"What a thousand acres of Silphiums looked like when they tickled the bellies of the buffalo is a question never again to be answered, and perhaps not even asked." -Aldo Leopold
During the first couple of seasons in our front-yard wildflower garden, the deer took a liking to this Manfredavirginica (F. Asparagaceae). This prompted me to start spraying its foliage with deer deterrent last year. This had the desired effect and I was happy to see and photograph the blooms of this plant, which are primarily pollinated by large moths such as the sphinx moths. The blooms will also be visited by Ruby-throated Hummingbirds.
Inflorescence of Manfredavirginica.
This species is typically found in dry, rocky and alkali soils, so I was not sure how it would like the clay pan in our yard. I’m happy to say that it is putting on new leaves this spring. I’ve lost a few plants in the garden during the past winter and I’m glad to see this one coming back.
The Bluebirds had another great year. I was much to busy to do the typical monitoring I normally like to do, but they did have three clutches this year with a total of 12 fledged birds (3, 5 and 4 eggs in 1st, 2nd and 3rd nests). Immediately after putting up the nest box in early March, a pair took control and made their first nest. After completing this, I cleaned the box and began a daily routine of removing nesting material from the non stop Eurasian Tree Sparrows. I removed nests 1-2 times per day, often removing up to eight inches of nest and sometimes with an egg or two. They were relentless. This went on for at least six weeks. I was wondering why the Bluebirds didn’t come in and take over so I could have a break when I finally decided to have a look in the Wren box, which they did use in a previous year. Yep, inside I found five young chicks (nest 2). I took advantage of this and was able to take a few photographs that I am sharing here. They then went back to the Bluebird box for their third nest. These chicks fledged a couple weeks ago.
I knew the ETS would be back to this box in a heartbeat like they do every late summer and fall, so I removed the Bluebird box for the season. I think three clutches for the season is great, although it wouldn’t have surprised me to see that the Bluebird pair might try for a forth. But, I think it might be better not to push the female too far and let her build some fat for the winter.
As the wildflower bed in the front yard begins to mature, the pollinators have come in droves. I really enjoyed getting to know the members of the Hesperiidae (skipper butterflies) this year. Although suburbia seems to support only a few species, their numbers were great in my yard. Most of these are considered “grass skippers” due to their host plant needs. It makes sense that these species would do well in a suburban area with plenty of flowering natives. Most grass skippers will use zoysia and Bermuda grass as host plants. I hate to think how many larvae get destroyed in the neighborhood each season with the relentless lawn mowing.
These first three photos are the sachem (Atalopedes campestris). This is a very common species in the yard and they seem to have a very long flight season. I noticed they come in a variety of shades and patterns that can make identifying them a bit troublesome.
Next up is the overlooked beauty but common Peck’s skipper (Polites peckius). Along with the sachem, this guy was common for most of the flowering season.
The final skipper from the yard is a favorite among anyone who cares to notice skippers. The brilliant fiery skipper (Hylephila phyleus). Although I found a scattered few in May, June and July, they seem to have a little later season than the others. I found them in the tens in August and September.
If you want to have lots of skippers, I highly recommend planting asters in thegenus Symphyotrichum. This will attract skippers and many other insect pollinators who need these plants.
Finally, I found a very interesting solitary bee that was feeding on the Asclepias tuberosa that was blooming in the glade garden that installed around our mailbox this past May. This is a male carpenter-mimic leafcutter bee (Megachile xylocopoides).
In the spring of 2021, I finally put up a couple of nest boxes in the yard of the new house. Both boxes were built and gifted by my father, Bart Duncan. Much appreciation! One box was designed specifically for bluebirds and a pair quickly staked their claim. They had an initial successful clutch, fledging three chicks, but on the next attempt, tragedy struck. During my monitoring visit, where there had been four half-developed chicks the day before I found not a single one. I believe the neighborhood racoons made a meal of them sometime during the night, leaving no evidence. It was early enough in the year that I wasn’t surprised that the pair tried again, but what surprised me was that they did not build a nest in the bluebird box, but used a box that was designed for Carolina Wrens that was bolted to the side of our screen porch. It made for some great photo opportunities that I am sharing here. I learned from my mistakes and have installed a baffle around the pole to the bluebird box along with a wire cage over the nest entrance. If a brood predator wants to get at them now they will really have to try hard. I am happy to say that to date, in the 2022 season, the pair successfully fledged two clutches – one of six and one of five chicks. Eleven new bluebirds this year, flooding the subdivision with bluebirds!
Here dad brings a green and juicy caterpillar for one of the four chicks in the box. I realized that this could be a great way of doing an entomological survey of the neighborhood! Settings: 1,120 mm focal length equivalent, f/8, 1/400 sec., ISO-800.
Here dad brings what looks to be a Hemipteran bug of some kind. I supplement the adults with dried mealworms in a special feeder but the chicks need fresh grub. I am happy to live in a neighborhood that can support the nesting of these birds. Settings: 1,120 mm focal length equivalent, f/7.1, 1/320 sec., ISO-1250.
