Jamaican-Canada Training Program in Cockpit Country:
Session #2 Trip Report
(30 April to 17 May 2002)
by
Paul Prior
Project undertaken with the financial support of the Government of Canada
provided through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Bird Studies Canada
P.O. Box 160
Port Rowan, ON
N0E 1M0
June 2002
Contents
Contents..............................................................................................................................1
ExecutiveSummary…...………………………………………………………………………………….…2
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Logistics.................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Air Travel, Visas and Customs Clearance........................................................................................................... 3
Appraisal of Field Equipment............................................................................................................................ 5
Meals.................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Accommodations................................................................................................................................................ 6
Ground Transportation....................................................................................................................................... 6
Field Finances..................................................................................................................................................... 6
List of all Primary Contacts................................................................................................................................ 5
Roles of Key Personnel...................................................................................................................................... 6
Problems Encountered............................................................................................................................................. 6
List of all Trainees................................................................................................................................................... 7
Overall Summary of Trainee Report Cards............................................................................................................. 7
Nominations and Rankings of Top Five Trainees................................................................................................... 8
Appraisal of Overall Field-training......................................................................................................................... 9
Appraisal of Overall Non-field Training................................................................................................................. 9
Site Assessment.................................................................................................................................................... 10
Daily Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Species List of Number of Birds Banded and Number Banded per 100 Net Hours............................................. 20
How Captures of AOU vs non-AOU species were dealt with............................................................................ 22
Record of all Banding Casualties and Mortalities................................................................................................. 23
Review of Feedback.............................................................................................................................................. 24
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................. 24
Executive Summary
Five of the six participants showed excellent progress both in the field and non-field sessions, maintaining a high level of interest and enthusiasm throughout the workshop, and achieving competence in many aspects of the banding operation. From the six participants the top five trainees were identified and then ranked as to their suitability for further training at Long Point Bird Observatory in the fall of 2002.
There was a total of 454 bird captures of which 314 were banded (183 resident birds and 131 migrants), 105 recaptured and 35 released unbanded. A total of 23 species (3 migrants, 20 residents) were handled. Over the course of the 15 field-sessions the total number of net hours was 506, with 204 net hours at the site next to the Windsor Research Centre, 114 net hours at the site on Mr. Connolly’s property, and a further 188 net hours at a variety of four other local sites. The overall catch rate for the entire workshop (excluding the 2 bananaquits caught as incidental to the more standardized sessions) was 89.72 birds /100 net hours. This is an overall higher catch rate than at Long Mountain site although the figure given for the Long Mountain site does not incorporate the extremely high catch rate that was achieved in Catherine Levy’s back-yard! This higher catch rate was achieved despite fears that running a workshop this late in the season would result in a much lower rate due to the absence of wintering migrants. In the end the figures were bolstered by the unexpectedly high numbers of one of Jamaica’s few summer visitors – black-whiskered vireo.
As with the first workshop the only real problem was one of absenteeism and this only really applied to one individual this time around. I feel that part of this problem lies with the perception of the workshop in the eyes of the institutions and employers who allow participation by their staff. If the project is to continue it is important that this issue is dealt with. The May timing of this second workshop, originally planned for March, was potentially a great problem but we were extremely fortunate with the weather, which remained unseasonably dry and cool until the last days of the workshop. I would urge that future workshops be run only in the months between November and April, avoiding rain and excessive heat, and coinciding with the presence of the largest number of winter visitors and migrants.
Windsor Research Centre provided the workshop with an ideal setting and the participants and trainers were well catered for throughout the session. Although catch rate was low at several of the sites these remain good sites for research, bearing in mind that a training situation – as opposed to a research situation - requires a relatively high rate of capture so as to maintain the pace of learning for the trainees.
Introduction
For over two decades Bird Studies Canada and Long Point Bird Observatory have been involved in international efforts to foster homegrown Migration Monitoring Programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean. The fundamental principal behind this effort was to provide the tools and training for grass-roots research from within the local communities, departing from the typical route of sending North American field biologists into other countries which effectively excludes local biologists from achieving any sense of heritage and proprietorship. By providing training opportunities either on site or through courses run at Long Point, Bird Studies Canada has been instrumental in helping native field-biologists in their attempts to further ornithological knowledge, and hence conservation itself, in their home countries.
Initially the idea was brought to early fruition in Cuba, and then in the mid-1990s the Latin American project was instigated at Long Point, Ontario, with participants from Mexico, Ecuador, Jamaica, Cuba and Brazil. After 7 years of conducting training sessions at Long Point it was decided to revitalize the concept first tried in Cuba back in the late 1980s, but this time the venue would be Jamaica. With the original Cuban project the intention had been more precisely oriented towards helping the already thriving ornithology department in establishing a network of monitoring stations in Cuba. The Latin American Project’s intent at Long Point during the 1990s had been to award promising field-biologists the opportunity to hone their skills during an intensive month of banding and training at the peak of fall migration at Long Point. Participants were generally field-biologists who had at least some previous exposure to passerine banding and thus were likely to gain a great deal from the intensive training at Long Point.
The proposed Jamaican project differed from both of the earlier projects in that there was a much broader scope; participants would be invited from different backgrounds, widening the sphere of influence and thereby spreading the benefits of the training over a larger cross-section of the interested community. There was every expectation that such a change in the aim would result in a wider variety of skill levels brought to the work-shop. Likewise, there would be an opportunity not only to “preach to the converted” but also perhaps to invite participants who might otherwise have been unaware of the possibilities within their own natural heritage.
From the Canadian perspective all three of these related projects have carried the same ulterior motive of furthering research into the fates of bird communities that Canadians (rather incorrectly) consider their own. Very quickly, in both the Cuban project and in this current Jamaican project, it has become clear that, although much can and will be discovered about the Neotropical migrants that either migrate through or winter in the Caribbean, the host ornithologists will go far beyond such limited inquiries taking the experience that Bird Studies Canada has shared with them and exploring their own unique avifaunas. Certainly this was very much anticipated in the latter Jamaican expedition where the high degree of involvement of Birdlife International and Birdlife Jamaica brought to the forefront considerations of Important Bird Areas.
Visas and work permits are only required by visitors intending to work in Jamaica and it is then advisable to allow several months for the completion of paperwork (although I was informed that had I required a work permit, as long as the proper letters were in order, it would probably take less than six weeks to acquire a permit). Canadians visiting entirely for personal pleasure do not require any visas.
The flights, both inward and outward bound, were slightly longer and more arduous than for the first workshop, with brief stopovers for connecting flights in the US from Toronto to Montego Bay. During the outward flight each passenger was provided with both a Customs Card and a Visitors Card. On arrival at Montego Bay, luggage pick-up and customs clearance was very rapid
Much of the equipment used in this second workshop was borrowed from the first workshop at Long Mountain. One important addition, however, were the beautifully crafted two-piece net poles that our host, Mike Schwartz, produced. Certainly, these were the best net poles that I have ever used in any field situation; if there were a bigger market for such equipment these would be best sellers!
Our band inventory for non-AOU birds lacked sizes 3A and 3B. This resulted in the unbanded release of a few larger birds but these releases have been taken into account for the calculation of catch rates.
The project was provided with a pair of circlip pliers from the British Trust of Ornithology. Since on several occasions bands had to be removed due to errors in the band-size listing, it was a relief to have such high quality tools in the banding kit.
Detailed List of Field Equipment
The following is a list of field-equipment borrowed from the first workshop at Long Mountain:
§ 20 mist-nets, a mixture of used stock from LPBO and brand new (Finnish and Polish).
