Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Mississippi Kite”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2019

Nest-defense behavior of Mississippi Kites in urban and exurban areas

Mississippi kites ( Ictinia mississippiensis ) have become an abundant raptor in many urban and exurban areas throughout the Southern Great Plains of the United States. Unfortunately, human–wildlife conflicts have resulted from this juxtaposition of suitable breeding areas for kites and areas that humans frequent, with some kites responding aggressively to humans near nests. To date, there are no data describing the prevalence of aggressive nest defense in the species, making informed management of human and kite conflicts difficult. We assessed and compared the prevalence of aggressive nest-defense by Mississippi kites in an urban area and an exurban area by simulating nest disturbance with a trial pedestrian. Additionally, we examine the relationships between physical features of the nest tree where aggressive behaviors were and were not recorded. Individual kites breeding in the exurban area responded to the trial pedestrian by taking flight from the nesting area, circling overhead, swooping at the pedestrian, or remaining on the nest. In the urban area, kites displayed a more limited suit of responses and either remained on the nest or swooped at the pedestrian. Additionally, kites breeding in the exurban area appeared to respond to experimental disturbance at a greater distance than did urban breeding kites, but not with more attacks on pedestrians. Physical characteristics of the nest tree did not explain aggressive behaviors, thereby suggesting that aggression in Mississippi kites is caused by factors other than nesting location features.

Texas↗
USGS2017

Environmental influences on the nesting phenology and productivity of Mississippi Kites (Ictinia mississippiensis)

Identifying sources of annual variation in the reproductive success of a species may provide valuable insights into how the species may be affected by future environmental or climatic conditions. We examined annual variation in the nesting phenology, productivity, and apparent nest success of Mississippi Kites (Ictinia mississippiensis), a species common in urban areas in the southern Great Plains, from May through August. We monitored 498 Mississippi Kite nesting attempts in Lubbock, Texas, USA, between 2004 and 2015, from which we modeled daily survival rate as a function of local weather conditions, drought severity, and the state of the El Niño Southern Oscillation. We observed significant annual variation in median incubation initiation date (range = May 20 to June 5), the probability of nest success (range = 0.31–0.90), and productivity (range = 0.25–1.00 fledglings per nest). Our models of daily survival rate suggested that higher daily temperatures, severe storm events, extreme drought conditions, and La Niña events negatively influenced nest survival. These results suggest that increasing storm frequency and higher temperatures associated with climate change are likely to decrease the nesting success of Mississippi Kites in the southern Great Plains.

Texas↗
USGS2022

Mississippi Kite nest defense: Is there an influence of nest phenology or human activity?

Birds that have adapted to urban landscapes often display changes in their behavioral responses to human disturbance. This habituation may result in a decreased wariness and secrecy near their nest and an increased inclination to engage in aggressive nest defenses. Aggressive defense of nests has been noted among Mississippi Kites ( Ictinia mississippiensis ), a raptor that has become a common and abundant urban nesting species across the Southern Great Plains. Defensive behaviors include swoops at, and occasional physical contact with, humans who venture close to nests. Previous research found aggressive responses by kites in 16–20% of experimental passes under nests. However, the type of human pedestrian activity around nests may influence the occurrence of aggressive responses. We assessed adult Mississippi Kite responses to experimental nest area intrusions during each week of the first four weeks of nestling development to explore increases or attenuation of aggressive behaviors. We also assessed responses in context of three types of pedestrian passes to nests. We conducted 84 trials consisting of 252 passes and found 90% elicited no response from the attending kite, 8% elicited a flight response, and 2% elicited an attack. There was no difference in response to pass type, but we found evidence that responsiveness may be associated with nestling age. Our results suggest aggression by Mississippi Kites is uncommon, but infrequent events that gain local attention may increase the perceived risk from the species due to the availability heuristic. Additionally, individual nesting pairs may tend toward aggression and become persistent nuisance birds that gain attention but are not representative of the majority of nesting pairs.

