2010 Bird Monitoring Report for the
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge – Salmon Creek Unit, Loleta, California
March 28, 2012
Report prepared by Josée Rousseau and C. John Ralph, Humboldt Bay Bird Observatory,
Klamath Bird Observatory and USFS Redwood Sciences Laboratory.
On the cover:
Chestnut-back Chickadee
Photo by Josée Rousseau
Table of content
Background ................................................................................................................................. - 1 Value of monitoring ................................................................................................................ - 1 Partners In Flight Species........................................................................................................ - 1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... - 1 Data Quality ............................................................................................................................ - 2 Demographic Surveys ............................................................................................................. - 3 Area Search ............................................................................................................................. - 3 Species Checklist..................................................................................................................... - 4 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... - 4 Species Abundance and Capture Rate ..................................................................................... - 4 Breeding Status ....................................................................................................................... - 5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. - 6 Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... - 6 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... - 7 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. - 6 -
i
Background
Value of monitoring
Bird monitoring is a strategic activity that can be used to assess conservation status,
ascertain and predict immediate or cumulative effects of habitat change, establish management
and conservation priorities, and determine the effects of management so it can be adapted to
meet its objectives (NACBI Monitoring Subcommittee, 2007). The U.S. North American Bird
Conservation Initiative Monitoring Subcommittee further recommends integrating monitoring
with bird management and conservation practices, coordinating monitoring programs among
organizations and maintaining bird population monitoring data in modern data management
systems. Those recommendations are addressed throughout this report.
Partners In Flight Species
Partner In Flight (PIF) is a cooperative effort to help species that are at risk, keep
common birds common, and to promote voluntary partnerships for conservation of birds and
their habitats (http://www.partnersinflight.org/). PIF recognizes two categories of species that
have continental or regional conservation importance: species of concern Watch List and
Stewardship species (Panjabi et al., 2005). Watch List species include species which are most
vulnerable at a continental or regional scale because of small and declining populations, limited
distributions, and high threats throughout their ranges. Continental or regional Stewardship
species are species for which attention to their welfare will lead to stewardship of habitats which
will also benefit additional species.
Methodology
Demographic studies, area searches, and species checklists are three complementary
survey techniques used to bring information about the species using a site. Each monitoring
technique has its strengths. Demographic monitoring through capture and banding can be used
to determine the causes behind population trends. Through ageing, sexing, and measuring body
condition for each species, one can determine if the population is reproducing at an appropriate
rate, is surviving well, and quantify the health of the population. Area search census data can be
used to obtain the abundance of birds at a site, regardless of the season, and then be used to
calculate population trends. Species checklists are a rapid way to record a complete list of
species observed during the day of survey, including those not recorded using the other two
methods, and associate each species detected with a breeding status.
We monitored birds in the Salmon Creek Unit between May and October 2010 on 13
dates; nine of these surveys were during the breeding season and four during fall migration
(Table 1). The breeding season included the months of May through August and the fall
migration season, the months of September and October. Our effort consists of 820.5 net-hours,
26 area search surveys, and 13 species checklist using 204 biologist hours.
-1-
Data Quality
The USFS Redwood Sciences Laboratory has developed a monitoring protocol (Ralph et
al., 2010) based on the recommended techniques published in the North American Banding
Council guides (NABC, 2001a; NABC, 2001b; NABC, 2001c) and Handbook of Field Methods
for Monitoring Landbirds (Ralph et al., 1993).
Training is used to increase the quality of our data. An experienced biologist is present
on site and supervises all surveys. All biologists get intensive training both in the form of
workshops and regular personalized teaching. The value of the data is further increased through
a series of data management steps including editing, formatting, compiling, and archiving. The
data are shared within the Klamath Bird Monitoring Network to promote large scale analysis and
sharing of resources (Alexander et al., 2004). The Network in turns contributes to the Landbird
Monitoring Network of the Americas (http://www.klamathbird.org/lamna/), California Avian
Data Center (http://data.prbo.org/cadc2/), and to the Avian Knowledge Network effort
(http://www.avianknowledge.net/content/). The goal of these efforts is to increase our
understanding of our bird populations’ patterns and dynamics to ultimately protect and conserve
birds and their habitat.