§ 2 rolls of orange flagging tape
§ 75 banding sheets
§ banding sheet binder
§ 200 retrap cards
§ small retrap card file box
§ 8 seam rippers
§ 30 LPBO log sheets
§ 1 styptic stick
§ ultra-fine sewing scissors
§ plastic tackle box for banding equipment
§ small container of disinfectant waterless soap
§ one roll of duct tape
§ 40 clean bird bags
§ opti-visor
§ 5 small pocket note-pads
§ film canisters for band storage
§ 2 permanent markers
§ 3 black ball point pens
§ 10 HB pencils with erasers
§ one small travelling alarm clock
§ Pesola balances, one 30g and one 100g
§ Pliers; two each of 0A – 1A and 2 – 3
§ two copies of Pyle i.d. guide
§ two wing rules
§ two leg gauges
§ one net repair kit
§ one pair of circlip pliars (BTO standard issue, acquired for the second workshop)
§ 160 metres of good guy string (augmented by “parachute cord” supplied by Susan Koenig)
Meals
The Windsor Research Centre’s cook, Sugar Belly, proved to be admirably equal to the task of feeding the entire workshop. Meals were excellent and well-varied. The only gripe might be over the provision of breakfast which seemed to have been left somewhat unplanned although I am told that this is often the case in Jamaica, lunch and supper being far more important meals. The isolation of Windsor Research Centre perhaps contributed to the occasionally sparse field food supplies required for our morning banding sessions. However, the provision of food at all other meals was more than adequate.
Accommodations at WRC are currently rather spartan (especially when compared to the sumptuous meals) but very adequate. Since generally only sleep periods were spent in the bedrooms the spacious verandah proved an excellent workspace and lounging area.very adequate. Since generally only sleep periods were spent in the bedrooms the spacious verandah proved an excellent workspace and lounging area.
All water is drawn from the nearby river, the only treatment being the settling out of detritus in the holding tank next to the house. This water is tested on a regular basis and no problems were encountered throughout the workshop. There is no heated water available, but once I had survived the shock of the first cold shower I was pretty much converted to its invigorating potential. The power supply is solar, augmented by resorting to generator as necessary. This meant that there were occasions at night when a flash-light proved useful.
Catherine Levy kindly leant her vehicle for much of the workshop, and when not available this was substituted with one of the hosts’ vehicles.
A float of US$250 was issued to me before my flight from Toronto. Other than airport tax on departure from Montego Bay (US$23) there were no other expenses incurred while in Jamaica. The float was used to pay for taxi to and from Pearson International Airport, Toronto, and for the purchase of photographic film (negatives and prints to be supplied to BSC and cd copies to be forwarded to Birdlife Jamaica and Windsor Research Centre).
The exchange rate throughout my stay in Jamaica was JAM$27.78. All purchases were made using the float provided, the receipts collected and then forwarded to Bird Studies Canada.
Access to Computers etc.
As with the first workshop, there really was no requirement for computer access but there was a laptop computer made available through our hosts at Windsor for my personal e-mails. The reproduction of any notes As with the first workshop, there really was no requirement for computer access but there was a laptop computer made available through our hosts at Windsor for my personal e-mails. The reproduction of any notes.for the class was taken care of by Susan Koenig using her personal printer and fax equipment.
Telephones do not function effectively in this part of Cockpit Country, at least certainly not for more than a couple of minutes at a time (enough to establish download of e-mails but not for worthwhile telephone conversations), but this proved a blessing in disguise since the ubiquitous cell phone, so much of a distraction for participants in the first workshop, was inoperable in this location!
The following are primary contacts for the Jamaican bander training workshops:
Jon McCracken
Bird Studies Canada,
POBox 160,
Port Rowan, ON
N0E 1MO
Canada
Susan Koenig,
Windsor Research Centre
Catherine Levy,
Birdlife Jamaica,
Kingston,
Jamaica
Paul Prior
51 Bastedo Avenue,
Toronto, ON
M4C 3M8
Jon McCracken: logistics and preparation (including liaison with all parties and provision of banding equipment).
Susan Koenig: planning of all aspects of the second workshop at the Jamaican end (assisted by Mike Schwarz), including selection of the participants. Helped with in-field training of the participants.
Catherine Levy: assistance in preparation at the Jamaican end (including provision of much of the equipment) and helping with in-field training of the participants
Paul Prior: principal trainer responsible for organization of the training sessions and training of all participants; production of reports.
Absenteeism was really the only problem encountered in this second workshop and only applied to one of the participants who took his leave after only 3 days of banding and lectures. Consequently I have chosen not to assess this participant’s necessarily limited progress. The reason for Donovan Haughton’s early departure has never been made clear to me although I gather it had something to do with his employment with STEA.
Despite much complaining by several of the participants mosquitoes were never a huge problem, primarily because of the unseasonably dry weather. Grass lice proved somewhat irksome but are not a health risk, simply an irritating nuisance. They are easily avoided by staying out of cattle pastures. I suffered more than most but this was probably by dint of my evening wanderings in search of potoos and the likes.
Although mongooses were seen on a few occasions they never appeared at our net locations and probably their population is too low locally to present any real threat of predation.
As previously stated, the weather was unseasonably dry and mild, thus assuaging our fears of losing valuable field training time through rain and excessive heat. Even so, throughout the workshop – due to our experience at the Long Mountain session – a high level of awareness of the potential for heat stress in the captured birds was maintained. Consequently, there were no seemingly heat-related problems for any of the captured birds.
Previous experience at Long Mountain meant that we were forewarned as to the problem with some of the band-sizes suggested in the existing literature, thus the leg-gauge proved invaluable.
A total of six trainees participated in the second Jamaican bander training workshop.
(Participants personal details removed prior -pun intended- to publishing on web)
Copies of all Trainee Report Cards were left with the respective trainees; further copies have been provided to Bird Studies Canada but are not included within the body of the report.
It should be noted here that these Report Cards were designed for appraisal of permit applicants in North America. Since all of the participants in this second workshop were new to bird-banding and since over the course of the 15 days of banding each participant probably handled somewhat less than a hundred birds each (either extracted or processed) it should be clear that the Report Cards are being used out of context. With this in mind I would suggest that an updated Report Card be designed, more suited to, and specifically for, such short-term workshops. In both this and the first workshop I used the Report Cards more as a way to enable the participants to gauge their own progress, and then as a reference that they may use when helping at other Jamaican banding stations in the future.
Since all participants other than ATS came to this workshop with approximately equal levels of experience it is somewhat more difficult to rank the top five trainees. All five showed excellent progress in the practical aspects of the banding operation with only relatively minor differences in their individual abilities. For this reason the ranking has been rather difficult (next to impossible) and the order could very easily have been changed. However, in ranking nominations for consideration for the fall training at Long Point, Canada I have considered more than just the participants’ abilities at the nets and in the “banding lab”, bringing to bear both the extent to which I feel the participant could gain from such an opportunity and how much that participant might utilize the experience in the future.
The one “participant” who is not ranked in this report is DH who departed on 5th May, and did not return to complete the course. I was given no real explanation (nor apology) for his early departure although I understand that the main reason was to attend to work for STEA. It is quite disappointing that DH thereby denied an opportunity to another potential participant. Since I have not been offered any proper explanation for DH’s decision to miss all but the first few days of the workshop it would be unfair of me to judge the situation. However, this incident is similar to a series of work-related absenteeism encountered in the first work-shop at Long Mountain. This being the case it becomes apparent that more should be done to inform prospective participants – and their supportive employers – of just what the workshop entails, and that in fact a great deal of time, effort and resources have been put into the organization of such workshops. The perception of such workshops needs to be raised beyond what at the moment appears to be an easy-come-easy-go attitude.
ATS showed a careful and considered approach to all aspects of the workshop, acquiring an assured competence in both the banding and extractions. Her grasp of much of what was covered during the series of afternoon lectures was obviously aided by her previous exposure to subjects such as moult strategies through her university ornithology course.
