British Birds

April 2019 • Vol.112 • 181– 240

Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

British Birds Volume 112

Red-winged Blackbird: new to Britain

Lundy: seabirds and Wheatears
 British Birds
Established 1907, incorporating The Zoologist, established 1843
Published by BB 2000 Limited, trading as ‘British Birds’
Registered Office: c/o McPhersons CFG Limited, 23 St Leonards Road
ISSN 0007-0335 Bexhill on Sea, East Sussex TN40 1HH

www.britishbirds.co.uk
Editorial Subscriptions & administration
Roger Riddington Hazel Jenner
Spindrift, Eastshore, 4 Harlequin Gardens, St Leonards on Sea,
Virkie, Shetland ZE3 9JS East Sussex TN37 7PF
Tel: 01950 460080 Tel & fax: 01424 755155
editor@britishbirds.co.uk subscriptions@britishbirds.co.uk
Editorial staff Roger Riddington (Editor), Design & production
Caroline Dudley, Peter Kennerley Mark Corliss
Editorial Panel Dawn Balmer, Ian Carter, m.corliss@netmatters.co.uk
Richard Chandler, Martin Collinson,
Mark Holling, Chas Holt, Chris Kehoe, Advertising
Stephen Menzie, Ian Newton, Sue Gregory, Zenith Marketing
Robin Prytherch, Nigel Redman, Tel: 01254 832750
Roger Riddington, Brian Small, Steve Votier sue@zenith-marketing.co.uk
‘News & comment’ material to Annual subscription rates
Adrian Pitches
Individual subscriptions: UK – £63.00
adrianpitches@blueyonder.co.uk Overseas (airmail) – £73.00
Rarities Committee Libraries and agencies – £115.00
Paul French (Chairman), Chris Batty, David Digital subscriptions – £51.00
Fairhurst, Nic Hallam, Nigel Jones, Micky Subscribe by Direct Debit and
Maher, Stephen Menzie, Dave Pullan, Roger save on the above rates
Riddington, Richard Schofield, Steve Votier Single issues and combined print/digital
Secretary Chas Holt, 307 St John’s Way, subscriptions are also available.
Thetford, Norfolk IP24 3PA; See www.britishbirds.co.uk/subscribe
secretary@bbrc.org.uk
Back issues
Notes Panel available from www.britishbirds.co.uk
Angela Turner (Chair), Will Cresswell,
Ian Dawson, Jim Flegg, Ian Newton, Guidelines for contributors
Malcolm Ogilvie See www.britishbirds.co.uk
British Birds is owned and published by BB 2000 Limited, the directors of which are Adam Rowlands
(Chairman), Lizzie Bruce, Mark Holling, Stephen Menzie, Nina O’Hanlon, Richard Porter, Nick Rutter
and Chris Spooner. BB 2000 Limited is wholly owned by The British Birds Charitable Trust (registered charity
No. 1089422), whose trustees are Tim Birkhead, Neil Bucknell, John Eyre, Richard Porter and Eve Tigwell.
Directors and trustees are volunteers who draw no remuneration.

Copyright: When submitting articles, letters, commentary, text, photographs, artwork, figures or images (the ‘Copyright
Work’) to the Editor, you are agreeing to grant to British Birds a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
copyright licence to use, edit, alter, adapt, translate, copy, publish, continue to publish or republish the Copyright Work
(and/or an edited, adapted or translated version of it or part of it) in all forms, formats and media (including, but not
limited to, print, digital and electronic forms) anywhere in the world. You must ensure that by submitting a Copyright
Work that you are not infringing the Copyright of any other person. By submitting a Copyright Work you are warranting
that you are the Copyright Work owner and that you have the right to grant the non-exclusive licence described above.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Author/Artist shall remain the owner of the Copyright Work.

Front-cover photograph: Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros, Norfolk, January 2018. Robin Chittenden
 British Birds
Volume 112 • Number 4 • April 2019

182 BB eye Mark Lewis

185 News and comment Adrian Pitches
190 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa Nicolas Martinez,
Bernd Nicolai and Vincent van der Spek
211 Red-winged Blackbird in Orkney: new to Britain Simon Davies
217 Seabird recovery on Lundy: population change in Manx Shearwaters
and other seabirds in response to the eradication of rats
Helen Booker, David Price, Peter Slader, Tim Frayling, Tom Williams
and Mark Bolton
231 Northern Wheatears on Lundy: the impact of rat eradication
Tony Taylor
237 Recent reports 239 My patch

Most readers will be familiar with the potentially disastrous impact of

introduced rodents on island populations of ground-nesting seabirds. In
recent years, we have collectively shuddered at the discovery of mice eating
albatross chicks on Gough Island and marvelled at the prospect of making
South Georgia rodent-free. Closer to home, the scale of the problem might
be somewhat less dramatic, but it is a particular pleasure to see two papers
in this issue about the birds of Lundy Island following the rat eradication
programme there 15 years ago. The response of the island’s Manx
Shearwaters and other seabirds is a genuine good-news story, and it is
fascinating to read the evidence of what appears to be an impact on the
numbers of a ground-nesting passerine too. The account of the first Red-
winged Blackbird to make it to Category A, on North Ronaldsay in April
2017, is another good-news story about birds on islands. However, I cannot deny that the events on
my former home island of Fair Isle (see pp. 185–186) are dominating my thoughts as I write the last
piece for this month’s issue. The images of the blazing observatory were shocking, although
tempered by the relief that no-one was hurt. Much has been lost but there is no doubt that, in due
course, a new chapter in the Fair Isle story will begin.
Roger Riddington

British Birds aims to: v provide an up-to-date magazine for everyone interested in the birds
of the Western Palearctic; v publish a range of material on behaviour, conservation, distribution,
ecology, identification, movements, status and taxonomy as well as the latest ornithological news
and book reviews; v maintain its position as the journal of record; and
v interpret scientific research on birds in an easily accessible way.

© British Birds 2019

BB eye
Why birders should be safe and sound
B
irding has come such a long way since
I started, keen and wide-eyed, back in
the early 1980s. Information has
never been easier to acquire. These days we
have books where the illustrations actually
look like the birds; optics that produce crisp,
sharp images; and an internet chock-full of
papers, blogs, forums and photographs to
refer to. To keep up with all this, birders have
changed too. Notebooks are becoming a
thing of the past and, in their place, cameras
and digiscoping clobber have become most
birders’ main tools for documenting rare,
unusual or difficult species. However, espe-
cially when searching for something a little
out of the ordinary, many of us will happily
don binoculars, telescope, tripod, and DSLR,
all in the name of finding and documenting
that all-important rarity. A hefty and expen-
sive cocktail.
Birders are, as a community, still strongly
skewed towards documenting visual cues for
bird identification. It seems strange to me
that some of us will carry several thousand
pounds’ worth of equipment that focuses on
the visual aspects of birding, yet few of us
carry the relatively cheap items of additional
kit that record the sounds birds make. All
too frequently I see birders, laden with
optical paraphernalia, resorting to clumsy
phonetic renderings or feeble whistled
attempts to relay the detail in what they
have just heard. How many records commit-
tees have discussed whether ‘chack’ or ‘tic’
really cuts the mustard? Does the ‘zeear’ I
might use to describe a flyover Red-throated
Pipit Anthus cervinus really differ an awful
lot from the ‘zeep’ you might use to describe
the call of a Tree Pipit A. trivialis? Probably
not.
The difficulties of converting vocalisations
into words has made us surprisingly
accepting of the idea that some flyovers are
best forgotten, or at least should ‘go no
further than the notebook’. The attitude is
fine to some extent – let’s not shoehorn the
evidence into a firm identification where
there is genuine uncertainty – but we don’t
182
need to pull our hair out over every bird that
has ‘got away’. Those flyovers that were
muffled by the wind, or the sound of a
Cornish pasty wrapper (it’s happened to
me…) would be suitably documented if we
were carrying some simple and relatively
cheap equipment. We’ve all had probable rare
birds fly over, ones that called once and
which we’d love to have heard again; and
with a bit of effort, this troubling but familiar
scenario is one that can be put to bed rela-
tively easily.
The answer is to continuously record what
is going on around us while out birding (the
alternative, of having the equipment but not
having it recording at all times, simply leads
to missed opportunities, especially where fly-
overs are concerned). The approach is
simple: turn the kit on and leave it on.
Record throughout your time in the field,
and simply note the time (on the recorder,
not the time of day), or stop the recording
and start again, when you hear something
interesting. Back at home, with your
recording uploaded, you can skip to the time
you’ve noted down and get to work analysing
what you heard.
A recent trip to Ouessant, at the southwest
end of the English Channel, highlighted how
important sound recording can be. By contin-
uously recording while birding during the
week, I was able to capture the quiet ‘tek’ calls
of an elusive Subalpine Warbler Sylvia cantil-
lans, confirming the identification as a bird of
the ‘western’ group S. c. iberiae/inornata (as
opposed to an eastern bird with its compound
‘tr-ek’-like calls); this would never have been
achieved on field views, or from photographs
(since it was hardly ever visible). I was able to
review recordings of a late flyover Tree Pipit to
eliminate the possibility of Olive-backed A.
hodgsoni (fig. 1) and confirm a flyover
Woodlark Lullula arborea, which was making
some unusual calls (although admittedly
they’re all unusual to someone based in north-
east Scotland). And the inevitable happened.
The one day when I wasn’t recording, a large
pipit flew over. I thought it sounded good for
© British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 182 – 184