Table 1. Effort associated with the demographic surveys. The banding effort is in net-hours
(number of nets x number of hours each net is open), the area searches in number of 20
minutes surveys, one species list form was filled out for each survey date, and number
of biologists hours used to monitor the site.
Date
May 20, 2010
June 1, 2010
June 14, 2010
June 30, 2010
July 14, 2010
July 22, 2010
July 30, 2010
August 11, 2010
August 23, 2010
September 2, 2010
September 12, 2010
September 22, 2010
October 5, 2010
Total of 13 survey dates
Net-hours
59.17
64.78
62.67
69.03
68.83
68.75
54.23
47.75
70.33
69.42
65.00
69.33
51.20
820.50
Number of
Area Search
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
26
-2-
Species
Checklist
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Biologist effort
(person x hours)
18
18
18
18
24
12
6
6
24
18
12
12
18
204
Demographic Surveys
We used the constant-effort mist net capture technique to assess the reproductive status of
landbirds. The Salmon Creek banding site (SAC2: Figure 1) was surveyed at regular intervals
from May to October 2010. SAC2 has 14 mist nets arrayed over an approximately 10,000 square
meter area and was operated for 5 hours each survey day. Data collected from captured birds
included morphological measurements to determine species, age, and sex. We also measured
wing and weight to get an index of bird’s health. Birds were banded with standard U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service uniquely-numbered bands, enabling marked-recapture analyses of survivorship
and other demographic metrics. We report capture rate, an index of abundance obtained from
mist net sites. Capture rate is calculated as the total number of individuals captured per species,
normalized over the number of net hours per day, multiplied by 100. The mean capture rate was
calculated separately for the each season.
Figure 1. Location of the banding site SAC2 within the Salmon Creek Unit
of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Mist nets are in orange and
area searches in green.
Area Search
During each day of surveys we conducted two area searches in the vicinity of the nets to
assess abundance of birds. During area searches, observers record birds seen and heard during a
20-minute period (Ralph et al. 1993). Each of the two area search plots covered half of the mistnet array area. The abundance of birds was calculated as the average number of birds detected
per area search during each season.
-3-
Species Checklist
A checklist of all birds observed or heard was completed at the end of each site visit. The
checklist is the most complete survey in terms of listing species using the study site, as it
includes species captured during banding, detected during area searches surveys, and those
detected incidentally at the site. A single code representing the highest breeding evidence for
each species was recorded, such as active nest, singing, mating, and others. The results of the
species checklist are used to determine the breeding bird community present in and around the
banding site.
Results and Discussion
A total of 67 species were detected at the site (Appendix A). The results from the area
search censuses included 53 species – spring and fall migration combined – compared with 22
from the banding effort. Capture rates probably better represent the abundance of the more
cryptic species (e.g. Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Swainson's Thrush, and Orange-crowned Warbler).
We found higher species richness at the Salmon Creek banding site during the breeding season
compared with fall migration.
Capture Rate and Species Abundance
The five species with the highest capture rate during the breeding season were: Song
Sparrow (with a total of 11.0 birds per 100 net-hours), Swainson’s Thrush (5.2), Chestnutbacked Chickadee (2.3), Pacific-slope Flycatcher (2.2), and Black Phoebe (1.5). Only five
species were captured during the fall, the top two are Ruby-crowned Kinglet (1.9) and Blackcapped Chickadee (1.2).
