Date: 1/1/18 12:43 pm From: Alan Contreras <acontrer56...> Subject: [obol] Re: [Umpqua Birds] Thank you Re: Summary/Photos: Roseburg-Sutherlin CBC
Part of the issue is that the outer coast has poor soil. Lots of sand. So the upriver parts of those counts usually have far more sparrows and other non-forest species because there is way more food.
For example we think of Palm Warbler as a coastal species but that’s mostly true in Oct-Nov. The wintering birds are often at inland sites such as dairys. Most of the ones at the Coquille Valley count are ten miles inland for that reason. Same is true of Lincoln’s Sparrow, Orange-crowns and the like. Unlike coastal northern California there are very few large expanses of active ag land right by the ocean. In Oregon that is only true at Tillamook Bay and Cape Blanco.
> On Jan 1, 2018, at 8:56 AM, Lars Per Norgren <larspernorgren...> wrote:
> This is a fairly predictable phenomenon--where inland sites have higher species diversity than coastal ones. On the Coquille Valley CBC , the Norway sector always has the highest species count--92 this year with a team of two and an area about a mile
> wide and 2 1/2 miles long. Coastal sectors of the CV circle have some seabirds, but rather few choices of passerines. Reedsport is especially disadvantaged relative to other coastal counts as it has very little unforested bottomland or other features that keep inland passerines happy. The record high species counts at various coastal CBCs can't be achieved without things like Scrub Jay(a regular at Norway), Purple Finch, American Goldfinch,often species that inland counters tick off w/o a thought.
> Ultimately it is the absences that make the strongest impression on me while participating in a coastal CBC. All day in downtown Langlois and Port Orford this year without a single Rock Dove. It's so seldom on the PO CBC that it doesn't make the
> regular list. lpn
> On Jan 1, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Keith Phifer wrote:
>> Yes thanks again for all the work. I enjoy seeing those summery tables. We must have been missing someone at the countdown to have gone from 110 to 116. I suspect it was the north umpqua group as I do not remember those goldeneyes at the countdown. It was nice to see that those were found again. I remember Ron finding those pretty consistently for a number of years, but it seems like they have been hard to find the last few years. If the countdown number holds for the Reedsport countdown the 116 would mean the inland Douglas county count beat the 114 Coastal Douglas county count. This is a big surprise to me. I would credit it to the difference in the quantity of counters. I think there were in the mid 30’s for Roseburg participants and less than 15 for Reedsport.
>> Thanks again,
>> Sent from my iPod
>> On Dec 31, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mikeal Jones <mikealjones...> <mailto:<mikealjones...>> wrote:
>>> As much fun as it is recording birds in our own parts of the Count Circle, your organization (Mark), tally (Jeannie) and narrative on Umpqua Birds (Matt) tie it all together to enjoy and compare with other years. Thanks to each of you for making the Christmas Bird Count for Roseburg-Sutherlin such a great time. Mikeal
>>> Mikeal Jones
>>> 826 SE Brockway Ave
>>> Roseburg OR 97470
>>> (541) 673-1859
>>> <mikealjones...> <mailto:<mikealjones...> >>>
>>> Sent from our iPad 2
>>> On Dec 31, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Matthew G Hunter <matthewghunter...> <mailto:<matthewghunter...>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>> Please find a summary of the Roseburg-Sutherlin CBC here:
>>>> http://umpquabirds.blogspot.com/2017/12/roseburg-sutherlin-christmas-bird-count.html <http://umpquabirds.blogspot.com/2017/12/roseburg-sutherlin-christmas-bird-count.html> >>>>
>>>> If you participated in the count, please review the data tables linked here (or at www.umpquabirds.org/cbc <http://www.umpquabirds.org/cbc>) and let me know if you see any errors. Thank-you!
>>>> Good Birding,
>>>> Matt Hunter
>>>> P.S. One of the most interesting things to me is to look at the tables I have been producing several years now, which sort the bird numbers not only by taxonomy, but by total numbers of each species and by the number of team areas recording the species. For example, can you predict which species were found in all 14 team areas? It's also interesting to see which species were found in only one team area (e.g. easily missed). Look for these tables in the blog and cbc websites linked above. mgh