A Quantitative Study of the Nocturnal Migration of Birds Part 1

A Quant.i.tative Study of the Nocturnal Migration of Birds.

by George H. Lowery.

INTRODUCTION

The nocturnal migration of birds is a phenomenon that long has intrigued zoologists the world over. Yet, despite this universal interest, most of the fundamental aspects of the problem remain shrouded in uncertainty and conjecture.

Bird migration for the most part, whether it be by day or by night, is an unseen movement. That night migrations occur at all is a conclusion derived from evidence that is more often circ.u.mstantial than it is direct. During one day in the field we may discover hundreds of transients, whereas, on the succeeding day, in the same situation, we may find few or none of the same species present. On cloudy nights we hear the call notes of birds, presumably pa.s.sing overhead in the seasonal direction of migration. And on stormy nights birds strike lighthouses, towers, and other tall obstructions. Facts such as these are indisputable evidences that migration is taking place, but they provide little basis for evaluating the flights in terms of magnitude or direction.

Many of the resulting uncertainties surrounding the nocturnal migration of birds have a quant.i.tative aspect; their resolution hinges on how many birds do one thing and how many do another. If we knew, for instance, how many birds are usually flying between 2 and 3 A. M.

and how this number compares with other one-hour intervals in the night, we would be in a position to judge to what extent night flight is sustained from dusk to dawn. If we could measure the number of birds pa.s.sing selected points of observation, we could find out whether such migration in general proceeds more or less uniformly on a broad front or whether it follows certain favored channels or flyways.

This in turn might give us a clearer insight into the nature of the orienting mechanism and the extent to which it depends on visual clues. And, if we had some valid way of estimating the number of birds on the wing under varying weather conditions, we might be able to understand better the nature and development of migration waves so familiar to field ornithologists. These are just random examples suggesting some of the results that may be achieved in a broad field of inquiry that is still virtually untouched--the quant.i.tative study of migratory flights.

This paper is a venture into that field. It seeks to evaluate on a more factual basis the traditional ideas regarding these and similar problems, that have been developed largely from circ.u.mstantial criteria. It is primarily, therefore, a study of comparative quant.i.ties or volumes of migration--or what may be conveniently called flight densities, if this term be understood to mean simply the number of birds pa.s.sing through a given s.p.a.ce in a given interval of time.

In the present study, the basic data permitting the numerical expression of such migration rates from many localities under many different sets of circ.u.mstances were obtained by a simple method. When a small telescope, mounted on a tripod, is focused on the moon, the birds that pa.s.s before the moon's disc may be seen and counted, and their apparent pathways recorded in terms of coordinates. In bare outline, this approach to the problem is by no means new.

Ornithologists and astronomers alike have recorded the numbers of birds seen against the moon in stated periods of time (Scott, 1881a and 1881b; Chapman, 1888; Libby, 1889; West, 1896; Very, 1897; Winkenwerder, 1902a and 1902b; Stebbins, 1906; Carpenter, 1906).

Unfortunately, as interesting as these observations are, they furnish almost no basis for important generalizations. Most of them lack entirely the standardization of method and the continuity that would make meaningful comparisons possible. Of all these men, Winkenwerder appears to have been the only one to follow up an initial one or two nights of observation with anything approaching an organized program, capable of leading to broad conclusions. And even he was content merely to reproduce most of his original data without correlation or comment and without making clear whether he fully grasped the technical difficulties that must be overcome in order to estimate the important flight direction factor accurately.

The present study was begun in 1945, and early results obtained were used briefly in a paper dealing with the trans-Gulf migration of birds (Lowery, 1946). Since that time the volume of field data, as well as the methods by which they can be a.n.a.lyzed, has been greatly expanded.

In the spring of 1948, through the cooperation and collaboration of a large number of ornithologists and astronomers, the work was placed on a continent-wide basis. At more than thirty stations (Figure 34, page 437) on the North American continent, from Yucatan to Ontario, and from California to South Carolina, observers trained telescopes simultaneously on the moon and counted the birds they saw pa.s.sing before its disc.

Most of the stations were in operation for several nights in the full moon periods of March, April, and May, keeping the moon under constant watch from twilight to dawn when conditions permitted. They have provided counts representing more than one thousand hours of observation, at many places in an area of more than a million square miles. But, as impressive as the figures on the record sheets are, they, like the published observations referred to above, have dubious meaning as they stand. Were we to compare them directly, station for station, or hour for hour, we would be almost certain to fall into serious errors. The reasons for this are not simple, and the measures that must be taken to obtain true comparisons are even less so. When I first presented this problem to my colleague, Professor William A.