a Richard’s Pipit
A. richardi, but
several people
have suggested
that my record
shots look better
for Blyth’s A.
godlewskii. I
know what I
think I heard,
but if I’d been
able to go back
and listen again
the issue would
have been
resolved imme-
diately. Fig. 1. A sonogram of a single Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis call (highlighted)
My interest among migrating flocks of Common Chaffinches Fringilla coelebs and Bramblings
F. montifringilla, Ouessant, October 2018. Continuous recording means that these
in sound record- one-off calls are not missed.
ing was piqued
by the original Sound Approach guide
(Constantine et al. 2006), but it’s the uptake
in recording nocturnal migration that really
seems to have forced the sonogram (or
‘spectrovid’ – where calls and sonograms are
presented together in video form) into the
current UK birding zeitgeist (see Robb et al.
2018). We understand them, and realise how
valuable they can be; and yet still relatively
few of us actively make use of them. I still get
contacted by very good birders asking me to
clean up and ‘sonogramify’ recordings
they’ve made on mobile phones or from
video recordings, which is great, as I enjoy
doing it. However, the technical knowledge
involved, to record songs and calls and gen-
erate your own sonograms, is not daunting
and we should encourage more people to
give it a try themselves. There are many
benefits.
G Each recording can be reviewed many
times.
G Each recording can be compared with any
number of calls (both aurally and visually,
using a sonogram) from the same or
similar species. There are millions of bird
recordings that are free to download,
for example at Xeno-canto (www.xeno-
canto.org) or the Macaulay Librar y
(www.macaulaylibrary.org).
G You can produce sonograms, and share
these (and the sound files) to help identify
your recordings; and they are potentially
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 182 – 184
BB eye
crucial bits of hard evidence in submis-
sions to rarities committees.
G Your recordings can be uploaded
to databases such as eBird
(https://ebird.org/home) or Trektellen
(www.trektellen.nl) – they are a valuable
tool for data verification and alerting
fellow recorders to what might be about to
fly over their heads.
There are benefits to the birding commu-
nity as well as to the individual: fewer lost
records of scarce and rare birds, and an
increased knowledge pool. The emergence of
various blogs and social media groups
focused on sound recording (e.g. Nocmig –
nocturnal bird migration by sound on
Facebook) is testament to the fact that
birders are willing to ask questions and
share knowledge, and there is often lively
discussion of interest to anyone who would
like to learn more about bird sounds.
So, what’s holding people back? Why
haven’t we embraced sound recording as fully
as photography as an essential part of the
modern birder’s toolkit? To investigate
further, I posted a simple poll on Twitter,
asking birders to choose one of four options.
Only 21% of the 323 who responded said
that they were not interested in sound
recording, which is encouraging. ‘Already
carrying too much equipment’ was the most
common response (45%) with ‘Can’t afford
it’ and ‘Don’t know how to use the
183
 BB eye
Claire Béarn
108. The author in the field, doing some passive sound
recording, January 2019.
equipment’ each chosen by 17%. An addi-
tional factor suggested by some is that the
time needed to analyse recordings is a
limiting factor.
That poll suggests that if recording equip-
ment was more portable and affordable, then
many more birders might take it up. Yet
you can buy more than adequate sound
recording equipment for a couple of
hundred pounds, and what’s more it’s
extremely portable. A simple handheld
recorder with a basic directional microphone
is more than enough to get those ‘record
shots’. What’s more, you don’t even have to
‘wear’ it: this sort of kit sits perfectly in the
side pocket of a rucksack. Passive continuous
recording like this will capture all of those
flyovers, and allow quick access to the equip-
ment should you need to point it at birds
singing or calling nearby. If you don’t record
anything of note, you can delete the file in a
few seconds. If you do, the time spent
processing the information will probably be
worth it – and, with practice, will take only
a few minutes. Of course, you can spend
184
a small fortune on kit if you go for
a top-of-the-range mic, parabola
and recorder, but for ‘record
recordings’ all you really need is a
device for recording the noises.
These usually come with built-in
microphones that are adequate for
birds close by in decent weather,
but the addition of a simple
‘shotgun’ microphone cuts down
the amount of background noise
recorded, and improves the quality
of your recordings. In the field, it
really is as simple as plugging the
mic into the device, pointing it at
the bird, and pressing record. The
software is a little trickier to
master but there is abundant help
online to get you started. Audacity
and Raven seem to be the software
options of choice for most birders.
The moral of this ‘BB ear’ is that
you don’t have to be an expert to
get the most out of sound
recording. I’m no expert but I’ve
learnt an awful lot about bird
noises since taking it up, and it has
taught me to listen more and to
listen better. Recording birds in the field can
offer us fresh ID insights, help us learn to hear
the differences between similar calls, prove
that we really did see (or hear) what we’re
claiming, contribute to the greater good via
databases such as Xeno-canto and the
Macaulay Library, and of course be rewarding
in its own right. In fact, most of us carry
sound recording equipment around with us
at all times without even realising it – most
smartphones can make perfectly adequate
recordings. Next time you come across a large
but flighty pipit, or a chiffchaff Phylloscopus
sp. with an unusual call, give it a go!
References
Constantine, M., & The Sound Approach. 2006.
The Sound Approach to Birding. The Sound Approach,
Poole.
Robb, M., & The Sound Approach. 2018. The buzz of
‘nocmig’. Brit. Birds 111: 418–422.
Mark Lewis
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 182 – 184
News and comment
Compiled by Adrian Pitches
Opinions expressed in this feature are not necessarily those of British Birds
Fair Isle Bird Observatory destroyed by fire
There was shocking news from Shetland on
Sunday 10th March: the world-renowned
Fair Isle Bird Observatory had burnt to the
ground just weeks before the 2019 season was
due to start. Mercifully, observatory warden
David Parnaby, his wife Susannah and their
two daughters escaped unharmed.
Local firefighters were called to the obser-
vatory at about 11.20 hrs. Extra fire crews were
flown in from Sumburgh on Mainland
Shetland by helicopter, with others arriving on
the island by boat. The smoke was visible from
Sumburgh Head, 40 km to the north. But by
the evening, despite the firefighters’ best
efforts, the entire building had been destroyed.
Fair Isle Bird Observatory Trust President
Roy Dennis, a former observatory warden,
said on Twitter: ‘This is absolutely tragic
news – our famous Fair Isle Bird Observatory
has been lost to fire. Thank goodness there
109. Fire engulfs Fair Isle Bird Observatory, 10th March 2019.
© British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 185 – 189
has been no loss of life but heartfelt
sympathy to David, Susannah and family –
and the islanders. We will rebuild. We have
lost much and will lose a year. Fair Isle is
close to my heart. This is very, very sad.’
The observatory was founded in 1948
and a brand-new, £4m building was con-
structed in 2010. It’s a focal point for Fair
Isle and the principal accommodation
offered to visitors to the island – and its loss
will have a significant economic impact on
the island. And the impact on Britain’s
birding community will also be significant,
with the loss of 70 years of birding history –
including irreplaceable original logs,
artwork, etc. Thankfully, the migration logs
were digitised soon after the 2010 rebuild
(see, for example, the paper by Miles et al. in
BB – Brit. Birds 110: 318–334).
BB offers its support and solidarity to the
Susannah Parnaby
185
 News and comment
Susannah Parnaby
110. The charred remains of the observatory buildings on Fair Isle, early on 11th March 2019.
Obs, its staff and the islanders – and we will
bring news of the rebuilding process and any
appeal for funds in due course. A crowd-
funding appeal for the Parnabys, who lost
Welsh Golden Eagle reintroduction fanfare sounds familiar
The media blitz that surrounded a supposed
reintroduction programme for Golden Eagles
Aquila chrysaetos in Snowdonia took many
observers by surprise. Who exactly was
Dr Paul O’Donoghue, who popped up on
BBC Countryfile and BBC Breakfast? Was
he part of Eagle Reintroduction Wales
(www.eaglereintroductionwales.com), the
collaboration between Cardiff University and
Roy Dennis, which has been patiently
scoping out a potential reintroduction
project for both Golden and White-tailed
Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla in North Wales?
Not exactly, no. In fact, O’Donoghue of
‘Wilder Britain’ is the same Paul O’Donoghue
whose ‘Lynx UK Trust’ had its application to
reintroduce Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx to
Kielder Forest in Northumberland robustly
rejected by Natural England in November
(https://bit.ly/ 2BPHvIR). In his rejection
letter, Environment Secretary Michael Gove
pulled no punches: ‘Following a thorough
assessment, Natural England concluded that
the application does not meet the necessary
standards… and fails to give confidence that
186
their home and most of their possessions in
the blaze, raised £26,640 in just a few days, as
messages of support came in from around
the world.
the project could be completed in practical
terms or that the outputs would meet the
stated aims. As a result, Natural England
found that the proposal lacked the necessary
depth and rigour to provide confidence it
would succeed.
‘Significantly, the proposal did not include
an ecological impact assessment and there-
fore the application lacked the assurances
that impacts had been considered or that the
area had been properly assessed as suitable
for the Lynx at the current time. As far as
could be seen, major landowners and man-
agers, including Forestr y Commission
England, were either engaged insufficiently
or not at all…’
O’Donoghue’s other project, ‘Wildcat
Haven’ in western Scotland, has also attracted
controversy – and criticism from Scottish
Natural Heritage, the Royal Zoological Society
of Scotland and TV naturalist Chris Packham
– but once again it also generated a lot of pub-
licity. Hopefully the low-key, assiduous work
of Eagle Reintroduction Wales will not be
derailed by similar high-profile infighting.
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 185 – 189

