|
Relocation as a Management Technique for
the Threatened Florida Scrub Jay
'PROJECT REPORT
Ronald L. Mumme '
Theodore H. Below
December 1995
Nongame Wildlife Program .
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comnumi
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
This report is the result of a project supported by the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission's Nongame Wildlife Program. Although the report fulfilled the
project's contractual -obligations, it has not been reviewed for clarity, style, or
typographical errors, and has not received peer review. Any opinions or
recommendations in this report are those of the authors and do not represent policy of
the Commission.
Suggested citation:
Mumme, R.L., and T.H. Below.
threatened Florida scrub jay.
Program Project Rep. 48pp +
1995. Relocation as a management technique for the
Fla. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm. Nongame Wildl.
viii. Tallahassee, Fla.
Relocation as a Management Technique
for the Threatened Florida Scrub Jay
Ronald L. Mumme
Department of Biology, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA 16335
Theodore H. Below
Rookery Bay Sanctuary, National Audubon Society, 3697 North Road,
Naples, FL 33942
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Nongame Wildlife Program
Submitted as
Final Report Number NG88-043
1 December 1990
ABSTRACT
Project Number: NG88-043
Project Title: Relocation as a Management Technique for the Threatened
Florida Scrub Jay
Date of Final Report: 6 November 1990
Project Director: Ronald L. Mumme, Department of Biology, Allegheny
College, Meadville, PA 16335
The Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma c. coerulescens) is restricted to
the oak scrub of peninsular Florida. Although loss of habitat is the
major problem facing this threatened subspecies, habitat protection
alone is unlikely to ensure its continued survival. Because Florida
Scrub Jays are extremely sedentary and are found primarily in isolated
fragments of suitable habitat, most existing populations are simply too
small to be viable indefinitely. For these reasons, a successful
management plan for the subspecies ultimately must incorporate both
habitat protection and the relocation of jays from healthy populations
to isolated areas of suitable habitat where jays either are absent or
have been recently extirpated. Prime candidates for such relocations
are the "surplus" nonbreeding helpers that comprise roughly a third of
the adult population of jays. Although physiologically capable of
breeding, helpers are nonetheless unable to do so because all suitable
oak scrub habitat within a local population is usually occupied and
defended by other jays.
The purpose of this project was to explore the feasibility of
relocation as a management technique for the Florida Scrub Jay. Early
in the breeding seasons of 1989 and 1990 a total of 18 Florida Scrub
Jays (12 nonbreeding helpers plus three breeding pairs) were removed
from a color-banded population of jays at Archbold Biological Station in
Highlands County and relocated to suitable but unoccupied habitat at
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Collier County.
Although nine of the 18 relocated birds (50%) disappeared or emigrated
from Rookery Bay in the first eight weeks following relocation, nine
others comprising four male-female pairs and one unpaired female
remained and eventually established territories. Two of the four pairs
nested successfully during 1989 and 1990, producing a total of eight
fledglings from three successful nests. Survival rates of jays at
Rookery Bay were high for both adults and juveniles during 1989-90.
These results suggest that relocation of Florida Scrub Jays is a
viable technique for management and restoration of this threatened
subspecies. However, because of the scarcity of suitable relocation
sites, the high rates at which jays disappear and emigrate following
relocations, and the potential impact that relocation has on source
populations of jays, relocation will probably be effective only under
exceptional circumstances. It should not be viewed as an acceptable
substitute for the protection of existing populations and should be
considered only as a technique for the restoration of jays to unoccupied
portions of their historic range, not as a technique for the mitigation
of the effects of habitat destruction elsewhere.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their sincere gratitude to the scientific and
support personnel of Archbold Biological Station, the National Audubon
Society, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Florida
Department of Natural Resources), and Briggs Nature Center (The
Conservancy, Inc.). Our research would not have been possible without
their assistance and cooperation. Bob Curry, Frank Dunstan, John
Fitzpatrick, Jim McGinnity, Sandy Sprunt, Kris Thoemke, Gary Lytton, and
Glen Woolfenden deserve special thanks. We are also grateful to
Virginia Below, David Dunning, Steve Schoech, and Ximena Valderrama for
their capable assistance at Archbold and Rookery Bay. This research was
supported by Nongame Wildlife Program grant NG88-043 from the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...................
Acknowledgments ............
Table of Contents..........
Introduction...............
The Source Population:
..........Archbold B....iologi....cal
Archbold Biological
Station.
............... I
...............5
The Relocation Site:
Rookery Bay..........
Post-Relocation Monitoring.
Methods.........................
1989 Relocations...........
1989 Relocations...........
Post-Relocation Monitoring
Results.........................
1989 Relocations...........
1990 Relocations...........
Effects of Relocation on Sou
Discussion.......................
Timing of Relocation........
Selection of Birds for Reloc
Length of the Orientation Pe
Management Recommendations.......
Literature Cited.................
Tables ...........................
Figures..........................
Appendix A .......................
............. Rookery Bay
at Rookery Bay
rce Popula
ation.
riod..
.....
.and Archbo.....
and Archbo
tion....
d........
d........
...10
...12
................... 15
................... 16
................... 18
............................... 19
...............................20
......................... ..... 21
..................... ....... 22
............................... 24
............................... 27
............................... 30
.-------- -39
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
Fig. 17.
Fig. 18.
Fig. 19.
Fig. 20.
Fig. 21.
Fig. 22.
Fig. 23.
Fig. 24.
Fig. 25.
Fig. 26.
Fig. 27.
Fig. 28.
Fig. 29.
Fig. 30.
Fig. 31.
Fig. 32.
Fig. 33.
Fig. 34.
Fig. 35.
Fig. 36.
Fig. 37.
Fig. 38.
Fig. 39.
Fig. 40.
Fig. 41.
Fig. 42.
Fig. 43.
Fig. 44.
Fig. 45.
Fig. 46.
Fig. 47.
Fig. 48.
Fig. 49.
Fig. 50.
Fig. 51.
Pseudophilippia quaintancii .........
Pseudophilippia quaintancii .........
Pseudophilippia quaintancii .........
Pseudophilippia quaintancii .........
Pseudophilippia quaintancii .........
Pseudophilippia quaintancii .........
Ant tent over a soft scale ............
General morphology of adult female ..
Morphological details of Coccidae ....
Morphological details of Coccidae ....
Ceroplastes brachyurus .............
Ceroplastes ceriferus ...............
Ceroplastes ceriferus ...............
Ceroplastes cirripediformis ..........
Ceroplastes cirripediformis ..........
Ceroplastes dugesii .............. ..
Ceroplastes dugesii .................
Ceroplastes floridensis ..............
Ceroplastes floridensis ..............
Ceroplastes nakaharai ..............
Ceroplastes nakaharai ..............
Ceroplastes rubens .................
Ceroplastes rubens ......... . .
Ceroplastes sinensis ......... . .
Ceroplastes sinensis ................
Ceroplastes utilis . . . . ..
Ceroplastes utilis ............... ..
Coccus acutissimus .................
Coccus acutissimus .............. ..
Coccus capparidis .................
Coccus capparidis .................
Coccus hesperidum ................
Coccus hesperidum ................
Coccus hesperidum ................
Coccus longulus ................ .
Coccus longulus ...................
Coccus pseudohesperidum...........
Coccus viridis ................. ..
Coccus viridis ................. .
Eucalymnatus tessellatus ............
Eucalymnatus tessellatus ......... ..
Eulecanium caryae ................
Eulecanium caryae ................
Inglisia vitrea ................. ..
Inglisia vitrea ................. ..
Kilifia acuminata ..................
Kilifia acuminata ..................
Luzulaspis americana ..............
Mesolecanium nigrofasciatum .......
Mesolecanium nigrofasciatum .......
Neolecanium cornuparvum ..........
Fig. 52.
Fig. 53.
Fig. 54.
Fig. 55.
Fig. 56.
Fig. 57.
Fig. 58.
Fig. 59.
Fig. 60.
Fig. 61.
Fig. 62.
Fig. 63.
Fig. 64.
Fig. 65.
Fig. 66.
Fig. 67.
Fig. 68.
Fig. 69.
Fig. 70.
Fig. 71.
Fig. 72.
Fig. 73.
Fig. 74.
Fig. 75.
Fig. 76.
Fig. 77.
Fig. 78.
Fig. 79.
Fig. 80.
Fig. 81.
Fig. 82.
Fig. 83.
Fig. 84.
Fig. 85.
Fig. 86.
Fig. 87.
Fig. 88.
Fig. 89.
Fig. 90.
Fig. 91.
Fig. 92.
Fig. 93.
Fig. 94.
Fig. 95.
Fig. 96.
Fig. 97.
Fig. 98.
Fig. 99.
Fig. 100.
Fig. 101.
Fig. 102.
Neolecanium cornuparvum..........
Parasaissetia nigra .................
Parasaissetia nigra .................
Parthenolecanium corni ............
Parthenolecanium corni ............
Parthenolecanium fletcheri ..........
Parthenolecanium persicae ..........
Parthenolecanium persicae ..........
Parthenolecanium quercifex .......
Parthenolecanium quercifex .......
Protopulvinaria mangiferae .......
Protopulvinaria mangiferae .......
Protopulvinaria pyriformis ..........
Protopulvinaria pyriformis ..........
Pseudophilippia quaintanii.........
Pseudophilippia quaintancii.......
Pulvinaria acericola ................
Pulvinaria acericola ................
Pulvinaria citricola ................
Pulvinaria elongata ................
Pulvinaria elongata ................
Pulvinaria ericicola ................
Pulvinaria ericicola ................
Pulvinaria floccifera ...............
Pulvinaria hydrangeae .............
Pulvinaria innumerabilis ............
Pulvinaria innumerabilis............
Pulvinaria psidii ...................
Pulvinaria psidii ...................
Pulvinaria urbicola ................
Pulvinaria urbicola ................
Saissetia coffeae ...................
Saissetia coffeae ...................
Saissetia miranda ..................
Saissetia miranda ...............
Saissetia neglect ..................
Saissetia neglecta ..................
Saissetia oleae .........'............
Saissetia oleae .....................
Toumeyella cerifera ................
Toumeyella cerifera ................
Toumeyella liriodendri .............
Toumeyella liriodendri .............
Toumeyella parvicornis .............
Toumeyella parvicornis .............
Toumeyella pini ..................
Toumeyella pini ...................
Toumeyella virginiana .............
Toumeyella virginiana .............
Vinsonia stellifera .................
Vinsonia stellifera .................
LIST OF MAPS
Map I. Distribution of Ceroplastes ceriferus ....
Map II. Distribution of Ceroplastes
cirripediformis ....................
Map III. Distribution of Ceroplastes dugesii...
Map IV. Distribution of Ceroplastes
floridensis .......................
Map V. Distribution of Ceroplastes nakaharai .
Map VI. Distribution of Ceroplastes rubens ...
Map VII. Distribution of Ceroplastes utilis ....
Map VIII. Distribution of Coccus acutissimus..
Map IX. Distribution of Coccus capparidis ....
Map X. Distribution of Coccus hesperidum ....
Map XI. Distribution of Coccus longulus ......
Map XII. Distribution of Coccus
pseudohesperidum .................
Map XIII. Distribution of Coccus viridis ......
Map XIV. Distribution of Eucalymnatus
tessellatus ............. ........
Map XV. Distribution of Eulecanium caryae ..
Map XVI. Distribution of Inglisia vitrea ......
Map XVII. Distribution of Kilifia acuminata ..
Map XVIII. Distribution of Mesolecanium
nigrofasciatum .................
Map XIX. Distribution of Neolecanium
cornuparvum ................ .
Map XX. Distribution of Parasaissetia nigra ...
Map XXI. Distribution of Parthenolecanium
corni ........................
Map XXII. Distribution of Parthenolecanium
quercifex .................. .
Map XXIII. Distribution of Protopulvinaria
mangiferae ................ ..
Map XXIV. Distribution of Protopulvinaria
pyriformis .....................
Map XXV. Distribution of Pseudophilippia
quaintancii ................ ... 85
Map XXVI. Distribution of Pulvinaria
acericola ................. ... 88
Map XXVII. Distribution of Pulvinaria
elongata ..................... 92
Map XXVIII. Distribution of Pulvinaria
ericicola ................ ... 94
Map XXIX. Distribution of Pulvinaria
floccifera ................. ... 98
Map XXX. Distribution of Pulvinaria
hydrangeae ................ ... 98
Map XXXI. Distribution of Pulvinaria
innumerabilis ............. ... 102
Map XXXII. Distribution of Pulvinaria
psidii ................. .... 105
Map XXXIII. Distribution of Pulvinaria
urbicola ..................... 106
Map XXXIV. Distribution of Saissetia coffeae.. 110
Map XXXV. Distribution of Saissetia miranda 112
Map XXXVI. Distribution of Saissetia neglecta. 114
Map XXXVII. Distribution of Saissetia oleae .. 115
Map XXXVIII. Distribution of Toumeyella
cerifera ............... ... 119
Map XXXIX. Distribution of Toumeyella
liriodendri .............. ... 120
Map XL. Distribution of Toumeyella
parvicornis ...................... 124
Map XLI. Distribution of Toumeyella pini .... 126
Map XLII. Distribution of Toumeyella
virginiana ................ ... 128
Map XLIII. Distribution of Vinsonia stellifera 129
LIST OF COLOR PLATES
PLATE I ..................... .......... 131
Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius)
Ceroplastes ceriferus (Fabricius), infestation on
Podocarpus
Ceroplastes dugusii Lichtenstein
Ceroplastes nakaharai Gimpel
Ceroplastes rubens Maskell
Coccus acutissimus (Green)
Coccus capparidis (Green)
Coccus hesperidum Linnaeus
PLATE II................ ............. 132
Coccus longulus (Douglas)
Coccus viridis (Green)
Inglisia vitrea Cockerell, with parasite exit holes
Kilifia acuminata (Signoret)
Mesolecanium nigrofasciatum (Pergande)
Parasaissetia nigra (Nietner)
Parthenolecanium corni (Bouche)
Protopulvinaria mangiferae (Green)
COVER -Parthenolecanium quercifex (Fitch)
PLATE III ............... ................ 133
Protopulvinaria pyriformis (Cockerell)
Pulvinaria acericola (Walsh & Riley)
Pulvinaria elongata Newstead
Pulvinaria ericicola McConnell
Pulvinaria innumerabilis (Rathvon), before ovisac
formation
Pulvinaria innumerabilis (Rathvon), after ovisac
formation
Pulvinaria psidii Maskell
Pulvinaria urbicola Cockerell
PLATEIV ............................. 134
Saissetia coffeae (Walker)
Saissetia neglecta DeLotto
Saissetia oleae (Olivier)
Toumeyella cerifera Ferris
Toumeyella liriodendri (Gmelin)
Toumeyella parvicornis (Cockerell), leaf form
Toumeyella parvicornis (Cockerell), stem form
Vinsonia stellifera Westwood
FOREWORD
This scholarly treatment of the soft scales of
Florida by Hamon and Williams fulfills a need
which has grown over a period of many years. It
provides a reference useful both for field iden-
tification of some species of soft scales and for the
accurate identification in the laboratory of all
species known to occur or which are likely to be
found in Florida. This publication should be
useful in the identification of soft scales over an
area much greater than Florida, as the
dichotomous keys are not restricted to those
species known to occur in Florida. This is the first
definitive treatment of the soft scales of Florida
and neighboring parts of the United States. *
The extensive host list, containing more than
1,500 plant names, provides a place to begin for
field identifications, and the diagnoses and
photographs will facilitate greatly the making of
field identifications. However, only properly
prepared microscope slides of scale insects are
definitive for accurate specific identifications.
The highly detailed line drawings of all species of
soft scales known to occur in Florida should
facilitate identification. The distribution maps
include all states of the United States except
Alaska and Hawaii. Information included on
parasites and predators will be pertinent to the
increasing emphasis placed on biological control
of scale insects and other insect pests as an alter-
native to excessive use of pesticides.
Dr. Avas B. Hamon was born in Ripley, West
Virginia, on. 8 March 1940, son of 0. M. and
Lucy F. Hamon. One of 6 children, he has 4
sisters and a brother. In 1965 he married Donna
F. Newhouse of Sissonville, West Virginia. Avas
was educated in the public schools of Jackson
County, West Virginia and graduated from
Ripley High School. He received the Bachelor of
Science degree in Biology from Morris Harvey
College, Charleston, West Virginia (now Univer-
sity of Charleston) and the Master of Science
degree in Biological Sciences from Marshall
University, Huntington, West Virginia. He
served in the United States Air Force from 1962
to 1966 as a member of a missile launch crew for
advanced ballistics and re-entry systems. From
1969 to 1973 he was employed by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Commerce as a
Regulatory Inspector in Harrisonburg, Virginia.
In 1973 he began working toward the Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Entomology at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia, where he studied under
Dr. Michael Kosztarab, a recognized world
authority on the biosystematics of scale insects.
The degree requirements were completed in Oc-
tober 1976. Since then he has been employed as a
Taxonomic Entomologist with the Division of
Plant Industry, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, in
Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Hamon is an Associate
Curator of the Florida State Collection of Arth-
ropods, an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the
Department of Entomology and Nematology of
the University of Florida, and a Courtesy
Associate Professor in the Department of En-
tomology and Structural Pest Control of Florida
A & M University. He is a member of the En-
tomological Society of America, the Florida En-
tomological Society, American Registry of Pro-
fessional Entomologists, and has been listed in
American Men and Women of Science and in
Who's Who in the South. He is a member of
Sigma Xi honorary society. He is author or
coauthor of 29 scientific publications.
Dr. Michael L. Williams, or "Mike" as he is
generally called, was born in Paragould, Arkan-
sas, 11 September 1943. In 1962 he married
Carolyn Grace Mack. They have 2 children,
Michael Gregory and Kathryn Grace, and a
granddaughter, Toni Michelle. Mike received his
Bachelor of Science degree in 1967 from Arkan-
sas State University with a major in Biology and
a minor in Chemistry; Master of Science (1969)
and Doctor of Philosophy degrees (1972) from
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
sity with majors in Entomology and minors in
Botany. Like Avas, Mike studied under Dr.
Michael Kosztarab. While at VPI, Mike held a
National Science Foundation traineeship, Na-
tional Defense Education Act fellowship, and
both teaching and research assistantships in the
Department of Entomology. In 1969 he was
awarded the Sigma Xi Outstanding Graduate
Student Research Award from the VPI Chapter
for his work on the "Morphology and Systematics
of the First Instar Nymphs of Scale Insects in the
Genus Lecanodiaspis". Mike was hired by the
Maryland Department of Agriculture as Assistant
State Entomologist before completing his Ph.D.
requirements, and he finished writing his disser-
tation while on the job. He worked out of the
University of Maryland from March 1971 to
March 1973, when he took a position with the
Department of Zoology-Entomology at Auburn
University in Alabama. Since that time Mike has
been teaching systematics and morphology of in-
sects and conducting research on scale insects
and other pests of ornamental plants at Auburn.
He currently holds the position of Associate Pro-
fessor and Entomology Section Chairman in the
Department of Zoology-Entomology.
