I suggest reading Part 1 for background and context, if you haven’t already.
The target of this deployment (5/3-6/3/2018) was the sweet gum stub discussed here. The tree was killed when its top was blown off in spring 2015. A patch of recent scaling was found this season. I suspect the initial scaling is woodpecker work, but squirrel is also possible. The extent is modest in terms of what I hypothesize is diagnostic for Ivory-billed Woodpecker:
A particular and distinctive looking type of extensive scaling (large contiguous areas with bark removed) with associated insect tunnels on bitternut and pignut hickory boles – live trees, snags, and stubs – may be diagnostic for ivorybill. For recent work, the presence of large bark chips at the base of such trees is a related potential diagnostic.
Insect tunnels are present on this stub. Species is/are unknown, and tunnels are small compared to those found in the hickories.
In contrast to the hickory discussed in the previous post, there were no woodpecker captures over the course of this deployment and squirrels were very active on the scaled area, appearing on May 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 22. There were multiple visits on some days, and the total time spent on the scaled area was significant, upwards of an hour, with at least one visit lasting nearly 25 minutes. It was surprising that squirrel activity ended on the scaled area ended on May 22nd, and there was none over the next 11 days.
Over the course of this deployment, squirrels removed a modest quantity of bark, apparently in strips, from part of the scaled area. They did this inefficiently – with some difficulty and with the grain. The bark, already softer and weaker than hickory, has weakened in death and is at best moderately tight (relatively easy to peel off by hand). Captures from the first and last full days (note the Hooded Warbler on the branch to the left) of the deployment reveal how little bark was removed, all or almost all from the right side of the scaled area. (Click on the images to enlarge them.)
This suggests that squirrels are unlikely candidates for removing bark from hickory boles in quantity, leaving large chips behind, or initiating extensive scaling on hickories. In my view, it’s probably impossible for them to do so. The results for Pileated Woodpecker from the hickory deployment and squirrel from this one support my hypothesis that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are the source of the initial hickory scaling. But more data are needed.
Before turning to the trail cam captures and accompanying images of the scaled surfaces, I’ll provide some background information on the impetus for this post and on squirrel behavior.
An email discussion of squirrels and bark scaling was ongoing prior to my starting to review the images from this deployment. Wylie Barrow suggested an alternative explanation: that squirrels might be the source of much of the scaling (including the work on hickories) that’s taking place in the search area. He pointed out that . . . “Squirrels have removed bark from 1/4 to 1/2 of the trunk and several large branches from large oaks in my yard… and they work with great speed. They often leave large bark chips on the ground beneath the trees. Trees are living and bark is tight and fairly thick.” (W. Barrow, pers. comm.)
At first, I took some umbrage at this suggestion, thinking that I had thoroughly examined and considered what squirrels might be doing on the hardwoods in our search area and what the upper limits of their capacities might be. While my basic views on this are unchanged, and the trail cam images tend to support those views, I’m grateful to Wylie for keeping me on my toes.
It’s certainly true that in the past I have failed to consider squirrels and the role they might play in bark scaling, and this has led me down some blind alleys, as was discussed in a series of posts in early 2016. I have also been too confident in those conclusions, even though I think this material supports them. Wylie’s suggestion led me to conduct additional online research on squirrels (and he provided additional references).
I had a number of off-the-cuff theoretical and observation-based objections to Wylie’s suggestion.
One evolutionary objection is reflected in a comment I made early in our exchange: “the predator in question would have to have evolved to take advantage of this very narrow window of opportunity when the insects are near the surface . . .” I thought and still think this points toward a woodpecker as the source, and toward a Campephilus woodpecker in particular, since this foraging strategy is characteristic of the genus.
The hickory scaling is associated with sapwood dwelling Cerambycid infestation, and signs of woodpecker activity (targeted digging around exit tunnels) are present in all cases. The homepage tree was very recently scaled when found, and woodpecker evidence was present. Wylie replied that squirrels are opportunistic and might be feeding on larvae; he went on to suggest that woodpeckers following the squirrels and doing targeted digs around the exit tunnels was a possibility.