HBW moves to Cornell
Meanwhile, a far more successful Lynx
project is moving in a new direction. Lynx
Edicions, publishers of Handbook of the Birds
of the World, and the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology have announced a new partner-
ship, with Cornell providing a permanent
online home for HBW along with the hun-
dreds of thousands of photos, video and
sound files collated by Lynx’s Internet Bird
Collection (IBC).
In its press release Lynx said: ‘These two
grand-scale projects will undergo further
expansions and enhancements in their new
digital home at the Cornell Lab, benefiting
from the Lab’s technological infrastructure
for supporting web-based publications, the
Macaulay Library’s 100-year legacy of media
archives and capabilities, and the rapidly
growing data resources and global birding
community of eBird.
‘With the Handbook of the Birds of the
Another Hen Harrier goes missing
The roll-call of satellite-tagged young Hen
Harriers Circus cyaneus ‘missing in action’
continues; the latest suspicious disappearance
occurred in lowland England, in Wiltshire.
The latest bird to go missing is ‘Vulcan’, a
young male that was one of 11 chicks to
fledge from nests in Northumberland in
summer 2018. It’s the second satellite-tagged
Hen Harrier from Northumberland to disap-
pear since last summer: in August 2018 a
female named ‘Athena’ vanished in suspicious
circumstances in Inverness-shire.
Vulcan was tracked by the RSPB from
Northumberland to the Peak District, where he
remained throughout September, before con-
tinuing farther south through Hampshire and
Dorset. On 16th January his tag sent out its
final transmission, from a location south of
the village of Calstone Wellington, in Wiltshire.
RSPB Investigations staff searched the
area, which is farmland heavily managed for
Pheasant Phasianus colchicus and partridge
shooting, but there was no sign of Vulcan or
his tag: this is the 11th satellite-tagged Hen
Harrier to disappear since last summer.
It is especially worrying that Vulcan was in
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 185 – 189
News and comment
World, Lynx Edicions set an audacious goal:
to create scholarly documentation and illus-
trations of the plumages, life histories, and
systematics of all the world’s birds in a single,
monumental reference series. That goal was
accomplished with the completion of the 17-
volume set in 2013.
‘Alongside the HBW series, in 2002 Lynx
developed and launched the Internet Bird
Collection – an online community archive of
multimedia celebrated by thousands of bird
enthusiasts around the world. As HBW Alive
was launched, the IBC enhanced its sister
project via direct links to rich media that
illustrate important facets of behaviour
described in the HBW Alive accounts.
‘We particularly welcome the opportunity
to bring together our worldwide contributor
communities to share in further developing
these resources.’
lowland Britain when he was presumably
shot (the satellite tag had been performing
‘brilliantly’ according to RSPB staff, so for it
to suddenly stop transmitting is highly suspi-
cious), away from the high-risk areas of
driven grouse moors in northern Britain.
Ironically, he disappeared barely 30 km from
the site of Natural England’s proposed rein-
troduction site for (young continental) Hen
Harriers at Parsonage Down NNR, near
Salisbury Plain, part of its widely derided
Hen Harrier Action Plan (which also includes
the ‘brood management’ of Hen Harrier
clutches away from northern grouse moors).
Gareth Cunningham, the RSPB’s Head of
Nature Policy, said: ‘The RSPB has serious
reservations about this approach to Hen
Harrier conservation in England, and there-
fore is not supporting the reintroduction
project. The disappearance of Vulcan raises
concerns over the safety of any birds poten-
tially reintroduced to this part of the world,
and we believe ending illegal Hen Harrier
persecution is the first and most important
step that needs to be taken to restore the UK
population.’
187
News and comment
Jailed egg thief ’s haul successfully hatched and reared
Several of the South African raptor eggs and
chicks seized when serial egg thief Jeffrey
Lendrum was arrested at Heathrow Airport
in June 2018 (Brit. Birds 112: 126–127) have
been successfully hatched and reared at the
International Centre for Birds of Prey in
Gloucestershire.
The Centre reared three Cape Vultures
Gyps coprotheres, which are designated as
Endangered and are found at only one other
breeding centre in the UK. Eggs belonging to
African Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer, Black
Sparrowhawk Accipiter melanoleucus and
African Hawk-Eagle Aquila spilogaster were
also successfully hatched.
Lendrum had attempted to smuggle 19
eggs and two chicks from South Africa into
Birdfair 2019 to support Cambodian conservation project
The 2018 Birdfair was another monumental
money-spinner for conservation – more than
23,000 visitors to the fair helped raise
£322,000 to support the creation of
Argentina’s largest national park – the Mar
Chiquita complex of saline lagoons. This
takes the total raised by Birdfair over its 30-
year history to more than £5m.
At the cheque presentation to BirdLife at
Rutland Water in March it was revealed that
the 2019 Birdfair, which will take place on
16th–18th August, will fundraise for BirdLife’s
‘Conserving Cambodia’s Big Five’ project.
This project will secure protection for
Western Siem Pang Wildlife Sanctuary and its
Tim’s chums’ owl
The Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus that
took up residence in Mainland Shetland in
February/March (plate 135, p. 238) had a
special meaning for many birders. Although
not the first long-stayer, it was the first-ever
twitchable individual, as previous birds had
been inaccessible or suppressed. The bird
which spent three weeks in the same bush at
Spurn, Yorkshire, in March 1983 is still con-
troversial 36 years later. So for Yorkshire
birders who made the long journey north to
188
the UK by strapping them to his chest in a
sling hidden beneath a heavy coat, but was
caught by customs officials and sentenced to
three years and one month in jail.
Jemima Parr y-Jones, director of the
Centre, said: ‘This kind of crime is heart-
breaking because it puts everybody like us
into disrepute and at the same time Lendrum
is impacting the wild bird population in
its native countries by depleting it.’
Although the seized raptors have been
hand-reared and cannot therefore be released
back into the wild, it’s hoped that any off-
spring from captive breeding will eventually
be released back into their natural habitat in
South Africa.
five Critically Endangered birds. This area of
dry forest and savanna is one of the last
strongholds for the Giant Ibis Pseudibis gigan-
tea and White-shouldered Ibis P. davisoni,
which are ‘flagship species’ for conservation in
Cambodia. Indeed, Giant Ibis was designated
as the country’s national bird in 2005.
The forests at Western Siem Pang are
some of the last remnants of a huge forest
ecosystem that once covered most of central
Indochina, and besides the two ibises, the
area also has populations of three species of
vulture – White-rumped Gyps bengalensis,
Slender-billed G. tenuirostris and Red-headed
Sarcogyps calvus.
see the Shetland owl, there was a particular
sense of closure after nearly four decades.
The bird had additional significance for
one band of birders from Tyneside who made
the Tengmalm’s trek. They were completing a
quest that had started a year previously but
which arguably started 67 years before that.
Kevin Bayes, Mike Carr, Alan Curry, Iain
Johnson, Martin Kerby, Adrian Pitches and
Duncan Watson were good friends of Tim
Cleeves, who died suddenly in December
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 185 – 189

2017 (Brit. Birds 111: 112–113).
Like all people who are taken too soon,
Tim left unfinished business, including a
(BOU) British List that stood at 495 when he
died, five short of the totemic 500. So his
friends resolved to get him over the line and
the quest to ‘get Tim to 500’ began. What
vagrants, taxonomic shifts or armchair ticks
would help them reach that target?
In late spring 2018 the Moltoni’s Warbler
Sylvia subalpina in Norfolk in May was fol-
lowed by a dawn raid on Sussex in June for
the fleeting (American) Royal Tern Thalasseus
maximus. October of that year duly delivered
two ticks within a week for Tim’s ‘wanted list’:
Grey Catbird Dumetella carolinensis in
Cornwall and a (DNA-confirmed) Stejneger’s
Stonechat Saxicola stejnegeri in Norfolk. All of
the birds were watched through Tim’s binoc-
ulars and a celebratory Bristol Rovers scarf
(Tim’s team) was flourished. Within a year of
his death, Tim’s list was on 499.
The final bird had to be something special:
not a taxonomic revision or armchair tick – it
required an epic journey for a legendary bird.
And then that owl arrived in Shetland. How
fitting if Tim’s 500th was to be logged in one
Correction
Following the February issue of BB, and the
paper on the Brighton Rarities (Brit. Birds
112: 89–98), Geir Mobakken wrote in to
point out that in addition to the White-
winged Lark Alauda leucoptera records men-
tioned in that paper, there are two accepted
records from Norway, both in 2015, on 20th
May and 16th June. This would seem to
emphasise the months of May and June as
the best time to find this species in Europe.
New county recorders
North-east Scotland Ian Broadbent, 18 Abbotshall Drive, Cults, Aberdeen AB15 9JD,
e-mail nescotlandrecorder@the-soc.org.uk
Don’t forget that a full list of county recorders is maintained on the BB website,
at https://britishbirds.co.uk/county-recorders
For extended versions of many of the stories featured here,
and much more, visit our website www.britishbirds.co.uk
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 185 – 189
News and comment
of his favourite birding locations, where he
first met his wife Ann and where her hugely
successful Shetland novels were set. The ‘A’
Team – Mike, Alan and Martin – were en
route within 48 hours of the bird’s discovery
but their first day on Shetland drew a blank.
Returning the next day, they were successful –
Tim had his 500th British bird. Meanwhile,
the ‘B’ Team – Kevin, Iain, Adrian and Duncan
– were on another ferry, hoping to share the
moment, but the day after their friends had
enjoyed the owl, they drew a blank. The bird’s
one day on, one day off, pattern foiled their
initial attempt and the stragglers had to return
home that night, empty-handed. But this
quest was personal and when the owl was dis-
covered in neighbouring Tresta, Iain, Adrian
and Duncan returned to Shetland; and it was
second time lucky. Collectively they had deliv-
ered Tim’s final five British birds and could
finally hang up his binoculars.
If this story resonates with the reader, you
can make a contribution to Tim’s memory
too – his daughter Ruth has set up a Just
Giving page for the mental health charity
Mind www.justgiving.com/fundraising/
ruth-raynor1
African Bird Club
The African Bird Club (www.africanbird
club.org) is holding its AGM at the Flett
Theatre in the Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London, on Saturday 13th
April. Doors open at 9.30 am and there is a
full programme of lectures featuring Yahkat
Barshep, Nigel Collar, Dick Forsman, Sarah
Havery, Stephen Pringle and Nigel Redman.
The meeting is open to both members and
non-members of the Club.
189
Redstart hybrids in
Europe and North Africa
Nicolas Martinez, Bernd Nicolai and
Vincent van der Spek
Abstract An analysis of 121 wild Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros x Common
Redstart P. phoenicurus hybrids from Europe and North Africa is presented, with an
overview of distribution, phenology, habitat, biometrics, phenotypes and
vocalisations. Records of hybrid redstarts have increased markedly over the past 30
years. Such birds show an intermediate phenology but in terms of habitat choice
are more similar to Black Redstarts. No wild female hybrids were found, which
must be related to reduced detectability. The locally more abundant species usually
plays the role of the female in mixed pairs and in pairs with male hybrids. Plumage
variation within male hybrids is higher than previously documented. Primary spacing
ratio and the presence of emarginations on P6 are useful identification features for
hybrids, but there is substantial overlap with both parental species, and with
‘Eastern Black Redstart’, especially P. o. phoenicuroides. Song of hybrids may approach
Black Redstart in structure and presence of the ‘scratchy’ part, but matches
Common Redstart in pace and strophe length.

Introduction migratory behaviour, at least in captivity

In Europe, Black Redstarts Phoenicurus
ochruros gibraltariensis and nominate
Common Redstarts P. p. phoenicurus (here-
after gibraltariensis and phoenicurus respec-
tively) originally occupied different habitats:
gibraltariensis bred in alpine regions and
phoenicurus in wooded habitats, and contact
zones were restricted to the upper tree line.
However, when both species began to
colonise human settlements, a secondary
contact zone emerged (Ertan 2002): gibral-
tariensis occupied buildings as an alternative
to rocky areas, while phoenicurus settled in
orchards, villages and parks. This probably
resulted in an increase in hybridisation
(Ertan 2002). Niche separation in urban
environments was studied by Grosch (2003,
2004) and Sedláček et al. (2004), and the
former carried out experiments with hybrids
and backcrosses. Others investigated the
genetic component of migratory behaviour
(gibraltariensis is a short-distance migrant
while phoenicurus is a long-distance migrant)
and showed that hybrids exhibit intermediate
(Berthold & Querner 1995; Berthold et al.
1996).
Natural (= wild) redstart hybrids were
first described by Kleinschmidt (1907/08)
and Heim de Balsac (1929); Droz (2011) gave
a recent overview, describing 39 hybrids.
Male hybrids share many similarities with
‘Eastern Black Redstart’, especially the
rufous-bellied form P. o. phoenicuroides that
breeds in Central Asia and has occurred as
a vagrant to Europe (Ebels et al. 2018),
prompting identification papers such as
Nicolai et al. (1996), Lindholm (2001), Steijn
(2005), Petersson et al. (2014), Stoddart
(2016) and van der Spek & Martinez (2018).
Box 1 presents an overview of the separation
of hybrids and Eastern Black Redstarts.
Based on 121 redstart hybrids from
Europe and North Africa, we present an
overview that covers variation in phenotypes,
distribution, phenology, vocalisations and
analyses of mixed pairs; to our knowledge,
this is the most extensive work on natural
redstart hybrids.

190 © British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210

 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

Methods song. Note that in Common Redstart song the

Data collection
We searched for records of redstart hybrids
and mixed broods in published literature and
online. Additional observations were collected
from direct contacts and online searches (the
following internet platforms were searched
systematically: www.waarneming.nl,
www.waarnemingen.be, www.netfugl.dk,
www.observation.org, www.xeno-canto.org,
www.tarsiger.com and national/regional
ornitho-platforms from Austria, Catalunya,
France, Germany and Switzerland). For each
hybrid claim, we collected all available infor-
mation on phenotype, arrival date, breeding,
song and call, including recordings and
images. In many cases we contacted observers
directly, for more specific information.
References to all analysed birds and additional
photographs can be found at https://
bebbibabbler.jimdo.com/projekte/rotschwanz
-hybriden. For the analysis of ‘mixed singers’
we searched www.ornitho.ch only and com-
bined the results with our own and published
observations. Mixed singers were defined as
birds that resemble classic male phoenicurus in
appearance but regularly give gibraltariensis
final flourish consists of mimicry and this can
include Black Redstart song. Mixed singers
differ by copying complete strophes. Seemingly
classic-looking gibraltariensis that regularly
give phoenicurus song were not found.
Analyses
Potential hybrids were classified based on
available descriptions, images and/or mea-
surements and assigned to one of the fol-
lowing categories: 1 = confirmed hybrid
(wing measurements); 2 = confirmed hybrid
(images); 3 = confirmed hybrid (description
and/or earlier publication); 4 = unconfirmed
hybrid (claims without description or
images; also records of Eastern Black
Redstarts not accepted by national rarity
committees when a hybrid was considered
the more likely option); 5 = hybrid or ‘red-
bellied’ gibraltariensis; 6 = ‘red-bellied’ gibral-
tariensis (birds with extensive red on the
underparts that otherwise have characters
only of gibraltariensis). Whenever possible,
photographed birds were aged by the
presence/absence of moult limits and adult-
type greater-coverts.

D. Kratzer

111. Male hybrid Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros x Common Redstart P. phoenicurus
(foreground) with male Black Redstart P. o. gibraltariensis, Wyhlen, Germany, 31st March 2012.
This hybrid was seen in a flock of no fewer than 153 gibraltariensis. It can be separated from
‘Eastern Black Redstart’ P. o. phoenicuroides by (for example) the white undertail-coverts,
a shallow dark breast-patch and a large white belly-patch.

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 191

Martinez et al.

To assess differences in phenology, we tion on plumage features. Grosch (2000) and

compared arrival dates (first sighting date) of
both parental species from Germany (from
www.ornitho.de accessed in August 2017)
with those of hybrids from the Benelux
countries, Germany and Switzerland. We
used hybrids from these countries only
because they are from a similar geographical
area. We assessed the breeding habitat for
each territorial hybrid and mixed singer and
assigned these to seven different categories.
Based on available information on habitat
choice (Cramp 1988; Glutz von Blotzheim &
Bauer 1988) and our own experience, we
compared the habitat of hybrids and mixed
singers with that of both parental species.
Only photographed birds were used to
analyse plumage variation. Using a set of pre-
defined criteria (table 2), six main plumage
types were identified. Nearly 100 hybrids
were bred in the 1990s by Peter Berthold’s
group (Vogelwarte Radolfzell), with inter-
esting results on genetics (Ertan 2002, 2006),
migration (Berthold et al. 1996; Berthold
2001), habitat selection, and foraging
behaviour (Grosch 2000, 2003, 2004). To our
knowledge, there are no detailed studies on
morphology and plumage, although some
relevant information is given in Grosch
(2000), Ertan (2002) and Steijn (2005). In
2011–12, seven captive-bred hybrids (four
males, two females and one female
F2 hybrid) were transferred to Museum
Heineanum in Halberstadt. As they had been
kept in aviaries and their bodies then stored
in freezers, their condition is not perfect, but
since their parental origin was known, these
birds provided valuable additional informa-
18
16
no. recorded hybrids
Ertan (2002) collected biometric data; we
combined these with data from wild hybrids.
For many singing hybrids and mixed
singers, short descriptions of the song were
available. To a much lesser extent this was
also true for calls. Wherever possible, for
both song and calls, we assigned each bird to
one of the following five categories: similar to
gibraltariensis; similar to phoenicurus;
mixture of both species; both species alter-
nately; and atypical vocalisations. For a few
hybrids and mixed singers, recordings were
available. These were analysed with Raven
Lite and the number of song strophes
according to the five categories above were
noted. For complete gibraltariensis strophes,
the total length and the length of the pause
before the scratchy part was measured and
compared with strophes of pure gibral-
tariensis. We defined complete gibraltariensis
strophes as those starting with some clear
notes that may form a trill, followed by a
pause, continued with a scratchy part and
ending with a couple of trills. Note that the
scratchy part can be replaced by heavily mod-
ulated trills.
Results
Temporal and geographical occurrence
Reports of hybrids were rare until 1990, but
then increased strongly (fig. 1). For this
study, we used observations of 121 hybrid
males (categories 1–3, table 2): 30 confirmed
by biometrics, 48 by photographs and 43
described and/or from previous publications
(without images). Four poorly marked birds,
still clearly identifiable as males, were
observed in autumn and
may have been 1CY
birds. We found no con-
firmed wild female

14
12 hybrids (but see captive
10 hybrids, below).
8 Redstart hybrids have
6 been observed across
4 Europe, in at least 16
2 countries. Records are
0 especially numerous in
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Germany (47 birds),
Fig. 1. Number of Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros x Common Switzerland (17), France
Redstart P. phoenicurus hybrids recorded annually in Europe and (8), the Netherlands (8)
North Africa, 1900–2017 (n=121). and Sweden (8). There

192 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210

 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

hybrid Black x Common Redstart

hybrid or ‘red-bellied’ gibraltariensis
unconfirmed hybrids

Map: Natural Earth (naturalearthdata.com)

Fig. 2. Records of Black Redstart x Common Redstart hybrids in Europe (yellow dots; n=121),
plus seven records of birds that are either hybrids or ‘red-bellied’ P. o. gibraltariensis (orange) and
an additional 31 sightings of unconfirmed hybrids (white).

are relatively few records from southern
Europe: Italy (6), Spain (2) and Albania (1,
Ernst 2017). One in Ukraine in 2014
(Fesenko & Shybanov 2016) is the only
record east of Poland (3) and south of
Fennoscandia (fig. 2). Two records from
Morocco are the only confirmed hybrids
from North Africa (Demey 2009; Robel &
Nicolai 2009).
Mixed pairs and breeding hybrids
We found 29 mixed gibraltariensis and
phoenicurus pairs, of which at least 18 bred.
Seventeen pairs were formed by a phoeni-
curus male and a gibraltariensis female, and
12 pairs were composed of a phoenicurus
female and a gibraltariensis male. Of the 17
which involved phoenicurus males, five (29%)
males were mixed singers and one performed
a typical phoenicurus song (see vocalisations
section, below); no information was available
for the remaining 11 males. There was a clear
difference between Fennoscandia and central
Europe in the composition of the pairs. All
seven mixed pairs from Fennoscandia were
formed by a male gibraltariensis and a female
phoenicurus, while in central Europe 17 of
the 22 mixed pairs (77%) comprised a male
phoenicurus and a female gibraltariensis.
Hybrid males also breed. Of 34 breeding
attempts by male hybrids with (assumed)
pure females (of either species), two pairs
abandoned their nests before laying. Of the
remaining 32 pairs, at least 20 were suc-
cessful: 24 pairs comprised a hybrid male and
a gibraltariensis female (75%), and eight pairs
a hybrid male and a phoenicurus female
(25%). Again, all hybrids from Fennoscandia
were paired with phoenicurus females (five
pairs), whereas most hybrids from central
Europe were paired with gibraltariensis
females (24 of 27 pairs, 89%).
Phenology of hybrids and parental
species
In Europe, hybrids are most often detected in
spring: 82% of all records occur between mid
March and late June, with a much smaller
autumn peak in September and October (fig.
3). The earliest observation of a certain
hybrid in Europe is 7th March 1997, in
Rome, Italy (Bulgarini & Fraticelli 1998); the

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 193

Martinez et al.

(ringed at Subigerberg,
20
Switzerland; T. Lüthi in litt.), 8th
18
October 2008 (photographed at
16
Cap Ferret, France; L. Barbaro,
no. observed birds

14
www.faune-aquitaine.org) and
12
12th October 2012 (ringed and
10 photographed on Lampedusa,
8 Italy; G. Papale in litt.).
6 Records of hybrids from
4 Germany, Switzerland and the
2 Benelux countries (n=48) suggest
0 that their phenology in spring falls
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
in between the peak of the two
Fig. 3. Timing of hybrid Black Redstart x Common Redstart parental species. Hybrids peak
sightings in Europe (n=112). Nine returning birds were around 1st–10th April, while
counted for each year they were seen, of which five birds gibraltariensis peak between 21st
returned once, and four returned twice. March and 10th April and phoeni-
curus 21st–30th April (fig. 4).
30 hybrid
no. observations (%)

25 phoenicurus Habitat
20 gibraltariensis The majority of the territorial male
15 hybrids were present in anthro-
10 pogenic habitats, where gibral-
5 tariensis is typically abundant
0 (mainly in villages and dense
1–10 11–20 21–31 1–10 11–21 21–30 1–10 11–20
human settlements) but where
March April May
phoenicurus occurs too (table 1).
Fig. 4. Spring phenology of Black Redstart x Common Significant numbers were also
Redstart hybrids (blue, n=48) in Germany, Switzerland and found in dense human settlements
the Benelux countries compared with gibraltariensis (grey, with few green areas, as well as in
97,165 observations) and phoenicurus (orange, 51,392
observations) in Germany (data from www.ornitho.de for
city centres and similar habitats
both species). Returning hybrids were counted for each year lacking green areas or trees. Only
they appeared. a minority of hybrids were
observed in typical ‘phoenicurus-
latest records of confirmed hybrids from only’ habitats. Mixed singers occur in approxi-
mainland Europe are 8th October 1993 mately similar habitats.

Table 1. Habitat of territorial Black Redstart x Common Redstart hybrids (n =54) and
mixed singers (n =19) compared with habitat choice of P. o. gibraltariensis and P. phoenicurus.
Key: – mostly absent or very rare, + rare, ++ local, +++ abundant.

habitat gibraltariensis hybrid (%) mixed singer (%) phoenicurus

forest, forest margin – 11 11 +++
orchard – 0 11 +++
open landscape with single ++ 13 5 ++
buildings, urban green zones
villages +++ 29 15 ++
dense human settlements with +++ 26 37 +
few green zones/trees
city centres and similar habitats +++ 16 21 –
lacking green zones/trees
alpine habitat +++ 5 0 –

194 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210

 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

Table 2. Variation of six plumage features based on images of 76 male Black Redstart x
Common Redstart hybrids (plus 14 images of returning males from subsequent years, since
adults can differ from 2CY birds). Note that not all features could be assigned for all birds.
BR = gibraltariensis, CR = phoenicurus. Note that types 1–3 are merged in one column, since they
differ only in the presence/absence of the white wing-panel and the (size of the) white forehead
patch.