MH was perhaps overall the fastest learner in the group, quickly mastering the basics of all practical aspects of the banding operation – extractions, net set-up, banding. Such ease surely contributed to his occasional lapses when he forgot that, in fact, he had only been handling birds for a matter of days as opposed to months. MH also showed a great deal of interested enthusiasm in the lectures, quick to question any obscurities and determined to achieve sound understanding. A very impressive pupil, his one failing was one shared to some extent with the other two young participants: a seeming complacency for the privilege of handling songbirds.
CS, of the four younger participants, showed the highest degree of real interest in natural history, exhibiting an inquisitive appetite for more information from any of the more experienced naturalists at the workshop. As with all of the others, he acquired basic competence in all practical aspects of the banding operation. Although at times it seemed that attention would wander during the admittedly rather dry lecture sessions, overall CS showed a real desire to learn.
LN brought to the workshop a degree of respect and concern both for the bird-in-the-hand and for the natural environment, that I have rarely encountered in training situations elsewhere. Once we had overcome the effects of early morning caffeine (!), Lakey proved to be an adept and highly conscientious extractor. His sincere and responsible attitude seemed at times to better ground the younger members of the team, and he showed a very real interest in all of the lecture material. As with CS, Lakey’s knowledge and interest in the nature around us was at times an education in itself.
AJC, even alongside such fast learners, proved to be the most adept of extractors at the mist-nets. His extractions were often perfect renditions of how more experienced banders would proceed. His banding was careful, and he showed a quick understanding of many of the concepts in the lecture sessions. Maintaining focus seemed to be AJC’s only real problem and it seemed to me that his true interests lay elsewhere.
Each and every one of the five participants listed above would make an excellent addition to any banding operation and I sincerely hope that all are given opportunities to use their new-found skills.
As for the first workshop (Long Mountain), in ranking nominees for the opportunity to train further at Long Point Bird Observatory I would suggest a slightly different order baring in mind the idea of greatest benefit for each respective participant. The following is my suggested order of ranking for nomination:
1. (CS)
2. (MH)
A total of fourteen mornings and one evening were spent banding during the workshop. In an attempt to maximize the total catches throughout the workshop period it had been decided to move nets between a series of up to five sites, all within walking distance of Windsor Great House. It quickly became clear that in fact only one of these five sites was worth revisiting. Fortunately, two other sites presented themselves as good alternatives, the best of these faring well simply due to the presence of large numbers of apparently migrant black-whiskered vireos.
Having received e-mailed resumes of all of the participants (except for ATS) before my departure from Canada, it was with some trepidation that I embarked on my first morning of training in the grounds of Windsor Great House. I felt I had been somewhat spoiled by the quality of participants in the first workshop, several of whom at least had previous experience working in bird-monitoring projects. I was quite unprepared for the speed with which all six of the participants in this second workshop progressed to the stage of extracting their first few birds from the nets. I tried to work the participants slowly, allowing each student to repeat the lesson with at least three birds before moving on to the next student. In this way, all six of the participants had extracted birds by the fourth day of the work-shop which I consider a good reflection of the high quality of all the participants.
As with the first workshop, when net-rounds became less productive attention was inclined to drift and at times it was difficult to re-establish the appropriate focus with the participants. I broached this issue with the class on a couple of occasions, admitting some sympathy on my part since the catch-rate was at times so low, but also insisting that it was essential that as soon as captured birds were brought back to the “lab” for banding and measuring, all attention should be focussed toward the operation.
The Long Mountain workshop was attended by a higher number of participants who had already established an interest in field birding and in some ways I was able to utilize this in redirecting energies toward field-observations during the quiet periods between net-rounds. Unfortunately this was less the case at Windsor, in fact few of the participants even used the binoculars provided. I am at a loss as to how to contend with this repeating phenomenon since the 15 or 20 minutes of down-time between net rounds is barely long enough to initiate any ”homework” projects as suggested in the first report. The only way that I can see this problem diminishing is with an increased catch-rate. It is entirely possible that I should have directed the workshop in such a way as to increase the number of nets at each site, but the deciding factor here was more to do with bird welfare than anything else.
Unlike the first work-shop there was a greater degree of uniformity in the participant experience levels brought to this second workshop. This meant that overall I was better able to gear each afternoon session to specific topics without having to make allowances for more or less advanced students (ATS is an obvious exception to this since she had attended an ornithology course at university). This in turn meant that any questions posed by the students were more easily answered at a level that benefitted everyone. I was impressed by the level of enthusiasm and interest that pretty much every participant maintained throughout even the driest of lectures, as was evidenced by the number of questions that just about everyone raised at one point or another.
Given the lack of previous exposure to banding and ornithology in general it was to be expected that a couple of topics covered in the first workshop were left untouched in this second workshop. As stated elsewhere, this was compounded by the very different avifauna that was being encountered this time around, ie. only three as opposed to fourteen species of migrants for which reference to Pyle was required.
Thus there was really very little opportunity to work with this important reference material; introducing it with so few examples would have resulted in considerable confusion since most of the local species that we were encountering are still unknown quantities as far as moult strategies are concerned.
The two “homework” projects that were presented were well received and everybody spent at least some of their spare time completing the projects (written field descriptions and correction of fake data sheets). Likewise, the participants were enthusiastic in any of the lessons that involved the use of prepared specimens – taking various biometrics, assessing wing formula and basic identification referring to field guides.
Given that the morning field sessions lasted about five hours every day and that the team was often required to spend a couple of extra hours relocating nets (and preparing new sites – we ended up having worked at a total of six different sites) I am really impressed by the diligence of the participants when faced with a two hour lecture session every afternoon.
It was expected, considering our previous experience with the rapidly falling catch-rates encountered at the Long Mountain sites, that we would experience much the same problem at Windsor. In fact, the expectation was considerably lower given that almost all of the neotropical migrant would have departed by late April. With this in mind, SEK spent some time scouting out a series of alternative sites, knowing that with each site we would probably be limited to only two consecutive days of banding on at least a five day rotation.
Unfortunately, it was quickly discovered that three of these scouted sites, although showing excellent potential for research projects, did not afford a high enough catch rate to support a training programme involving five keen and rapidly improving trainees. Having dispensed with these three sites it was through sheer luck that a fourth site asserted itself as our prime location – Connolly’s field really saved the day! But even then this was only by dint of the fortuitous presence of what appears to have been a staging of migrant black-whiskered vireos. Over and above the sheer number of these vireos that allowed so much excellent extraction and banding practice, they also presented the workshop with an opportunity to explore a particular phenomenon – the importance of fat deposits for migrant birds.
In the end, having tried a total of six sites, we were left with three sites that we returned to on at least one further occasion. Site #1 was used six times, site # 4 five times and then site #6 twice. The other three sites were only used on one occasion each.
Daily summary (from PNP’s personal notes)
30th April
Very easy passage through customs at Montego Bay, then driven over to Windsor by SEK (MCL kindly loaned vehicle) in the company of ATS and CS. By early evening we had been joined by the three representatives from STEA: AJC, MH and DH. Steve Wilcox (Bird Studies Canada) and David Wege (Birdlife International) were also staying at the Research Centre, but Sugar Belly (our cook for the workshop) was undaunted.
1st May
First morning’s field session started at 8am with a demonstration of how to erect and then pack away mist nets. The wide lawn around Windsor Great House afforded plenty of room for the five trainees to work with a couple of nets, working in pairs, learning knots, guying techniques, erecting both single and double nets. This whole process will be repeated throughout the workshop as we move from site to site, so there will be plenty of opportunity to practice.
We then set about preparing our first net-site situated along the west-side of the Research Centre. This took the remainder of the morning and by lunch-time we had cleared lanes and set three double nets. Everyone showed good dexterity in handling the nets but as expected there was considerable variation in the ability to reproduce the correct knots. Overall, the theory was put into good practice and much of the time I was allowed a very hands-off approach. Since we had no intention of trapping birds this morning I was able to let the session run its course at the speed dictated by the trainees’ competence, thereby allowing problems to arise and to be resolved … and thus to be learned from.