The five most abundant species we detected through area searches during the breeding
season are: Song Sparrow (an average of 5.1 birds per area search), American Goldfinch (4.0),
Barn Swallow (2.7), Marsh Wren (2.4), and Black-capped Chickadee (2.1). Most of the 42
species detected through the area searches during the summer months have been identified as
likely or confirmed breeders. During fall migration we found a different suite of species in
highest numbers: Marsh Wren (4.1), Song Sparrow (3.6), American Goldfinch (2.9), Blackcapped Chickadee (2.3), and Chestnut-backed Chickadee (2.3). Most of the 31 species detected
during the fall migration are winter residents of Humboldt County.
Of the species captured or detected throughout the 2010 field season, six are in the
Partners In Flight Watch List (Panjabi et al., 2005) and should be closely monitored—Allen’s
Hummingbird, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Cassin’s Vireo, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Wrentit, and
Hermit Warbler. Another 14 species are considered PIF stewardship species (Table 2).
Management actions directed at conserving these Stewardship species will likely increase the
habitat quality of species identified on Watch list. Note that four species are on both the Watch
List and stewardship species.
-4-
Table 2. Species list detected or captured in the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
listed in the Partners In Flight Watch List or as a Stewardship Species (Panjabi
et al., 2005).
Common Name
Red-shouldered Hawk
Northern Pygmy-Owl
Vaux's Swift
Allen's Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Pacific-slope Flycatcher
Cassin's Vireo
Steller's Jay
Chestnut-backed
Chickadee
Winter Wren
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Wrentit
Orange-crowned Warbler
Hermit Warbler
MacGillivray's Warbler
Total of 16 species
Breeding
Status
Confirmed
Not Breed
Not Breed
Not Breed
Not Breed
Likely
Confirmed
Likely
Not Breed
Confirmed
Likely
Not Breed
Likely
Likely
Not Breed
Likely
Continental
Watch
List
.
.
.
X
.
X
.
.
.
Regional
Watch
List
.
.
.
.
.
X
.
X
.
Continental
Stewardship
Species
X
.
.
X
.
.
X
.
X
Regional
Stewardship
Species
.
X
X
X
X
.
X
.
X
.
.
.
X
.
X
.
4
.
.
X
.
.
.
.
3
X
X
.
X
.
X
.
8
X
.
X
.
X
X
X
11
Breeding Status
We classified each species in one of three breeding categories: Confirmed, Likely, or Not
Breeding. Confirmed breeding is associated with species with a brood patch as recorded during
banding, or species for which one of the following behaviors were observed: courtship or
copulation, local young being fed by adult, carrying food or fecal sac, nest material being
gathered or carried, or current year’s nest found. Species with a breeding status of “Likely” had
at least one male captured with an enlarged cloacal protuberance, were observed displaying
territorial behavior such as fights or chases, or for which a territorial song or drumming was
heard. The other species detected on site were assigned to the category “Not breeding”. This
does not indicate that they do not breed on site, only that we did not detect signs of breeding
activity.
Out of 67 species, a total of 15 were confirmed breeding in the Salmon Creek Unit, with
another 17 likely breeders. Information obtained through banding data allowed to confirm the
-5-
breeding status of most species. Of the confirmed or likely breeding bird species, three are on
the PIF watch list (Olive-sided Flycatcher, Cassin’s Vireo, and Wrentit) and seven are on the
Stewardship list (Red-shoulder Hawk, Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Chestnut-backed Chickadee,
Pacific Wren, Wrentit, Orange-crowned Warbler, and MacGillivray’s Warbler) (Panjabi et al.,
2005).
Conclusions
The habitat around the banding site went through substantial changes in the past century:
from salt marsh, to pastures, and now riparian habitat. The tall grass, alders and willows now
present at the site provide breeding habitat to several species associated with riparian habitats
(Warbling Vireo, Tree Swallow, Swainson’s Thrush, Common Yellowthroat, Wilson’s Warbler,
Song Sparrow, and Black-headed Grosbeak) (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, 2004). The
Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (2004) has identified the presence of habitat components such as
shrubby habitat and thick understory cover as essential to the establishment of many riparian
species.
