Wing morphology varies with age but not migratory habit in American dippers

Wilson Journal of Ornithology

Volumn 121, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 141-147

  Green, David J ^a   Whitehorne, Ivy B J ^a   Taylor, Amber L ^a   Drake, Ellisa L ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE-RELATED DIFFERENCE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MIGRATORY BEHAVIOR; PASSERINE; WATERSHED; WING MORPHOLOGY;

CINCLIDAE; CINCLUS MEXICANUS;

EID: 62549139281     PISSN: 15594491     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1676/07-163.1     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. ABLE, K. P. AND J. R. BELTHOFF. 1998. Rapid 'evolution' of migratory behaviour in the introduced House Finch of eastern North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 265: 2063-2071.
2. ALATALO, R. V., L. GUSTAFFSON, AND A. LUNDBERG. 1984. Why do young passerine birds have shorter wings than older birds? Ibis 126:410-415.
3. ALERSTAM, T. 1991. Bird migration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
4. ALERSTAM, T. AND A. LINDSTRÖM. 1990. Optimal bird migration: the relative importance of time energy and safety. Pages 331-351 in Bird migration: physiology and ecophysiology (E. Gwinner, Editor). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
5. BURNS, J. G. 2003. Relationship of Calidris sandpiper wing shape with relative fuel load and total migration distance. Auk 120:827-835.
6. COPETE, J. L., R. MARINÉ, D. BIGAS, AND A. MARTÍNEZ-VILALTA. 1999. Differences in wing shape between sedentary and migratory Reed Buntings Emberiza schoeniclus. Bird Study 46:100-103.
7. EGBERT, J. R. AND J. R. BELTHOFF. 2003. Wing shape differences in House Finches relative to migratory habit in eastern and western North America. Condor 105:825-829.
8. EVERED, D. S. 1990. Measures of wing area and wing span from wing formula data. Auk 70:784-787.
9. FIELDER, W. 2005. Ecomorphology of the external flight apparatus of Blackcaps with different migration behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1046:253-263.
10. GILLIS, E. A., D. J. GREEN, H. A. MIDDLETON, AND C. A. MORRISSEY. 2008. Life history correlates of alternative migratory strategies in American Dippers. Ecology 89:1687-1695.
11. GRIFFITHS, R., M. C. DOUBLE, K. ORR, AND R. J. G. DAWSON. 1998. A DNA test to sex most birds. Molecular Ecology 7:1071-1075.
12. HEDENSTRÖM, A. AND A. P. MÖLLER. 1992. Morphological adaptations to song flight in passerine birds: a comparative study. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 247:183-187.
13. KEAST, A. 1980. Spatial relationships between migratory parulid warblers and their ecological counterparts in the Neotropics. Pages 109-130 in Birds in the Neotropics: ecology, behavior, distribution, and conservation (A. Keast and E. S. Morton, Editors). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
14. KINGERY, H. E. 1996. American Dipper (Cinclus mexlcanus). The birds of North America. Number 229.
15. LOCKWOOD, R., J. P. SWADDLE, AND J. M. V. RAYNER. 1998. Avian wingtip shape reconsidered: wingtip shape indices and morphological adaptations to migration. Journal of Avian Biology 29:273-292.
16. MARCHETTI, K., T. PRICE, AND A. RICHMAN. 1995. Correlates of wing morphology with foraging behaviour and migration distance in the genus Phylloscopus. Journal of Avian Biology 26:177-181.
17. MÖNKKÖNEN, M. 1995. Do migratory birds have more pointed wings?: a comparative study. Evolutionary Ecology 9:520-528.
18. MORRISSEY, C. A., L. I. BENDELL-YOUNG, AND J. E. ELLIOTT. 2004. Seasonal trends in population density, distribution, and movement of American Dippers within a watershed of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Condor 106:815-825.
19. MULVIHILL, R. S. AND C. R. CHANDLER. 1990. The relationship between wing shape and differential migration in the Dark-eyed Junco. Auk 107:490-499.
20. MULVIHILL, R. S. AND C. R. CHANDLER. 1991. A comparison of wing-shape between migratory and sedentary Dark-eyed Juncos (Junco hyemalis). Condor 93:172-175.
21. NORBERG, U. M. 1979. Morphology of the wings, legs and tail of three coniferous forest tits, the Goldcrest, and the Treecreeper in relation to locomotor patterns and feeding station selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 292:359-398.
22. NORBERG, U. M. 1990. Vertebrate flight: mechanics, physiology, morphology, ecology and evolution. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
23. NORBERG, U. M. 1995. How a long tail and changes in mass and wing shape affect the costs of flight in animals. Functional Ecology 9:48-54.
24. O'HARA, P. D., G. FERNANDEZ, B. HAASE, H. DE LA CUEVA, AND D. B. LANK. 2006. Differential migration in Western Sandpiper with respect to body size and wing length. Condor 108:225-232.
25. PÉREZ-TRIS, J. AND J. L. TELLERÍA. 2001. Age-related variation in wing shape of migratory and sedentary Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla. Journal of Avian Biology 32:207-213.
26. PYLE, P. 1997. Identification guide to North American passerines. Part 1. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California, USA.
27. RAYNER, J. M. V. 1988. Form and function in avian flight. Current Ornithology 5:1-66.
28. RAYNER, J. M. V. 1990. The mechanics of flight and bird migration performance. Pages 283-299 in Bird migration: physiology and ecophysiology (E. Gwinner, Editor). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
29. STILES, F. G., D. L. ALTSHULER, AND R. DUDLEY. 2005. Wing morphology and flight performance of some North American hummingbird species. Auk 122: 872-886.
30. SWADDLE, J. P. AND R. LOCKWOOD. 2003. Wingtip shape and flight performance in the European Starling Sturnus vulgaris. Ibis 145:457-468.
31. THOMAS, A. L. R. AND A. BALMFORD. 1995. How natural selection shapes birds' tails. American Naturalist 146:848-868.
32. VAN BALEN, J. H. 1967. The significance of variations in body weight and wing length in the Great Tit, Parus major. Ardea 55:1-59.
33. WINKLER, H. AND B. LEISLER. 1985. Morphological aspects of habitat selection in birds. Pages 435-444 in Habitat selection in birds (M. L. Cody, Editor). Academic Press, New York, USA.