The first lecture was conducted from 1pm to 3pm and much time was spent on the issue of bander ethics (the fine balance between bird welfare and data quality) and the general role of banding in monitoring projects. Perhaps more importantly, although something of a sidetrack, we also discussed why birds should even be monitored – Who benefits? and How is the data finally used? Steve Wilcox was on hand to give a brief description of the mechanics of Bird Studies Canada and Long Point Bird Observatory.
At about 3pm our attention turned toward the yellow boa that Mike Schwartz (our host) had fortuitously found in the bathroom last night. The animal had been held overnight in a pillow-case and was now ready to be measured, marked and released. This presented us with an opportunity to see much of the afternoon’s discussion put into practice, particularly with regard to maintaining complete control of the wild animal that is being handled (thus eliminating the risk of injury to the animal) and furthermore to the importance of data quality.
At 5 pm we set a single net on the east-side of the lawn for a low-key session of non-standard banding which allowed me to pre-empt any rush tomorrow morning by trapping a couple of bananaquits which I used to talk the trainees through their first encounter with song-birds in the hand. Note: these two birds were banded but are not included in the final totals since they were not trapped within a proper netting session as such.
In the evening we were joined by LN; all participants had now arrived.
2nd May
Started opening the seven nets at 0615 – a little later than intended, having encountered the same seemingly insurmountable punctuality problem that was experienced in the first work-shop. The birds, on the other hand, were more on time and we did not experience the same one hour of slack before starting to catch as had been the case at Long Mountain, in fact the nets caught pretty consistently for the next 2 hours, dieing down considerably by 0830 when the sun turned on the heat. By 0945 we had to close one of the nets (#4) due to the direct sunlight on that net, and then ran the remainder 'til 1115.
The total of 25 birds caught (excluding a couple of same day retraps) meant that everyone got to handle at least three birds each; the “Hopping Dick” and the ani gave a little variation in size. Everyone seemed pretty competent with the bander’s grip and the photographer’s grip (leg grip). On the last two net rounds AJC and ATS managed to extract their first birds.
All in all a very successful first morning. The only real problem arose with our failure to band one of the ani and the “Hopping Dick”, since we have no non-AOU 3A bands. (The thrush’s tarsi were abnormally formed and thus required a considerably larger band than expected.) There was some suggestion that we should use AOU bands (I later discovered that this, in fact, is what we had done in the first workshop; more thought on the matter has persuaded me that it would have been more correct not to band) but I felt that this would have been contrary to the basis of the AOU banding program since neither species is a migrant species that is likely to turn up away from Jamaica.
Catch: 25 birds of 10 species.
Net hours: a maximum of 7 nets from 0615 to 0945, keeping the remainder open ‘til 1115. Total of 33.5 net hours.
In the afternoon, from 1400 to 1600, we covered bird morphology, the topography of a bird. This was followed by a wipe-board discussion of “scribing” which in due course brought us back to yesterday’s mention of the important balance between data quality and bird welfare, and the sharing of these two concerns between the bander and the scribe.
From 1630 to 1800 Susan and I took the opportunity to allow LN to catch up with the practical lesson in net erection that he had missed the day before. We located and set-up a new double to pre-empt tomorrow’s diminished catch.
3rd May
Again, expecting a dramatic drop in the catch rate, I had suggested that Donovan and Martin could lie-in ‘til 8am, thus reducing the crowding at the nets and in the “lab”. We opened the nine nets at 0545 gradually closing the nets through the morning up until the 1115 total closedown as the sun moved around and turned certain net-lanes into ovens. I had decided to take extra precautions against the possibility of heat stress which I honestly feel to have been the reason for the rather high casualty rate of the first workshop.
Within the first few net rounds four of the six participants had started extracting (ATS, AJC, LN and CS). Excellent progress. One black-whiskered vireo, a recapture from yesterday, was found with a badly bloodied leg in the bottom panel of one of the nets. My first suspicion was a mongoose attack but then I realized that there had been no feather loss and that in fact the wound was self-inflicted – the bird had pecked at its banded leg while trapped in the net. Other than exhibiting the effects of shock and stress the bird seemed fine and flew well upon release although it then sat and moped for a few minutes in a nearby tree.
At 8am we were joined by MH and DH who were allowed to take over the extractions, while the earlier risers were started on banding and biometrics.
Catch: 28 birds of 9 species (18 banded, 7 recaptures and 3 released or escaped unbanded).
Net hours: a maximum of 9 nets from 0545 to 1015, then 8 nets from 1015 to 1045, and 7 nets from 1045 to 1115. Total of 48 net hours.
This was the only morning of the entire workshop when we encountered scaly mite. In this case the unfortunate bird was a Greater Antillean bullfinch.
The afternoon lecture, from 1400 to 1500 concerned some of the biometrics that had been taken in the morning – fats and wing chords. There was much student participation in the discussion which bodes well for the remainder of the course. I cut the lecture a little short due to the need to erect seven nets at our second site, along the track to the south of the Research Centre, at the base of a steep-cliffed hill. This was completed between 1600 and 1800, and I made a point of having the participants select the appropriate lane positions (MH was very active in this).
4th May
Again I suggested that a couple of the participants make the most of the proximity of the banding site to the accommodation and get up a little later than the other participants. Thus the nets were opened at 0545 by LN, ATS, MH and DH. This site was a little more shaded than the other site and therefore we were able to run the 7 nets for the duration of the session. Despite this our catch rate was very poor (particularly for a first attempt) and even more so in the light of the fact that a third of the birds trapped were either todys or hummingbirds – species that, due to their small size, I prefer not to use as training examples this early in the workshop.
Catch: 20 birds of 8 species (12 banded, 3 recaptures and 5 released or escaped unbanded).
Net hours: a maximum of 7 nets from 0545 to 1100 for a total of 37 net hours.
Since this site had proved so poor and there was no reason to expect any improvement it was decided to remove the nets from this site and set-up at our next alternative in the afternoon. From 1400 to 1615 the 8 of us set up 9 nets (in at times torrential rain!) on the site that is situated along the east bank of the river, at the foot of one of the steep forested hills. The site certainly looked very attractive – our first real forest site.
DH left the workshop early this afternoon, informing me that he would be returning on the following Friday. Apparently he had work for STEA that needed to be attended to. This being the case, knowing that work commitments would absent DH from the bulk of the workshop, it would have been far better if STEA had not agreed to allow DH to attend the session at all. Such foresight would have freed up the position for another participant. As mentioned earlier, this may be a reflection of how little respect the idea of the workshop is given by some. Hopefully, as successful participants go on to become seriously involved in the evolving banding and monitoring programme in Jamaica, this perception will change for the better.
5th May
Opened new site at 0630 and then ran all 9 nets for the entire session. This was the one advantage of this site: relatively good shelter from the sun. But our catch was really poor, causing me some relief, after all, that one of our number (DH) had dropped out!
Catch: 12 birds of 6 species (11 banded, 1 released unbanded).
Net hours: 9 nets from 0630 to 1100, for a total of 40.5 net hours.
Despite the poor performance of this site it was decided that we should leave the nets up with the possibility of re-trying the following day (‘though more out of pity for the crew who had spent so much time assembling and dissembling net-sites over the past couple of days).
The afternoon lecture (from 1300 to 1430) started with a few words on the idea and necessity of “focus”. It has been difficult for the participants to remain focussed on the banding since the catch rate has been so poor. I commiserated and sympathized with them on this but then insisted that as soon as a bird was present in the banding area, all attention must be directed to that bird.