This report provides a one year assessment of the landbirds’ use of the Salmon Creek
banding site on the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. More data that can inform habitat
management for landbirds could be provided through an analysis of the effects of vegetation
succession on the birds in the Refuge, their productivity and body condition. A total of nine
years of bird data is now available making such an analysis possible.
It also becomes more and more important to assess relationships between our bird
populations and their habitat throughout the year. The Refuge, because of its proximity to the
ocean and moderate climate, most likely provides habitat to many winter residents. In order to
best understand the value of the Refuge to full life-cycle bird conservation, monitoring should be
implemented during winter and spring migration, as well as the breeding season and fall
migration (e.g., Faaborg et al., 2010).
Acknowledgments
We thank the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge personnel, especially Eric Nelson,
for the support provided to survey the Samon Creek banding site in 2010. Thank you also to all
the biologists (staff, interns and volunteers) for their help monitoring the site: Emma Blackburn,
Sarah Dewees, Catalina Gonzalez, Lauren Morgan-Outhisack, Chris Murry, Eban Paxton, Tim
Pendexter, and Lucy Rowe. Lastly, thank you to our data management team (data entry
supervision, data editing, formatting and archiving): Kim Hollinger, Linda Long, and Lisa
Olivier.
-6-
Literature Cited
Alexander, J. D., C. J. Ralph, K. Hollinger, and B. Hogoboom. 2004. Using a wide-scale
landbird monitoring network to determine landbird distribution and productivity in the Klamath
Bioregion. Pp. 33-41 in K.L. Mergenthaler, J.E. Williams, and E.S. Jules (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Second Conference on Klamath - Siskiyou Ecology. Available at
http://www.klamathbird.org/publications/peerreviewedpublications.html
Faaborg, John, Richard T. Holmes, Angela D. Anders, Keith L. Bildstein, Katie M. Dugger,
Sidney A. Gauthreaux Jr., Patricia Heglund, Keith A. Hobson, Alex E. Jahn, Douglas H.
Johnson, Steven C. Latta, Douglas J. Levey, Peter P. Marra, Christopher L. Merkord, Erica Nol,
Stephen I. Rothstein, Thomas W. Sherry, T. Scott Sillett, Frank R. Thompson III, and Nils
Warnock. 2010. Conserving migratory land birds in the New World: Do we know enough?
Ecological Applications 20:2, 398-418
NABC. 2001a. The North American banders’ study guide. North American Banding Council
http://nabanding.net/nabanding/.
NABC. 2001b. The North American banders’ manual for banding passerines and near passerines
(excluding hummingbirds and owls). North American Banding Council
http://nabanding.net/nabanding/.
NABC. 2001c. The instructor’s guide to training passerine bird banders in North America. North
American Banding Council http://nabanding.net/nabanding/.
Panjabi, A. O., E. H. Dunn, P. J. Blancher, W. C. Hunter, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, H.
Berlanga, G. S. Butcher, S. K. Davis, D. W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. Easton, H. Gomez de
Silva Garza, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M.
Rustay, J. M. Ruth, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight Handbook on
Species Assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain
Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.pdf
Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, and D. F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field
methods for monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTRl44. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr144/
Ralph, C. John, Kimberly R. Hollinger, and Robert I. Frey. 2010. Redbook: Redwood Sciences
Laboratory and Klamath Bird Monitoring Network mist netting station management procedures.
USFS, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California and Klamath Bird Observatory,
-7-
Ashland, Oregon. 84 pages. Copies available by contacting Linda at lll@fs.fed.us or (707) 8252947.
RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2004. Version 2.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a
strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in
Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian.v-2.pdf.
U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Monitoring Subcommittee. 2007.
Opportunities for Improving Avian Monitoring. U.S. North American Bird Conservation
Initiative Report. 50 pp. Available from the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA; on-line at http://www.nabci-us.org/.
-8-
Appendix A. List of species detected on the Salmon Creek Unit of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The breeding status
of each species as well as the abundance results from area searches and capture rate results from banding surveys are presented. The
breeding season is defined as detections or captures between May and August, fall migration is for the months of September and
October.