Mom brings in a tiger moth. In my short time making observations, I found this to be the most common prey brought to the nest. Settings: 1,120 mm focal length equivalent, f/7.1, 1/320 sec., ISO-1250.
Dad brings a tiger moth. Settings: 1,120 mm focal length equivalent, f/7.1, 1/320 sec., ISO-1250.
Mom, looking a little well-worn. It was late into a rather busy nesting season for her. Settings: 1,120 mm focal length equivalent, f/5.6, 1/250 sec., ISO-640.
All four chicks waiting for the next visit by a food carrying parent. Settings: 1,120 mm focal length equivalent, f/8, 1/400 sec., ISO-700.
Echinacea paradoxa, also known as Ozark coneflower, Bush’s coneflower and yellow coneflower is found natively in southwestern Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. I was happy to see this one flowered during its first year in my front yard garden.
This post is an article that was originally published in the Webster Groves Nature Study Society’s journal, Nature Notes (November, 2019, Vol. 91, No. 9).
I have previously shared a fair amount of material regarding the Ruby-throated Hummingbird nest. You can find more photos and video at the following locations: RTHU Part One, RTHU Part Two, RTHU Part Three.
Mom feeding on the last day chicks remained at nest. She will continue to feed the chicks for up to two weeks following fledging until they are capable of feeding on their own. Photo by Bill Duncan.
During the summer of 2018, I had the opportunity of a lifetime to watch a mother Ruby-throated Hummingbird (RTHU) incubate and raise a pair of offspring. To make these observations, I simply needed to step onto my back deck and pull up a chair. Mom had built a nest approximately 30 feet away and eight feet off the ground. From the deck, I had an almost eye-to-eye vantage into the nest.
Knowing my interests in Nature and photography, my kind next-door neighbors turned me on to the nest on July 13th. The white oak branch that the nest had been built upon was on their property in St. Louis County. Along with taking nearly 50,000 photographs of the nest and growing birds, I also collected rudimentary data focused on the nesting habits of mom. This should not be considered exactly ‘scientific’, but I do find it interesting enough to share.
I began collecting the following data on July 17th: time mom spent on or off the nest in one-minute increments, weather data (temperature, wind speeds. and sky cover), number of times she visited the artificial feeder in my yard that was approximately 20’ from the nest location, chick feeding, and other bits of behavior (e.g. encounters with other RTHU in the area, behavior of mom in severe weather, etc.).
Incubation behavior
From my angle of viewing, I could not see directly inside the nest. However, going by the behavior of mom, I believe the two eggs (most typical clutch size for RTHU) hatched during the night of July 25/26, so the data I am sharing for the incubation period covers the final nine days (7/17–7/25) of incubation. Incubation typically takes ~12–14 days (Robinson et al. 1996), so I assume the eggs were in the nest prior to the initiation of my data collection and it is likely eggs were laid on or near July 13th.
I collected incubation behavior data for a total of 753 minutes, averaging 83.7 minutes per day (59–130 minutes), the majority of which was in the first 1-3 hours of daylight each day. I observed mom on the nest 69% of the time (520 min.). This closely matches the ~75–85% of the time on nest reported of RTHU incubation activity (rubythroat.org, journynorth.org). Mom spent 31% of the time (233 min.) away from the nest and these trips off the nest (n = 56) averaged 4 minutes, 5 seconds (1–18 min.). During her time off the nest, I recorded her visiting the artificial feeder in my yard 26 times for an average visitation of a little more than 2x per hour of observation. Unfortunately, I wasn’t diligent at watching the feeder and likely missed a few visits.
Regarding the time it takes for incubation and fledging to occur in the RTHU, I felt that it seemed a bit long on both compared to birds of similar size. With some investigation, and not surprising, there is a strong correlation between egg volume and incubation timing (Worth, 1940). Someone who pays little to no attention to birds would easily realize how much greater volume a Mourning Dove egg (0.34 cu. in) has than a RTHU (0.03 cu. in.) egg. However, it would probably surprise them, and potentially you, dear reader, to know that eggs of both species hatch in approximately the same number of days (Worth, 1940). Therefore, there is indeed a delay in the amount of time expected for a complete nesting cycle in the RTHU when compared with other similarly-sized species. The primary reasons for this may be obvious. Mourning Doves provide bi-parental care, meaning males help with both incubation and feeding of young. For the RTHU, mom is on her own; the father typically provides nothing but genetic material. Consequently, female RTHU are compelled to take more frequent trips from the nest to feed and leave the eggs or chicks relatively exposed to the environment (cooling). The second primary reason for this delayed development is the size of the RTHU eggs. Objects with larger volumes can retain heat longer. Considering the ~30% of the time mom spends doing things other than incubating and the small volume of these eggs, this longer than expected nesting cycle for the RTHU is not surprising. This naturally poses questions regarding selection pressures for and against species where males provide little to no care in their offspring. This has not much to do with my personal observations, but I thought an interesting aside.
Chick rearing behavior
The first time I was able to see the chicks above the level of the nest was when they were approximately 6 days old. Photo by Bill Duncan.