Journal of Raptor Research↗
USGS2019

Comparative breeding ecology of Mississippi Kites in urban and exurban areas of West Texas

Birds of prey are becoming increasingly common occupants of urbanized settings, but the comparative benefits or detriments they experience in urban environs compared to exurban areas are poorly understood. We examined the reproductive success and phenology of Mississippi Kites ( Ictinia mississippiensis ) nesting concurrently in urban and exurban areas in west Texas during the 2010–2012 and 2014 breeding seasons. Our objective was to better understand the reproductive advantages or disadvantages that kites may experience by nesting in urban areas rather than exurban areas. We calculated annual productivity, estimated daily survival rates of nests, and estimated hatch dates. Kites produced 0.52 fledglings per urban nesting attempt and 0.33 fledglings per exurban nesting attempt. We found no difference in the mean number of young that fledged from successful urban (1.06) and exurban (1.07) nests, but kites in urban areas had greater nesting success within years than those in exurban areas. Both heat and drought were associated with low productivity and success in both areas, but the urban landscape appears to have provided some buffer to their effects. These factors may have had direct (e.g., exposure) or indirect (e.g., negative influences on prey availability) influences on reproductive success. Counter to previous studies of urban raptors, we found that exurban kites nested significantly earlier than urban kites. This may be linked to differences in environmental conditions and prey availability between the areas. Our results suggest that urban areas provide a reproductive advantage for Mississippi Kites in terms of facilitating an overall higher nesting success, but this does not translate into increased productivity for successful pairs. Further, our data suggest that, although urban areas may buffer species from drought or heat, that buffer can be breached during severe conditions.

Texas↗
USGS1985

Influence of various land uses on windbreak selection by nesting Mississippi kites

Contemporary land-use practices have dramatically altered breeding habitats of birds of prey (Cramp, pp. 9-11 in World Conf. Birds of Prey, R. D. Chancellor, ed., ICPB, London, England, 1977). Some land uses appear to influence strongly both the nesting activity (White, Trans. North Am. Wild. Nat. Resour. Conf. 39:301-312, 1974) and abundance (Olendorff and Stoddart, pp. 44-48 in Management of Raptors, F. N. Jamerstrom, B. E. Harrel, and R. R. Olendorff, eds., Proc. Conf. Raptor Conserv. Tech., Raptor Rep. 2, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1974) of raptors. The Mississippi Kite ( Ictinia mississippiensis ) is a locally common raptor of the south-central plains of North America. In the prairie grasslands of western Oklahoma and south-western Kansas, kites commonly nest in tree plantings designed as windbreaks, irrespective of windbreak width, age, or tree species compositions (Parker, Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1974; Love and Knopf, Proc. Ann. Meet. For. Comm. Great Plains Agric. Counc. 30:69-77, 1978). Much of the potential nesting habitat within this region, however, is not used by kits (Parker and Ogden, Am. Birds 33:119-129, 1979). In this paper, we assess the potential influence of various land-use practices on windbreak selection by nesting Mississippi Kites.

The Wilson Bulletin↗
USGS2021

Forest area to support landbird population goals for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Historically, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) (Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Region #26) was predominantly bottomland hardwood forest, but natural vegetation has been cleared from about 80 percent of this ecoregion and converted primarily to agriculture. Because most bird species that are of conservation concern in this region are dependent on forested wetlands, bottomland hardwood forest is the habitat of greatest conservation concern in the MAV. Past conservation planning for forest-dwelling birds in this region has focused on habitat objectives with presumptions regarding bird population goals being met through habitat provision. To better define population objectives, we estimated current populations of silvicolous birds on the basis of detections during 10 years of North American Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS). For each species, we used their estimated population and historical (1966–2015) change in their relative abundance, as assessed from BBS data, to establish regional population goals. We used the variance associated with historical BBS trends to estimate the minimum forest area required to sustain greater than or equal to (≥) 25 breeding pairs, which we combined with predicted probability of occupancy to identify sustainable forested habitat. For 54 species, we used published empirical density estimates, as affected by forest management, to estimate the proportion of the population objective that could be provisioned within sustainable forest patches. The area of presumed population-sustaining habitat, under existing forest management, was sufficient to support the species’ population objective for 23 species. We estimated that the target populations of seven additional species (Black-and-white Warbler, Brown Thrasher, Cerulean Warbler, Eastern Towhee, Indigo Bunting, Wood Thrush, and Yellow-breasted Chat) could be supported by current forest area through widespread changes in forest management. Target populations of seven other species (American Robin, Barred Owl, Boat-tailed Grackle, Chipping Sparrow, Eastern Phoebe, Mississippi Kite, and Red-headed Woodpecker) were accommodated within the MAV when populations in both forest and nonforest habitats are considered. For the remaining 20 species, we estimated the population increase needed to achieve their population goals. For these species, we estimated the additional area of forest restoration required to achieve their population goal within sustainable forest patches or, alternatively, the additional area of occupied habitat required to support their population goal within both forest and nonforest habitat. An additional 700,000 hectares of sustainable forest habitat may be enough to attain the forest-dependent population goals for most bird species within the MAV.