Dr. Williams is a member of the En-
tomological Society of America, Entomological
Society of Washington, Florida Entomological
Society, Georgia Entomological Society, and
Alabama Academy of Science. He is a Research
Associate of the Florida State Collection of Arth-
ropods. He is a member of several national honor
societies: Beta Beta Beta, Gamma Sigma Delta,
Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Sigma, and Sigma Xi and has
been selected for inclusion in American Men and
Women of Science, Personalities of the South,
and Who's Who in America. In 1980 Mike was a
visiting professor at the University of Guayaquil,
Ecuador, and in 1981 he was awarded the
Southeastern Branch ESA Distinguished
Achievement Award in Teaching.
Dr. Williams is author or coauthor of 68
scientific papers and popular articles. He has
given numerous invitational papers and par-
ticipated in symposia at national and interna-
tional professional society meetings. Mike's
specialty is the soft scale insect group, and he
currently provides identification services to
various state and federal agencies as well as to
other entomologists and the general public. He is
interested also in the scale insects of the
Galapagos Islands and other areas of South
America and has collected and studied scale in-
sects on trips to these islands and the Amazon
Basin in Ecuador during 1973, 1975, and 1980.
Howard V. Weems, Jr.
Editor
Bureau of Entomology
Division of Plant Industry
Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
1 October 1984
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was initiated in 1978 and has
survived through the encouragement and efforts
of many individuals. Premier among these is
Darlene Cannon who has persevered with ex-
cellence through the original typing and several
revisions. Our special thanks and respect are ex-
tended to her.
The host list portion of the manuscript was
begun with the efforts of Pamela Zwerski and
continued by Elaine Sims, Joan Ortagus,
Elizabeth Manning, and Pamela Exon. We thank
them for their efforts and expertise. For the final
corrections we wish to thank Janet Temple and
Darlene Cannon.
Our heartfelt respect and admiration are ex-
tended to G. W. "Wally" Dekle for his en-
couragement, smiling face, enthusiasm, and
legacy of excellence in scale insect identifica-
tions.
Thanks are extended to Ernestine Ostanik,
Ladonia Fields, and Scott Yocom for their
technical help and expertise in slide preparation.
Technical graphics assistance was received from
Linda Writer. For expertise in taking many of
the photographs and photo reproductions we
thank Jane Windsor, the DPI photographer.
Special thanks are due Ray Gill, Bill Gimpel,
Jim Howell, and Charles Ray for the use of their
original and previously published drawings.
For encouragement, technical material,
photos, and the loan of slides, a special thanks is
extended to our former major professor and
friend, Dr. Michael Kosztarab, Professor of
Systematic Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
We are grateful for the support of ad-
ministrators of the Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, particularly the
Honorable Doyle E. Conner, Commissioner of
Agriculture and Consumer Services; H. L. Jones,
Director, retired; Dr. S. A. Alfieri, Jr., Director;
and H. A. Denmark, Chief of Entomology, of the
Division of Plant Industry.
A considerable amount of assistance with
plant identifications and host names was re-
ceived from Dr. Kenneth Langdon. Carlos Ar-
taud reviewed the host list botanical names
several times. To them we extend our apprecia-
tion.
For review of the manuscript and many
helpful suggestions, we extend our thanks to
Steve Nakahara, Research Entomologist, USDA,
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Beltsville,
MD, and Raymond J. Gill, Systematic En-
tomologist, California Dept. of Food and
Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry,
Sacramento, CA.
We wish to thank the Agriculture Products
Specialists, of the Division of Plant Industry, for
their diligent collections of most of the material,
and their cooperation when additional material
was requested.
We thank our entomology colleagues at the
Division of Plant Industry, Drs. Frank Mead,
G. B. Edwards, Robert Woodruff, Lionel
Stange, John Heppner, and Howard Weems,
Jr. for their encouragement and many helpful
suggestions.
Last, but not least, the senior author wishes
to thank his wife, Donna, for her encourage-
ment and dedication throughout this entire
study.
INTRODUCTION
The Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma c. coerulescens) is a distinct
Florida form of a species that is widely distributed in western North
America. Unlike its western relatives, however, the Florida Scrub Jay
is extremely habitat-specific. It is endemic to the unique oak scrub
habitat of peninsular Florida and it occurs virtually nowhere else
(Westcott 1970, Kale 1978, Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984, Cox 1987,
Woolfenden et al. in press).
The open oak scrub required by Florida Scrub Jays exists only on
isolated patches on sandy, well-drained soil. Because such sites are
also ideal for housing developments and citrus cultivation, tracts of
oak scrub habitat, along with the jays they support, are disappearing at
a rapid rate (Woolfenden et al. in press). As a result, in 1987 the
Florida Scrub Jay was designated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as a "Threatened" species (Woolfenden et al. in press).
A successful recovery plan for the Florida Scrub Jay will obviously
require preservation of large areas of suitable habitat. However, as
described by Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1984, p. 40 and Fig. 3.15),
areas of scrub that are protected from fire become too densely vegetated
to support populations of jays. Thus, any management plan for the
subspecies must incorporate both habitat protection and judicious fire
management of that habitat (Woolfenden et al. in press).
Nonetheless, even concerted efforts to protect and manage remnants
of oak scrub habitat may prove to be inadequate to ensure the survival
of the Florida Scrub Jay. Currently, the range of the subspecies
consists primarily of a number of small, isolated populations inhabiting
restricted patches of suitable habitat. Because of the isolated nature
of these habitat patches and the extremely limited dispersal shown by
Florida Scrub Jays (individuals rarely disperse more than a few
kilometers from their birthplace; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1978, 1984,
1986, Woolfenden et al. in press), many areas of apparently suitable
habitat lack jays. This fact has been noted by many field workers
(e.g., Westcott 1970, Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984, Cox 1987).
Furthermore, recent advances in population ecology and conservation
biology (see reviews in Soule 1986, 1987) suggest that the long-term
survival of small populations can be seriously threatened not only by
deterministic factors such as habitat destruction, but also by
probabilistic (stochastic) factors that can have unpredictable effects
on the dynamics of small populations. These probabilistic factors fall
into four broad categories (Shaffer 1981, 1987): (1) Demographic
Uncertainty (e.g., chance production of highly biased sex ratios or age
distributions). (2) Environmental Uncertainty (e.g., marked temporal
variation in populations of prey species, competitors, predators, or
disease-causing organisms). (3) Genetic Uncertainty (e.g.,
deterioration of genetic quality and variability caused by genetic
drift, reduced gene flow and inbreeding). (4) Natural Catastrophes
(e.g., fires, hurricanes, or droughts). Because the population
consequences of chance events are moderated in large populations,
stochasticity has relatively little effect on the long-term viability of
large populations. Within small, fragmented populations, however,
chance events can have extreme effects on population dynamics, greatly
increasing the risk of local (or global) extinction (Leigh 1981, Shaffer
and Samson 1985, Gilpin and Soule 1986, Soule and Simberloff 1986,
Gilpin 1987, Goodman 1987, Shaffer 1987, Woolfenden et al. in press).
The four categories of probabilistic events listed above are not
always distinct and, in most situations, chance events of different
types will interact in important ways (Shaffer 1987). Regardless,
recent population models of Leigh (1981), Shaffer and Samson (1985),
Goodman (1987) and Ewens et al. (1987) indicate that chance events,
particular environmental variation and natural catastrophes, can
significantly increase extinction probabilities in all but the largest
populations.
The epidemic spread of severe illness is a form of environmental
variability that poses perhaps the greatest risk to small populations
(Dobson and May 1986). The sobering problems presented by disease in
managing threatened wildlife are forcefully illustrated by the recent
epidemic of canine distemper that virtually annihilated the largest
remaining population of the critically endangered Black-footed Ferret,
Mustela nigripes (Weinberg 1986, Richardson 1986, May 1989). A less
dramatic but nonetheless severe die-off of Florida Scrub Jays (affecting
45% of adult breeders and nearly 100% of juveniles) occurred at Archbold
Biological Station near Lake Placid between August 1979 and February
1980. Although the cause of this mortality could not be determined,
disease was strongly suspected (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984, in
press).
Thus, existing populations of Florida Scrub Jays, even those
inhabiting areas of well protected and well managed oak scrub, are
nonetheless vulnerable to local extinction simply because of "bad luck"
(Goodman 1987, p. 12); a series of inopportune chance events that would
have relatively little effect on large populations could have
potentially disastrous consequences for small populations. Such local
extinctions of Florida Scrub Jays will in many cases prove to be
permanent, again because of the isolated nature of habitat patches and
the sedentary nature of jays.
For these reasons, successful long-term management of Florida Scrub
Jays will ultimately have to incorporate the following components: (1)
protection and proper management of tracts of suitable scrub habitat,
and (2) relocation of jays from healthy populations to isolated areas
of suitable, protected, and properly managed habitat where jays are
either absent or have been recently extirpated because of disease,
inbreeding depression, natural catastrophes, or other factors.
Several unusual features of Florida Scrub Jay biology, thoroughly
documented by the long-term studies of G. E. Woolfenden, J. W.
Fitzpatrick, and their colleagues at Archbold Biological Station,
suggest that relocation might prove to be a particularly valuable
management technique for this species. Florida Scrub Jays are
permanently monogamous and permanently territorial. Although jays are
capable of breeding at one year of age, many young jays delay breeding
for one or more years and remain on their natal territories as
nonbreeding "helpers." Because all suitable breeding habitat within a
population is usually occupied, mature young are usually unable to
acquire a breeding territory immediately and are "forced" to remain home
for one or more years as nonbreeders. There, they assist their parents
by defending their territory against intruding jays, defending the nest
against potential nest predators, and feeding nestlings and fledglings.