In one paper on a tropical species of squirrel, it was observed that they prefer palm nuts infested with beetle larvae. The authors also note that squirrels have a strong preference for obtaining food in the most efficient manner, and that Eastern gray and fox squirrels will choose nuts lacking an endocarp (the hard inner shell) over those that are harder to open. When confronted with an endocarp, the tropical squirrels would attack it at its weakest and thinnest point, as do Eastern gray and fox squirrels :
Two of these pores have dead ends (with 1-mm depth), and the third is the germinal pore, which is deeper but is closed by a soft and easily penetrable tissue, located on the side opposite the fruit’s internal gibbosity. The internal gibbosity is a projection of the endocarp that inhibits the squirrel’s access to the endosperm when the fruit is opened from the side containing the dead-end pores. The squirrel must determine the position of the internal gibbosity to avoid it and thus save energy and time in obtaining the endosperm. These rodents are known to identify the side without the internal gibbosity even before beginning to open the fruit, with >90 percent success (Bordignon et al. 1996, Mendes & Candido-Jr 2014). However, how the squirrel identifies the side without the internal gibbosity remains unknown. As the gibbosity is always on the side opposite the germinal pore (Bordignon et al. 1996), this pore is an important access point that the squirrel can use to open the fruit efficiently. It is believed that the squirrel manipulates the fruit by pressing the three pores with its upper incisors, using the pore without a dead end for support so that the lower incisors can open the endocarp (Bordignon et al. 1996).
Efficiency is one of the main factors that determine the foraging strategy of Sciuridae. A laboratory study conducted with the squirrels S. carolinensis and S. niger found that individuals preferred various species of nuts with low energetic value that lacked an endocarp or shell over high energy nuts with an endocarp (Smith & Follmer 1972). These results suggest that there is a high cost in energy expenditure for processing seeds with endocarps for these species.
(Alves et al. “Queen palm fruit selection and foraging techniques of squirrels in the Atlantic Forest,” Biotropica 50(2): 274–281 2018). Efficiency is an important consideration in this context, especially with respect to hickories.
The reasons squirrels strip bark are poorly understood. Pine (or red) squirrels attack a number of tree species, “[d]uring winter, spring, and early summer, bark stripping and tree girdling for consumption of phloem and cambial tissues is common (Hosley, 1928; Linzey and Linzey, 1971; Pike, 1934). Pine squirrels also eat the bark of rust galls (Salt and Roth, 1980) as well as sap from sugar maple trees (Acer saccharum) in the northeast (Hamilton, 1939; Hatt, 1929; Heinrich, 1992; Kilham, 1958; Klugh, 1927; Layne, 1954) and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) in the Great Smoky Mountains (Linzey and Linzey, 1971). Widespread, systematic sugar tapping by pine squirrels occurs in New England (Heinrich, 1992).” (Steele, M. A. 1998. “Pine squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus),” Mammalian Species 586:1–9).
Red squirrels have also been observed feeding on spruce bark beetles. (Pretzlaw, et al. “Red Squirrels (Tamiascurius hudsonicus) Feeding on Spruce Bark Beetles (Dendroctonus Ruffipennis): Energetic and Ecological Implications”, Journal of Mammalogy, 87(5):909–914, 2006). This was a novel observation at the time, and the behavior appears to have been a sudden and opportunistic response to a climate change-related bark beetle outbreak that lowered cone production. Spruce bark is soft, flaky, and fairly loosely adhering, and the bark beetles spend approximately a year, the entirety of their larval life cycle, in the phloem and hence are a readily available food source for a prolonged period. Moreover, “[f]oraging for larval spruce bark beetles by red squirrels is an obvious and stereotyped behavior; squirrels situate themselves on the trunk of the tree near ground level and peel off the bark to reveal and ingest larvae.”
There seems to be less agreement as to why Eastern gray and fox squirrels strip bark. It has been suggested that a calcium deficiency might be primary driver. C.P. Nichols et al., “A novel causal mechanism for grey squirrel bark stripping: The Calcium Hypothesis,” Forest Ecology and Management 367 (2016) 12–20. Bark stripping by Eastern gray and fox squirrels seems to be more prevalent in areas where the species have been introduced, “[b]ark-stripping behaviour, reported so often in Europe (Shuttleworth et al. 2015), is extremely rare in their native range (Kenward 1989).” (Koprowski et al. “Gray not grey: The ecology of Sciurus carolinensis in their native range in North America”, posted on Researchgate.com, 2016).
While “extremely rare” is an overstatement, it does appear that bark stripping occurs more frequently in areas where gray and fox squirrels have been introduced. It is a major problem in the U.K and Europe but mostly an annoyance in the United States. It seems reasonable to infer that it is more common in suburban and residential areas than in mature bottomland hardwood forests, though Wylie points out that the discrepancy in the reporting may be due to demographic factors and that squirrel behavior in bottomland hardwood forests has been poorly studied.
Gray and fox squirrel bark stripping seems to occur most frequently on branches, and I found no images in which insect infestation of the scaled areas was apparent. In addition, the examples of extensive squirrel scaling found online in no way resemble what we’re finding on hickories. Thus far, we have found only two references to squirrels stripping bark from trees in the genus Carya, one from pecans in Georgia and one from limbs in West Texas pecan orchards, where fox squirrels have been introduced. It’s not clear what parts of the trees were involved in Georgia and whether this report also came from an orchard, but regardless, pecan bark is flaky and not criss-crossed, making it easier to scale.
While neither Wylie nor I conducted an exhaustive literature review, we found no records of gray or fox squirrels scaling bark from any bitternut or pignut hickories (Carya cordiformis and Carya glabra), be it on limbs or boles, in several Google searches. Given the extensive range of these species – most of the Eastern United States and into Canada – and the association between squirrels and oak-hickory habitats, if squirrel scaling of hickories occurred with any regularity within the natural ranges, one would expect references to be abundant in both the popular and scientific literature.
As mentioned in the previous post and implied above, I suspect that the criss-cross pattern that characterizes pignut and bitternut hickory bark is one factor that deters squirrels from removing it and may prevent them from removing it in large pieces. This relates more generally to the question of efficiency. The characteristics of hickory bark make it extremely difficult for any creature to remove. In addition to the pattern of the grain, it is literally the hardest, strongest, thickest bark in the forest. On mature boles it can be 3/4″ thick (compared to around 1/16″ for a hickory endocarp). It is tight (though less so when sap is flowing), and it retains these characteristics long after death. Bitternut hickory bark does not flake, and pignut does so infrequently and superficially.
Thus, both species are exceedingly poor candidates for stripping by squirrels, especially when sweet gums and an array of other much easier targets are available. In contrast to the hickories, the target tree in this deployment was a sweet gum, three years dead, with thinner, considerably softer, loosening bark
As I see it, all of this militates against squirrels as the original source of the hickory scaling. While this is inferential and we have yet to document whatever initiates the scaling, the data obtained thus far support the inference. Only recently have we been able to deploy enough trail cameras for a meaningful and sustained effort. Nevertheless, we have had many hours of captures since 2009, in both search areas. To my knowledge, the only prior unambiguous capture of squirrel scaling is the one from 2015; it involved a downed, immature sweet gum with thin bark, which was easy for squirrels to scale. A second clip may show a squirrel removing a very modest quantity of thin bark from a sweet gum limb that was already being scaled by Pileated Woodpeckers (second video clip at end of post), and Wylie observed a squirrel scaling a sweet gum branch (on a roadside just outside the main search area) in December 2015.
I no longer think scaling on sweet gum limbs (so heavily emphasized in Tanner) is a strong indicator of ivorybill presence, at least not on its own, although what we’ve found in the search area seems to be unusual. Abundance, lack of correlation with low mast years, bark chips, absence of incisor marks, and indications of woodpecker activity, especially targeted digging, may all be suggestive. Sweet gums, which are very attractive to beavers, are likely one of the most desirable targets for squirrels as well, for reasons of flavor and efficiency.
But we have documented no squirrel scaling on hickories, live or dead, on limbs or on boles, partially scaled or with bark intact.
I think the results from this deployment shed considerable light on the issue of squirrels and bark scaling, especially what they do (or can do?) on a mature bole with thick bark. So let’s go to the videotape, as a New York sportscaster used to yell.
Squirrels on a Sweet Gum Bole
As with the previous post, our Plotwatcher Pro trail cam is programmed to capture one image every twenty seconds, and these time-lapse sequences have been converted into QuickTime movie format. If you want to get a clearer sense of how the squirrels are behaving, you can step through the films frame-by-frame. If you elect to watch just one of the clips, the one from May 8 that starts at Frame 1500 (the squirrel spent 24 minutes on the scaled surface) or the one from May 12 that starts at Frame 1574 might be your best bets. Discussion and close-ups of the scaled surface follows the bonus imagery.