feature types 1–3 type 4 type 5 type 6 (hybrid total total

(‘classic’) (‘pale’) (similar to or red-bellied (n) (%)
phoenicurus) gibraltariensis)
white absent 14 9 6 0 29 38
wing-panel hint, whitish margins 11 0 1 0 12 16
on (some) secondaries
present, but clearly 18 0 0 0 18 23
less than in BR, white
prominent, solid 8 0 0 10 18 23
white as BR

forehead white forehead as CR 12 2 6 0 20 25

(prominent, solid white,
widest over bill)
some white feathers, 38 6 2 1 47 59
not solid patch
no white feathers 3 1 0 9 13 16

black bib black bib as CR 1 0 1 0 2 2

black bib larger 27 7 7 0 41 51
than CR, but similar
shape, red triangle
black bib clearly more 17 2 0 0 19 23
extensive than
CR, sides black
breast black, 9 0 0 6 15 18
horizontal line
red up to belly 1 0 0 4 5 6

black/red sharp, clear line, 2 3 3 0 8 10

transition sharp, but irregular line 33 3 4 0 40 49
indistinct (few 15 3 1 3 22 27
feathers ‘mixed’)
poorly defined 4 0 0 7 11 14
transition

belly patch as CR 11 5 3 1 20 31
prominent, but 16 0 1 4 21 33
less than CR
only between legs 19 0 2 2 23 36
absent 0 0 0 0 0 0

back grey as CR 5 4 1 0 10 14
dark grey 25 2 3 1 31 45
(darker than CR)
greyish-black 16 0 2 8 26 37
black 2 0 0 1 3 4

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 195

Martinez et al.
Plumage variation
All photographed male hybrids were assigned
to one of six hybrid phenotypes (table 2).
Three of these (types 1, 2 and 3) largely cor-
respond to birds illustrated in Nicolai et al.
(1996). In such birds, the black bib is clearly
larger than in phoenicurus, but it is still
restricted to the breast and it has neat edges.
Types 1, 2 & 3 – defined here as ‘classic types’
– differ in the presence or absence of a white
wing-panel and the amount of white on the
forehead (see fig. 5); 69% of hybrids were
assigned to these three phenotypes. The
remaining types are 4 (birds with an
extremely pale, cream to greyish body with
only slight orange hue; 10%), 5 (birds that
are very similar to phoenicurus, but for which
the size of the black bib clearly exceeds the
normal variation; 12%), and 6 (males with a
rusty-orange belly and (lower) breast, which
are otherwise extremely similar to gibral-
tariensis – i.e. hybrid or red-bellied gibral-
tariensis; 9%). Birds of all six phenotypes
show some variation in plumage features
Type 6 (‘hybrid or red-bellied BR’)
Type 5 (‘similar to CR’)
9%
12%
10%
Type 4 (‘pale’)
5%
18%
Type 3 (‘classic except
for wing and front’)
Fig. 5. Proportion of male Black Redstart x Common Redstart hybrids (n=76, plus 14 images of
returning males) assigned to six hybrid phenotypes.
Image credits (clockwise from Type 1): M. Frede, T. Sörensen, H. Blockx, A. Barras, J. Honold, M. Roost.
196
usually considered important in redstart
hybrids (Steijn 2005; van der Spek &
Martinez 2018).
Some of the observed variation is age-
related. The ‘pale’ type 4 seems to be a first-
summer phenotype: all ‘pale’ birds showed
signs of immaturity, such as worn brown pri-
maries. Moreover, there were two records from
Germany where a hybrid with orange under-
parts was observed at exactly the same loca-
tion where a territorial pale bird was present a
year earlier. Other variation seems to be
related again to age, but also to wear. As in
gibraltariensis, a prominent white wing-panel
appears only in adult males (14 of 22 birds
aged as 3CY males or older showed a large
panel); 84% of all March and April hybrids
(both aged and non-aged birds) showed a
white wing-panel. The panel seems to be
(partly) lost through wear as the spring pro-
gresses, however: only 20% of the birds photo-
graphed in May and June showed a pale panel
although there is no reason to assume that
there should be fewer adults among them. In
Type 1 (‘classic’)
46%
Type 2 (‘classic except for wing’)
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210
 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

V. Keinath
112. Photographs of the same adult (3CY+) Black Redstart x Common Redstart hybrid, Hausen,
Germany, 2007. These images, taken in April, May and July (left to right), illustrate how the white
wing-panel is lost due to wear. This individual is separable from Eastern Black Redstart by (for
example) the large wing-panel and large forehead patch, though the quality of these images does
not allow all relevant features to be checked.

addition, several known adult

birds in May and June lacked a
white wing-panel (plates 112 &
113). A feature that changes
after the post-breeding moult is
the transition between the
black bib and the orange belly:
new greyish feather margins

N. Martinez
result in a somewhat indistinct
edge between the black bib and
the orange belly in autumn.
Consequently, the black bib
113. Adult (3CY+) male Black Redstart x Common Redstart
often appears larger in autumn hybrid with heavily abraded wing feathers, Wenslingen, Switzerland,
hybrids. Similarly, the white 1st July 2017. Because of the heavy wear, the white wing-panel,
forehead seems to be obscured which may previously have been quite obvious, is barely visible.
by greyish feather margins after
moult in autumn (plate 114).

Phenotypes of captive-bred
birds
Since the origin of captive-
bred birds is certain, we also
studied the seven birds at
Museum Heineanum (fig. 6)
and additional pictures of
captive-bred hybrids from
L. Fitze

Radolfzell (plate 115). Our

analysis led to the following
conclusions:
1. All captive male F1 hybrids
belong to one of the three
‘classic’ types (table 2).
2. First- and second-calendar-
year males lack the white
wing-panel. As in gibral-
tariensis, the white feather
margins are present only
114. Typical autumn male Black Redstart x Common Redstart
hybrid, Teufen, Switzerland, 27th August 2017. This bird shows a
solid white wing-panel and greyish fringes to the breast feathers,
which produce a diffuse border between dark breast and orange
belly. The primary spacing in the closed wing (the ratio of P6–P7:
P5–P6 equals 1:1.1 in this bird and excludes a red-bellied
gibraltariensis). It can be told from Eastern Black Redstart by
the square grey breast-patch, lacking an orange ‘triangle’ on the
breast sides, a large amount of white on the underparts, the
large white wing-panel and large white forehead patch.

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 197

Martinez et al.
after the second complete moult of 2CY
birds in autumn. The white wing-panel
was present in adult male birds of both
parental combinations (fig. 6). However,
based on our data we cannot establish
whether a white wing-panel is always
present in adult male F1 hybrids, regard-
less of the parental combination.
3. The extent of the black bib on the throat
and upper breast is quite constant in the
males analysed. Measured from bill base
to centre of the breast, the bib is approxi-
mately 35 mm deep. The edge between the
black bib and the orange belly was some-
what indistinct in the captive birds, owing
to the presence of fresh feather margins
after the post-breeding moult.
4. The white belly-patch was indistinct and
did not reach further than the upper belly
in both 1CY and adult males. None of the
birds had the belly ‘divided in two’, which
is commonly observed in phoenicurus and
regularly in wild hybrids.
5. Body feathers on the back, the greater
coverts and the tertials of all males had
prominent rusty margins, sometimes even
F1: ♂ad F1: ♂ad F1:♂1Y
BR x CR CR x BR BR x CR
underparts
upperparts
Fig. 6. Variation in captive-bred male and female Black Redstart (BR) x Common Redstart (CR)
hybrids from Vogelwarte Radolfzell.
198
giving the impression of a rusty wing-bar.
These must have been inherited from
phoenicurus and they would be buff to
greyish in an Eastern Black Redstart (see
Box 1).
6. Female hybrids are extremely indistinct.
Although they are possibly a little warmer
toned, the females examined would
almost certainly be identified as gibral-
tariensis in the field. The same applies for
the F2 female illustrated in fig. 6.
7. The only documented male backcross was
the offspring of a hybrid female and a
gibraltariensis male (plate 115). The edges
of the black bib are less neat in this bird
than in F1 hybrids and the orange on the
belly is less intense.
Measurements
Most measurements of hybrids are, pre-
dictably, intermediate between those of their
parental species (table 3). The only exception
is the tail length of males, which seems to be
more comparable with that of gibraltariensis.
The intermediate nature of hybrids is
especially obvious in terms of wing shape: in
F1: ♀ F2: ♀
parents
BR x CR ♂BR x CR & ♀BR x CR
B. Nicolai
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210
 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa
U. Querner
115 & 116. Captive-bred male backcross (male P. o. gibraltariensis x hybrid, autumn bird) from
Vogelwarte Radolfzell, and a juvenile backcross of a pair formed by a male hybrid and a female
gibraltariensis.
gibraltariensis the wing-tip is formed by four
primaries (P3–P6, numbered ascendantly),
whereas in phoenicurus the wing-tip is formed
by three (P3–P5). The wing shape of hybrids
is intermediate and the primary length of P5,
P6 and P7, as well as their relative distances,
enable gibraltariensis and phoenicurus to be
excluded in many cases. Thus 72% of hybrids
have a ‘primary spacing ratio’ (P6–P7:P5–P6)
between 1:1.2 and 1:2.0, which is out of the
range for both gibraltariensis and phoenicurus.
Note, however, that seven out of 36 birds
(19%), including five wild birds, showed
ratios >1:1.5, falling in the range of P. o.
phoenicuroides (1:1.57–2.14; Steijn 2005). As
expected, backcrosses of hybrids with gibral-
tariensis approach gibraltariensis in mor-
phology. Again, the number of birds
examined is low and variation in length of P6
is high, with two birds showing extreme
values resulting in primary spacing ratios
outside the range of the parents, possibly
indicating a transmission error in these two
cases.
Vocalisations
According to the observers, 37/55 (67%)
hybrids gave song resembling gibraltariensis
while another 12 (22%) gave either both
parents’ songs (three birds) or a mixed song
(nine). Only five (9%) consistently sang like
phoenicurus, while one bird was reported to
sound similar to a singing Common
Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. There was no
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210
V. Keinath
detectable geographical difference.
At first sight, sound recordings of 14 dif-
ferent hybrids confirm the observers’ infor-
mation: 153 strophes were strongly
reminiscent of the full song of gibraltariensis
(including a ‘scratchy’ or heavily modulated
part), while 78 strophes corresponded with
gibraltariensis partial song (without scratchy
parts) and 37 strophes sounded like a
mixture of gibraltariensis and phoenicurus.
However, the recordings yielded no typical
phoenicurus strophes at all.
The hybrid strophes corresponding with
gibraltariensis seemed to be delivered at a
higher pace, however, and may recall phoeni-
curus in this respect (fig. 7). The mean
strophe length (full strophes) was 2.7 ± 0.4
seconds (range 1.6–4.1) and, for full strophes
that include the scratchy part, the mean
length of the gap between the first part
and the scratchy part is 0.3 ± 0.2 seconds
(range 0.0–1.4, with 86% <0.5 seconds).
Corresponding values based on 65 full stro-
phes from ten different individual gibral-
tariensis are 3.8 ± 0.5 seconds (strophe
length, range 3.2–6.4), and 0.8 ± 0.6 seconds
(gap before scratchy part, range 0.1–3.6,
with 65% >0.5 seconds, recordings from
www.xeno-canto.org). In phoenicurus,
strophe length is 0.9–2.9 seconds (Ayé et al.
2014), with the upper values corresponding
to complete strophes. Furthermore, some
hybrids start their song with an element that
may recall the introductory whistle typical of
199
200
Table 3. Mean values for basic morphological measurements of Black Redstart x Common Redstart hybrids and backcrosses compared with phoenicurus, gibraltariensis
and phoenicuroides (measurements in mm). WL: wing length, TL: tail length, Ta: tarsus, FSp: foot span, Bb: bill depth (at feathering), Bm: bill depth (at nostrils), P: primary
(feather length). Sources: Ertan 2002 (WL, TL, Ta, P), Grosch 2000 (Fsp, Bb, Bm), Steijn 2005 (primary spacing ratio in P. o. phoenicuroides), Ertan 2002 combined with data
of wild hybrids (primary spacing ratio, emarginations).

