• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Foreword
 Acknowledgement
 Main
 Copyright






Title: Relocation as a management technique for the threatened Florida scrub jay
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000518/00001
 Material Information
Title: Relocation as a management technique for the threatened Florida scrub jay
Physical Description: v, 48 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Mumme, Ronald L., 1954-
Below, Theodore H.
Florida -- Nongame Wildlife Program
Publisher: Nongame Wildlife Program, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Place of Publication: Tallahassee, Fla
Publication Date: December, 1995
 Subjects
Subject: Scrub jay -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Birds, Protection of -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Wildlife relocation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Ronald L. Mumme, Theodore H. Below.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 24-26).
General Note: "Submitted as project report for Nongame Wildlife Program project NG-88-043."
General Note: "December 1995".
General Note: "Submitted as final report number NG88-043, 1 December 1990"
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00000518
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA0753
notis - AKS5859
alephbibnum - 002087346
oclc - 34712289

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Title Page
        Page ii
    Abstract
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Foreword
        Page ix
        Page x
    Acknowledgement
        Page xi
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Copyright
        Page 49
Full Text






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




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs