No. 2, The Killdeer

August 10, 2013 • 1:49 pm

by Greg Mayer

Ground nesting birds are more vulnerable to predation of both themselves and their eggs because the ground is accessible to a larger variety of predators than are nests built in trees. There are a number of ways of dealing with this. One is for the bird, its eggs, or both, to have concealing coloration. This is very common, and such cases constitute a large class of examples in the classic work establishing the principles of adaptive coloration.

I saw this myself recently during a stop in New Madrid, Missouri, where I heard a bird yelling in my ear. But it took some time to find the bird.

A killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) on its nest in New Madrid, Missouri, 26 July 2013. Can you find it?
A killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) on its nest in New Madrid, Missouri, 26 July 2013. Can you find it?

Eventually I did spot it (I had binoculars), sitting on the ground. A second killdeer was running about on the grass not far away.

Killdeer on its nest.
Killdeer on its nest.

As I approached, it did not attempt to lead me away in a distraction display (which killdeer will do), but once I was close enough it stood up and displayed its more strikingly marked tail feathers, although not as vigorously as did one photographed by a WEIT reader earlier this summer.

Killdeer tail display.
Killdeer tail display.

According to the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, which of the two possible displays is used—distraction (which leads the interloper away from the nest), or tail (which alerts the interloper to the location of the nest)—depends on the nature of the interloper. If perceived as a predator, the distraction display is used to lead the predator away; but if perceived as a blundering ungulate (bison in the old days), the tail display is used to make an annoying spot on the ground that the ungulate will walk around (rather than on top of). So, she perceived me as a lumbering, dumb, brute, rather than an egg predator; clever girl!

There were two eggs, both camouflaged with dapples and spots, and no apparent nesting materials, but I didn’t want to bother her enough to move her off the nest to get pictures of the eggs.

Another common way of dealing with the problems of a ground nest is to use a less accessible piece of ground, such as an island or a cliff, as the nesting site. Seabirds frequently do one or both of these. In my part of Wisconsin, Canada geese have become cliff nesters over the past twenty years, building their nests on ledges and roofs of buildings, a behavioral change that has resulted in a huge increase in nesting success and nest abundance. It would be interesting to determine how much of this new nesting behavior is an evolved adaptation or part of a learned repertoire.

________________________________________________________________

Cott, H.B. 1940. Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Methuen, London.

A bizarre and possibly aposematic bird

July 2, 2013 • 10:18 am

In most bird species, even those whose adults are gaudy and colorful, the juveniles are inconspicuous and dull. That seems reasonable, for much bird coloration is sexually selected (males are colorful, females less so), and although being colorful might attract predators, it attracts even more females of your species. But chicks aren’t at the stage of choosing mates and so avoiding predators trumps sexual selection.

But there are a few exceptions, and two remarkable ones are described in a new paper in the Wilson Journal of Ornithology by Fernando Mendonça D’Horta et al. (full text behind paywall).  These are two species of birds in the family Laniisominae that are found in Amazonia.  In this case, the adults are far less conspicuous than the juveniles, which are bright orange-red with dappling and, in one case, long crests.  The two species appear to be each other’s closest relatives (“sister species”), and so the bright juvenile coloration probably did not evolve independently in each.

Here’s the juvenile of one species, Laniocera hypopyrra. This single specimen was collected in 2002.

Picture 1The authors note the striking crest, which apparently isn’t present in the adult:

A remarkable feature of the crest is the feathers in which there are distal extensions, composed by up to six orange filaments 15 to 22 mm long, possessing white distal and proximal portions (Frontispiece, Fig. 1). The crest, including these filaments, reaches 40 to 48 mm. The same structure is exhibited by some of the dorsal feathers.

Here’s the second species, Laniisoma elegans, for which the authors collected the first juvenile known of the subspecies L. elegans elegans.

Picture 2

Apparently the dichromatism of adult and juveniles in L. elegans was known before, as it’s depicted in this plate from 1880.

Picture 3
FIG. 3. Image of pullus and adult Laniisoma elegans, originally published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1880 (plate 18). Courtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library, Zoological Society of London. http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/

Of course, one wonders immediately what the difference in color means, especially since it reverses the common pattern of cryptic chick/showy adult. Earlier workers had suggested that the chicks “had evolved to appear like moss covered by fruits,” but it doesn’t look that mossy and fruity to me.

The authors suggest instead that the chick is warningly colored (i.e., “aposematic”) because it is somehow toxic or distasteful to predators, or, alternatively, that the chick mimics some toxic and unpalatable species that predators have learned to avoid (i.e., the chick is a “Batesian mimic”).  Of these two, the latter possibility seems more likely to me, for if the chick is distasteful and avoided by predators, why shouldn’t the adult also keep that pattern? Also, if the chick gets its distastefulness from its diet, well, the parents feed it, and could also have that diet.  (Of course, the chick could endogenously manufacture a toxin, but why wouldn’t the adult do that, too, and keep the color?)

It is possible, of course, that the chick’s smaller size plays a role in its resemblance to some other toxic model.  In truth, we simply have no idea what’s going on here.

Lest you think that birds can’t be toxic and aposematically colored, there’s at least one example, and it was discovered by Jack Dumbacher, a graduate student in our department. Jack found that the hooded pitohui of New Guinea (Pitohui dichrous), which is black and orange, has a neurotoxin in its skin and feathers. (Jack discovered this when his hands became numb and tingly when handling the bird.) The pitohui may acquire its toxin from eating beetles that contain the poison.

Here’s a hooded pitohui (photo from the NIF blog):

pitohui-1

 

 

___________________

D’Horta, F. M., G. M. Kirwan, and D. Buzzetti. 2012. Gaudy juvenile plumages of Cinereous Mourner (Laniocera hypopyrra) and Brazilian Laniisoma (Laniisoma elegans). Wilson J. Ornithology 123:429-435. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1676/11-213.1