While we had no woodpecker detections on the stub and bird captures were few, we did catch some hogs (piglets?) and a beaver. Also captured but not shown were a Northern Cardinal and an Eastern Phoebe.
Discussion and Details
As best I can tell, the only expansion of the scaled area involved a narrow strip at the upper right, probably no more than 12″ x 2″, and a little widening at the very top, although this was an area where the squirrels spent a considerable amount of time.
Let’s look at some details from that scaled area.
While there appears to have been some woodpecker excavation at the middle left of the larger scaled patch, there’s no readily apparent sign that woodpeckers have been after the insects that are feeding in the sapwood. Nor is there any strong indication that squirrels were feeding on insects over the course of this deployment, though it’s possible they took advantage of snails and beetles, like the ones in the photo, or slugs, which I also saw on the scaled patch.
The edges of the bark shown in the close-ups, especially the one at the top, show signs of having been gnawed, although this is subtle, and sometimes impractical as an identifier, since such close examination is not always possible in the field. I presume that the abundant squiggly abrasions to the surface of the underlying wood are incisor marks, something we have not observed with other scaling we’ve found.
With regard to what was left behind, the first three photos show what I found at the base of the snag when I discovered the scaling on May 1, 2018.
The large, though narrow, strip of bark was the biggest one I found at the base and is one of the main reasons I suspect that woodpeckers initiated the scaling with squirrels following, although I would not rule squirrel out completely. In any event, the bark was so soft and weak that it broke in my hand when I picked it up on June 11. The other thin strips are more consistent with what I’d expect for squirrel, and the tiny orange pieces of cambium are a giveaway.
The situation had changed little during this most recent trip. The picture with my boot shows the larger pieces of bark I found at the base, including the one shown above after it broke. They may be consistent with woodpecker (possibly including Red-bellied or Hairy), but I suspect that both squirrels and woodpeckers were involved in the bark removal.
Edited to add: For any extensive squirrel work on mature boles, especially hickories, I would expect to find many small pieces of bark on the ground, similar to those shown above, as in this dramatic example.
My main objective in targeting this stub was to observe it over time, more for what might happen as the decay advanced and whether it might become a target for ivorybills; it’s the type of “stump” that Pearson described as being favored by ivorybills after his visit to the Singer Tract in 1932, though Pearson’s “stump” (scroll down in the linked article) was much longer dead. The bark scaling, while interesting, was in the “could have been anything” category. Getting this data on squirrels was a pleasant surprise, one that I should have anticipated based on the small bits of cambium on the ground. My bias came into play, as I ascribed them to a smaller woodpecker. Between Wylie and the trail cam results, I’ve learned a lesson. In terms of the bigger picture, however, the results so far suggest that squirrels are not the source of the putative Ivory-billed Woodpecker scaling on hickories.
Summary/Bottom Line Up Front
5 of our 8 trail camera deployments (a 9th is planned) are targeting unscaled hickories, stubs and live trees that show signs of damage or decline. The main goal is to capture images of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers by identifying potential foraging trees and targeting them in advance of their being scaled (a long shot but the best strategy I can think of). A secondary purpose, especially with targets that already show some scaling, is to test my feeding sign hypothesis by documenting work by Pileated Woodpeckers and Eastern gray or fox squirrels (a much easier task). These are the only other local species that have the capacity to remove large quantities of tight bark from the boles of mature living and recently dead trees, though I suspect this capacity is limited. Results from two deployments, one on a still living but compromised and extensively scaled hickory (4/29-6/6/2018) and the other on a sweet gum stub (5/3-6/4/2018), suggest to me that neither Pileated Woodpeckers nor squirrels are the source of the initial, extensive hickory scaling.
Part 1 will address Pileated Woodpecker activity on the hickory, followed by a brief discussion of my visit to the search area from June 6-11. Part 2, which should be up within a week or so, will focus on squirrels, especially their activity on the sweet gum stub, which I think is analogous to the Pileated Woodpecker activity on the hickory. These are preliminary findings that may be contradicted by data obtained in future, but thus far they support the suggestion that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are the source of the initial scaling.
Our PlotWatcher Pro trail cameras are dedicated time-lapse (as opposed to motion- activated) units. We set them to capture images at 20 second intervals, approximately between sunrise and sunset. The proprietary software makes it possible to create QuickTime movie versions of the time-lapse stills. The QuickTime versions are worth watching and are illustrative of behavior, but it’s important to remember that they are compilations of still images, not actual videos. Thus, it’s also worth stepping through them frame by frame. This will be an image heavy post but with a lot of analysis. I hope you’ll stay with it.
