Eileen C. Rees Anthony D. Fox - WWT

237 Pages·2012·2.04 MB·English

by  Ellen Matthews

Wildfowl 62
Editor
Eileen C. Rees
Associate Editor
Anthony D. Fox
Published by
Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
Slimbridge, Gloucestershire
GL2 7BT, UK
Registered Charity No. 1030884
Wildfowl
Editor
Dr Eileen C. Rees
Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
Slimbridge, Gloucestershire GL2 7BT, UK.
Associate Editor
Prof Anthony D. Fox
Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University
Kalø, Grenåvej 14, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark.
Editorial Board
Prof Jeff Black Dr Matthieu Guillemain
Department of Wildlife Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune
Humboldt State University Sauvage
Arcata, California 95521, USA. La Tour du Valat
Le Sambuc, 13200 Arles, France.
Assoc Prof Bruce D. Dugger
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
Dr David Roshier
Oregon State University
Centre for Integrative Ecology
104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
School of Life & Environmental Sciences
Prof Andy J. Green Deakin University, Waurn Ponds Campus
Wetland Ecology Department Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.
Doñana Biological Station-CSIC
C/ Américo Vespucio s/n
41092 Sevilla, Spain.
Cover photograph: Steller’s Eiders Polysticta stelleri, by Harri Taavetti.
Cover design by Paul Marshall
Published by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire GL2 7BT, UK
Wildfowlis available by subscription from the above address. For further information call
[phone] (extension 257), or e-mail [email protected]
ISBN 0 900806 61 3
Printed on FSC compliant paper
by MPG Biddles
Contents
Editorial 1
Review Papers
A merganser at Auckland Islands, New Zealand 3
M. Williams
Impacts of wind farms on swans and geese: a review 37
E.C. Rees
Standard Papers
Population size and breeding success of Icelandic Whooper Swans Cygnus cygnus: 73
results of the 2010 international census
C. Hall, J.R. Glanville, H. Boland, Ó. Einarsson, G. McElwaine, C.A. Holt, C.J. Spray &
E.C. Rees
Habitat use, disturbance and collision risks for Bewick’s Swans Cygnus columbianus 97
bewickii wintering near a wind farm in the Netherlands
R.C. Fijn, K.L. Krijgsveld, W. Tijsen, H.A.M. Prinsen &S. Dirksen
Limits of grazing area use by feral Greylag Geese Anser anserduring moult 117
K. Schwarz &F. Woog
Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca: an introduced species spreading in and from the 128
Netherlands
A. Gyimesi &R. Lensink
Evidence for Mallard Anas platyrhynchosand American Black Duck Anas rubripes 146
competition in western New Brunswick, Canada
M.J. Petrie, R.D. Drobney, D.T. Sears &L.M. Armstrong
Measurements and movements of Madagascar Teal Anas berniericaptured and ringed 165
at Lake Antsamaka in central-western Madagascar
F. Razafindrajao, H.G. Young &A.I. Bin Aboudou
Captive breeding and release diminishes genetic diversity in Brown Teal Anas chlorotis, 176
an endangered New Zealand duck
G.M. Bowker-Wright, B.D. Bell, P.A. Ritchie &M. Williams
Feeding environments of New Zealand’s extinct merganser revealed by stable 190
isotope analyses
M. Williams, R.N. Holdaway &K.M. Rogers
Direct and indirect evidence that productivity of Snowy Plovers Charadrius nivosus 204
varies with occurrence of a nest predator
N.S. Burrell &M.A. Colwell
Short Communications
Ducks foraging on swan faeces 224
T. Shimada
Announcements
The 9th Conference of the European Ornithologists’ Union: August 2013 228
Wildfowl: Instructions for Authors 229
To subscribe to Wildfowl, or to purchase back numbers, please contact
Mrs Margaret (“Maggie”) Sage at the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge,
Gloucester GL2 7BT, UK, telephone [phone]
or send an e-mail to [email protected].
1
Wildfowl 62: Editorial
This edition of Wildfowl is of particular interest for the new information provided on two
endangered species –Madagascar Teal Anas bernieriand Brown TealAnas chlorotis–and on the
Auckland Islands Merganser Mergus australis which became extinct in 1902. The two
merganser papers are particularly evocative; scrupulous attention to detail in a review of
written records, use of modern techniques (stable isotope analysis) which throws further
light on the birds’ feeding habitat, and the author’s biological insight into these birds
throughout, helps to illustrate the distribution and habits of a species no longer with us.