We then moved on to discuss the use of wing chord and weights, and then demonstrated and practiced (on specimen skins provided by MCL) bill, tail and tarsus measurements using the Vernier calipers. It should be noted that at this point it became clear that proficient literacy and numeracy cannot be assumed when running workshops open to all, here in Jamaica. Although in this group of trainees everyone had at least the rudiments of literacy and numeracy there was considerable variation in the comfort levels with scribing and other such paperwork (and especially in managing to convert to and from the 24 hour clock).
At 1500 the whole group headed over to the cleared land to the south of the stream, near to the start of the Troy – Windsor trail, a site hereafter referred to as Connolly’s field. I had made this an optional session but was very pleased to see that every one of the participants decided to join us. Here we erected two double nets at the edge of the cleared scrubby field and then – from 1530 to 1730 – we banded in 8 net hours as many birds as we had banded in the morning in 40.5 net hours!
Catch: 13 birds of 5 species.
Net hours: 4 nets from 1530 to 1730, for a total of 8 net hours.
An important note to place here is that we apparently came close to losing one of our catch to anis. Neither MCL, SEK nor myself have any previous experience of these birds at netting sites but it seems likely that they would be quite happy to find a free meal in the form of a netted songbird. As it was, no casualties occurred and we were careful thereafter to watch for bands of foraging anis.
6th May
After last night’s success it was decided to return to Connolly’s field. We erected an extra pair of nets and thus ran 6 nets from 0615. The one problem with this site was the degree of exposure to morning sun. We had to close all nets by 0945 (although in part because we needed to spend some time removing the nets from yesterday morning’s site), but the catch rate was excellent. All participants were present except for LN who had some personal chores to attend to.
Catch: 53 birds of 8species (48 banded, 2 recaptured and 3 released unbanded).
Net hours: 6 nets from 0615 to 0915, then 2 from 0915 to 0945, for a total of 20 net hours.
Such an excellent catch rate can be attributed exclusively to the presence of large numbers of black-whiskered vireos. Whether this presence was a result of the previous night’s heavy rain, causing a large “fall” of migrants is yet to be ascertained but certainly not one of the BWVI caught so far have been in breeding condition. It will be interesting to look at any work that SEK is able to do in subsequent weeks at the same location (with particular attention paid to fat increase – a couple of this morning’s BWVIs scored as high as 2 for fat).
After furling the nets at Connolly’s the entire crew returned to site #3 (yesterday’s site) and removed all of the nets and guys. (This was a fortunate visit since as we walked to the site CS noticed that a cow had fallen in to the well …. Several of the guys elected to help the farmer in the afternoon and managed to bring the cow out unharmed – I gather CS was the hero of the day!)
The afternoon lecture dwelt at some length on the morning’s success. We discussed the possible reasons for our change in fortune, comparing catch-rates (again numeracy became an issue here), contrasting the vegetation structure at each site, considering the type of birds caught (residents vs. migrants). The discussion then moved on to how to assign calendar year age classes (HY, SY AHY etc.). Of the participants it seemed that only ATS really understood the concept
MCL had to return to Kingston for a few days as of this afternoon.
7th May
We returned to Connolly’s (site #4) again – the five participants, SEK and myself – and opened 6 nets, finally closing and taking down at 1000. LN, MH and AJC worked together to select and prepare a new site for a double net, which allowed us to keep some nets open a little longer than previously. All five of the trainees are now extracting very well but with the understanding that as soon as it becomes apparent that they are making no headway in the extraction they are to call for help.
Catch: 55 birds of 10 species (37 banded, 17 recaptured and 1 released unbanded).
Net hours: 6 nets from 0545 to 0830, then 4 nets from 0830 to 1000, for a total of 22.5 net hours.
There was one casualty this morning possibly caused by a degree of carelessness on the part of one of the extractors (in fact, this was a case of one of the better extractors becoming a little too complacent about his technique). A bananaquit was discovered, during banding, to have lost one of its toes. The wound was fresh enough to surmise that it had been caused by a rather rough extraction (the base of the toe bone was exposed). It is just possible that the wound already existed and that the extraction had simply opened up the old wound. The situation presented me with an opportunity to talk earnestly about everyone’s excellent progress but to caution against such casualties.
Overall, we and the birds have fared considerably better than in the first workshop. There have been no tail losses yet and this morning’s damaged toe is the only real bander related injury. I think much of this contrast is to do with how much more aware we are being as regards the potential dangers of the sun and related heat stress. In retrospect I consider the bulk of the Long Mountain injuries to be heat-stress related (including much of the tail loss – a result of the effect of banders’sweaty hands).
At the end of the morning session we removed the nets, returning to our original site (#1) in the grounds of the Windsor Research Centre. This took a little longer than expected due to a problem with the labelling and identification of the various nets. However, it became apparent that everyone has the hang of net erection.
The lecture in the afternoon began with the completion and interpretation of retrap cards. We then proceded to have a fairly lengthy lecture on the basics of bird identification using the skins that MCL had left for us. I handed out “rarity report” forms to be completed over the course of the next week.
In the evening the Research Centre was visited by a group of young tourists from London, Ontario. CS, ATS and myself joined SEK as she led the group to the Windsor bat-cave to witness the evening flight of thousands of bats. Incredible.
8th May
Opened nets at the Research Centre site (first site), again all participants fared extremely well with extractions and banding. MCL still absent but relatively low catch-rate and competence of the trainees meant that SEK and I were able to manage, even spending time poring over the ongoing queries about the moult strategies of local birds. It remains quite disappointing, despite there having been a fair amount of banding over the years in Jamaica, that there is no information generally available on the moult and breeding strategies of Jamaica’s native birds. With such information in hand, current and future banders would be allowed useful shortcuts in unravelling some of the apparent mysteries concerning such birds as bullfinches and orangequits. At the moment I feel that we (ie. the workshop participants and trainees) are wasting potential data in being unable to precisely age unfamiliar Jamaican birds.
Catch: 29 birds of 9 species (18 banded, 10 recaptured and 1 released unbanded).
Net hours: 9 nets from 0615 to 0915, then 8 nets from 0915 to 1115, for a total of 43 net hours.
It came to light in conversation with SEK that three of the participants had not been fully informed of the duration of this workshop. Apparently this had been the responsibility of the supervisors and managers of the participants, but the message had failed to get through. This falls in much the same category as the perception of the workshops as a rather lackadaisical affair. In future an official document should be prepared that is issued – with some small fuss and fanfare – to each and every participant (perhaps a copy to be presented to the managers and supervisors of the participants). This may go some way towards raising the standing of the whole project in the eyes of the public.
Lectured from 1400 to 1545, recapping on several aspects of biometrics taken during banding. This lead to a discussion of, among other things, bimodal distribution and sexual dimorphism, and the idea of confidence limits in data collection. The lecture then moved on to an illustration of the progress of individual feathers in condition and wear, and moult, and then how this fits into the progress of the flight feather moult as a whole.
As ever I was impressed by the sustained interest that every participant maintained throughout what was at times a rather dry subject. Although there are differing levels of attention there really does seem to be a general enthusiasm for learning much of the theory.
9th May
I opted to give the birds and the banders the morning off – no banding today.
Spent much of the afternoon with the class, correcting the errors in the fake banding sheet from Long Mountain. Unfortunately, I will have to prepare a new one for this workshop since the Long Mountain version features a large proportion of migrants.
The lecture then continued on the subject of moult with particular attention being paid to identifying feathers that have been retained or replaced, moult limits and feather wear.
10th May
Back to the early mornings again. We opened the 9 nets around the Research Centre. All participants (except DH who has still not returned) are now extracting solo, the trainer (either SEK or myself) simply accompanying the trainees in case of any tricky extractions.
Catch: 29 birds of 7 species (14 banded, 14 recaptured and 1 released unbanded).
Net hours: 9 nets from 0600 to 0930, then 8 nets from 0930 to 1100, for a total of 43.5 net hours.