Prolonged experience as a nonbreeding helper is not a prerequisite for
successful breeding in the future (Fitzpatrick and Woolfenden 1987).
About half of all Florida Scrub Jay pairs are assisted by one or more
helpers, and approximately one third of the adult population consists of
nonbreeding helpers (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984).
These "surplus" nonbreeding helpers present in Florida Scrub Jay
populations are ideal candidates for relocation to other areas capable
of supporting jays. Provided with unoccupied but suitable breeding
habitat, the formerly nonbreeding jays should be able to establish
territories and nest. At the same time, the removal of helpers will
have less effect on breeding density within the source population than
comparable removal of established breeding pairs.
In this report we describe the results of a pilot study designed to
determine the feasibility of relocation as a management technique for
the threatened Florida Scrub Jay. During 1989 and 1990, 18 Florida
Scrub Jays, including both nonbreeders and established breeding pairs,
were captured at Archbold Biological Station in Highlands County and
relocated to apparently suitable but unoccupied scrub habitat at Rookery
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Collier County (Fig. 1). A
major objective of this research was to establish a self-sustaining
population of Florida Scrub Jays at Rookery Bay. Additionally, however,
the study included detailed monitoring of jays released at Rookery Bay
and regular population monitoring at Archbold Biological Station. The
latter procedure was necessary to determine the effects that removal and
relocation have on source populations of jays.
The Source Population: Archbold Biological Station
The Florida Scrub Jays used in the relocations were obtained from
Archbold Biological Station, a 2000-hectare research station located in
Highlands County, Florida (Fig. 2). Archbold supports a healthy Scrub
Jay population of about 300 birds, and it has been the site of a long-
term study of the jay's ecology and social behavior (Woolfenden and
Fitzpatrick 1984, 1990). Since May 1986, additional research on Scrub
Jays has been conducted at Archbold on a secondary study area adjacent
to the primary study site of Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (e.g., Schoech
et al. in press). Jays from this secondary study population were used
in the relocation experiments (Fig. 2).
The Relocation Site: Rookery Bay
Rookery Bay is a 3,600-hectare National Estuarine Research Reserve
situated on the Gulf of Mexico between Naples and Marco Island in
Collier County (Fig. 1). It is presently managed jointly by the State
of Florida Department of Natural Resources, The National Audubon
Society, and The Conservancy, Inc., a private organization based in
Collier County. The Department of Natural Resources has played the
major role in management and research of the reserve since 1978. Prior
to 1978, the National Audubon Society had managed Rookery Bay as part of
its sanctuary system, and Audubon continues to employ a full-time warden
biologist there. The Conservancy, Inc., operates an interpretative
nature center and educational program at Rookery Bay.
For the Florida Scrub Jay, an acceptable relocation site must have
six characteristics: (1) it should have an area of open, oak scrub
habitat sufficient to support several families of jays, (2) it should
be protected from development, (3) it should be properly managed (by
fire or mechanical means) to prevent the oak scrub from becoming so tall
and dense that it is unacceptable to jays, (4) it should be within the
historic range of the species, (5) it should be an area where jays are
6
either absent and recently extirpated, and (6) it should be too far
from existing populations to be found and colonized by dispersing jays.'
Rookery Bay satisfies all six of these requirements. First, the
reserve is protected from development and includes approximately 50-60
hectares of coastal oak scrub and associated scrubby flatwoods habitat
that appears to be ideal for Florida Scrub Jays (Fig. 3). Such an area
would be capable of supporting a population of about 20-25 jays
(Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984, Woolfenden et al. in press). Second,
although Florida Scrub Jays formerly were found in the Naples-Marco
Island area, jays have not been reported from the region since the 1920s
and 1930s (Cox 1987). The closest existing population of Florida Scrub
Jays is adjacent to the Immokalee airport in Collier County (Cox 1987),
approximately 60 km from Rookery Bay and well outside the species'
normal range of limited dispersal (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984,
1986). Third, the management plan for Rookery Bay includes periodic
prescribed burning of oak scrub and scrubby flatwoods vegetation. One
such prescribed burn was conducted at Rookery Bay in June 1988.
Is the habitat at Rookery Bay suitable for Florida Scrub Jays? A
comparison of the oak scrub of Rookery Bay with that of Archbold
Biological Station is shown in Table 1. Although the coastal scrub at
Rookery Bay is slightly taller and less diverse than the interior scrub
at Archbold, both sites are nonetheless characterized by a dense cover
of low (less than 2 m in height) xerophytic oaks (Table 1). The density
of low scrubby oaks appears to the critical feature in determining
whether habitat is acceptable to Florida Scrub Jays (Woolfenden and
Fitzpatrick 1984, Woolfenden et al. in press). This vegetational
comparison thus suggests that the oak scrub of Rookery Bay is indeed
suitable habitat for Florida Scrub Jays.
Post-Relocation Monitoring
Relocation and reintroduction are increasingly recognized as
potentially valuable techniques for managing threatened or endangered
species (Temple 1986, Griffith et al. 1989, Kleiman 1989). As Scott and
Carpenter (1987) have argued, however, such relocations have only
limited value unless they are accompanied by detailed documentation and
intensive follow-up monitoring of released individuals. The need for
careful post-release monitoring is obvious: even unsuccessful relocation
programs (those that ultimately do not succeed in establishing a self-
sustaining wild population) can provide valuable information as long as
post-relocation monitoring is sufficiently thorough to reveal why the
relocation was unsuccessful and what steps might be taken in the future
to improve the chances of success. Furthermore, post-relocation
monitoring for Florida Scrub Jays should include an analysis of the
impact that relocation has on the source population of jays.
METHODS
1989 Relocations
The Florida Scrub Jay source population at Archbold Biological
Station was censused in late February and early March 1989. The
population at that time comprised 45 family groups and 140 jays, all but
two of which were individually color-banded. Ten nonbreeders from ten
different groups were then selected for experimental removal and
relocation. Selection of nonbreeders was done in such a way to obtain
an equal number of males and females--in spite of difficulties in
determining the sex of nonbreeding birds (Schoech et al. in press)--from
as diverse a genetic background as possible. In an effort to reduce the
possible impact on the source population, nine of the 10 birds came from
groups containing two or more nonbreeders; these groups thus still
contained at least one nonbreeding helper even after one was captured
and removed. Previous work has shown that although pairs assisted by
helpers have significantly higher reproductive success than unassisted
pairs (Mumme in press), the reproductive success of pairs with two or
more helpers is not higher than that of pairs with only a single helper
(Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984, 1990).
The nonbreeders selected for capture and relocation included two
jays hatched in 1986 (3-year-olds), four hatched in 1987 (2-year-olds),
three hatched in 1988 (1-year-olds), and one unknown-age bird that was
known to have hatched no later than 1987 (making it at least a 2-year-
old). The determination of sex followed behavioral methods outlined by
Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1984) and Schoech et al. (in press). The 10
birds selected for relocation included five known females, three known
males, and two probable males. Additional details concerning these
birds are available in Appendix A.
The selected nonbreeders were captured in baited traps 8-9 March,
at which time they were measured, weighed, and given a fresh set of
color bands. From 8-11 March the captives were housed at Archbold in
0.46 x 0.61 x 0.91 m cages constructed out of half-inch galvanized
hardware cloth and maintained on a diet of high-protein dog food,
peanuts, mealworms, and water. In the hope of facilitating the
establishment of pair bonds, captives were caged together in arbitrarily
assigned male-female pairs. At 1130 hrs on 11 March each of the five
cages was covered with a light cloth, placed in the back of a well-
ventilated van, and transported to Rookery Bay. There, the captive jays
were transferred to five larger, previously constructed "hacking" cages
erected in the oak scrub at Rookery Bay (Fig. 4). These predator-proof
cages were also constructed of half-inch hardware cloth and were 0.91 x
0.91 x 0.91 m. Each cage was placed on a 1.2 m high platform
constructed out of one-inch PVC pipe. Thus, the top of each cage was
about 2.1 m above ground level, enabling the jays to see much of their
surroundings. The five hacking cages were all placed within 10 m of
each other in a loose circle, thereby allowing the jays to maintain
visual and vocal contact with birds in other cages. Transport and
transfer of the jays to the hacking cages at Rookery Bay was completed
by 1500 hrs on 11 March.
In the hope of orienting the captives to their release site and
establishing at least a measure of site attachment, the 10 birds were
maintained in the hacking cages until 17 March. Just prior to release,
five feeders (plywood platforms attached to 1.2 m long PVC pipes) were
established at various locations within the scrub at Rookery Bay.
Feeders were supplied with high-protein dog food and peanuts for the
first few weeks after release, after which time supplemental feeding was
gradually phased out. The cage doors were opened at 1500 hrs on 17
March, and all birds left the cages by 1515 hrs.
1990 Relocations
The methods used in the 1990 round of relocations differed from
those employed during 1989 in two important respects. First, in the
hope of improving on the success rate of the 1989 relocations,
10
established breeding pairs were used in addition to nonbreeding helpers.
Second, instead of placing all the hacking cages together as in 1989,
the cages were scattered in undefended portions of the Rookery Bay scrub
(Fig. 4).
Otherwise, procedures used in 1990 closely followed those used in
the proceeding year. The Archbold study population was censused in
early March 1990. At that time it consisted of 39 family groups and 109
jays, all but four of which were individually color-banded. Eight
Florida Scrub Jays (four males and four females) were then selected for
experimental removal and relocation. These birds included two recently
established breeding pairs, one established breeding pair, and two
nonbreeding helpers. The two nonbreeders were removed from groups
containing one additional helper. Appendix A provides further details
about the identities and histories of these birds.