I am not planning to do posts on every review of every trail cam deployment but will post results that I think are a relevant or interesting to readers – PIWOs and squirrels spending time on scaled areas or removing bark, most or all woodpecker hits, mammals that are infrequently seen, identifiable birds, but not squirrels running up and down tree trunks.
Before turning to a discussion of the trail cam imagery, I’ll take this opportunity to restate and elaborate on my hypothesis. The imagery and discussion will be familiar to some readers, but I hope the new data will shed additional light, even for those who know the material.
Initially, I hypothesized that certain types of bark scaling might be diagnostic for ivorybill. Bear in mind, my focus has been on identifying a diagnostic, not covering the full range of what Ivory-billed Woodpeckers might do, so my criteria, especially this specific restatement thereof, may be overly narrow. Over time, and based on trail cam captures of Pileated Woodpeckers and a squirrel doing some scaling that seemed to match Tanner’s descriptions, I have refined and limited the hypothesis as follows:
A particular and distinctive looking type of extensive scaling (large contiguous areas with bark removed) with associated insect tunnels on bitternut and pignut hickory boles – live trees, snags, and stubs – may be diagnostic for ivorybill. For recent work, the presence of large bark chips at the base of such trees is a related potential diagnostic.
The tree on the home page (shown below) is one example. Numerous insect tunnels, some with signs of having been expanded by woodpeckers, must be visible. The appearance of the scaled areas is such that I can recognize older work even in the absence of chips. Because standing hickories (in drier areas at least) are slow to decay and the bark can remain tight for years, older examples persist, and I’ve found many of those over the years.
The hypothesis is founded on Tanner’s descriptions of scaling (although bitternut and pignut hickories were absent from the Singer Tract) and on the anatomical characteristics of Campephilus woodpeckers versus those of Dryocopus or Melanerpes, which appear to lack the physical capacity to do this type of work or do it extensively. The characteristics of hickory bark – chemical composition, strength, tightness, and thickness – are also central. I think the same limitation applies to squirrels, at least on hickories. This is not to exclude squirrels and PIWOs from coming along after the initial scaling and expanding it.
It recently struck me that grain may play a major role in limiting Pileated Woodpeckers and squirrels from scaling on hickories. Both species seem to follow the grain when stripping bark. Bitternut and pignut hickory bark differs from that of many bottomland hardwoods in having criss-crossed grain, making it considerably harder to remove, except in narrow strips like these, presumably removed from the target tree by a PIWO last year.
Based on the recent observations, PIWOs are more likely to dig through hickory bark to reach the sapwood than they are to scale it. I suspect it’s the case with the presumed 2015 PIWO “scaling” on hickory shown below, which is the only example of that type of work I’ve found. The differences may appear subtle in the photo, but they are more pronounced in situ; the work is patchy and discontinuous, and there are few or no exit tunnels. The chips at the base of this tree were small and included sapwood, indicating that this was actually shallow excavation with associated bark removal, something that is often and easily confused with true scaling.
Since 2013, we have found approximately 20 hickories that appear to have been recently or freshly scaled. Below are additional examples, plus some that were presumably several years old when photographed. In the case of the tree on the home page, the scaling was very fresh when found. I have not found any recent looking work of this type since March of 2015, though Phil found some last year that were probably scaled during 2016; one of these is the target tree in the sequences shown below. Steve Pagans has found several examples, but I’m not sure of any recent ones. Note the expansion of the exit tunnels, which makes it evident that woodpeckers have been active on the scaled surfaces.
A Cerambycid infesting the trees has been identified as Parandra or Hesperandra polita, a medium-sized, bole dwelling species with a 3-5 year life cycle.
H. polita remains, apparently of 2 adults, were found in one of the ivorybill stomachs examined by Cottam; it was collected in West Carroll Parish, August 19, 1903 and is referenced by Tanner. The adults of this species remain under the bark for some time after metamorphosis.
There may be additional subtle features, including chip characteristics and general appearance, that are relevant to other tree species and may be indicative if not diagnostic. A very nearly dead sweetgum, which had an intriguing cavity, from the old search area, is one example.