At the end of the banding session all nets were taken down and bagged – everyone is very competent in this procedure now.
In the afternoon a brief lecture on skull ossification was given, followed by a short demonstration using the skins supplied from MCL’s freezer. Unfortunately, the majority of the specimens were adult birds and thus skulls were fully ossified. However, using a scalpel, it was at least a useful opportunity to show the structure that is being looked for during “skulling”.
From 1530 to 1730 the team set 10 nets at a new site at the top of the Guthrie Trail. This site is along a trail that runs through good wet limestone forest. All participants have become proficient at erecting nets even in this limestone karst terrain where there is no topsoil in which to sink and anchor the net-poles. Guying is important under such conditions and everyone manages very well.
11th May
Took the landrover (thanks Mike!) over to the base of the Guthrie trail and then hiked up in time to open nets by 0630. Because of the shaded nature of this site we were able to run all of the nets throughout the morning although in the end we decided to close at 1030 since our catch rate was so poor. Rather surprizing given the quality of the forest at this site. The whole morning was made all the more disappointing due to the first major casualty (potentially a fatality) of the workshop. The bird, a male orangequit, extracted comfortably by one of the more able extractors, appeared to be bleeding slightly at the gape (MCL and ATS) and when I removed it from the bag to check on its health I could hear a very slight gurgling or choking. When we released the bird it did not even attempt to fly but ran-hopped into the undergrowth. The bird appeared to have sustained an internal injury of some sort, perhaps while in the net with other birds, perhaps due to excessive flapping during extraction, or perhaps due to a seed-puncture in the crop.
Again, the lack of any 3A bands meant that we were unable to band the ruddy quail-dove that was trapped.
Catch: 17 birds of 10 species (13 banded, 4 released unbanded).
Net hours: 10 nets from 0630 to 1030, for a total of 40 net hours.
At the end of the session we took down all of the nets, this site does not promise a high enough catch-rate to sustain a training session. Effectively, we are left with just two sites: the “garden” around the Windsor Research Centre, and Connolly’s field (although the latter only by dint of the continued presence of migrant black-whiskered vireos).
With the morning’s casualty still fresh in mind I took 15 minutes at the start of the afternoon session, to stress and re-stress the idea of continually re-assessing one’s handling technique. After such a “heavy” start the session took on a considerably lighter tone when I handed out the new fake data sheets to be corrected. This allowed me time to take AJC and CS to one side and to run through their trainee Report Cards.
Later in the afternoon SEK, AJC, ATS, MH and LN re-erected the nets over at Connolly’s while MCL drove CS and I over to Falmouth, allowing me a little r&r. CS is leaving for a couple of days to attend to personal matters.
12th May
A return to our most productive site – Connolly’s – where we opened 8 nets by 0615. The weather seems to be becoming hotter; accordingly we are being especially vigilant as far as avoiding heat stress in the captured birds. SEK tells me, however, that we have been extremely lucky with the weather having suffered neither the heat nor the rain that is typical for early to mid-May. Regardless, Connolly’s came through for us again. With only four trainees on hand (still no DH, CS is away for a couple of days) the 48 birds caught were sufficient for everybody to have a useful morning in the field.
Catch: 48 birds of 8 species (28 banded, 20 recaptures).
Net hours: 8 nets from 0615 to 0845, 6 nets from 0845 to 0915, then 5 nets from 0915 to 1045, for a total of 30.5 net hours.
The afternoon lecture commenced, at 2pm, with a band-removal demonstration (using circlips and using wires). Once all participants had practiced the technique the lecture moved on to a workshop on bird identification with particular attention paid to the use of field-guides. Using the skins supplied by MCL each participant was given the task of identifying unfamiliar birds (all neotropical migrants) by careful reference to the field guides. I was a little surprized to discover that the field-guide indexes caused some confusion. However, overall everyone fared very well, particularly LN who quickly took to the whole idea and managed to identify each of the four specimens. This afternoon had also allowed me the opportunity to continue with the trainee Report Cards.
13th May
Despite having elected MH as the person in charge for the morning several of the participants still managed to arrive late for the opening of the nets at Connolly’s. Punctuality continues to be a minor though rather irritating problem. We opened 8 nets at 0545, gradually closing as the heat increased through mid-morning – probably one of the hottest mornings so far.
MH performed adequately as someone in charge and kept a careful eye on the timing of net-rounds and net-closures given the heat of this morning.
Catch: 34 birds of 5 species (16 banded, 17 recaptures, and 1 bird released unbanded).
Net hours: 8 nets from 0545 to 0845, 6 nets from 0845 to 0915, then 5 nets from 0915 to 1030, for a total of 33 net hours.
Having noted that one of the problems encountered in the previous day’s identification session was general classification of the bird, I decided to attempt a discussion of taxonomy, suggesting that this was in effect a useful human concept, a way for us to make sense of the confusing diversity around us. Following the taxonomic process down to the sub-species level segued nicely into a discussion of the use of detailed biometrics (wing formula) in separating island subspecies. Those of MCL’s specimens that were still somewhat intact after the attentions of the past few days were then subjected to some intense measuring to illustrate and practice wing formula. Again, this allowed me the opportunity to take MH to one side in order to go over his trainee Report Card.
After the lecture period I walked over to Mike’s nearby coffee plantation with SEK and MCL with as view to discovering a new site. In the end, however, it was decided that we should try Peart’s coffee plantation at the base of the Guthrie trail. Once the afternoon rain had ended everybody helped in setting 8 nets at the edge of the plantation in readiness for tomorrow’s banding.
14th May
Taxied over to the new site at the edge of Peart’s coffee plantation in time to open all 8 nets by 0600. We did pretty well but, in the end, we decided to remove the nets. The site seemed to get very hot earlier in the morning than we had experienced elsewhere. (As it turned out, in fact, this was simply a reflection of the seasonal norm that ‘til the past couple of days, I had been fortunate enough not to have experienced.) In retrospect we should have left the nets as they were, returning on the following morning to run for a second session.
There were no problems with the site except for us having to untie a couple of the net guys so as to allow a donkey and rider past!
Catch: 34 birds of 12 species (28 banded and 6 birds released unbanded).
Net hours: 8 nets from 0600 to 0900, 6 nets from 0900 to 0945, then 5 nets from 0945 to 1030, for a total of 32.5 net hours.
It has become clear over the course of the two workshops that tarsus measurements should be routinely taken since on several occasions (for various species) we have found the recommended band size to be inappropriate. This is hardly surprizing in local species such as white-chinned thrush but was not to be expected for black-whiskered vireo, a migrant species. With this in mind we have begun taking tarsus widths so as to compare with the internal diameters of recommended band sizes.
With the time allowed at the end of the morning by the early and increasingly efficient closure of the nets I was able to run through ATS’s trainee Report Card with her. The group then re-erected all of the nets on the site local to the Research Centre.
We spent the afternoon session correcting the fake banding sheets that I had distributed several days ago. Pretty well all of the mistakes had been identified by the class as a whole. I feel that this was a useful and fun way to get the trainees to consider more closely the pitfalls encountered in scribing. CS returned in time for the session and had even taken time, while absent, to pore over these same fake banding sheets and thus was able to contribute to the class. After this, I read out three of the descriptions that the participants had prepared. This gave me the opportunity to double stress a few of the important features to look for and to note when confonted by an unfamiliar species.
15th May
Our penultimate day of banding and we’re back in the original site. Unfortunately, this site that has been reasonably dependable throughout, really did not produce a particularly good catch rate. Again, the weather was very hot, or at least the humidity made it feel much hotter. This may well explain the first “tail loss” of the entire workshop – a black-whiskered vireo dropped its entire tail during banding.
Catch: 26 birds of 10 species (13 banded; 8 recaptures, and 5 birds released unbanded).
