Nest Usurping Occurrence Of The Piratic Flycatcher (Legatus Leucophaius) In Southwestern Costa Rica

El Mosquerito Pirata (Legatus leucophaius) roba nidos colgantes o en forma de domo hechos principalmente por tiranidos o icteridos, sin embargo la frecuencia con la cual este mosquero se roba los nidos de otras especies es poco conocido. El Mosquerito Pirata robó nidos terminados de los Mosqueros Social (Myiozetetes similis) y Cabezigris (M. granadensis), construidos en sitios abiertos entre 5 – 9 m de alto. Nidos de otras especies con características similares pero menos abundantes o defendidos agresivamente, no fueron robados por el Mosquerito Piratas. A lo largo de su distribución reproductiva, son registrados usurpaciones de nidos por el Mosquerito Pirata en especies de al menos de cinco familias de aves.The Piratic Flycatcher (Legatus leucophaius) usurps pensile or domed nests mainly of other flycatchers (Tyrannidae) and icterids (Icteridae), but the frequency of nest parasitism is little known. In our study in south-west Costa Rica, the Piratic Flycatcher took over the finished domed nests of the Social (Myiozetetes similis) and the Gray-capped Flycatcher (M. granadensis), constructed in open sites between 5–9 m height. Nests of other species with similar characteristics, but less abundant or defended more aggressively, were not parasitized by the Piratic Flycatcher. Throughout its breeding range, nest usurpations by the Pyratic Flycatcher have been recorded for species belonging to at least five bird families.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Ciencias Básicas::Facultad de Ciencias::Escuela de Biologí

Response to heterospecific calls in rallids

In this research I wanted to test whether water rail and little crake recognise each other's calls. Playback experiment was performed and each focal pair was subjected to four treatments: 1) a conspecific treatment, during which water rails received water rail calls (WR) and little crakes received little crake calls (LC); 2) a sympatric Rallidae treatment, during which water rails received calls of little crakes and vice versa; 3) a sympatric non-Rallidae treatment, during which water rails and little crakes were presented by calls of the little grebe (LG); and 4) a non-sympatric Rallidae treatment, during which water rails and little crakes received calls of the spotted crake (SC). Vocal and non-vocal response was measured. Description of call variants (water rail) and call types (little crake) can be found in Jedlikowski et al. 2021

Dear-enemy effect between two sympatric bird species

In this study I investigated the occurrence of the dear-enemy effect in territorial interactions between two non-passerine bird species: water rail (Rallus aquaticus) and little crake (Zapornia parva). I used a cross-species playback experiment where water rails received calls of strangers and neighbouring little crakes, while little crakes received calls of water rails in the same manner. In addition, each focal pair was exposed to control calls of little grebes (Tachybaptus ruficollis). During the treatments, it did happen that either a neighbour of another species imitated by us or an individual of the same species called from adjacent territories. However, since each pair received a long series of playbacks, we could isolate responses to such unexpected events from responses to playbacks. If an additional bird responded during the procedure, we only considered the reactions up to that point for all three treatments with a given pair. Data included in the database (approaches, time near speaker, total number of calls) present, therefore, such isolated responses that were later analysed. See article "Dear-enemy effect between two sympatric bird species" for more details.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Little crake and water rail duet

The video shows a male and female little crake (Zapornia parva) calling in a duet. Video recorded during playback experiments in 2022.Figure: Spectrogram and oscillogram of the water rail’s (a) and little crake’s (b) collective calls. The calls of particular individuals are marked in green and blue at the bottom of each spectrogram. In the case of the water rail, the entire call sequence is visible, while in the case of the little crake, only the first two seconds of a 4.5-second series are visible to better show temporal precision.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Little crake duet

The video shows a male and female little crake (Zapornia parva) calling in a duet. Video recorded during playback experiments in 2022.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Response to heterospecific calls in rallids

In this research I wanted to test whether water rail and little crake recognise each other's calls. Playback experiment was performed and each focal pair was subjected to four treatments: 1) a conspecific treatment, during which water rails received water rail calls (WR) and little crakes received little crake calls (LC); 2) a sympatric Rallidae treatment, during which water rails received calls of little crakes and vice versa; 3) a sympatric non-Rallidae treatment, during which water rails and little crakes were presented by calls of the little grebe (LG); and 4) a non-sympatric Rallidae treatment, during which water rails and little crakes received calls of the spotted crake (SC). Vocal and non-vocal response was measured. Description of call variants (water rail) and call types (little crake) can be found in Jedlikowski et al. 2021

Hand searching versus pitfall trapping: how to assess biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in high altitude equatorial Andes?

International audienceThe use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators of environmental change depends on the reliability and the effectiveness of the sampling methods. Those that have been tested in the temperate zone and in tropical forests still await experimentation in tropical high-altitude environments. For the first time, pitfall trapping and hand searching have been compared in Ecuadorian páramo above 4000 m a.s.l., in terms of practical effectiveness. The study was performed on six volcanoes and was based on the comparison of 28 sampling sessions (pitfall trapping and hand searching) performed along two different elevational belts [lower superpáramo (LSP) and upper superpáramo (USP)]. Analyses of sampling sessions showed that detected species richness is slightly higher with hand searching than with pitfall trapping, regardless of the elevation. Additionally, hand searching is more time-effective than pitfall trapping. The performance of the sampling method slightly varies when species assemblage composition is analysed in relation to elevational belts. In the LSP, hand searching and pitfall trapping should be simultaneously used to obtain exhaustive inventories of carabid biodiversity, since different species are likely to be collected by each method. In the USP, hand searching and pitfall trapping efficiency is very similar, but hand searching allows to collect a slightly larger number of species. Lastly, the sample-based rarefaction curves showed that four temporal replicates are mandatory to obtain a robust dataset and an exhaustive inventory of the true species richness and species assemblages composition. Our findings suggest a combined use of hand searching and pitfall trapping in the LSP, while both methods can be used alone for surveying carabids in the USP. Furthermore, hand searching is recommended if the aim is to obtain an inventory of species diversity, whereas pitfall trapping seems more convenient for fine grain ecological and comparative studies