Rense, of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Louisiana State University, I was told that mathematical means exist for reducing the data and for ascertaining the desired facts. Rense's scholarly insight into the mathematics of the problem resulted in his derivation of formulae that have enabled me to a.n.a.lyze on a comparable basis data obtained from different stations on the same night, and from the same station at different hours and on different nights. Astronomical and technical aspects of the problem are covered by Rense in his paper (1946), but the underlying principles are discussed at somewhat greater length in this paper.

Part I of the present paper, dealing with the means by which the data were obtained and processed, will explore the general nature of the problem and show by specific example how a set of observations is prepared for a.n.a.lysis. Part II will deal with the results obtained and their interpretation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the pursuit of this research I have received a tremendous amount of help from my colleagues, students, and other friends. In the first place, in order to obtain much of the data on which the study was based, it was necessary to enlist the aid of many persons in various parts of the country and to draw heavily on their time and patience to get all-night telescopic counts of migrating birds. Secondly, the processing of the primary data and its subsequent a.n.a.lysis demanded that I delve into the fields of astronomy and mathematics. Here, from the outset, I have enjoyed the constant and untiring help of Professor W. A. Rense of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Louisiana State University. Without his collaboration, I would not have been able to do this work, for he not only supplied formulae whereby I was able to make desired computations, but time and again he maneuvered me through my difficulties in the mathematical procedures. Moreover, Professor Rense has manifested a great interest in the ornithological aspect of the problem, and his trenchant advice has been of inestimable value to me. No less am I indebted to my a.s.sociate, Robert J. Newman, with whom I have spent untold hours discussing the various aspects of the problem. Indeed, most of the concepts that have evolved in the course of this study have grown out of discussions over a four-year period with both Rense and Newman. Whatever merit this work may have may be attributable in no small part to the help these two men have given me. In the preparation of many of the ill.u.s.trations, I am further obligated to Newman for his excellent creative ideas as well as draftsmans.h.i.+p, and to Miss Helen Behrnes and A. Lowell Wood for their a.s.sistance.

The mathematical computations required in this study have been laborious and time-consuming. It is estimated that more than two thousand man-hours have gone into this phase of the work alone.

Whereas I have necessarily done most of this work, I have received a tremendous amount of help from A. Lowell Wood. Further a.s.sistance in this regard came from Herman Fox, Donald Norwood, and Lewis Kelly.

The recording of the original field data in the spring of 1948 from the thirty-odd stations in North America involved the partic.i.p.ation of more than 200 ornithologists and astronomers. This collaboration attests to the splendid cooperative spirit that exists among scientists. Many of these persons stayed at the telescope, either as observer or as recorder, hours on end in order to get sets of data extending through a whole night.

The following were responsible for much of the field data herein used: J. R. Andrews, S. A. Arny, M. Dale Arvey, H. V. Autrey, Charles C.

Ayres, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Bailey, Irwin L. Baird, Maurice F. Baker, Rollin H. Baker, Bedortha and Edna Baldwin, Mrs. A. Marguerite Baumgartner, T. A. Becket, Paul Bellington, Donald Bird, Carl Black, Jr., Lea Black, Lytle Blankens.h.i.+p, Mr. and Mrs. J. Stewart Boswell, Bruce Boudreaux, Frank Bray, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Brecher, Homer Brewer, Mrs. Harvey Broome, Heyward Brown, Floyd Browning, Cyril Broussard, Paul Buress, Ralph M. Burress, Robert Cain, Don Carlos, Mrs. Reba Campbell, Mr. and Mrs. E. Burnham Chamberlain, Laura Chaney, Van B. Chaney, Jr., Edward Clebsch, Mr. and Mrs. Ben B. Coffey, William Cook, Dr. Jack Craven, Hugh C. and William Davis, Katherine Davis, Richard Davis, Richard DeArment, Robert E. Delphia, J. C.

d.i.c.kinson, Mr. and Mrs. Otto Dietrich, John Dietrich, Clara Dixon, Nina Driven, John J. Duffy, Mr. and Mrs. R. J. Dunbar, Betty Dupre, Bernard E. Eble, Jr., Robert G. Eble, Dr. and Mrs. William H. Elder, C. C. Emory, Davis Emory, Alice H. Farnsworth, James Fielding, William R. Fish, Mr. and Mrs. Myron Ford, W. G. Fuller, Louis Gainey, Dr. Mary E. Gaulden, Mr. and Mrs. John J. Giudice, Lt. L. E. Goodnight, Earl R.

Greene, Max Grilkey, W. W. H. Gunn, Noel Maxwell Hall, Jr., A. J.

Hanna, Paul Hansen, Harold W. Harry, Joseph Healy, Dorothy Helmer, Mr.

and Mrs. John H. Helmer, Philip E. Hoberecht, William D. Hogan, Dr.

and Mrs. Joseph C. Howell, E. J. Huggins, Mrs. Walter Huxford, Hugh Iltis, W. S. Jennings, William M. Johnson, William Kasler, Luther F.