Net hours: 9 nets from 0600 to 0830, 8 nets from 0830 to 0900, 7 nets from 0900 to 0930, then 6 nets from 0930 to 1030 for a total of 36 net hours.
Herlitz Davis (HAD) arrived, planning to stay for a couple of days. A group of staff members from STEA also visited with our hosts for part of the afternoon, accompanied by DH. DH's failure to return to the workshop was not explained.
The afternoon lecture covered the use of moult cards, having the participants fill out a fake card for an imaginary bird drawn on the wipe-board. We discussed the problems and potential differences between moult strategies of migrant birds and local birds.
I then threw the remainder of the session open for discussion on any topic that the participants felt either had not been adequately covered or needed further clarification. A brief discussion on euthanazing fatally injured birds was followed by – on LN’s request – a re-visiting of the whole idea of moult limits and the differences between moult strategies in young and adult birds. I was delighted that participants had been taking enough interest in the afternoon lectures to have the appetite for more of the same. This, I feel, speaks volumes on the overall high quality of the participants in this workshop.
Then, for one last time (I promised), and with the help of HAD the whole crew returned to Peart’s coffee plantation and re-erected the nets plus an additional one, in readiness for the following days last banding session.
16th May
The very last banding session of the second Jamaican banding workshop. And the very hottest day – meant that I doubt anyone was particularly sorry that this was the last session. Having said that, this site (#6, “Peart’s coffee”) had fared pretty well in its two days – we fared better here than we had in our last session at the Research Centre.
Catch: 33 birds of 11 species (25 banded; 7 recaptures, and 1 bird escaped unbanded).
Net hours: 9 nets from 0600 to 0930, 7 nets from 0930 to 1000, then 6 nets from 1000 to 1030, for a total of 38 net hours.
Everybody did extremely well, but it has to be said that I think that the heat and humidity were really beginning to tell. It is, I feel, some measure of the ability of the participants as trainees that we had as few casualties (including tail loss) as reported throughout this log. I have been very impressed by everybody’s bird-handling skills.
At 1030 we closed and packed away the nets for the last time in this workshop. We returned to the Research Centre in time for one and all to grab an early lunch, thus enabling LN to make the most of MCL’s offer to taxi him back home to Mason River in the early afternoon. This left just CS, ATS, AJC and MH for the final afternoon lecture/discussion. We started off with a little public speaking where I asked each participant to take on the role of a bander dealing with an inquisitive member of the public (ie. me), asking questions about the reasons behind the whole process and in particular on bird welfare. This then lead to a discussion of the whole idea of “recoveries” as sufficient reason to band, touching on the subject of site fidelity with breeders, winter visitors and migrants.
With limited time left to us we then went carefully over each of the items on the bander Report Card, returning to the important balance between data quality and bird welfare. It was pointed out that we had not used Pyle as much in this workshop as in the Long Mountain workshop since we had dealt almost exclusively with local birds. This was unfortunate since at Long Mountain the use of Pyle had presented us with additional learning opportunities.
Finally, we moved onto an hour or so of assessing the overall course, and any particular aspects and issues that needed to be raised. It occurred to me (when there was little by way of complaint about the course) that this really should be a secret assessment, where the participants are given the opportunity to discuss and note their assessment of the workshop without any of the trainers being present. Again, as for Long Mountain, I was pleased to hear that all of the participants felt that the workshop had been a very worthwhile venture for each of them. They had enjoyed themselves and had learned a great deal. (The issues raised are detailed in a later section of this report, Review of Participant Feedback).
Table 1, showing daily captures at the Site#1, the Windsor Research Centre Grounds
|
|
|
|
|
DATE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st May |
2nd May |
3rd May |
8th May |
10th May |
15th May |
TOTAL |
|
|
Net hrs |
NS |
33.5 |
48.0 |
43.0 |
43.5 |
36.0 |
204.0 |
|
|
SBAN |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
non |
JATO |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
5 |
|
aou |
LOKI |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
B |
SAFL |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
A |
BANA |
(2) |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
16 |
|
N |
BFGR |
|
1 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
14 |
|
D |
YFGR |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
|
E |
ORAN |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
D |
GABU |
|
6 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
GAGR |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aou |
GRKI |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
banded |
BWVI |
|
4 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
25 |
|
|
(total) |
|
(21) |
(17) |
(18) |
(14) |
(12) |
(82) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R |
JATO |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
E |
LOKI |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
C |
BWVI |
|
|
2 |
|
4 |
2 |
8 |
A |
BANA |
|
|
3 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
18 |
|
P |
YFGR |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
|
S |
BFGR |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
GABU |
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|
|
(total) |
(0) |
(0) |
(7) |
(10) |
(14) |
(8) |
(39) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U |
RUQD |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
N |
SBAN |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
B |
JAMA |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
4 |
A |
RBST |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
4 |
N |
BWVI |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
D |
WCTH |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
E |
YFGR |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
D |
GABU |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
(total) |
(0) |
(4) |
(3) |
(1) |
(1) |
(5) |
(14) |
|
|
TOTAL |
|
25 |
27 |
29 |
29 |
25 |
135 |
|
|
/100nh |
|
74.63 |
56.25 |
67.44 |
66.67 |
69.44 |
66.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2, showing daily captures at Sites ## 2 (the Road), 3 (the River), 5 (Guthrie) and 6 (Peart’s)
|
|
|
|
|
DATE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site # |
#2 |
#3 |
#5 |
#6 |
#6 |
(#6) |
|
|
|
|
4th May |
5th May |
11th May |
14th May |
16th May |
(#6 total) |
TOTAL |
|
|
Net hours |
37.0 |
40.5 |
40.0 |
32.5 |
38.0 |
(70.5) |
188 |
|
|
JATO |
3 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
(2) |
12 |
|
|
JAEL |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
RUTF |
|
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
(3) |
4 |
Non- |
JAVI |
|
|
|
|
1 |
(1) |
1 |
|
AOU |
WCTH |
|
|
|
2 |
|
(2) |
2 |
|
B |
BANA |
4 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
(9) |
19 |
|
A |
YSGR |
|
|
1 |
3 |
|
(3) |
4 |
|
N |
BFGR |
3 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
7 |
(15) |
21 |
|
D |
YFGR |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
(2) |
2 |
|
E |
ORAN |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
(3) |
6 |
|
D |
GABU |
|
|
2 |
3 |
2 |
(5) |
7 |
|
|
JAOR |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
GAGR |
|
|
|
|
1 |
(1) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aou |
BWVI |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
5 |
(7) |
9 |
|
|
(total) |
(13) |
(11) |
(13) |
(28) |
(25) |
-(53)- |
(90) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JATO |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
(1) |
2 |
R |
BWVI |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
(1) |
2 |
|
E |
BANA |
|
|
|
|
1 |
(1) |
1 |
|
C |
YSGR |
|
|
|
|
2 |
(2) |
2 |
|
|
BFGR |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
(2) |
3 |
|
|
(total) |
(3) |
|
|
|
(7) |
-(7)- |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RUQD |
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
(2) |
3 |
|
Un |
JAMA |
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
(3) |
6 |
|
-band |
RBST |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
(1) |
5 |
|
-ed |
BANA |
|
|
|
|
1 |
(1) |
1 |
|
|
ORAN |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
(total) |
(4) |
(1) |
(4) |
(3) |
(4) |
-(7)- |
(16) |
|
|
TOTAL |
20 |
12 |
17 |
31 |
36 |
-(67)- |
116 |
|
|
/100 net hrs |
54.05 |
29.63 |
42.5 |
95.38 |
94.74 |
-(95.04)- |
61.70 |
Table 3, showing daily captures at the Site#4, “Connolly’s Pumpkin Patch”.