phoenicurus hybrid backcross with gibraltariensis phoenicuroides

Martinez et al.

gibraltariensis
x ± SD n x ± SD n x ± SD n x ± SD n x ± SD n
WL ♀ 78.8 ± 2.10 7 82.6 ± 3.25 7 82.0 ± 2.65 3 84.4 ± 2.37 16 – –
♂ 80.6 ± 2.57 65 85.3 ± 1.90 6 84.5 ± 1.80 3 86.7 ± 1.60 32 84.7 ± 2.71 27
TL ♀ 54.4 ± 1.79 7 57.5 ± 1.35 7 59.0 ± 1.41 3 59.5 ± 2.14 16 – –
♂ 56.6 ± 2.19 65 60.7 ± 2.07 6 60.8 ± 1.53 3 60.3 ± 2.10 33 60.9 ± 2.16 27
Ta ♀ 21.6 ± 0.76 7 21.8 ± 0.98 7 21.7 ± 0.75 3 22.7 ± 0.94 16 – –
♂ 22.7 ± 0.95 65 22.9 ± 0.80 6 22.4 ± 0.15 3 23.9 ± 0.75 33 24.7 ± 0.89 22
FSp ♀&♂ 23.0 ± 0.10 19 24.0 ± 0.20 14 – – 24.0 ± 0.10 20 – –
Bb ♀&♂ 3.70 ± 0.10 19 3.6 ± 0.10 14 – – 3.40 ± 0.10 20 – –
Bm ♀&♂ 3.20 ± 0.00 19 3.1 ± 0.10 14 – – 2.90 ± 0.10 20 – –
P5 ♀ 61.0 ± 1.32 7 64.7 ± 1.47 7 65.3 ± 1.8 3 67.8 ± 1.47 16 – –
♂ 64.8 ± 2.10 65 67.8 ± 1.40 7 68.7 ± 2.4 3 71.0 ± 1.39 33 – –
P6 ♀ 58.0 ± 2.00 7 61.9 ± 0.94 7 63.7 ± 1.4 3 66.3 ± 1.33 16 – –
♂ 60.1 ± 1.83 65 64.2 ± 1.08 7 64.8 ± 3.3 3 68.7 ± 2.11 33 – –
P7 ♀ 54.6 ± 1.03 7 58.3 ± 1.19 7 59.5 ± 1.3 3 61.9 ± 1.32 16 – –
♂ 57.3 ± 1.77 65 59.8 ± 1.29 7 60.2 ± 1.0 3 64.3 ± 2.95 33 – –
Primary spacing ratio ♀&♂ 0.90 72 1.28 ± 0.32 36 2.20 ± 1.4 6 2.29 49 2.19 10
[P6–P7:P5–P6] (range) (0.41–1.17) (0.88 – 2.25) (0.4 – 4.5) (2.00 – 2.50) (1.57–3.0)
P6 emargination [presence] ♀&♂ 0% 72 45% 22 50% 6 100% 49 74% 27
P6 emargination length ♂ – 72 11.0 ± 2.1 6 15.0 ± 0.0 2 18.4 ± 1.69 33 16.8 ± 1.47 20
[when present] (range) (7–13) (14–19)

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210

 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

phoenicurus, but
note that gibral-
tariensis can start its
strophes the same
way.
A similar pattern
was found in hybrid
calls: the majority
(n=13) called like
gibraltariensis,
whereas two called
like phoenicurus
and three gave both
call types.
Of 43 mixed
singers (the birds
that looked like
pure phoenicurus
but regularly pro-
duced gibraltari -
ensis song strophes),
17 consistently sang Fig. 7. Examples of a typical song strophe from a Black Redstart x Common
like gibraltariensis. Redstart hybrid (classic type – Wenslingen, Switzerland, 2nd July 2017, based
Of the remainder, on a recording from T. Lüthi) compared with typical gibraltariensis and
12 alternated bet - phoenicurus song strophes (based on recordings by NM, made in Switzerland).
ween gibraltariensis
and phoenicurus strophes, five sang strophes the scratchy part was 0.4 ± 0.2 seconds
of both species as well as intermediate stro- (range 0.1–0.6).
phes, three altered between gibraltariensis
song and intermediate strophes and six sang Discussion
only intermediate strophes. We have informa- With 121 hybrids and 29 mixed pairs docu-
tion on calls for just nine mixed singers: three mented, redstarts are among the most fre-
called like normal phoenicurus, three like quently recorded European passerine hybrids
gibraltariensis and three produced both call between two clearly separated species
types. (McCarthy 2006). Hybrids were observed
Since only two singing birds were sound- throughout Europe in areas where both
recorded, we cannot present a general syn- parental species occur; the northern limit cor-
thesis, but for these two birds, 50 strophes responded with the northern limit of gibral-
were analysed: 24 strophes were strongly tariensis. An exponential increase in
reminiscent of gibraltariensis full song (11 observations over the past 30 years was noted,
with, 13 without the scratchy part); seven reflecting greater observer awareness and cov-
strophes corresponded to typical phoenicurus erage and the easy availability of records from
strophes; and 19 strophes sounded like a online databases, while the number of records
mixture of the two, several starting with from Switzerland, Germany and the Benelux
scratchy elements (fig. 8). countries is also likely to reflect the authors’
As in many hybrids, the strophes corre- locations. However, several other factors are
sponding to gibraltariensis full song were probably implicated. Following the range
given at a faster pace and recalled phoenicurus expansion of gibraltariensis and the colonisa-
in this respect: mean length of such strophes tion of human settlements, multiple sec-
was 2.9 ± 0.6 seconds (range 2.3–3.5, with ondary contact zones emerged (Cramp 1988;
one exception that lasted 5.3 seconds); and, Ertan 2002; Hagemeijer & Blair 1997).
for strophes with the scratchy part, the mean
length of the gap between the first part and Continued on page 204

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 201

Martinez et al.

Separation of ‘Eastern Black Redstart’ from Common Redstart BOX 1

and hybrids
Nicolai et al. (1996) were the first to address the identification problems of separating male
‘Eastern Black Redstart’ Phoenicurus ochruros phoenicuroides from a hybrid Black Redstart x
Common Redstart. Steijn (2005) mentioned several plumage features of hybrids, but it is the wing-
formula differences he described that are usually considered diagnostic. Van der Spek & Martinez
(2018) tackled differences in plumage in more detail. They showed that virtually all male hybrids
can be distinguished from Eastern Black Redstart by using a combination of plumage characters.
They also stressed that the wing-formula differences already described by Steijn (2005) show more
overlap than most birders realise; nonetheless, they remain important and may be crucial in the
case of tricky individuals.

Structure (Steijn 2005; present article)

General: although likely to be a small minority, some hybrids may show a wing formula similar to
Eastern Black (see table 3).

Emarginations: Eastern Black shows an emarginated P6 (numbered ascendantly, i.e. P1 is outer-

most)  in Common, P6 is not emarginated, while in hybrids the emargination may be missing or
reduced (this is often hard to judge in photographs).

Wing-tip: in Eastern Black the wing-tip is formed by P5 (P4 & P5 equally long)  in Common,
the wing-tip is formed by P4 (P3 & P4 equally long), while in hybrids it is variable (P4 or P5).

Primary spacing ratio: in Eastern Black the distance between the tips of P6 and P7 is roughly twice
as long as the distance between P5 (wing-tip) and P6  in Common, the spacing is roughly equal,
while in hybrids P6–P7 is about 1.5x that of P5–P6, but in extreme cases can overlap with both
Eastern Black and Common.

Plumage of male birds (from van der Spek & Martinez 2018)
G Hybrids can show a large white forehead patch, as in Common  autumn/winter Eastern Black
usually has a smaller white patch or white spotting but occasionally shows more extensive white.
G Around half of all hybrids show a largely or completely grey/black area between the black

117. Eastern Black Redstart, 1CY male, Skinningrove, Cleveland, November 2016. Primary ratio
P6/7:P5/6 equals 1:1.75 in this bird, which is typical for phoenicuroides but at the upper end for a
hybrid. The presence of an orange triangle on the breast-sides, the lack of a white wing-panel and
limited white on the forehead are plumage characters that clearly point towards an Eastern
Black Redstart. David Aitken

202 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210

 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

breast-patch and alula/lesser/median coverts  in Eastern Black there is invariably an orange ‘tri-
angle’ visible between breast-patch and wing-coverts.
G In some hybrids, the black breast-patch reaches the lower breast or even the belly  in Eastern
Black the breast-patch never extends this far down the breast.
G Hybrids occasionally show a square-shaped breast-patch  in Eastern Black it is always oval.
G The edges of the breast-patch are often poorly defined in hybrids  usually fairly neat in Eastern
Black.
G Hybrids can show grey or black feathers on the flanks  invariably orange in Eastern Black.
G Hybrids occasionally show isolated grey or black spots within the orange underparts (often hard
to judge in poor photographs)  probably never present in Eastern Black.
G A small minority of hybrids show pale underparts, with a faint orange hue at most  the under-
parts are invariably vivid orange in Eastern Black.
G The undertail-coverts are whitish (sometimes with a faint orange hue) in 20% of hybrids  the
undertail-coverts are orange in Eastern Black, although sometimes less vivid orange than the
belly.
G Around half of all hybrids show a broad, pure white band on the belly, reaching the breast or even
the breast-patch (dividing the belly in two)  fresh Eastern Black often shows narrow white
fringes to orange belly feathers, but these are never broad and do not ‘split’ the belly.
G A small white wing-panel is commonly found in hybrids  Eastern Black may show a small
wing-panel (contra Steijn 2005), even with whitish edges, but the vast majority show tertials and
secondaries edged buff rather than white.
G A large white wing-panel (as in adult Western Black) is found in a quarter of hybrids  never in
Eastern Black.
G In hybrids, rufous fringes to the greater-coverts and tertials occasionally form a small, rufous
wing-bar (often hard to judge in photographs)  these fringes are buff to greyish in Eastern
Black.
G Most hybrids have orange axillaries, but some show no or limited orange  the axillaries are
invariably orange in Eastern Black (and in Common).

Note: van der Spek & Martinez (2018) can be downloaded from www.turnstones.org/
the-eastern-black-redstart-id-pages with additional information and photographs.