Keeton, Lawrence C. Kent, W. H. Kiel, L. P. Kindler, Mr. and Mrs.

Joseph E. King, Harriet Kirby, E. J. Koestner, Roy Komarek, Ann Knight, Mr. and Mrs. N. B. Langworthy, Mr. and Mrs. C. F. Lard, Prentiss D. Lewis, Ernest Liner, Dr. and Mrs. R. W. Lockwood, Dr.

Harvey B. Lovell, William J. Lueck, Don Luethy, James Major, Mr. and Mrs. Russell L. Mannette, Mrs. John B. Mannix, Donald Mary, Dale E.

McCollum, Stewart McConnell, Mr. and Mrs. M. L. McCroe, Robert L.

McDaniel, Mr. and Mrs. Frank McGill, Thomas Merimer, Mr. and Mrs. I.

S. H. Metcalf, Ann Michener, John Michener, T. H. Milby, D. S. Miller, Burt Monroe, Jr., Burt Monroe, Sr., Mrs. R. A. Monroe, Gordon Montague, Duryea Morton, James Mosimonn, Don L. Moyle, Grant Murphy, John T. Murphy, Mrs. H. F. Murphy, Mrs. Hill Myers, Mr. and Mrs.

Robert J. Newman, William Nichols, R. A. Norris, Floyd Oaks, Eugene P.

Odum, Mrs. E. E. Overton, Lennie E. Pate, Kenneth Patterson, Ralph Paxton, Louis Peiper, Marie Peiper, Mr. and Mrs. Harold S. Peters, Mary Peters, Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Pfitzer, Betty Plice, Max Plice, Lestar Porter, D. R. Power, Kenneth Price, George Rabb, Marge Reese, Wayne L. Reeve, C. L. Riecke, R. D. Ritchie, V. E. Robinson, Beverly J. Rose, Mary Jane Runyon, Roger Rusk, Bernd Safinsley, Mr. and Mrs.

Glen C. Sanderson, Lewis L. Sandidge, John Sather, J. Benton Schaub, Evelyn Schneider, Henry W. Setzer, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Shackleton, Mr.

and Mrs. Francis P. Shannon, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Shaw, Paul H.

Shepard, Jr., Alan C. Sheppard, Mabel Slack, Alice Smith, R. Demett Smith, Jr., Nat Smith, Major and Mrs. Charles H. Snyder, Albert Springs, Dr. and Mrs. Fred W. Stamm, J. S. Steiner, Mrs. Paul Stephenson, Herbert Stern, Jr., Herbert Stoddard, Mr. and Mrs. F. W.

Stomm, Charles Strull, Harold P. Strull, Mrs. Fan B. Tabler, Dr. and Mrs. James T. Tanner, S. M. H. Tate, David Taylor, Hall Tennin, Scott Terry, Mr. and Mrs. S. Charles Thacher, Olive Thomas, G. A. Thompson, Jr., Dr. and Mrs. S. R. Tipton, Robert Tucker, Tom Uzzel, Mr. and Mrs.

M. G. Vaiden, Richard Vaught, Edward Violante, Brother I. Vincent, Marilyn L. Walker, Mr. and Mrs. Willis Weaver, Mr. and Mrs. W. L.

Webb, Margaret M. L. Wehking, W. A. Welshans, Jr., Mrs. J. F.

Wernicke, Francis M. Weston, Miss G. W. Weston, Dr. James W. White, John A. White, A. F. Wicke, Jr., Oren Williams, J. L. Wilson III, W.

B. Wilson, Dr. and Mrs. Leonard Wing, Sherry Woo, Rodney Wuthnow, Grace Wyatt, Mr. and Mrs. Malcom Young, Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Zimmerman.

To the scores of other people who a.s.sisted in making these observations I extend my hearty thanks.

Drs. E. R. Hall, Edward H. Taylor, and H. B. Hungerford of the University of Kansas have read the ma.n.u.script and have made valuable suggestions, as have also Dr. W. H. Gates of Louisiana State University and Dr. Donald S. Farner of the State College of Was.h.i.+ngton. Dr. Farner has also been of great help, together with Drs.

Ernst Mayr, J. Van Tyne, and Ernst Schuz, in suggesting source material bearing on the subject in foreign literature. Dr. N. Wyaman Storer, of the University of Kansas, pointed out a short-cut in the method for determining the alt.i.tude and azimuth of the moon, which resulted in much time being saved. For supplying climatological data and for guidance in the interpretation thereof, I am grateful to Dr.

Richard Joel Russell, Louisiana State University; Commander F. W.

Reichelderfer, Chief of the U. S. Weather Bureau, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.; Mr. Merrill Bernard, Chief of the Climatological and Hydrologic Services; and Mr. Ralph Sanders, U. S. Weather Bureau at New Orleans, Louisiana.