Chick rearing prior to fledging took place between July 26th and August 16th for a total of 21 days from hatching to both chicks fledging. This falls within the range of time reported to fledging (18-22 days) by Robinson et al. (1996). During the 3,846 minutes I observed the nest during this period, mom fed her chicks 124 times for an average of a little less than two times per hour. With my closeness to the nest and using sufficient optics, it was sometimes easy to see that mom was feeding a mixture of nectar (presumably a mixture of natural and artificial) and small arthropods that she collected in the bug-rich environment of our neighborhood.
At 11 days, the chick’s eyes were open and they were voracious feeders. Photo by Bill Duncan.
Mom brooded the two chicks following hatching, staying on the nest for similar periods of time presumably to provide heat and avoid exposure to the altricial young. Mom spent significant portions of time on the nest between July 26th and August 3rd. During these eight days, I observed the nest for 1,052 minutes and recorded mom on the nest 52% of this time (543 min.). I presume, but did not document, that mom stayed on the nest most or all the nighttime hours during this period as well as during incubation.
At 15 days, mom takes a break after feeding, but chicks are expecting more. Photo by Bill Duncan.
On August 4th, her behavior changed dramatically. From this date until fledging, mom only spent a total of three minutes on the nest. It is likely that after eight days out of the egg, a physiological switch was turned on, and/or, sufficient feather development enabled the chicks to maintain their own body temperature. From this date until fledging, mom spent most of her time foraging and often was seen perched within eyeshot of the nest. She only physically visited the nest to feed or provide shelter from rain and winds.
At 18 days, the chicks were beginning to try out their wings. The larger/older chick started this behavior first. Photo by Bill Duncan.
Documenting these observations gave me something to do while waiting to get my action shots of this wonderful story. I hope these words and the documenting photos adequately describe this experience and hope that you might be fortunate enough to experience a similar story.
No more room in the nest. On the final day in the nest (day 21), the chicks reassure each other. Photo by Bill Duncan.
Robinson, T.R., R.R. Sargent, and M.B. Sargent. 1996. Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Archilochus colubris. In The Birds of North America, no. 204. Edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Passiflora incarnata (passionflower, maypops) Image composed of a focus stack of 27 exposures.
Recently, I’ve taken the plunge and given some serious efforts into focus stacking in macro photography. This method allows the photographer to increase the depth of field in a scene by combining multiple exposures, each focused on a separate plane of focus. Afterwards, the different exposures are combined using powerful processing software on the computer. This particular image was built from 27 photos all taken at an aperture of f/8.
I will definitely miss our yard full of native plants when we make our change in residence, including the passionflowers. Maybe I’ll get to harvest this year’s crop of fruit one more time to make my own juice.
A big thanks to the Duncan’s for inviting me to their home, to photography winter songbirds at their bird feeder.
A cold winter day is perfect for curling up by your living room or you can stock your bird feeder, get your camera, a turkey chair and check out the activity at the feeder.
Here’s a quick rundown of the most common backyard birds, I saw while spending an afternoon at my friend’s bird feeder.
House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)
House finch – love Nyjer seed, often mistakenly called thistle seed. Offer it in tube feeders or net bags, and watch these colorful birds swoop in for a visit.
Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)
Woodpeckers – In the winter, beef suet is an energy-rich substitute for the insect fare that downy, hairy, and red-bellied woodpeckers feed on during the summer. Other bird species such as jays will also eat suet, but it’s…
I have been given a lot inspiration lately by a number of Facebook friends to photograph the great birds that visit our feeders, or to put it another way, make these models work for their supper. On a recent birding trip, Sarah and I collected some great drift wood that I turned into horizontal and vertical branches in the backyard, not too far from the feeders and our sun-porch.
Dark-eyed Junco
I drilled a few extra holes towards the rear of some of these to act as unseen cavities to place my homemade bark butter. It only took the Juncos a couple of hours to find their favorite food. These guys go crazy trying to figure out how to get to this stuff. I made sure to place a few feeding spots near horizontal perches that they could access without too much difficulty as they cannot grasp vertical perches very well. These guys are so tame that they were my primary subjects, other species being a little more timid to visit the close perches and seed deposits that I sat close to.
Dark-eyed Junco
For a first attempt, I’m pretty pleased. These were shot hand-held in mixed lighting with my 100-400 mm lens and I shot through the not-so clean windows of the sun-porch. I tried sitting behind the open windows, but this must have made me much more conspicuous. I sat for an hour or more with few birds coming in to feed. Within seconds of me closing the windows, the Juncos came to the feeding stations.
Downy Woodpecker
I’m a little concerned that my resident Downy Woodpeckers might have a little too much of the rich food I am providing. They now have access to the peanut and tree nuts in the no-mess mix I provide, beef tallow suet blocks, and now the bark butter. But, I suppose it would take a lot for a wild bird to over indulge.
Anyone who feeds their wild birds and has an interest and access to photography should give this a try. I’m looking forward to more cold mornings spent outside trying my hand at this.
A Thousand Acres of Silphiums 