SEASONAL, HABITAT AND SEX-SPECIFIC PATTERNS OF FOOD UTILIZATION BY RED-WINGED BLACKBIRDS (Agelaius phoeniceous) IN EASTERN ONTARIO AND THEIR ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE

Crop depredation by red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) causes serious economic losses to agricultural crops each year in both Canada and the United States. The concentration of vulnerable, monocultural crops, particularly corn, during periods when large flocks of blackbirds congregate in roosting areas prior to migration has invariably led to heavy feeding pressure (Stone et al., 1972; Wiens and Dyer, 1975; Tyler et al., 1978). Efforts to reduce damage levels by mechanical and chemical dispersal agents have been largely unsuccessful, at least in terms of a long-term solution to the problem. Recently, the lethal control of blackbird populations using surfactants has been proposed. However, the potential repercussions of the removal of substantial numbers of birds from northern breeding areas are virtually unknown (Robertson et al., 1978). Much of the research dealing with the feeding ecology of red-winged blackbirds has been limited to fall and winter periods when large aggregations of birds are actively involved in crop depredation (Goddad, 1969; Williams, 1976; Dolbeer et al., 1978) or pose a potential health hazard (Monroe and Cronholm, 1976). However, what is not known is the degree to which the removal of deleterious weed seed and insect pests cited in several studies (Bird and Smith, 1964; Mott et al., 1972; Robertson et al., 1978) might be of potential value to agriculture. The issue of whether the benefits derived from redwing foraging compensate for the negative aspects associated with crop depredation and health hazards remains largely unresolved. The present study attempted to evaluate the pest status of this species using diet information derived from food habits analysis conducted during the residency of red- winged blackbirds in a northern breeding area. By determining how the feeding ecology of red-winged blackbirds varies on a seasonal basis, among different breeding habitats and between sexes, we hoped to determine more realistically which segments of the population might be responsible for the greatest benefits or detriments and, thereby, more accurately evaluate the economic impact of the species as a whole. To achieve this aim, the study provides an accurate description of the common insects and weed pests utilized by redwings. By determining the relative proportions of those items known to be detrimental, we hoped to illustrate, at least qualitatively, the degree to which redwing foraging is comprised of both beneficial and harmful components.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.