Trail Cam Captures – Hickory – April 29 -June 6, 2018
Over the course of this deployment, Pileated Woodpeckers were photographed on the target tree on 10 of 36 days, sometimes briefly and sometimes for periods of over 20 minutes. On some days in the latter part of the deployment, intervening foliage partially or fully blocked the lens, so it is possible there were additional visits. The camera is trained on the base of the scaled area, which extends to the broken top of the bole, and some of the sequences make it clear that pileateds are visiting the upper part of the scaled area as well. Phil Vanbergen found this tree last season; it is still living, although the sapwood is already somewhat punkier than what I’ve found on many longer dead hickories.
The first important point is that very little bark was removed over the course of this deployment, despite considerable time spent by Pileated Woodpeckers on the scaled area. The first two images are from the first and last days of the deployment for purposes of comparison. The new work is so minimal that it is only noticeable in the field upon close examination of the edges.
Pileated Woodpeckers were photographed on May 1, May 3, May 8, May 12, May 21, May 25, May 28, May 30, June 1, and June 4. A Hairy Woodpecker was captured on April 30 and on May 12. There were no squirrel captures on the scaled area. Individual frames and time-lapse films (when birds were present for more than a couple of captures) of the Pileated sequences follow. If you choose to watch/step through just one clip, I suggest the one from May 28, in which two birds are present, but viewing all of them will provide a better sense of what took place.
In addition to removing only a modest quantity of bark along the already scaled edge, despite being present on the scaled surface for over an hour altogether, it appears that the Pileateds are not actually stripping the bark but instead are excavating through it. This is also suggested by the quality of the bark chips on the ground. (The caption predates this imagery.)
The same appears to be the case for the presumed Pileated “scaling” on hickory in the preceding section. It’s unclear what the woodpeckers were seeking in terms of food, since there is no evidence of current or recent Cerambycid tunnels. In any event, the sequences give evidence of what Pileated Woodpeckers do on hickories, and just how inefficient they are at removing bark.
In the images we captured last year from a nearby deployment (on another scaled tree Phil found, approximately 100 yards away), the Pileated appeared to be scaling bark rather than digging through it, and this too was a very inefficient process. It involved removing long narrow strips, distinctly different from the chunks of bark shown above. In a sequence Frank and I captured on the homepage tree back in 2013, a Pileated appeared on that very recently scaled tree but removed no bark at all; a Hairy Woodpecker also appeared and removed a very small piece. (Scroll down to the bottom of that post for the relevant images.)
The trail cam captures validate my prediction that the source of this most recent work is Pileated Woodpecker.
Thus, we have documented multiple instances of Pileated Woodpeckers foraging on trees suspected to have been initially scaled by ivorybills. None of the imagery thus far shows pileateds removing bark rapidly, efficiently, or extensively. Such bark as they do remove is from areas that are already compromised, although I have found a single example of hickory bark presumably removed solely by a Pileated Woodpecker; it differs markedly from what I’ve hypothesized is Ivory-billed Woodpecker work. While it is difficult to prove a negative, the data gathered thus far suggests that Pileated Woodpeckers do not or cannot extensively scale tight bark from hickories. I suspect they lack the ability to do so.
Other Interesting Trail Cam Images
While these trail cams have limited usefulness, except at close range, all of our cameras are close to their main targets. They are positioned close enough for me to recognize lizards and even insects on the trunk but not identify species. Identification problems can exist for small birds too. I suspect the bird in the image below is a Brown Creeper, though I’m prepared to be corrected as it is so poorly resolved. If it is a Brown Creeper, it would be the latest record for the species in Louisiana.
And this series shows what appears to be a bobcat, at the lower right.
Some Brief Comments on the Trip
Nothing strongly suggestive of Ivory-billed Woodpecker was seen or heard – no ambient sounds or responses to ADKs. Tommy Michot joined me on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday morning. We deployed the 8th trail cam, aiming it at the bole of a sweet gum snag that has a scaled area; I suspect Pileated Woodpecker was the source, and squirrel is also possible, but the decay state is within the range Tanner associated with ivorybill, so this will be a long-term deployment.
Low water made it possible for us to explore some previously unvisited areas. Tommy did several stakeouts where Matt made the recordings this year and where I heard wingbeats and had a possible sighting. On Sunday evening, he observed a Pileated near the sycamore roost where I photographed one in April, and we watched it flying away from the roost on Monday morning. No wingbeats were audible in either encounter, as would be expected for Pileated Woodpecker as opposed to ivorybill.
