territorial males were comparable to those of temperate breeding birds, a surprising result given their environmental, social and reproductive dynamics. In addition, social status rather than plumage was a strong predictor of testosterone variation. Territorial males had significantly higher testosterone levels than did two other plumage classes of floater males, who do not hold territories. We hypothesize that testosterone variation plays an important role in the establishment of male dominance hierarchies (competition), while concurrently facilitating stable display partnerships (cooperation).

scholarly journals Avian Haemosporidian Diversity on Sardinia: A First General Assessment for the Insular Mediterranean

Diversity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Irene Pellegrino ◽  
Luca Ilahiane ◽  
Giovanni Boano ◽  
Marco Cucco ◽  
Marco Pavia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Linear Models ◽  
Parasite Community ◽  
Breeding Birds ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Bird Populations ◽  
Total Prevalence ◽  
Western Palearctic ◽  
Host Parasite

The Western Palearctic is one of the most investigated regions for avian haemosporidian parasites (Haemoproteus, Plasmodium and Leucocytozoon), yet geographic gaps in our regional knowledge remain. Here, we report the first haemosporidian screening of the breeding birds from Sardinia (the second-largest Mediterranean Island and a biodiversity hotspot), and the first for the insular Mediterranean in general. We examined the occurrence of haemosporidians by amplifying their mtDNA cytb gene in 217 breeding birds, belonging to 32 species. The total prevalence of infected birds was 55.3%, and of the 116 haplotypes recovered, 84 were novel. Despite the high number of novel lineages, phylogenetic analysis did not highlight Sardinia-specific clades; instead, some Sardinian lineages were more closely related to lineages previously recovered from continental Europe. Host-parasite network analysis indicated a specialized host-parasite community. Binomial generalized linear models (GLMs), performed at the community level, suggested an elevational effect on haemosporidian occurrence probability (negative for Haemoproteus; positive for Leucocytozoon) likely due to differences in the abundance of insect vectors at different elevations. Furthermore, a GLM revealed that sedentary birds showed a higher probability of being infected by novel haplotypes and long-distance migrants showed a lower probability of novel haplotype infection. We hypothesize that the high diversity of haemosporidians is linked to the isolation of breeding bird populations on Sardinia. This study adds to the growing knowledge on haemosporidians lineage diversity and distribution in insular environments and presents new insights on potential host-parasite associations.

scholarly journals Contribution of Citizen Science to Biodiversity Data Mobilization in Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalya Ivanova ◽  
Maxim Shashkov
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Breeding Bird Atlas ◽  
Research Grade ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
Species Occurrences ◽  
Biodiversity Information

Currently Russia doesn't have a national biodiversity information system, and is still not a GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) member. Nevertheless, GBIF is the largest source of biodiversity data for Russia. As of August 2020, >5M species occurrences were available through the GBIF portal, of which 54% were published by Russian organisations. There are 107 institutions from Russia that have become GBIF publishers and 357 datasets have been published. The important trend of data mobilization in Russia is driven by the considerable contribution of citizen science. The most popular platform is iNaturalist. This year, the related GBIF dataset (Ueda 2020) became the largest one for Russia (793,049 species occurrences as of 2020-08-11). The first observation for Russia was posted in 2011, but iNaturalist started becoming popular in 2017. That year, 88 observers added >4500 observations that represented 1390 new species for Russia, 7- and 2-fold more respectively, than for the previous 6 years. Now we have nearly 12,000 observers, about 15,000 observed species and >1M research-grade observations. The ratio of observations for Tracheophyta, Chordata, and Arthropoda in Russia is different compared to the global scale. There are almost an equal amount of observations in the global iNaturalist GBIF dataset for these groups. At the same time in Russia, vascular plants make up 2/3rds of the observations. That is due to the "Flora of Russia" project, which attracted many professional botanists both as observers and experts. Thanks to their activity, Russia has a high proportion of research-grade observations in iNaturalist, 78% versus 60% globally. Another consequence of wide participation by professional researchers is the high rate of species accumulation. For some taxonomic groups conspicuous species were already revealed. There are about 850 bird species in Russia of which 398 species were observed in 2018, and only 83 new species in 2019. Currently, the number of new species recorded over time is decreasing despite the increase in observers and overall user activity. Russian iNaturalist observers have shared a lot of archive photos (taken during past years). In 2018, it was nearly 1/4 of the total number of observations and about 3/4 of new species for the year, with similar trends observed during 2019. Usually archive photos are posted from December until April, but the 2020 pandemic lockdown spurred a new wave of archive photo mobilisation in April and May. There are many iNaturalist projects for protected areas in Russia: 27 for strict nature reserves and national parks, and about 300 for others. About 100,000 observations (7.5% of all Russian observations) from the umbrella project "Protected areas of Russia" represent >34% of the species diversity observed in Russia. For some regions, e.g., Novosibirsk, Nizhniy Novgorod and Vladimir Oblasts, almost all protected areas are covered by iNaturalist projects, and are often their only source of available biodiversity data. There are also other popular citizen science platforms developed by Russian researchers. The first one is the Russian birdwatching network RU-BIRDS.RU. The related GBIF dataset (Ukolov et al. 2019) is the third largest dataset for Russia (>370,000 species occurrences). Another Russian citizen science system is wildlifemonitoring.ru, which includes thematic resources for different taxonomic groups of vertebrates. This is the crowd-sourced web-GIS maintained by the Siberian Environmental Center NGO in Novosibirsk. It is noteworthy that iNaturalist activities in Russia are developed more as a social network than as a way to attract volunteers to participate in scientific research. Of 746 citations in the iNaturalist dataset, only 18 articles include co-authors from Russia. iNaturalist data are used for the management of regional red lists (in the Republic of Bashkortostan, Novosibirsk Oblast and others), and as an additional information source for regional inventories. RU-BIRDS data were used in the European Russia Breeding Bird Atlas and the new edition of the European Breeding Bird Atlas. In Russia, citizen science activities significantly contribute to filling gaps in the global biodiversity map. However, Russian iNaturalist observations available through GBIF originate from the USA. It is not ideal, because the iNaturalist GBIF dataset is growing rapidly, and in the future it will represent more than all other datasets for Russia combined. In our opinion, iNaturalist data should be repatriated during the process of publishing through GBIF, as it is implemented for the eBird dataset (Levatich and Ligocki 2020).

scholarly journals Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas: 2017 Season Highlights

Blue Jay ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-27
Author(s):  
LeeAnn Latremouille ◽  
Kiel Drake
Keyword(s):  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Breeding Bird Atlas

Saskatchewan Breeding Bird Atlas: 2017 Season Highlights

The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Albert R. Buckelew, Jr. George A. Hall

The Auk ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 1083-1084
Author(s):  
David W. Johnston
Keyword(s):  
West Virginia ◽  
The West ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Breeding Bird Atlas

The Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Hugh Kingery Radeaux

The Condor ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-242
Author(s):  
John W. Prather
Keyword(s):  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Breeding Bird Atlas

The breeding bird community of managed and unmanaged willow scrub at Leighton Moss, Lancashire

1992 ◽  
Vol 98 ◽  
pp. 207-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Vegetation Cover ◽  
Bird Community ◽  
Breeding Birds ◽  
Herb Layer ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Woodland Birds ◽  
Feeding Sites

SynopsisCoppiced willow supports a much higher density of breeding birds than unmanaged more mature willow. This appears to be because it retains richer vegetation cover, especially in the herb layer, and so provides more breeding and feeding sites for both marsh and woodland birds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document