The Plight of Migrant Birds Wintering in the Caribbean: Rainfall Effects in the Annual Cycle

Here, we summarize results of migrant bird research in the Caribbean as part of a 75th Anniversary Symposium on research of the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF). The fate of migratory birds has been a concern stimulating research over the past 40 years in response to population declines documented in long-term studies including those of the IITF and collaborators in Puerto Rico’s Guánica dry forest. Various studies indicate that in addition to forest loss or fragmentation, some migrant declines may be due to rainfall variation, the consequences of which may carry over from one stage of a migrant’s annual cycle to another. For example, the Guánica studies indicate that rainfall extremes on either the temperate breeding or tropical wintering grounds affect migrant abundance and survival differently depending on the species. In contrast, IITF’s collaborative studies of the migrant Kirtland’s Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) in the Bahamas found that late winter droughts affect its annual survival and breeding success in Michigan. We review these IITF migrant studies and relate them to other studies, which have improved our understanding of migrant ecology of relevance to conservation. Particularly important is the advent of the full annual cycle (FAC) approach. The FAC will facilitate future identification and mitigation of limiting factors contributing to migrant population declines, which for some species, may be exacerbated by global climate change

Avian Resource Use in Dominican Shade Coffee Plantations

Volume: 110Start Page: 271End Page: 28

Status of the California Condor (\u3ci\u3eGymnogyps californianus\u3c/i\u3e) and Efforts to Achieve its Recovery

The California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus; hereafter “condor”; Fig. 1) has long been symbolic of avian conservation in the United States. Its large size, inquisitiveness, and association with remote places make it highly charismatic, and its decline to the brink of extinction aroused a continuing public interest in its plight. By 1982, only 22 individuals remained of this species whose range once encompassed much of North America. The last wild bird was trapped and brought into captivity in 1987, which rendered the species extinct in the wild (Snyder and Snyder 1989). In the 1980s, some questioned whether viable populations could ever again exist in the natural environment, and whether limited conservation funds should be expended on what they viewed as a hopeless cause (Pitelka 1981). Nevertheless, since that low point, a captive-breeding and release program has increased the total population by an order of magnitude, and condors fly free again in California, Arizona, Utah, and Baja California, Mexico (Fig. 2). At this writing (summer 2009), more than 350 condors exist, 180 of which are in the wild (J. Grantham pers. comm.). The free-living birds face severe challenges, however, and receive constant human assistance. The intensive management applied to the free-living populations, as well as the ongoing monitoring and captive-breeding programs, are tremendously expensive and become more so as the population grows. Thus, the program has reached a crossroads, caught between the financial and logistical pressures required to maintain an increasing number of condors in the wild and the environmental problems that preclude establishment of naturally sustainable, free-ranging populations. Recognizing this dilemma, in November 2006, Audubon California requested that the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) convene an independent panel to evaluate the California Condor Recovery Program. The National Audubon Society (NAS) and the AOU have a long history of interest and involvement in condor recovery. The NAS helped fund Carl Koford’s pioneering studies of condor biology in the 1940s (Koford 1953). A previous panel jointly appointed by the NAS and AOU examined the plight of the condor in the late 1970s, and their report (Ricklefs 1978) laid the groundwork for the current conservation program. The NAS was a full partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the early days of the program, from 1980 through 1988. Ricklefs (1978) recommended that the program “be reviewed periodically by an impartial panel of scientists,” and this was done annually by an AOU committee for several years after the release of the report, but the condor program has not been formally and thoroughly reviewed since the mid-1980s. Audubon California believed that the recovery program was operating with a recovery plan (USFWS 1996) widely acknowledged to be outdated, and that issues that were impeding progress toward recovery needed outside evaluation in order for the USFWS, which administers the program, and other policy makers to make the best decisions about the direction of the program (G. Chisholm pers. comm.). Such an evaluation would also help funding organizations better invest in the program