Acknowledgment is made to Bausch and Lomb Optical Company for the loan of six telescopes for use in this project. Messrs. G. V. Cutler and George Duff of Smith and Johnson Steams.h.i.+p Company, operators of the Yucatan Line, are to be thanked for granting me free pa.s.sage on the "S. S. Bertha Brvig" to Progreso, Yucatan, where I made observations in 1945 and 1948. I am also indebted to the Louisiana State University Committee on Faulty Research for a grant-in-aid.

PART I. FLIGHT DENSITIES AND THEIR DETERMINATION

A. LUNAR OBSERVATIONS OF BIRDS AND THE FLIGHT DENSITY CONCEPT

The subject matter of this paper is wholly ornithological. It is written for the zoologist interested in the activities of birds. But its bases, the principles that make it possible, lie in other fields, including such rather advanced branches of mathematics as a.n.a.lytical geometry, spherical geometry, and differential calculus. No exhaustive exposition of the problem is practicable, that does not take for granted some previous knowledge of these disciplines on the part of all readers.

There are, however, several levels of understanding. It is possible to appreciate _what_ is being done without knowing _how_ to do it; and it is possible to learn how to carry out the successive steps of a procedure without entirely comprehending _why_. Some familiarity with the concepts underlying the method is essential to a full understanding of the results achieved, and details of procedure must be made generally available if the full possibilities of the telescopic approach are to be realized. Without going into proof of underlying propositions or actual derivation of formulae, I shall accordingly present a discussion of the general nature of the problem, conveyed as much as possible in terms of physical visualization. The development begins with the impressions of the student when he first attempts to investigate the movements of birds by means of the moon.

_What the Observer Sees_

Watched through a 20-power telescope on a cloudless night, the full moon s.h.i.+nes like a giant plaster hemisphere caught in the full glare of a floodlight. Inequalities of surface, the rims of its craters, the tips of its peaks, gleam with an almost incandescent whiteness; and even the darker areas, the so-called lunar seas, pale to a clear, glowing gray.

Against this brilliant background, most birds pa.s.sing in focus appear as coal-black miniatures, only 1/10 to 1/30 the apparent diameter of the moon. Small as these silhouettes are, details of form are often beautifully defined--the proportions of the body, the shape of the tail, the beat of the wings. Even when the images are so far away that they are pin-pointed as mere flecks of black against the illuminated area, the normal eye can follow their progress easily. In most cases the birds are invisible until the moment they "enter," or pa.s.s opposite, the rim of the moon and vanish the instant they reach the other side. The interval between is likely to be inestimably brief.

Some birds seem fairly to flash by; others, to drift; yet seldom can their pa.s.sing be counted in seconds, or even in measureable fractions of seconds. During these short glimpses, the flight paths tend to lie along straight lines, though occasionally a bird may be seen to undulate or even to veer off course.

Now and again, in contrast to this typical picture, more eerie effects may be noted. Some of them are quite startling--a minute, inanimate-looking object drifting pa.s.sively by like a corpuscle seen in the field of a microscope; a gigantic wing brus.h.i.+ng across half the moon; a ghost-like suggestion of a bird so transparent it seems scarcely more than a product of the imagination; a bird that pauses in mid-flight to hang suspended in the sky; another that beats its way ineffectually forward while it moves steadily to the side; and flight paths that sweep across the vision in astonis.h.i.+ngly geometric curves.

All of these things have an explanation. The "corpuscle" is possibly a physical ent.i.ty of some sort floating in the fluid of the observer's eye and projected into visibility against the whiteness of the moon.

The winged transparency may be an insect unconsciously picked up by the unemployed eye and transferred by the _camera lucida_ principle to the field of the telescope. It may be a bird flying very close, so drastically out of focus that the observer sees right through it, as he would through a pencil held against his nose. The same cause, operating less effectively, gives a characteristic gray appearance with hazy edges to silhouettes pa.s.sing just beneath the limits of sharp focus. Focal distortions doubtless also account for the precise curvature of some flight paths, for this peculiarity is seldom a.s.sociated with distinct images. Suspended flight and contradictory directions of drift may sometimes be attributable to head winds or cross winds but more often are simply illusions growing out of a two-dimensional impression of a three-dimensional reality.

Somewhat more commonplace are the changes that accompany clouds. The moon can be seen through a light haze and at times remains so clearly visible that the overcast appears to be behind, instead of in front of, it. Under these circ.u.mstances, birds can still be readily discerned. Light reflected from the clouds may cause the silhouettes to fade somewhat, but they retain sufficient definition to distinguish them from out-of-focus images. On occasion, when white cloud banks lie at a favorable level, they themselves provide a backdrop against which birds can be followed all the way across the field of the telescope, whether or not they directly traverse the main area of illumination.