Jays targeted for removal and relocation were captured 9-10 March,
at which time they were measured, weighed, and given a fresh set of
color bands. From 9-11 March the captives were housed at Archbold as
pairs in the same cages used in 1989. The captives were conveyed to
Rookery Bay and transferred to four hacking cages between 1130 and 1500
hrs on 11 March.
In order to orient the jays to their release site, the captives
were maintained in the hacking cages until 15 March. Just prior to
release, three feeders were set up near the hacking cages and supplied
with high-protein dog food and peanuts. As in 1989, supplemental
feeding was continued for the first few weeks post-release and then
gradually phased out. All jays were released from the hacking cages
between 1545 and 1635 hrs on 15 March.
11
Post-Relocation Monitoring at Rookery Bay and Archbold
The activities of relocated jays were monitored on an essentially
daily basis during the first two weeks following their release, about 3-
4 times per week during the March-May breeding season, and 2-3 times per
month during the remainder of the year. Data were collected primarily
through regular surveys and censuses of the Rookery Bay scrub and
adjacent areas, during which time the identities, locations, activities,
and habitat usages of relocated Florida Scrub Jays were recorded.
Special attention was given to signs of pairing and territoriality
(e.g., courtship feeding, territorial pair flights, etc.). Nests were
found during building or early incubation and checked 2-3 times per week
until fledging or nest failure. Nestlings were color-banded at 11-12
days of age. Locations of nests and apparent territorial boundaries
were plotted using aerial photos.
Post-relocation monitoring at Archbold Biological Station closely
followed the general methods outlined by Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick
(1984). The experimental tract (source) population was censused on an
approximately monthly basis December-July in both 1989 and 1990. During
the March-June nesting season significant effort was invested in
locating and determining the fate of all nests. Particular attention
was given to experimental families where nonbreeding helpers or breeding
pairs had been removed, and unmanipulated control families.
RESULTS
1989 Relocations
Although many of the jays released at Rookery Bay in 1989 wandered
12
widely at first, by 21 March (four days post-release) the situation had
become relatively stable. By this time, and through the end of March,
(1) all ten birds were resident in the oak scrub within 500 m of the
hacking cage site (Fig. 4), (2) the two oldest birds (one three-year-
old male and one three-year-old female) had become firmly paired, even
though they had not been caged together, and established a territory
(designated as "Sign") about 200 m SSW of the release site, and had
begun building a nest (Fig. 5), (3) two other birds that also had not
been caged together (a two-year-old male and an unknown-age female that
was at least two years old) had also paired but were only weakly
territorial and had not initiated nest-building activities, and (4) the
remaining six unpaired birds (three two-year-olds and three one-year-
olds) foraged and traveled in the company of one or more jays in loose,
fluid aggregations.
By the end of March, two-weeks post-release, the Sign birds were in
the final stages of building their nest. These two birds lined their
nest with fibers produced by the leaves of nearby cabbage palms (Sabal
palmetto). A clutch of two eggs was completed on 12 April (four weeks
post-release). Both eggs hatched on 30 April, the two nestlings were
color-banded on 10 May, and both fledged 19-20 May (Table 2). The
smaller of the two fledglings was not seen after it left the nest, and
it probably died soon after fledging. The other survived to
independence. These three members of the Sign family survived through
the remainder of 1989 and the 1990 nesting season, during which they
produced three fledglings, one of which survived to independence (Table
2).
The two jays who had shown signs of pairing in late March became
13
strongly paired by mid-April. Initially (late March), they had
attempted to establish a territory centered around a patch of scrub 600
meters SSE of the hacking cage site (near the 1990 "Bend" cage site,
Fig. 4). By mid-April, their center of activity had shifted to an area
of scrub 300 meters NW of the release site, and began to defend this
site around Briggs Nature Center against other jays (Fig. 5). Although
the "Briggs" pair exchanged food and nesting material throughout April
and May, they built only a rudimentary nest (Fig. 5) and never laid eggs
(not atypical for newly formed, inexperienced pairs; Woolfenden and
Fitzpatrick 1984). Both members of the Briggs pair survived through the
remainder of 1989 and the 1990 nesting season, during which they nested
successfully and reared three offspring (Table 2).
The remaining six relocated jays (three two-year-olds and three
one-year-olds) never paired or attempted to establish territories.
During late March and most of April, these birds were seen most
consistently within 500 meters of the release site, inside the
territories of the two established pairs, where they were tolerated but
subject to frequent aggression from the residents. These unpaired
"floaters" did not make use of areas of seemingly suitable scrub 1 km
south of the release site (Fig. 5). They did, however, make occasional
exploratory forays in which they were absent from the release site for
periods of a few hours or a few days, and were occasionally seen in
mangroves, along roadsides, and in other unsuitable habitats within 1 km
of the release site. Despite these short-term forays, all six of these
unpaired jays were present at the release site on 19 April.
During the last week of April and the first two weeks of May,
however, these six unpaired birds apparently left the relocation site
14
singly or in groups (Fig. 6). Despite intensive searches of all scrub
habitat within the Rookery Bay area, however, we failed to locate any of
the missing jays. For example, four birds were missing on 27 April.
Although three of the four were never seen again at Rookery Bay, the
fourth reappeared near the release site briefly on 6 May before
disappearing permanently. A fifth unpaired jay was loosely associated
with the Sign pair until 10 May when it disappeared. The sixth (a
first-year bird) was last seen at Rookery Bay on 5 May. However, based
on a good description of its color bands, this bird turned up on 22 June
in a backyard feeder at a home in Golden Gate Estates, about 30 km NE of
the relocation site. The resident also reported two banded Florida
Scrub Jays (including the bird he had seen in June) at his feeder again
for a few days in early August 1990. These reports, which we consider
reliable, strongly suggest that most or all of the six unpaired birds
that eventually disappeared from Rookery Bay did not die but emigrated
from the relocation site.
1990 Relocations
Eight Florida Scrub Jays were released at Rookery Bay on 15 March
1990. One male was not seen after 23 March, and a female that had
appeared ill for several days disappeared after 1 April. Two of the
remaining six birds, a pair that had nested unsuccessfully at Archbold
in 1989, gradually established a territory near their hacking cage ("NW
Scrub", Fig. 7) at the northern end of the Rookery Bay scrub. They
initiated nest-building activities sometime in April, and although a
nest was completed by mid-May, the female never laid eggs (Table 2).
Nonetheless, both members of the NW Scrub pair survived through the 1990
15
nesting season and were resident on their territory in late September
1990.
Two other birds were missing from Rookery Bay between 6 April and 3
May, but they eventually returned, paired, and established a territory
("Rosemary") near the hacking cage in which the female (but not the
male) had been housed (Fig. 7). Although this newly formed pair did not
nest, Both birds remained at Rookery Bay through the summer of 1990 and
were present on their territory in late September 1990.
The final two birds released at Rookery Bay in 1990 were seen
sporadically during March and April before disappearing in late April or
early May (Fig. 6). One of these birds, however, a female that was last
seen at Rookery Bay on 27 April, inexplicably reappeared on the
relocation site on 26 August 1990. Although her whereabouts between
late April and late August are a complete mystery, by September she had
become loosely affiliated with the newly-formed Rosemary pair.
In summary, as of 1 October 1990, the Florida Scrub Jay population
at Rookery Bay comprised 14 birds: nine adults relocated from Archbold
Biological Station, one one-year-old fledged at Rookery Bay in 1989, and
four juveniles produced at Rookery Bay in 1990.
Effects of Relocation on Source Population
Short-term effects on reproduction and survival--Twelve of the 18
Florida Scrub Jays relocated to Rookery Bay during 1988-89 were
nonbreeding helpers in groups at Archbold Biological Station (see
Appendix A). As shown in Fig. 8, the reproductive success of the 12
families from which nonbreeding helpers were removed was virtually
identical to that of 18 unmanipulated control families where nonbreeding
16
helpers were also present. Although breeder survival during the three-
month nesting season was slightly higher among control groups than
experimental groups (94.4% [n=36] vs. 83.3% [n=24]), the difference was
not statistically significant (Fisher exact test P > 0.15). Thus, the
removal and relocation of 12 nonbreeding helpers performed during this
study had no significant impact on short-term survival and reproductive
success of breeders (Fig. 8).
Six of the eight birds relocated to Rookery Bay in 1990 comprised
three territorial pairs. The removal of these established breeders
resulted in no net change in breeding density; by the end of the 1990
nesting season, all three territorial pairs had been replaced by three
new pairs made up of formerly nonbreeding helpers from neighboring
territories. Although breeding density was thus not apparently
affected, some evidence suggests that removal and relocation of the
three breeding pairs nonetheless had some impact on the short-term
reproductive output of the population. As is frequently the case for
pairs establishing territories for the first time (Woolfenden and
Fitzpatrick 1984), none of the three newly established replacement pairs
built a nest or laid eggs during the 1990 nesting season. Although
small sample size precludes any statistical analysis, it seems likely
that the removal and relocation of established breeders would have a
more adverse short-term impact on the reproductive success of a source
population than would removal of a comparable number of nonbreeding
helpers.
Long-term effects on source population size--The source population
of Florida Scrub Jays at Archbold Biological Station underwent a marked
population decline during the two years of the relocation study (Fig.
17
9). The secondary (experimental) tract population size at Archbold
declined from 148 jays in July 1988 to 132 jays in July 1989 and 118
birds in July 1990, a two-year decline of 20.3%. However, during the
same two-year period, the adjacent but unmanipulated study population of
G. E. Woolfenden and J. W. Fitzpatrick (demography tract) underwent an
even more extreme decline (34.0%; Fig. 9), largely because of an intense
fire that burned a significant portion of the study area in May 1989 (G.