|
|
|
|
|
DATE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5th May |
6th May |
7th May |
12th May |
13th May |
TOTAL |
|
|
Net hrs |
8.0 |
20.0 |
22.5 |
30.5 |
33.0 |
114.0 |
|
|
SBAN |
3 |
|
|
1 |
|
4 |
non |
JATO |
|
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
13 |
|
aou |
JAEL |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
|
B |
SAFL |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
A |
BANA |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
N |
JAEU |
|
|
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
D |
ORAN |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
E |
YSGR |
2 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
D |
BFGR |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
|
|
GABU |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aou |
BWVI |
6 |
41 |
20 |
16 |
12 |
95 |
|
|
BTBW |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
(total) |
(13) |
(48) |
(37) |
(28) |
(16) |
(142) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R |
JATO |
|
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
E |
BWVI |
|
2 |
14 |
19 |
13 |
48 |
C |
BANA |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
A |
BFGR |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
P |
GABU |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
(total) |
(0) |
(2) |
(17) |
(20) |
(17) |
(56) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unban- |
VEHU |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
-ded |
RBST |
|
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
4 |
|
|
(total) |
(0) |
(3) |
(1) |
(0) |
(1) |
(5) |
|
|
TOTAL |
13 |
53 |
55 |
48 |
34 |
203 |
|
|
/100nh |
162.5 |
265.0 |
244.44 |
157.38 |
103.03 |
178.07 |
The total number of species caught during this second workshop was 23, considerably less than the 34 species trapped during the first workshop at Long Mountain. However, the figure for Windsor Research Centre breaks down to 20 resident species and 3 migrants (grey kingbird, black-whiskered vireo and black-throated blue warbler) compared to the 20 resident species and 14 migrants that were trapped at Long Mountain. Obviously, this dramatic, but altogether expected drop in the number of migrant species meant that several items that were covered thoroughly in the first workshop could only be superficially covered in this second session. Most important was the fact that this time around we hardly used Pyle at all since the majority of Jamaican resident bird species are not treated in Pyle’s text.
As with the first workshop, all non-AOU species (ie. Jamaican resident species – those that are known to not leave the island as migrants) were banded with Birdlife Jamaica’s specially produced bands. This presented us with a minor problem since our non-AOU band supply was missing the larger sizes, 3A and 3B. Consequently, we were unable to band several of the larger local birds (smooth-billed ani, ruddy quail-dove and one of the white-chinned thrushes which had unusual thickening of the tarsi).
In the first workshop we had encountered a problem with precise aging of many of the local species since we had no access to any literature describing the moults and aging criteria of these species. Again at Windsor, many of these local species exhibited signs of partial moults which could probably be attributed to transitions into first basic plumage and hence many of these birds could be aged as second year birds. However, since we could be certain of neither the breeding seasons for these species, nor the extent (be it partial, incomplete or complete) of the adult moult it was decided to exercise caution and simply record the apparent plumage (first basic or adult basic) stage in the additional information section of the banding sheets (or as footnotes on the rear of the sheets). It is important that such caution be maintained until enough data has been amassed to test and publish findings.
I would urge all Jamaican banders to pool their resources (eg. all previous data) in an effort to further the research potential of every banding operation in Jamaica. Furthermore, the moult strategies for several of the local species may already be fully documented from other banding operations outside of Jamaica (eg. with bananaquits that occur extensively throughout the Caribbean).
As previously stated this second workshop was conducted with a heightened awareness of the potential problems for birds trapped during extremely hot (and humid) weather. I suspect that it was this level of awareness that contributed to a somewhat lower casualty rate than had been experienced with the first workshop (where in retrospect I consider the majority of the casualties and tail losses to have been a consequence of heat stress – both with the birds and the banders). Certainly, I was careful to point out to trainees the decrease in dexterity that comes with sweaty hands, consequently there was only one tail loss throughout the whole session.
The three casualties (out of a total of 454 birds captured) are detailed in the table below.
Table 4, showing casualties associated with the banding operation:
|
DATE |
Species |
Injured (I) or Dead (D) |
Banded (Yes or No) |
Remarks |
|
3rd May |
BWVI |
I |
Yes (retrap) |
Bird had apparently pecked at its banded leg in an effort to free itself from the net. Certainly not a serious injury although exhibited signs of shock when released, but eventually seemed to recover. |
|
7th May |
BANA |
I |
Yes |
Middle toe was missing and seemed to have been torn off during extraction. If this was not the case then the extraction had simply re-opened an old wound in which case this casualty should not really be attributed to the netting operation. The injury was “stypticked” and the bird banded and released – it seemed perfectly healthy and unstressed by the ordeal. |
|
11thMay |
ORAN |
I |
Yes |
A potentially serious casualty since the bird seemed unable to fly upon release (or at least it chose instead to scurry into deep cover). There is some uncertainty as to the cause of this particular injury but the bird exhibited signs of internal damage (MCL reported blood at the gape and I could hear quiet choking from the bird). It is possible that a food item was causing the damage but alternatively a more serious internal injury may have been caused either by impact with the net or by careless handling. |
In the first workshop report it was mentioned that we had encountered a rather dismaying number of birds showing the effects of “scaly mites”. Although at Windsor we banded equally good numbers of those species that had been effected at Long Mountain (namely the grassquit species) only one individual showed any trace of this potentially disabling condition. This bird was a Greater Antillean bullfinch and was released unbanded, care being taken to discontinue the use of the bird-bag that had carried the infected bird, thus preventing cross infection with other birds.
The following is a list of the issues and suggestions raised during the half-hour of the last afternoon session that was devoted to acquiring participant feedback. The feedback was very positive.
§ The assessment sheets should be redesigned so as to apply to the Jamaican workshops
§ There should be some effort made on the part of the organizers to ensure that during time-off, in such a remote situation, there are alternative entertainment opportunities, even if this be only something as simple as provision of magazines and other such extra-curricular entertainment
§ None of the participants possessed alarm clocks and so wake-up calls would have aided with early morning punctuality
§ An introductory letter should be drafted and supplied to every participant explaining what to expect from the workshop … and what is expected of them
§ There should be a break from the workshop at some point, eg. a trip in the evening (it wasn’t made clear to me whether this was supposed to be in the form of r&r or not, although I would imagine, given the nature of the discussion, that “trip” referred to an evening in town!).
§ Investigation of a different habitat type, and thus exposure to a different bird community
Finally, the participants volunteered that there should be more of the same – ie. banding workshops – all over Jamaica!
Recommendations have been mentioned as the opportunity arose throughout the text of this report. These few paragraphs draw together all of these points.
Perception of the Workshops: it becomes apparent that something needs to be done to improve the perception of these banding workshops in the eyes of supporting bodies. The apparently work-related absence by of one of the participants in this second workshop suggests that this person’s employer had little comprehension of the amount of time and effort that is put into the organization of such a workshop. I suggest the production of a pamphlet to be presented to the supporting bodies.
Timing of the Training Workshop: training workshops such as this, which require a fairly consistently high catch-rate, should not be run in any month from May ‘til October. Running training workshops from November (or whenever the wet season ends) ‘til April will allow the training to capitalize on the best weather (mild and dry) and on the highest population of birds available for banding.
Report Cards: need to be redesigned so as to better suit the Jamaican situation.
Study skins and specimens: efforts should be made to utilize any salvaged birds by immediately preparing study skins, even if this only amounts to mounting dried and open wings on labelled cards.
Sharing Information: it is absolutely vital that everybody with any experience of banding birds in Jamaica makes all of their information as available as possible to other banders and researchers. In fact, it would be counter to the Banders’ Code of Ethics to do otherwise.
Better preparation for the participants: it is important that all of the trainees are made absolutely aware of what they can expect from the workshop and furthermore, what the workshop expects from them. A detailed letter should be prepared and presented to each of the participants and their respective employers/supervisors several weeks before the start of any workshop. This in itself would help in improving the perception of the workshop as something professional and worthwhile – which appears to be the conclusion of all who have been involved with the two workshops.