Temperatures reached the 90s by noon every day, depressing avian activity and making fieldwork unpleasant. There were heavy rains on the afternoon of Sunday, June 10, so the 11th was particularly challenging in terms of heat, humidity, and suddenly high water levels. I had a close encounter with a cottonmouth that dropped from a tree limb within a foot of my head, landing in a slough that had been dry the day before.
One personal highlight was the abundance of chanterelles, especially after Sunday’s rain. I came home with several pounds, though transporting them was a challenge, and I couldn’t keep them clean. Despite a little grit, they’re delicious.
Here are some additional photos. There’s one new example of extensive bark scaling from the upland area shown in detail; it is interesting, but I would not consider it highly suggestive. There was also some recent scaling on a sweet gum that may be more suggestive. I was using a rented 4/3rds camera and a lens with an effective 200-800 mm reach. I had trouble adjusting to the electronic viewfinder, but it was good to get a closer look at one of the cavities found this season. I also found feathers from a Pileated Woodpecker that was presumably recently taken by a raptor; this was in an upland area within 50 yards of where I parked. This is the first time in all my years in the field the that I’ve found PIWO remains.
Stay tuned for Part 2. Like this one, it will initially be password protected so that colleagues can review it before publication.
I’d like to address an interesting post from “Sidewinder” on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Researchers’ Forum on the rapid evolution question. His key points:
“Cyberthrush and others have suggested that natural selection has favored high levels of wariness and human avoidance in the IBWO. This position assumes that the change has a genetic rather than experiential (learned) basis. I have questioned this possibility based on the simple fact that behavior is usually one of the fastest traits to evolve. I have no problem with intense human predation on the IBWO resulting in increased vigilance among the surviving remnant, but if the IBWO persists, human predation has been absent now for dozens of generations. While many studies demonstrate that predation pressure can select for increased wariness in animals, what about the inverse? Can multiple generations of relaxed selection over a relatively short term (<100 years) result in relaxed vigilance?”
He concludes that the evidence is mixed and that the, “ . . . findings do not really support or refute Cyberthrush’s hypothesis. Clearly, we need more study–particularly of birds–to learn whether avoidance of humans might persist for many generations after selective pressure (predation) no longer exists to maintain vigilance. In the meanwhile, let’s acknowledge the highly tentative nature of this hypothesis.”
I hadn’t considered relaxed vigilance as a possibility, and it’s an interesting idea. With regard to the general evolved vigilance hypothesis, it’s certainly possible; I just don’t see it as being necessary to explain the difficulty of detection. I think normal wariness, difficult habitat, and extremely low densities suffice.
The hypothesis that the IBWO would dramatically change its foraging behavior, which is to a large degree morphologically determined, is considerably more extreme than the idea that the species became more wary. I have taken issue with the notion (or simplistic reading of Tanner), that the species is (or was) an extreme specialist, but its anatomy and historic range point to some degree of specialization – considerably more than exists in the PIWO.
I suspect that Tanner significantly overstated matters when writing about the canopy and high branch work, but even Tanner made it clear that IBWOs foraged at all levels. Some of the known prey species primarily feed and develop in the boles and in some cases quite near the ground (H. polita, for example). I suspect the high branch foraging Tanner observed was for larvae that he dismissed as being unsuitable because they feed on longer dead wood – Tenebrionidae in particular, although there’s no evidence from stomach contents to support this idea. The larvae we found under bark of this downed sweet gum have been id’d as belonging to that genus, and the tree was not very long dead.
One of the Singer Tract (in a pin oak stub, Mack’s Bayou) was in a clearing.
John Dennis’s photos of Cuban IBWOs at a nest also appear to be from a very open area (and even if the Cuban IBWO is a different species, it’s a very close relative, and the hunting pressure there was almost certainly equal, if not more intense.) These seem odd nest locations for a bird that has rapidly evolved to hide in the canopy.
It’s also pretty clear to me that the John’s Bayou birds learned to tolerate human presence, while other IBWOs in the Singer Tract did not. As I’ve pointed out in several posts, Tanner and Kuhn (to a lesser extent) had a difficult time finding ivorybills in other parts of the Tract. This also suggests a behavioral rather than a genetic basis for the wariness or at the very least a substantial behavioral component.