118. Eastern Black Redstart, 1CY male, Scalby, Yorkshire, November 2014. The dark breast-patch
is restricted to the upper breast and has fairly neat edges; the area between the breast-patch and
the wing-coverts is orange; narrow white fringes to the orange belly feathers are present but
very restricted (no broad white band on belly); and the undertail-coverts are vividly orange.
Graham Catley

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 203

Martinez et al.
Fig. 8. Three examples of song strophes from a mixed singer (Ziefen,
Switzerland, 2014, from recordings by S. Hohl and NM) showing variation
from typical phoenicurus strophes to rather typical gibraltariensis strophes.
Strophe length never exceeded 3.4 seconds in this bird.
Furthermore, phoenicurus has declined
markedly in its European breeding range over
the past century (Bruderer & Hirschi 1984;
Zwarts et al. 2009). These opposing trends
may mean that it is more difficult for individ-
uals of the locally rarer species (gibraltariensis
in Fennoscandia, phoenicurus in parts of
central Europe) to find a mate of their own
species. Köpke (1986) suggested that the
increased occurrence of isolated male phoeni-
curus might have led to an increase of mixed
singers and hybridisation. Note, however, that
in the past 20 years or so, phoenicurus has
apparently increased in several European
countries (PECBMS 2010). We found few
hybrids from eastern Europe, but assume that
observations will increase following the con-
tinuing eastward spread of gibraltariensis.
Experiments with captive birds (Berthold et
al. 1996; Grosch 2000; Ertan 2002) demon-
strated that hybrids are fertile and can have
viable offspring, which showed intermediate
characters (Lambert 1997; Salzmann &
Soerensen 2014; plates 115 & 116). Male
hybrids seem to pair mostly with a female of
the locally more abundant species, as in
mixed pairs. Gene flow is thus likely to flow
204
‘into’ phoenicurus in
the north and gibral-
tariensis in central
Europe. The (rare)
incidence of gibral-
tariensis females pro-
ducing bluish eggs
(Nicolai 1995) may be
a result of such gene
flow.
The apparent lack
of wild female
hybrids is clearly
related to the reduced
detectability of birds
with plumages inter-
mediate between
gibraltariensis and
phoenicurus. Further-
more, the hetero -
zygous sex (ZW;
females in birds)
is absent, rare, or
sterile in hybrids
(‘Haldane’s Rule’;
Haldane 1922). Yet
breeding experiments show that fertile
females occur, although we were unable to
trace the sex ratio of these captive-bred birds.
The arrival dates of phoenicurus, gibral-
tariensis and hybrids in central Europe seem
to confirm the intermediate migratory
behaviour observed in experiments (Berthold
& Querner 1995; Berthold et al. 1996).
Records of hybrids on 7th March 1997 in
Rome (Bulgarini & Fraticelli 1998), on 24th
March 2005 in the Balearic Islands (Pérez-
Garcia & Sallent 2011), on Lampedusa on 2nd
April 2007 (Brichetti & Fracasso 2008) and
12th October 2012 (G. Papale in litt.), and in
Morocco on 27th October 2008 (Demey
2009) and 30th December 1998 (Robel &
Nicolai 2009) – plus the apparent lack of
hybrids during winter in central and northern
Europe – suggest that hybrids winter in
southernmost Europe and North Africa. This
intermediate strategy has no obvious negative
impact on survival, since several birds
returned to the same territory in consecutive
years, two being observed in four consecutive
years (Nowak 1999; Lang in litt.).
Most hybrids are found in typical gibral-
tariensis habitats. This could indicate a
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210
 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

genetic preference or could be the result of
birds occupying habitat similar to their
hatching grounds: many migrating passer-
ines, including redstarts (own data), later
breed at or close to the site where they
hatched. However, detectability is higher in
habitats occupied by gibraltariensis, which are
usually more open (hence birds are more
visible) and with a higher density of human
observers than those of phoenicurus.
The plumage variation of male hybrids is
higher than previously documented and
includes differences between first-summer
(2CY) and adult birds and differences related
to moult. It is worth re-emphasising that we
do not know the genetics of wild birds.
Classic-looking birds are likely to be F1
hybrids, an assumption supported by captive
F1 birds. Others could be backcrosses, espe-
cially in the case of individuals strongly resem-
bling phoenicurus or gibraltariensis. These are
the most problematic phenotypes, difficult or
impossible to separate from aberrant pure
birds (plate 119). For instance, seemingly pure
gibraltariensis with red bellies are known to
occur. We found two examples of birds exam-
ined in the hand with rusty-orange feathers on
the belly and lower breast that otherwise
showed all the features of gibraltariensis,
including wing formula (Nowak 1999;
https://british
birds.co.uk/birding-
resources/key-refs).
Such birds are
generally thought
to be aberrant or
‘extreme’ gibral-
tariensis, since
‘normal’ birds can
show a variable
amount of red on
the lower belly and
undertail-coverts
tioned above). However, backcrosses with a
wing formula identical to gibraltariensis
cannot be excluded without genetic analyses.
Furthermore, the red belly could also be the
result of a former hybridisation event that
occurred several generations earlier.
We conclude that red-bellied gibral-
tariensis, reminiscent of nominate ochruros,
are genuinely rare. Based on our own studies,
the proportion lies well below 0.5%, which
corresponds with data from the Swiss Ringing
station at Subigerberg, where only one of 786
adult male gibraltariensis captured since 1980
was red-bellied (T. Roth & T. Lüthi in litt.).
This contradicts a study mentioned in Cramp
(1988), in which 8% of gibraltariensis showed
a red belly. However, the latter was based on a
sample of only 50 birds from one site in
which four birds had ‘belly and vent tinged
rufous’. It seems likely that some of those
birds had rusty tones on some belly feathers
only, which is more common and does not
recall typical ochruros (pers. obs.). Classic
hybrid types, notably the forms without an
obvious wing-panel, can be difficult to tell
apart from Eastern Black Redstarts. Yet,
through the combination of several plumage
features, only a small percentage of hybrids is
truly challenging (see Box 1; also van der Spek
& Martinez 2018).
M. Roost

(Cramp 1988).
Eleven birds with
limited red on the 119. Redstart sp., Gurnigel, Switzerland, 21st September 2008. This bird
belly, and in some shows a black facial mask, white wing-panel, no apparent white forehead,
cases the lower greyish-orange flanks and belly, and diffuse breast-patch delimitation on the
breast, were consid- upper breast; it is thus classified as a hybrid or a red-bellied gibraltariensis
(type 6) in the present study. Without biometrics, such birds are best left
ered to be red- unidentified. Eastern Black Redstart can be excluded by the large, square-
bellied gib ralt ar i- shaped breast-patch (lacking the ‘orange triangle’), and the seemingly large
ensis (including the white belly-patch that divides the orange belly in two. The white wing-panel
two birds men- is also relatively large.