It is also touching that the review paper is dedicated to Janet Kear. She was remarkable
not only for her pioneering studies of wildfowl and her work with waterbird
conservation, but she inspired a generation of researchers and aviculturists, and for many
years served as an eminent Editor of this journal. The Auckland Islands Merganser was a
special interest of hers, and it is therefore hugely appropriate that these papers appear in
Wildfowl.
In addition to the work on endangered and extinct species, I am very pleased to see the
publication of a detailed paper on the effects of a wind farm on Bewick’s Swans Cygnus
columbianus bewickii wintering at Polder Wieringermeer in the Netherlands. Detailed post-
construction studies of this kind are essential for assessing the effects of wind farm
developments on waterbird populations. The journal also includes informative papers on,
inter alia, the growth in numbers of Egyptian GeeseAlopochen aegyptiacain the Netherland, the
latest population estimate for the Icelandic Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus population and
potential competition between Mallard Anas platyrhynchosand Black DuckAnas rubripesin New
Brunswick. The threatened species focus also extended to North America, with a study
providing evidence for the predation of Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus eggs by Common
Ravens Corvus corax. Insight into a more familiar species is provided through an assessment
of whether feral Greylag Goose Anser anser feeding distribution in Stuttgart, Germany, is
influenced by their being flightless during moult.
During the course of the year, scanning the Wildfowl back catalogue was taken forward
speedily and effectively by Christine Orchard, and most papers published in the journal over
the years are now in electronic (pdf) format. These are not yet readily available as some of the
files are quite large (> 7 MB), but plans are underway to use OCR (optical character
recognition) software to reduce file size, make the papers searchable, and ultimately to add
them to the Wildfowlpages of the WWT website.
I remain indebted to Tony Fox for his time, effort and invaluable comments as Associate
Editor for Wildfowl, and to Editorial Board members – Jeff Black, Bruce Dugger, Andy
Green, Matt Guillemain and David Roshier – for continuing to provide the advice and
support essential for maintaining the standards and interest of the journal. I thank the
referees for their valuable comments on the papers, and Ellen Matthews (EM Typesetting)
and the staff at MPG Biddles (which recently acquired the Cambridge University Press
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 1–2
2
printing presses) for taking the papers forward to publication. My colleagues Maggie Sage,
Linda Dickenson and Jane Gawthorne provided helpful support throughout, including in the
distribution of Wildfowl 62.
Eileen Rees
Editor: Wildfowl
WWT Martin Mere
Photograph: Janet Kear during her time as Director of Centres at WWT and
Editor of Wildfowl, by David Platt.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 1–2
3
A merganser at Auckland Islands, New Zealand
MURRAY WILLIAMS
School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand.
E-mail: [email protected]
Dedicated to the late Janet Kear, a friend and colleague from afar, whose lifetime work
enriched our knowledge and enjoyment of the world’s waterfowl.
Abstract
The last population of the merganser Mergus australispersisted at Auckland Islands in
New Zealand’s Subantarctic until its extermination by specimen collectors in 1902. It
is now represented by four duckling specimens, 23 skins of immatures and adults,
three skeletons, and a partial cadaver stored in 11 museums. It was the smallest
known Mergus, the males weighing c. 660 g and showing little plumage dimorphism
from the smaller (c. 530 g) females. Only five published accounts report first-hand
observations of its ecology, breeding or distribution. Most likely it occurred as year-
round territorial pairs in the larger streams and along the coastal edge at the heads of
Auckland Island’s eastern inlets and in Carnley Harbour and fed on both marine and
fresh water foods. Its population probably never exceeded 20–30 pairs. The scant
records suggest it had a typical summer breeding season. Although its keel area and
wing skeleton were reduced relative to its sternum length it was well capable of
flapping flight.
Key words: Auckland Islands,Auckland Islands Merganser, Mergus australis.