E. Woolfenden, personal communication). This fire complicates any
attempt to determine the exact effects of the relocation experiments on
the population dynamics of the experimental tract. Nonetheless, it is
likely that the removal and relocation of 10 birds in March 1989 (7.1%
of the March 1989 population size) and eight additional jays in March
1990 (7.3% of the March 1990 population size) contributed significantly
to the population decline observed in the experimental tract between
1988-1990 (Fig. 9).
DISCUSSION
The results described above suggest that the relocation of Florida
Scrub Jays from healthy populations to areas of suitable but unoccupied
habitat is a potentially useful technique for the management and
restoration of this threatened subspecies. Successful nesting at the
Rookery Bay relocation site occurred in both years of the two-year
study, and survival of both territorial adults and juveniles appears to
be quite high. Although continued monitoring at Rookery Bay will be
needed to evaluate the long-term persistence of the re-established
population, preliminary data suggest that relocations have considerable
promise.
18
Ultimately, however, the success of any relocation program depends
on the quality of the release site. For the Florida Scrub Jay, a
potential relocation site must meet six stringent requirements (Table
3). It must contain a significant area of open oak scrub, it must be
protected from development, it must be properly managed, it must be
within the jay's historic range, it must currently lack jays, and it
must be so far from existing populations that it has not been colonized
by dispersing immigrants (Table 3). Areas lacking one or more of these
characteristics should not receive serious consideration as a potential
relocation site.
Assuming, however, that a suitable relocation site and a healthy
host population can be identified, a number of methodological
considerations must also be considered before actual relocations are
attempted.
Timing of Relocation
Several aspects of the natural history and annual cycle of the
Florida Scrub Jay suggest that relocations will probably have the
highest chances for success at two times of the year: (1) early spring
(late February or early March) and (2) late summer (August). Because
of the Florida Scrub Jay's dependence on stored acorns during the winter
months (DeGange et al. 1989), relocating birds after the onset of the
fall acorn harvest is inadvisable. By late winter and early spring,
however, insect populations in the oak scrub begin to increase and
dependence on stored acorns declines (DeGange et al. 1989). Thus,
relocations done at this time should have good chances of success
provided that supplemental food sources are available. Relocations
19
conducted during late winter or early spring also minimize the time
between relocation and onset of the potential breeding.
Similarly, because Florida Scrub Jays experience heavy mortality
during June and July (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984), a time when the
birds are molting heavily (Bancroft and Woolfenden 1982), relocations in
mid-summer are also inadvisable. However, by mid-August molt is largely
complete, and relocations at this time would allow relocated birds to
harvest and cache ripening acorns at the relocation site.
Selection of Birds for Relocation
Once a decision has been reached concerning the timing of a
proposed relocation attempt, several additional decisions must be made
regarding the identities of birds to used in the relocations. Foremost
among these is the decision to use nonbreeding helpers or established
breeders in the relocation experiment.
In this study, six established breeders and 12 nonbreeding helpers
were relocated from Archbold to Rookery Bay. Although definitive
conclusions are difficult to draw from such small samples, our data
suggest that the relocation of established breeders is no more likely to
be successful than the relocation of nonbreeding helpers. This is
especially true if relocation efforts are restricted to birds over one
year of age. Although one-year-old Florida Scrub Jays are capable of
establishing territories and breeding in at least some circumstances
(Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984), none of the three first-year helpers
relocated to Rookery Bay in 1989 did so, and all three disappeared
within two months of relocation. In contrast, of the nine older
nonbreeders relocated to Rookery Bay, 5 (55.6%) ultimately paired with
20
other birds and established territories. The success rate for
established breeding pairs was about the same as the success rate for
older helpers; of the six breeders relocated in 1990, only three (50.0%)
established territories at Rookery Bay, although a fourth bird remained
at Rookery Bay as an unpaired auxilliary.
Furthermore, the use of older nonbreeding helpers rather than
established breeders in relocation efforts would result in reduced
impact on the source population of Florida Scrub Jays. This will be
especially true if efforts can be made to select nonbreeders from large
families with multiple helpers. Our results indicate that the removal
of single nonbreeders from large groups had no significant impact on
short-term measures of reproductive success (Fig. 8) and survival. In
contrast, the removal of nonbreeding helpers can significantly reduce
reproductive success when all nonbreeders are removed from a group
(Mumme in press).
Length of the Orientation Period
Prior to their release at Rookery Bay, Florida Scrub Jays used in
the relocation experiment were housed for a period of 5-6 days in
"hacking" cages erected in oak scrub habitat at the release site. Our
primary objective in housing birds temporarily in these cages was to
establish at least a measure of site attachment between the jays and
Rookery Bay scrub, thereby lessening the probability that a disoriented,
just-released jay will wander away from the release site and disappear.
This procedure appears to have been at least partially effective.
None of the 18 relocated jays disappeared immediately after their
release, and all relocated jays remained at Rookery Bay for at least
21
eight days post-release. Even those jays that ultimately disappeared
usually did do in such a way (e.g., following prolonged forays away from
and back to the Rookery Bay scrub) to suggest that their disappearances
were more frequently a result of voluntary emigration than a result of
disorientation or death. Nonetheless, it is possible that hacking
periods longer than the ones employed in our study would increase the
probability that relocated birds would remain on the release site. This
prospect, however, would have to weighed against the potential stress
imposed on wild birds by caging them for a prolonged period of time.
Our secondary objective in housing the jays temporarily in hacking
cages was to facilitate the establishment of pair bonds in previously
unpaired jays. The 12 nonbreeding helpers used in the relocations were
caged together in arbitrarily assigned male-female pairs in the hope
that preliminary pair bonding would promote the establishment of
territories and nesting. This aspect of the project, however, appears
to have been an unqualified failure. Although some signs of preliminary
pairing were observed in the hacking cages, none of the six "pairs"
remained together after their release.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Relocation of nonbreeding helpers appears to be a potentially
useful technique for the management and conservation of the threatened
Florida Scrub Jay. Provided that a suitable source population and
relocation site can be identified, and that several questions
concerning methodological details are carefully addressed, relocations
have the potential to re-establish breeding populations of Florida Scrub
Jays in parts of their historic range where jays are now absent.
22
Relocations will undoubtedly play a critical role in the management of
this species in the next century, when many of the smaller existing
populations are likely to become extinct as a result of deterministic or
stochastic processes (Woolfenden et al. in press).
However, it must be made clear that relocation of Florida Scrub
Jays should be pursued only under rather exceptional circumstances.
First, a potential relocation site must meet a stringent set of
requirements (Table 3), and areas satisfying these requirements are
scarce. Second, the results of this study indicate that during the
first few weeks after their release, relocated jays will disappear and
emigrate from the release site at a significant rate. Only 50% of the
birds relocated from Archbold Biological Station to Rookery Bay
ultimately became established there. Because any relocation plan must
therefore incorporate a built-in high "casualty" rate, relocations of
very small numbers of birds are unlikely to be successful. Finally,
because large-scale removal and relocations will probably have
substantial impact on the size and dynamics of source populations,
relocations should be pursued only when the potential benefit of
establishing a new population is likely to outweigh the probable costs
to the source population.
Relocation is therefore no panacea for the problems that threaten
the Florida Scrub Jay with extinction, and it should not be viewed as an
acceptable substitute for the protection of existing populations.
Relocation of Florida Scrub Jays should be considered only as an
potentially useful technique for the restoration of this species to
unoccupied portions of its historic range, not as a technique for the
mitigation of the effects of habitat destruction elsewhere.
23
LITERATURE CITED
Bancroft, G. T., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1982. The molt of Scrub Jays
and Blue Jays in Florida. Ornithological Monogr. 29. viii+51 pp.
Cox, J. A. 1987. Status and Distribution of the Florida Scrub Jay.
Florida Ornith. Soc. Spec. Pub. No. 3. vii+110 pp.
DeGange, A. R., J. W. Fitzpatrick, J. N. Layne, and G. E. Woolfenden.
1989. Acorn harvesting by Florida Scrub Jays. Ecology 70:348-356.
Dobson, A. P., and R. M. May. 1986. Disease and conservation. Pages
345-366 in Soule, M. E. (ed.). Conservation Biology. Sinauer
Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Ewens, W. J., P. J. Brockwell, J. M. Gani, and S. I. Resnick. 1987.
Minimum viable population size in the presence of catastrophes.
Pages 59-68 in Soule, M. E. (ed.). Viable Populations for
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fitzpatrick, J. W., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1987. Short-term helpers are
superior breeders in male Florida Scrub Jays. Abstracts, 105th
Stated Meeting of the American Ornithologists' Union, San
Francisco, California.
Gilpin, M. E. 1987. Spatial structure and population vulnerability.
Pages 125-139 in Soule, M. E. (ed.). Viable Populations for
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gilpin, M. E., and M. E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations:
processes of species extinction. Pages 19-34 in Soule, M. E.
(ed.). Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
Massachusetts.
Goodman, D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. Pages 11-34 in
Soule, M. E. (ed.). Viable Populations for Conservation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Griffith, B., J. M. Scott, J. W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989.
Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy.
Science 245:477-480.
Kale, H. W., III (ed.). 1978. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida,
vol. 2. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Kleiman, D. G. 1989. Reintroduction of captive mammals for
conservation. BioScience 39(3):152-161.
Leigh, E. G. 1981. The average lifetime of a population in a varying
environment. J. Theor. Biol. 90:213-239.
May, R. M. 1989. Black-footed ferret update. Nature 339:104.
24
Mumme, R. L. In press. Helping behaviour in the Florida Scrub Jay:
nonaptation, exaptation, or adaptation? Proc. 20th. International
Ornithological Congress.