Species
Code
Common Name
Scientific Name
Breeding
Status
AMBI
GBHE
GREG
SNEG
BCNH
TUVU
CAGO
MALL
CANV
WTKI
NOHA
RSHA
SORA
CATE
MODO
NOPO
VASW
ANHU
ALHU
BEKI
DOWO
HAWO
NOFL
RSFL
OSFL
American Bittern
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Black-crowned Night-Heron
Turkey Vulture
Canada Goose
Mallard
Canvasback
White-tailed Kite
Northern Harrier
Red-shouldered Hawk
Sora
Caspian Tern
Mourning Dove
Northern Pygmy-Owl
Vaux's Swift
Anna's Hummingbird
Allen's Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Red-shafted Flicker
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Botaurus lentiginosus
Ardea herodias
Ardea alba
Egretta thula
Nycticorax nycticorax
Cathartes aura
Branta canadensis
Anas platyrhynchos
Aythya valisineria
Elanus leucurus
Circus cyaneus
Buteo lineatus
Porzana carolina
Sterna caspia
Zenaida macroura
Glaucidium gnoma
Chaetura vauxi
Calypte anna
Selasphorus sasin
Ceryle alcyon
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus
Colaptes auratus
Colaptes a. cafer
Contopus cooperi
Likely
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Confirmed
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Likely
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Confirmed
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Likely
-9-
Breeding
Abundance
Capt. Rate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.78 +/- 0.56
.
0.33 +/- 0.18
.
0.33 +/- 0.14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.22 +/- 0.10
.
0.06 +/- 0.06
.
0.11 +/- 0.08
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.67 +/- 0.20
1.44 +/- 0.95
0.11 +/- 0.08
0.20 +/- 0.20
.
0.16 +/- 0.16
0.28 +/- 0.16
0.17 +/- 0.17
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.28 +/- 0.14
.
Fall Migration
Abundance
Capt. Rate
.
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
.
.
.
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
1.00 +/- 0.57
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.38 +/- 0.26
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
0.25 +/- 0.16
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
0.38 +/- 0.26
.
.
.
.
.
Appendix A. (Continued).
Species
Code
Common Name
Scientific Name
Breeding
Status
WEWP
PSFL
BLPH
CAVI
WAVI
STJA
AMCR
CORA
TRES
VGSW
BARS
BCCH
CBCH
BUSH
RBNU
HOWR
WIWR
MAWR
GCKI
RCKI
SWTH
HETH
AMRO
WREN
EUST
CEDW
OCWA
Western Wood-Pewee
Pacific-slope Flycatcher
Black Phoebe
Cassin's Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Steller's Jay
American Crow
Common Raven
Tree Swallow
Violet-green Swallow
Barn Swallow
Black-capped Chickadee
Chestnut-backed Chickadee
Bushtit
Red-breasted Nuthatch
House Wren
Winter Wren
Marsh Wren
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Swainson's Thrush
Hermit Thrush
American Robin
Wrentit
European Starling
Cedar Waxwing
Orange-crowned Warbler
Contopus sordidulus
Empidonax difficilis
Sayornis nigricans
Vireo cassinii
Vireo gilvus
Cyanocitta stelleri
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus corax
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta thalassina
Hirundo rustica
Poecile atricapilla
Poecile rufescens
Psaltriparus minimus
Sitta canadensis
Troglodytes aedon
Troglodytes troglodytes
Cistothorus palustris
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Catharus ustulatus
Catharus guttatus
Turdus migratorius
Chamaea fasciata
Sturnus vulgaris
Bombycilla cedrorum
Vermivora celata
Confirmed
Confirmed
Confirmed
Likely
Confirmed
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Confirmed
Likely
Not Breeding
Confirmed
Confirmed
Confirmed
Not Breeding
Likely
Not Breeding
Likely
Likely
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Confirmed
Not Breeding
Confirmed
Likely
Not Breeding
Likely
Likely
- 10 -
Breeding
Abundance
Capt. Rate
0.67 +/- 0.23
0.55 +/- 0.37
1.72 +/- 0.27
2.16 +/- 0.64
1.00 +/- 0.24
1.54 +/- 0.55
0.06 +/- 0.06
.
1.17 +/- 0.26
0.32 +/- 0.32
0.06 +/- 0.06
.
0.06 +/- 0.06
.
0.22 +/- 0.15
.
0.72 +/- 0.35
.
0.89 +/- 0.57
.
2.67 +/- 0.51
1.15 +/- 0.59
2.11 +/- 0.53
1.11 +/- 0.94
1.28 +/- 0.36
2.33 +/- 1.12
0.28 +/- 0.28
.
.
.
.
.
0.11 +/- 0.11
0.16 +/- 0.16
2.39 +/- 0.49
.
.
.
.
.
1.56 +/- 0.32
5.19 +/- 1.67
0.06 +/- 0.06
.
0.28 +/- 0.18
0.35 +/- 0.23
0.06 +/- 0.06
.
0.33 +/- 0.28
.
1.00 +/- 0.33
.
0.17 +/- 0.09
0.47 +/- 0.47
Fall Migration
Abundance
Capt. Rate
.
.
.
.
1.13 +/- 0.23 0.38 +/- 0.38
.
.
.
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
1.13 +/- 0.85
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.25 +/- 0.77 1.21 +/- 0.72
2.25 +/- 0.70
.
.
.
.
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
0.88 +/- 0.35
.
4.13 +/- 0.74
.
1.25 +/- 0.82
.
0.13 +/- 0.13 1.85 +/- 1.38
.
.
.
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
0.25 +/- 0.16
.
.
.
1.25 +/- 0.49
.
.
.
Appendix A. (Continued).
Species
Code
Common Name
YWAR
Yellow Warbler
MYWA Myrtle Warbler
HEWA
Hermit Warbler
MGWA MacGillivray's Warbler
COYE
Common Yellowthroat
WIWA
Wilson's Warbler
WETA
Western Tanager
SAVS
Savannah Sparrow
SOSP
Song Sparrow
WCSP
White-crowned Sparrow
BHGR
Black-headed Grosbeak
BHCO
Brown-headed Cowbird
HOFI
House Finch
PISI
Pine Siskin
AMGO American Goldfinch
Number of species detected:
Scientific Name
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica c. coronata
Dendroica occidentalis
Oporornis tolmiei
Geothlypis trichas
Wilsonia pusilla
Piranga ludoviciana
Passerculus sandwichensis
Melospiza melodia
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Pheucticus melanocephalus
Molothrus ater
Carpodacus mexicanus
Carduelis pinus
Carduelis tristis
67
Breeding
Status
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Likely
Likely
Likely
Not Breeding
Likely
Confirmed
Confirmed
Likely
Likely
Not Breeding
Not Breeding
Confirmed
- 11 -
Breeding
Abundance
Capt. Rate
.
.
.
.
0.11 +/- 0.11
.
.
.
0.39 +/- 0.23
.
0.72 +/- 0.30
0.79 +/- 0.63
.
.
0.83 +/- 0.19
.
5.06 +/- 0.62 11.00 +/- 1.76
0.61 +/- 0.20
0.65 +/- 0.65
0.11 +/- 0.08
.
1.28 +/- 0.31
0.50 +/- 0.35
.
.
.
.
4.00 +/- 0.54
1.32 +/- 0.67
42
20
Fall Migration
Abundance
Capt. Rate
.
.
1.50 +/- 1.00
.
.
.
.
.
0.25 +/- 0.16
.
0.13 +/- 0.13
.
0.25 +/- 0.25
.
.
.
3.63 +/- 0.98 0.74 +/- 0.43
0.63 +/- 0.32
.
.
.
.
.
0.25 +/- 0.25
.
.
0.49 +/- 0.49
2.88 +/- 1.20
.
31
5