A merganser (Family Anatidae, Tribe in 1902 (Alexander 1902; Ogilvie-Grant
Mergini) once inhabited the Auckland 1905) was obtained, Polynesians having
Islands archipelago, 450 km south of New earlier extirpated the New Zealand
Zealand in the subantarctic Southern Ocean and Chatham Island populations. This
(Fig. 1). When Polynesians first settled biogeographic oddity, a merganser in
New Zealand in the late 13th Century, New Zealand’s waters, is today represented
mergansers were also present in New by 27 skins and bones thereof from
Zealand (North, South and Stewart Islands) Auckland Islands (Kear & Scarlett 1970;
and at Chatham Island 800 km to New Kear 2005a) and a small but increasing
Zealand’s east (Holdaway et al.2001; Worthy collection of bones from midden and
& Holdaway 2002). It was from Auckland natural deposits from the other two
Islands that the first specimen, in 1840 populations (Worthy 1998a,b, 2004; Millener
(Hombron & Jacquinot 1841), and the last, 1999).
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 3–36
4 A merganser at Auckland Islands
Figure 1. The Auckland Islands showing locations referred to in the text. 1= Magnetic Bay, 2 =
Maclaren Bay.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 3–36
A merganser at Auckland Islands 5
In this paper I review, and where Description of plumage and soft parts
appropriate reappraise, existing knowledge
of Mergus australisat Auckland Islands, a bird Kear & Scarlett (1970) described the
commonly referred to as Auckland Island(s) plumages and soft parts of the adult,
Merganser (e.g. Buller 1882, 1905; Hutton & immature and duckling. The adult
Drummond 1905; Kear & Scarlett 1970; description was compiled from the authors’
Kear 2005a; Young & Kear 2006) but also as examinations of three skins in Canterbury
Southern Merganser (Tennyson & Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand (CM)
Martinson 2006) and New Zealand (see Appendix 1), six skins in the (British)
Merganser (Gill 2010). Scattered historical Natural History Museum, Tring, England
accounts and documentation of this (NHM), and one skin in the Cambridge
merganser were assembled by Kear & University Museum, Cambridge, England
Scarlett (1970) to provide a first synthesis. (J. Kear pers. comm.).
Livezey (1989) added an appraisal of its Their description was warranted because
phylogenetic relationships and of its the original description (Hombron &
flightedness. These two publications Jacquinot 1841) had not been referred to in
provide the only substantive accounts of M. any publication other than in passing by von
australis to date and have been the sources Hugel (1875), and most subsequent
for all subsequent accounts (e.g.Marchant & descriptions, commencing with Buller (1882,
Higgins 1990; Kear 2005a; Tennyson & 1905), have been incremental modifications
Martinson 2006), much as Buller’s (1905) and abbreviations either of von Hugel’s or
account was the source for early treatises of Buller’s and have ignored Mathews’
(e.g. Phillips 1926; Mathews 1936; Delacour (1936) substantive re-description (based on
1959). specimens NHM 1901.10.21.57 and NHM
Since Kear & Scarlett’s synthesis, a 1901.10.21.58). Similarly, minor changes
further skin has been reported in a museum from the initial depiction (Hombron &
collection (Sigwart et al. 2004, 2005), a Jacquinot 1853) have resulted in portrayals
partial skeleton reported (but erroneously with plumage and soft part colourations that
identified; see Appendix 1) from Lyon, differ from original descriptions (e.g. Mathews
France (Wood et al. 1982), bones attributed 1936; Shirihai & Jarrett 2002; del Hoyo et al.
to mergansers have been located at further 2002; Tennyson & Martinson 2006), and in
sites on New Zealand’s main islands the idiom of merganser species familiar to
(Worthy 1998a,b, 2004; Worthy & Holdaway the artists (e.g.Fleming 1982). Some are more
2002), and the smaller sizes of bones fanciful (e.g. Flannery & Schouten 2001).
found in abundance in a cave on Chatham Depictions based on freshly collected
Island prompted Millener (1999) to suggest specimens (e.g. Hombron & Jacquinot 1853;
they may constitute a separate taxon. Buller 1905; Fleming 1982) best capture soft
Morphometric distinctions between the part and head colouration. A composite of
three New Zealand Merganser populations some historic and contemporary illustrations
await appraisal. is presented in Colour Plate 1.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 3–36
6 A merganser at Auckland Islands
Colour plate 1. Historic and contemporary depictions of Mergus australis from: a) Hombron &
Jacquinot 1853; b) Buller 1905; c) Fleming 1982; d) Mathews 1936; e) Shirihai & Jarrett 2002;
f) Tennyson & Martinson 2006; g) photograph of Otago Museum mount AV1110 (Rod Morris).
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 3–36