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missou↗
USGS1994

Avian assemblages on altered grasslands

Grasslands comprise 17% of the North American landscape but provide primary habitat for only 5% of native bird species. On the Great Plains, grasslands include an eastern component of tall grasses and a western component of short grasses, both of which have been regionally altered by removing native grazers, plowing sod, draining wetlands, and encouraging woody vegetation. As a group, populations of endemic bird species of the grasslands have declined more than others (including neotropical migrants) in the last quarter century. Individually, populations of the Upland Sandpiper and McCown’s Longspur have increased; the wetlands-associated Marbled Godwit and Wilson’s Phalarope appear stable; breeding ranges are shifting for the Ferruginous Hawk, Mississippi Kite, Short-eared Owl, Upland Sandpiper, Horned Lark, Vesper, Savannah, and Henslow’s sparrows, and Western Meadowlark; breeding habitats are disappearing locally for Franklin’s Gull, Dickcissel, Henslow’s and Grasshopper sparrows. Lark Bunting, and Eastern Meadowlark; and populations are declining throughout the breeding ranges for Mountain Plover, and Cassin’s and Clay-colored sparrows. Declines of these latter three species, and also the Franklin’s Gull, presumably are due to ecological phenomena on their respective wintering areas. Unlike forest species that winter in the neotropics, most birds that breed in the North American grasslands also winter on the continent and problems driving declines in grassland species are associated almost entirely with North American processes. Contemporary programs and initiatives hold promise for the conservation of breeding habitats for these birds. Ecological ignorance of wintering habits and habitats clouds the future of the endemic birds of grasslands, especially those currently experiencing widespread declines across breeding locales.

Studies in Avian Biology↗
USGS2017

North American Breeding Bird Survey in Mississippi

Does it seem like you are hearing fewer Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) calls in recent years than you remember when you were younger? Conversely, have you also noticed hearing more “cooing” of Eurasian Collared-Doves (Streptopelia decaocto)? Do such experiences reflect changes in bird populations or are they false impressions? Well, fortunately for us, we have one of the most powerful wildlife data sets freely available, only a few mouse clicks away, for divining these answers. For most of our songbirds, their population trends are estimated from data gathered during the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS).