Richardson, L. 1986. On the track of the last Black-footed Ferrets.
Nat. Hist. 95(2):69-77.
Scott, J. M., and J. W. Carpenter. 1987. Release of captive-reared or
translocated endangered birds: what do we need to know? Auk
104:544-545.
Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species
conservation. BioScience 31:131-134.
Shaffer, M. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with
uncertainty. Pages 69-86 in Soule, M. E. (ed.). Viable
Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Shaffer, M. L., and. F. B. Samson. 1985. Population size and
extinction: a note on determining critical population sizes. Am.
Nat. 125:144-152.
Schoech, S. J., R. L. Mumme, and M. C. Moore. In press. Reproductive
endocrinology and mechanisms of breeding inhibition in
cooperatively breeding Florida Scrub Jays (Aphelocoma c.
coerulescens). Condor.
Soule, M. E. (ed.). 1986. Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Soule, M. E. (ed.). 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Soule, M. E., and D. Simberloff. 1986. What do genetics and ecology
tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biol. Cons. 35:19-40.
Temple, S. A. 1986. The problem of avian extinctions. Curr. Ornithol.
3:543-585.
Weinberg, D. 1986. Decline and fall of the Black-footed Ferret. Nat.
Hist. 95(2):62-69.
Westcott, P. W. 1970. Ecology and behavior of the Florida Scrub Jay.
Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Florida, Gainesville.
Woolfenden, G. E., and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1978. The inheritance of
territory in group-breeding birds. BioScience 28:104-108.
Woolfenden, G. E., and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1984. The Florida Scrub Jay:
Demography of a Cooperative-Breeding Bird. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
25
Woolfenden, G. E., and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1986. Sexual asymmetries in
the life history of the Florida Scrub Jay. Pages 87-107 in
Rubenstein, D. I., and R. W. Wrangham (eds.). Ecological Aspects
of Social Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.
Woolfenden, G. E., and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1990. Florida Scrub Jays: a
synopsis after 18 years of study. Pages 240-266 in Stacey, P. B.,
and W. D. Koenig. Cooperative Breeding in Birds: Long-term Studies
of Ecology and Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Woolfenden, G. E., J. W. Fitzpatrick, and M. T. Kopeny. In press.
Development-related habitat preservation for the Florida Scrub Jay
(Aphelocoma c._ coerulescens). Florida Nongame Wildlife Prog. Tech.
Rept. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.
26
Table 1. Comparison of woody vegetation of oak scrub at Rookery Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve and Archbold Biological Station.
Frequency of occurrence reflects the percent of time each species was
detected within 1 m of 50 sampling points along a 500-m transect.
Height reflects the height of the tallest individual plant of each
species within 1 m of the sampling points.
Rookery Bay Sanctuary Archbold Biological Station
Frequency of Height (m) Frequency of Height (m)
Species Occurrence Mean + SD (n) Occurrence Mean + SD (n)
Quercus myrtifolia
Myrtle Oak
Quercus inopina
Inopina Oak
Ouercus geminata
Sand Live Oak
Quercus champmanii
Chapman Oak
Serenoa repens
Saw Palmetto
Sabal etonia
Scrub Palmetto
Lyonia fruticosa
Staggerbush
Lyonia lucida
Fetterbush
Befaria racemosa
Tarflower
Ceratiola ericoides
Rosemary
Opuntia compressa
Prickly Pear
Ximenia americana
Tallow Wood
90% 1.13 + 0.34 (45)
0%
72% 1.13 + 0.49 (36)
30% 1.38 + 0.73 (15)
76% 1.01 + 0.23 (38)
0%
54% 1.29 + 0.44 (27)
0%
0%
24%
1.34 + 0.28 (12)
0%
4% 1.55 + 0.07 (2)
0%
76% 1.10 + 0.28 (38)
42% 0.99 + 0.41 (21)
62% 1.14 + 0.40 (31)
72% 0.69 + 0.19 (36)
18% 0.77 + 0.12 (9)
28% 0.89 + 0.42 (14)
16% 0.99 + 0.30.
6% 1.40 + 0.52
4% 0.90 + 0.71
14% 0.40 + 0.18
6% 0.40 + 0.35
(8)
(3)
(2)
(9)
(3)
27
Table 2. Characteristics of Florida Scrub Jay
at Rookery Bay, 1989-90. Nest site height is
bush in which the nest was built. The sex of
is designated by "F" or "M". Attending birds
nonbreeding helpers.
nests and nest sites used
the height of the shrub or
each bird attending a nest
in parentheses are
Territory/nest Attending Site Nest Nest site Clutch Number
(first egg date) birds species height height size fledged
Sign/1989-1 -WSA F Quercus 0.89 m 2.92 m 2 2
(11 April) -LSG M geminata
Sign/1990-1 -WSA F Quercus 0.89 m 1.83 m 3 Oa
(14 March) -LSG M chapmanii
(YW-S M)
Sign/1990-2 -WSA F Quercus 1.32 m 3.12 m 3 3
(1 April) -LSG M myrtifolia
(YW-S M)
Briggs/1989-1 A-SA F Ximenia 1.02 m 3.05 m Ob Ob
(--) SWF- M americana
Briggs/1990-1 A-SA F Ouercus 1.07 m 2.13 m 4 Oc
(13 March) SWF- M geminata
Briggs/1990-2 A-SA F Ouercus 1.73 m 2.13 m 4 3d
(28 April) SWF- M myrtifolia
NW Scrub/1990-1 -LSL F Quercus 1.65 m 2.44 m Oe Oe
(--) P-SA M geminata
a nest depredated during incubation.
b nest never completed, never received eggs.
c nest containing three nestlings depredated late in nestling
period (day 15); one nestling had disappeared earlier due to
apparent starvation.
d one nestling disappeared, apparently due to starvation.
e nest completed but never received eggs.
28
Table 3. Checklist of the characteristics that must be shown by an area
before it can be considered to be an acceptable site for the relocation
of Florida Scrub Jays.
1. Proposed site must contain extensive tracts of open oak scrub
habitat.
2. Proposed site must be protected from development.
3. Proposed site must be properly managed, either by fire or by
mechanical control of vegetation.
4. Proposed site must be within historic range of the Florida Scrub Jay.
5. Florida Scrub Jays must be absent or recently extirpated from
proposed site.
6. Proposed site must be far away from existing populations of jays and
sources of potential immigrants.
29
ROOKERY -.-
BAY
Fig. 1. Location of Archbold Biological Station (Highlands County) and
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Collier County).
30
III
FLORIDA
LOCATION MAP
ARCHBOLD BIOLOGICAL STATION
Fig. 2. Location of the secondary (experimental) study population
and the primary study site (demography tract) of G. E. Woolfenden
and J. W. Fitzpatrick at Archbold Biological Station.
31
I
J] Sand roads, paths
SOak scrub
Pine flatwoods
Wetlands
Paved roads, buildings
led,
0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0
o . .
.6e.0 o 6 o o o o o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 *0 oo
o o o o 6 Of 06*4*040406#
0 0. a 0 0 0 6 0 0 : .
Poo 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 6 0 0 olpJ*dof#fJ4J*JlF#4J
&* 04 Jo d
o .
o 0 0 Oj
.Ode.# 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 mah-0
0 0 0
:0 0 0 o o
o o
N
A
0 100 200 300
Scale (meters) a : : ..
Oak Scrub and
Associated Habitats, : :
Rookery Bay
Fig. 3. Oak scrub and associated habitats at Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve.
32
0 100 200 300
Scale (meters)
Key
1989 cage site
* 1990 cage site
T 1989
(5 cag
,. .
-* .*:.* -.* :.*. -. : *
10.- -. -
i- "' . ""e
Florida Scrub Jay ,m, .,;-
Location of Hacking Cages :: :
Rookery Bay *": :?
Fig. 4. Location of Florida Scrub Jay release ("hacking") cages used at
Rookery Bay in 1989 and 1990. Habitat designations as in Fig. 3.
33
-- ------------------
; : : #0
4f 40r 16#0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 a
KEY
. o Territory Boundary
Nest
Territories:
A. Briggs
B. Sign
- Briggs (1)
144
Ile
0 100 200 300
Scale (meters) : ::
Florida Scrub Jay
1989 Nest and Territory Map
Rookery Bay -,.
Fig. 5. Location of Florida Scrub Jay nests and territories at Rookery
Bay during the 1989 breeding season.
Ile "I
A. 1989
12 F
.
- I -.................................
March April May
B. 1990
--- Relocated Birds (1989)
................. Relocated Birds (1990)
June
......... Yearlings/Juveniles
Total
March April May
June
Fig. 6. Changes in Florida Scrub Jay population size at
Rookery Bay during the breeding seasons of 1989 and 1990.
.-.- Relocated Birds
................. Rookery Bay Juveniles
Total
10
Fig. 7. Location of Florida Scrub Jay nests and territories at Rookery
Bay during the 1990 breeding season.
36
2.0
M Experimental (N=12)
S- 1 0 Control (N=18)
1.5 T
1)0
_ 1.0
o3 Z
) 0.5
0.0 _
Fledglings Independent Juveniles
Fig. 8. Effects of the removal and relocation of nonbreeding
helpers on the production of fledglings and independent
juveniles by breeders at Archbold Biological Station.
Experimental Tract
180
160
(D 140
N
C- 120
C 100
1- 80
= 60
o 40
20
0
--o-- Total Population Size --
-0-- Nonbreeders and Juveniles --
7/88 1/89 7/89 1/90 7/90
Month/Year
Fig. 9. Changes in the size of the Florida Scrub Jay populations
in the experimental tract and the demography tract at Archbold
Biological Station, 1988-1989.
Demography Tract
Appendix A. Individual histories of the 18 Florida Scrub Jays relocated
from Archbold Biological Station to Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve, 1989-1990.
1989 Relocations
1. Bird: -WSA
Sex: Known, female
Hatching year: Known, 1986
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: SWF-
History at Rookery Bay: Female -WSA paired with male -LSG within 24
hours of their release at Rookery Bay on 17 March 1989. Within three
days these two birds established a territory designated as "Sign" (see
Fig. 4) and began to build a nest. The Sign pair nested successfully in
both 1989 and 1990, fledging two and three offspring, respectively
(Table 2). One fledgling survived to independence in each of the two
years. Female -WSA, male -LSG, and their two offspring (YW-S and -BS)
were all alive and present on their territory in late September 1990
(Fig. 6).
2. Bird: -LSG
Sex: Known, male
Hatching year: Known, 1986
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: SRF-
History at Rookery Bay: Male -LSG paired with female -WSA almost
immediately after their release at Rookery Bay. This pair (Sign)
Appendix A (continued).
remained together through 1989 and 1990, nesting successfully in both
years. See the history of female -WSA (#1, above) for additional
details.
3. Bird: A-SA
Sex: Known, female
Hatching year: Unknown, but hatching year could not have been later
than 1987
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding immigrant into study population,
parentage and origin unknown. "Adopted" by family at Archbold in early
January 1989
Caged with: -SGG
History at Rookery Bay: Female A-SA paired with male SWF- within
four days of their release at Rookery Bay on 17 March 1989. By late
March, these two birds had established a territory near "Bend" (see Fig.
4). This area, however, was abandoned in mid-April, and female A-SA and
male SWF- at that time established a permanent territory ("Briggs")
centered around the Briggs Nature Center (see Fig. 5). Although they
built a rudimentary nest, no eggs were laid in 1989. However, the
Briggs pair nested successfully in 1990, fledging three offspring that
all survived to independence (Table 2). Female A-SA, male SWF-, and all
three of their 1990 fledglings (-LS, -FS, -AS) were alive and present on
the Briggs territory in late September 1990.
4. Bird: SWF-
Sex: Known, male
Appendix A (continued).
Hatching year: Known, 1987
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: -WSA
History at Rookery Bay: Male SWF- paired with female A-SA within
four -days of their release at Rookery Bay. This pair (Briggs) remained
together through 1989 and 1990 and nested successfully in 1990. See the
history of female A-SA (#3, above) for additional details.
5. Bird: SRF-
Sex: Known, female
Hatching ygar: Known, 1987
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: -LSG
History at Rookery Bay: Female SRF- remained near the Rookery Bay
release site for approximately six weeks after the 17 March release
date. During that time she showed no signs of pairing with any other
bird, and was usually found in loose association with the Sign pair (see
above) and several other unpaired birds. Female SRF- was last seen at
Rookery Bay on 27 April 1989. However, SRF- was probably one of two
banded Florida Scrub Jays observed in early August 1989 at a backyard
feeder in Golden Gate estates, approximately 30 km NE of the Rookery Bay
release site.
6. Bird: SRO-
Sex: Known, female
Page
Missing
or
Unavailable
Appendix A (continued).
8. Bird: SPA-
Sex: Known, male
Hatching year: Known, 1987
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: SRO-
History at Rookery Bay: Male SPA- remained near the Rookery Bay
release site for approximately eight weeks after the 17 March release
date. During that time he showed no signs of pairing and never
attempted to establish a territory. He was usually found either in
loose association with the Sign pair (see above), who generally
tolerated him on their territory, or with other unpaired birds. Male
SPA- was last seen at Rookery Bay on 10 May 1989.
9. Bird: -SLY
Sex: Unknown, suspected male
Hatching year: Known, 1988
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: -SRY
History at Rookery Bay: Presumed male -SLY remained near the
Rookery Bay release site for approximately six weeks after the 17 March
release date. During that time he showed no signs of pairing or
territory establishment, and was usually seen at Rookery Bay in loose
association with the Sign pair (see above) or other unpaired birds.
Male -SLY was last seen at Rookery Bay on 27 April 1989.
Appendix A (continued).
10. Bird: -SGG
Sex: Unknown, suspected male
Hatching ear: Known, 1988
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: A-SA
History at Rookery Bay: Presumed male -SGG remained near the
Rookery Bay release site for approximately seven weeks after the 17
March release date. During that time he showed no signs of pairing or
territory establishment, and was usually found in loose association with
the Sign pair (see above) or other unpaired birds. Male -SGG was last
seen at Rookery Bay on 5 May 1989. However, -SGG was probably the
banded jay observed at a backyard feeder in Golden Gate estates
(approximately 30 km NE of Rookery Bay) on 22 June 1989. He was also
probably one of two jays observed at the same location in early August
1989.
1990 Relocations
11. Bird: -LSL
Sex: Known, female
Hatching year: Known, 1986
Status at Archbold: Breeding female, paired with male P-SA since
July 1988; nested unsuccessfully at Archbold in 1989
Caged with: P-SA at NW Scrub cage site
History at Rookery Bay: Although female -LSL and male P-SA wandered
somewhat for the first few weeks after their release, by mid-April they
Appendix A (continued).
established a territory centered around the NW Scrub cage site (Figs. 4,
7) and initiated nest building. The nest was completed during the first
week of May, but no eggs were ever laid. Both members of the pair were
alive and present on the NW Scrub territory in late September 1990.
12. Bird: P-SA
Sex: Known, male
Hatching year: Unknown, but hatching year could not have been later
than 1984; this bird was at least six years old at the time of its
release at Rookery Bay
Status at Archbold: Breeding male, paired with female -LSL since
July 1988; nested unsuccessfully at Archbold in 1989
Caged with: -LSL at NW Scrub cage site
History at Rookery Bay: See the history of female -LSL (#11, above)
for details.
13. Bird: Y-SB
Sex: Known, male
Hatching year: Unknown, but hatching year could not have been later
than 1988
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding immigrant into study
population, parentage and origin unknown. "Adopted" by family at
Archbold in late December 1989.
Caged with: -SWR at Bend cage site
History at Rookery Bay: Male Y-SB wandered extensively at Rookery
Appendix A (continued).
Bay after his release, and was missing from Rookery Bay between 6 April
and 3 May. During May, however, male Y-SB settled at Rookery Bay,
gradually pairing with female Y-SF and establishing a territory
("Rosemary") SE of the Rosemary cage sites (Figs. 4, 7). Although the
Rosemary pair did not nest in 1990, both birds were present on their
territory in late September 1990 (Fig. 7).
14. Bird: Y-SF
Sex: Known, female
Hatching year: Unknown, but hatching year could not have been later
than 1987
Status at Archbold: Breeding female, paired with male P-SG since
March 1989; nested unsuccessfully at Archbold in 1989
Caged with: P-SG at Rosemary cage site
History at Rookery Lay: Female Y-SF wandered extensively at Rookery
Bay after her release, and was missing from Rookery Bay between 6 April
and 3 May. After her former mate from Archbold (P-SG) disappeared in
early May, female Y-SF eventually settled at Rookery Bay, gradually
pairing with male Y-SB. See the history of male Y-SB (#13, above) for
additional details.
15. Bird: YR-S
Sex: Known, female
Hatching year: Known, 1989
Status at Archbold: Breeding female, paired with male A-SB since
February 1990
Appendix A (continued).
Caged with: A-SB at Rosemary cage site
History at Rookery Bay: Female YR-S wandered extensively at Rookery
Bay after her release. She was missing from Rookery Bay between 10
April and 27 April, when she was seen intruding on the NW Scrub
territory (Fig. 7). She was not seen again until 26 August 1990, when
she inexplicably reappeared at Rookery Bay in association with the
Rosemary pair (see above, Fig. 7). Although she was frequently chased
by the Rosemary birds, in late September female YR-S was still resident
at Rookery Bay and loosely associated with male Y-SB and Y-SF of
Rosemary.
16. Bird: A-SB
Sex: Known, male
Hatching year: Unknown, but hatching year could not have been later
than 1988
Status at Archbold: Breeding male, paired with female YR-S since
February 1990
Caged with: YR-S at Rosemary cage site
History at Rookery Bay: Disappeared soon after his release at
Rookery Bay-on 15 March. Last seen at Rookery Bay on 23 March.
17. Bird: P-SG
Sex: Known, male
Hatching year: Unknown, but hatching year could not have been later
than 1986
Appendix A (continued).
Status at Archbold: Breeding male, paired with female Y-SF since
March 1989; nested unsuccessfully at Archbold in 1989
Caged with: Y-SF at Rosemary cage site
History at Rookery Bay: Male P-SG wandered extensively at Rookery
Bay after his release, and was not seen between 6 April and 3 May. On 3
May, male P-SG briefly reappeared at Rookery Bay with his former mate
from Archbold (female Y-SF) and male Y-SB but was not seen subsequently.
18. Bird: -SWR
Sex: Known, female
Hatching year: Known, 1988
Status at Archbold: Nonbreeding helper in natal territory
Caged with: Y-SB at Bend cage site
History at Rookery Bay: Disappeared soon after her release at
Rookery Bay on 15 March. She appeared to be ill during the last week of
March and was last seen 1 April.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
[year of pubhcation] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission [source text]
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission holds all rights
to the source text of this document and shall be considered the copyright
holder for the text and images of these publications
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has made this
publication available to the University of Florida, on behalf of the IMLS
grant Linking Flonda's Natural Hentage, for purposes of digitization and
Internet distribution
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reserves all
rights to this publication All uses, excluding those made under "fair use"
provisions of U S
Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted
(http //fen state fl us/fwc/) for additional information and permissions
|