Mississippi↗
USGS2013

Mobile Bay

Mobile Bay is the largest bay found in Alabama’s coastal area (Handley et al., 2007). It was named an Estuary of National Significance in 1995 under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Estuary Program (NEP), and its Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan was completed in 2002. Mobile Bay is 1,070 km 2 (413 miles 2 ) in area and 51 km (32 miles) long, making it the sixth largest estuary in the continental United States (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008). Its ecosystem provides habitat for more than 300 species of birds, 310 species of fish, 68 species of reptiles, 57 species of mammals, 40 species of amphibians, and 15 species of shrimp (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). Mobile Bay lies between the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyways (Mobile Bay NEP, 2003). Commercial and residential development and industrial use is heavy in the Mobile Bay area. Although local growth and industrial markets support the Mobile Bay area economy, the resulting environmental damage to the very ecosystem upon which they depend remains a threat to the environment, economy, and population. The Mobile Bay ecosystem boasts high biological diversity and productivity and supports many freshwater and saltwater species of recreational and commercial importance. The great diversity of Mobile Bay reflects the diversity of Alabama, which is home to the largest number of different plant and animal species of all states east of the Mississippi River (Stein, 2002), and is bolstered by the unique climate and geographic conditions surrounding the bay. Freshwater inflow from the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta, ranging from 60,000 to 3,700,000 gallons per second (Wallace, 1996), mixes with saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico, which enters Mobile Bay via wind and tides (Burgan and Engle, 2006). Because of the unique conditions surrounding Mobile Bay, including shallow waters, a dynamic climate, and artificial hydrologic modifications—such as the construction of the Mobile Bay Causeway in the 1920s, which serves as an unintentional barrier between Delta waters north of the Causeway and saline waters south of the Causeway, the salinity of Mobile Bay is highly variable. Mobile Bay receives an average of 165 cm (65 inches) of rain per year from tropical storms, summer thunderstorms, and winter cold fronts (Stout et al., 1998). The climate and geography that have made Mobile Bay so rich in resources have also contributed to the threats surrounding its ecosystem. The extensive amount of rain in Mobile Bay creates large amounts of runoff, polluting the waters with fertilizers, chemicals, sediment, oil, trash, and sewage (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). Tourism, ecotourism, recreational and commercial fishing, recreational boating, shipping, and chemical, pulp, and paper production are significant industries in Mobile Bay and the surrounding areas. Despite the approximate \$3 billion and 55,000 jobs these industries bring into the community (Alabama Tourism Department, 2010), the growth, development, and environmental stress they create are major threats to the Mobile Bay ecosystem. Among the nation’s states, Alabama ranks fifth in number of different species (144 endemic species), second in number of extinctions that have already occurred (90 extinct species) and fourth in number of species at risk for extinction (14.8% at risk out of 4,533 total species; Stein, 2002). Twenty-one of these threatened and endangered species are found in Mobile Bay, whose brackish waters provide a nursery area for many species of vertebrates and invertebrates. Some of these species include the Alabama sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, heavy pigtoe mussel, inflated heel-splitter mussel, West Indian manatee, Alabama beach mouse, Perdido beach mouse, Alabama red-bellied turtle, gopher tortoise, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, eastern indigo snake, flatwoods salamander, piping plover, red-cockaded woodpecker, and wood stork. Habitat loss underlies the decline of some bird species in Mobile Bay, and large mammals such as the red wolf, Florida panther, and Florida black bear are no longer found in the area. However, some rare species, such as the swallow-tailed kite, sandhill crane, and gopher tortoise can still be found (Duke and Kruczynski, 1992). The value of wetlands in Mobile Bay and the rest of the Gulf of Mexico is still being investigated. Although various monetary valuations of wetlands exist, critics remark that undervaluation of wetlands is inevitable (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008) and that estimates often do not place appropriate value on ecological services (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Additionally, many estimates account only for anthropogenic values. One estimate concludes that one acre of wetlands performs \$3,000 worth of water purification each year (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). With more than 76,890 hectares (190,000 acres) of wetlands in the Mobile Bay area, that equates to a value exceeding one-half billion dollars every year. Tourism, fishing, boating, production, and shipping are significant industries in the Mobile Bay area. More than 90% of fish landed in recreational and commercial fishing in the bay depend on bay habitat, including wetlands, for life requirements (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). The Port of Mobile is Alabama’s only ocean-ship port (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008). Baldwin County, on the eastern side of the bay, experienced a population increase of 75% from 1990 to 2007, with an 89% increase in housing units (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008). Development and industry support the Mobile Bay economy, but they depend on the continued health, sustainability, and production of the water and living resources of the Mobile Bay ecosystem. Wetland loss, along with other forms of environmental degradation, remains a threat to the Mobile Bay ecosystem and Mobile Bay’s socioeconomic foundation.

Alabama↗