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 205

Martinez et al.
There are two distinct plumages in imma-
ture male gibraltariensis. After the post-
juvenile moult, approximatively 12% of 1CY
males develop a blackish body similar to
adult males: the ‘paradoxus morph’
(Kleinschmidt 1907/08; Nicolai et al. 1996).
Since they retain juvenile flight feathers,
however, they lack the white wing-panel of
an adult male (birds that moult some tertials
will show a very narrow ‘panel’, formed by
the tertial edges). The majority of 1CY males,
the ‘carei morph’, are essentially female-like.
As far as we know, there are no observations
of either wild or captive hybrids of the ‘carei
morph’. Conceivably, the pale hybrid type is
related to this morph, but we conclude that
the ‘carei morph’ is much rarer – if not absent
– among hybrids.
Our findings confirm that the primary
spacing ratio and an emarginated P6 are
good features for identification of F1 hybrids.
However, there is substantial overlap with
both parental species, and even more so with
Eastern Black Redstart of the race P. o.
phoenicuroides (see table 3 and Box 1 for
more information). Furthermore, back-
crosses occur in the wild and measurements
of captive backcrosses show that they can
approach either species.
In a significant proportion of the mixed
pairs, phoenicurus males were mixed singers.
For obvious reasons, their song may be more
attractive to gibraltariensis females and their
habitat choice probably facilitates mixed
pairings, too. At first glance, gibraltariensis
seems to be dominant in song and call and
therefore many hybrids will probably go
unnoticed when heard only. This is mainly
due to the scratchy part: if present, this
would normally lead an observer to identify
the song as that of gibraltariensis, even if
other aspects – for example pace and strophe
length – are not typical. McCarthy (2006)
suggested that the similarity of hybrid and
gibraltariensis song may be due to the fact
that gibraltariensis usually plays the role of
male parent in this cross. He probably overes-
timated the similarity, however, and his
explanation ignores the fact that phoenicurus
is the male parent in most mixed pairs in
central Europe. Nonetheless, many mixed
broods occur in habitats more typical for
gibraltariensis and the song of adjacent males
206
may have been dominant there. We did not,
however, see any geographical patterns in
terms of song, with gibraltariensis song being
the dominant song for both mainland
European and Fennoscandian hybrids.
Songs of mixed singers by definition
contain gibraltariensis elements, but are oth-
erwise highly variable. Pace and song length
is generally typical for phoenicurus, however,
even in strophes that strongly recall gibral-
tariensis, which largely corresponds with pre-
vious studies (Hegelbach & Nabulon 1998;
Brehme & Michaelis 2017). Without genetic
data, we can only speculate about the identity
of mixed singers. They could be normal
phoenicurus that imitate gibraltariensis, prob-
ably because they copied elements of gibral-
tariensis song after they fledged. Several
mixed singers also gave gibraltariensis-like
calls, however, and since it is sometimes
assumed that calls have a stronger genetic
component than song, this could point
towards a hybrid origin.
Since male hybrids normally breed with
gibraltariensis females in central Europe, it
would be expected that, unlike mixed singers,
backcrosses should approach gibraltariensis
in plumage, although lack of knowledge of
female hybrids is a gap in our understanding
here. In terms of mixed singers, we conclude
that if they are genetically pure phoenicurus,
imitation of song is an important factor for
hybridisation between the two species, since
song differences are likely to form the
strongest prezygotic isolation barrier (Grosch
2000). However, if mixed singers are back-
crosses, they are simply a direct consequence
of a former hybridisation event. Genetic
analyses would be extremely helpful to
answer this open question.
Landmann (1987), Berthold et al. (1996)
and Ertan (2002) have already suggested the
existence of gene flow between gibraltariensis
and phoenicurus through introgressive
hybridisation. Grosch (2003) suggested that
gene flow between both species might be
limited by prezygotic rather than postzygotic
isolation, and that differences in habitat
choice as well as song may form the strongest
isolation barriers. Separation through habitat
factors is reduced in secondary contact zones
near human settlements, and gene flow
between the species in Europe may therefore
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210
 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa
continue to increase. In the long term, this
could even influence speciation, since new
genetic variance introduced by hybridisation
is estimated to be 2–3 times higher than in
gene mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).
Acknowledgments
First of all, we would like to thank all observers of
hybrids, mixed singers and mixed broods for sharing
their observations either directly or online (see
Appendix 1 & 2). We thank all photographers for their
permission to use their material. The following people
gave valuable comments on specific topics and helped
to compile data from several countries: Sylvain
Antionazza, Arnaud Barras, Stefan Brehme, Christian
Brinkman, Andrea Corso, Wolfgang Dornberger, Boris
Droz, Dominic Eichhorn, Stefan Ernst, Mostafa Fareh,
Johann Hegelbach, Michael Hellmann, Simon Hohl,
Johannes Honold, Volker Keinath, Alan Knox, Daniel
Kratzer, Manfred Lang, Michael Lay, Jörn Lehmhus, Tom
Lindroos, Thomas Lüthi, Heiko Michaelis, Michael
Nowak, Lukas Pelikan, Ulrich Querner, Simon Rixx,
Martin Roost, Tobias Roth, George Sangster, Frank-
Ulrich Schmidt, Cyril Schönbächler, Manuel Schweizer,
Tadeusz Stawarczyk, Norbert Teufelbauer and Bernard
Volet. Anonymous reviewers gave valuable comments
on an earlier version of the article. We would also like
to thank Peter Berthold, Gabriele Mohr and Rolf
Schlenker for the loan of specimens from Vogelwarte
Radolfzell to Museum Heineanum, as well as Detlef
Becker and Rüdiger Becker from Museum Heineanum
for their help with birds in that collection.
References
Ayé, R., Martinez, N., & Stalling, T. 2014.
The vocalisations of ‘Ehrenberg’s Redstart’.
Brit. Birds 107: 26–36.
Berthold, P. 2001. Vogelzug: eine neue Theorie zur
Evolution, Steuerung und Anpassungsfähigkeit des
Zugverhaltens. J. Ornithol. 142(1): 148–159.
— & Querner, U. 1995. Microevolutionary aspects of
bird migration based on experimental results.
Israel J. Zool. 41: 377–385.
—, Helbig, A., Mohr, G., Pulido, F., & Querner, U. 1996.
Aktueller Forschungsschwerpunkt: Vogelzug –
modern Phänomenologie und experimentelle
Analyse der Steuerungssysteme und
Evolutionsvorgänge. Jahrb. Max-Planck-Ges.: 346–
354.
Brehme, S., & Michaelis, H. 2017. Gartenrotschwanz
Phoenicurus phoenicurus imitiert vollständig Gesang
des Hausrotschwanzes Phoenicurus ochruros im
Süden des Landes Brandenburg. Ornithol. Mitt. 69:
373–377.
Brichetti, P., & Fracasso, G. 2008. Ornitologia Italiana.
Vol. 5. Oasi Alberto Perdisa Editore, Bologna.
Bruderer, B., & Hirschi, W. 1984. Langfristige
Bestandsentwicklung von Gartenrötel und
Trauerschnäpper. Ornithol. Beob. 81: 285–302.
Bulgarini, F., & Fraticelli, F. 1998. Avvistamento di un
probabile ibrido Codirosso, Phoenicurus phoenicurus,
x Codirosso spazzacamino, P. ochruros. Riv. it. Ornitol.
68: 95–96.
Cramp, S. (ed.) 1988. Handbook of the Birds of Europe,
the Middle East and North Africa. Vol. 5: Tyrant
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210
Flycatchers to Thrushes. OUP, Oxford.
Demey, R. 2009. Recent Reports. Bull. Africa Bird Club
16: 99–111.
Droz, B. 2011. Capture d’un Rougequeue hybride
Phoenicurus ochruros x Ph. phoenicurus au Col de
Jaman (VD, Suisse). Decription de l’individu et revue
des observations européennes. Nos Oiseaux 58:
185–191.
Ebels, E. B., van der Laan, J., van der Schalk, M., & van
der Spek, V. 2018. Oosterse Zwarte Roodstaarten
in Nederland en voorkomen in Europa.
Dutch Birding 40: 152–166.
Ernst, S. 2017. Brutpaar aus Gartenrotschwanz-
Weibchen (Phoenicurus phoenicurus und Hybrid-
Männchen Ph. ochruros x Ph. phoenicurus in Albanien.
Ornithol. Jber. Mus. Heineanum 34: 39–46.
Ertan, K. T. 2002. Evolutionary Biology of the Genus
Phoenicurus: phylogeography, natural hybridization
and population dynamics. Tectum Verlag, Marburg.
— 2006. The evolutionary history of Eurasian
redstarts, Phoenicurus. Acta Zool. Sinica 52. (Suppl.):
310–313.
Fesenko, H. V., & Shybanov, S. Yu. 2016. Redstart bird
(Passeriformes, Muscicapidae) with non-typical
plumage – interspecific hybrid or eastern
subspecies in fauna of Ukraine. Vestnik Zoologii
50(4): 321–326.
Glutz von Blotzheim, U. N., & Bauer, K. (eds.) 1988.
Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Band 11/1.
Aula Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Grant, P. R., & Grant, R. 1994. Phenotypic and genetic
effects of hybridization in Darwin’s finches.
Evolution 48: 297–316.
Grosch, K. 2000. Zur ökologischen Einnischung von
Hausrotschwanz (Phoenicurus ochruros),
Gartenrotschwanz (Ph. phoenicurus) und deren
Hybriden. Diss. Universität Konstanz.
— 2003. Hybridization between two insectivorous
bird species and its effect on prey-handling
efficiency. Evolutionary Ecology 17: 1–17.
— 2004. Hybridization between Redstart Phoenicurus
phoenicurus and Black Redstart P. ochruros, and the
effect on habitat exploitation. J. Avian Biol. 35: 217–
223.
Hagemeijer, W. J. M., & Blair, M. J. (eds.) 1997. The EBCC
Atlas of European Breeding Birds: their distribution and
abundance. Poyser, London.
Haldane, J. B. S. 1922. Sex ratio and unisexual sterility
in hybrid animals. J. Genetics 12: 101–109.
Hegelbach, J., & Nabulon, T. 1998. Gartenrotschwanz-
Männchen Phoenicurus phoenicurus als Mischsänger
und Brutpartner eines Hausrotschwanz-Weibchens
Ph. ochruros. Ornithol. Beob. 95: 129–136.
Heim de Balsac, H. 1929. Appariage et hybridation en
liberté entre deux passereaux indigènes. Bull.
Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (Paris) 2e Serie
1: 304–306.
Kleinschmidt, O. 1907/08. Erithacus Domesticus.
Berajah 1–14. Leipzig.
Köpke, G. 1986. Zum Spotten im Vollgesang des
Gartenrotschwanzes (Phoenicurus phoenicurus).
Charadrius 22: 154–156.
Lambert, M. 1997. Cantonnement et nidification d’un
hybride Rougequeue noir x Rougequeue à front
blanc présentant les caractéristiques de Phoenicurus
ochruros phoenicuroides. Aves 34: 32–38.
Landmann, A. 1987. Über Bastardierung und
207
Martinez et al.

Mischbruten zwischen Gartenrotschwanz y Colirrojo real (Phoenicurus phoenicurus) en el

(Phoenicurus phoenicurus) und Hausrotschwanz
(P. ochruros). Ökol. Vögel 9: 97–106.
Lindholm, A. 2001. Apparent hybrid redstarts in
Finland resembling Black Redstart of eastern
subspecies phoenicuroides. Brit. Birds 94: 542–545.
McCarthy, E. 2006. Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the
World. OUP, Oxford.
Nicolai, B. 1995. Zum Vorkommen von blaugrünen
Eiern beim Hausrotschwanz (Phoenicurus ochruros
gibraltariensis). Ornithol. Jber. Mus. Heineanum 13:
115–119.
—, Schmidt, C., & Schmidt, F-U. 1996.
Gefiedermerkmale, Maße und Alterskennzeichen
des Hausrotschwanzes Phoenicurus ochruros.
Limicola 10: 1–41.
Nowak, M. 1999. Bemerkungen zu Mischbruten,
Hybridisierung, abnormer Gefiederfärbung und
Mischgesang bei Gartenrotschwanz (Phoenicurus
phoenicurus) und Hausrotschwanz (Ph. ochruros).
Naturkdl. Mitt. Lks. Göppingen 18: 9–15.
PECBMS. 2010. Trends of common birds in Europe,
2010 update. (Retrieved from
www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=387
on 22nd January 2018.)
Pérez-Garcia, J. M., & Sallent, Á. 2011. Identificación de
híbridos en el campo: el caso del anillamiento de
un híbrido de Colirrojo tizón (Phoenicurus ochruros)
P. N. del Archipiéla40 go de Cabrera. Revista de
Anillamiento 28: 30–35.
Petersson, A., Bernger, A., & Mats, T. 2014. A hybrid
Common Redstart x Black Redstart (Phoenicurus
phoenicurus x Ph. ochruros). Ornis Svecica 24: 35–40.
Robel, D., & Nicolai, B. 2009. Östlicher
Hausrotschwanz Phoenicurus ochruros semirufus in
NW-Afrika? Ornithol. Jber. Mus. Heineanum 27: 27–34.
Salzmann, F. J., & Soerensen, T. G. 2014.
Gartenrotschwanz-Hybrid-Brut. Vögel 01/14: 82–83.
Sedlá ek, O., Fuchs, R., & Exnerová, A. 2004. Redstart
(Phoenicurus phoenicurus) and Black Redstart
(P. ochruros) in a mosaic urban environment:
neighbours or rivals? J. Avian Biol. 35: 336–343.
Steijn, L. B. 2005. Eastern Black Redstart in IJmuiden,
the Netherlands and on Guernsey, Channel Islands
in October 2003 and their status, identification and
distribution. Dutch Birding 27: 171–194.
Stoddart, A. 2016. ‘Eastern Black Redstart’ – new to
Britain. Brit. Birds 109: 211–219.
van der Spek, V., & Martinez, N. 2018. Identification and
temporal distribution of hybrid redstarts and
Eastern Black Redstart in Europe. Dutch Birding 40:
141–151.
Zwarts, L., Bijlsma, R. G., & van der Kamp, J. 2009.
Living on the Edge: wetlands and birds in a changing
Sahel. KNNV, Zeist.

Nicolas Martinez, Hintermann & Weber AG, Austrasse 2a, 4153 Reinach, Switzerland;
e-mail martinez@hintermannweber.ch
Bernd Nicolai, Herbingstraße 20, D-38820 Halberstadt, Germany; e-mail nicolaibea@gmx.de
Vincent van der Spek, Vrs Meijendel, Acaciastraat 212, 2565 KJ Den Haag, Netherlands;
e-mail v.vanderspek@gmail.com

Nicolas Martinez works as a biologist for an environmental consultancy. He has studied the biology of the
Common Redstart for more than ten years and is a member of the Swiss Rarities Committee. Bernd Nicolai
was director of the ornithological Museum Heineanum in Halberstadt from 1991 to 2016; he has studied the
biology and ecology of the Black Redstart for more than 40 years. Vincent van der Spek is an ecologist, birder,
bird ringer, writer and editor from the Netherlands and is a member of the Dutch Rarities Committee.

Appendix 1.
Records of hybrids between Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros and Common Redstart
P. phoenicurus, red-bellied P. o. gibraltariensis and hybrid claims considered in the article.
Categories: 1 = confirmed hybrid (wing measurements); 2 = confirmed hybrid (images);
3 = confirmed hybrid (description and/or earlier publication); 4 = unconfirmed hybrid (claims
without description or images; also records of ‘Eastern Black Redstart’ P. o. phoenicuroides not
accepted by national rarity committees when a hybrid was considered the more likely option);
5 = hybrid or ‘red-bellied’ gibraltariensis; 6 = ‘red-bellied’ gibraltariensis.
Details of each record (separated by / ) are presented in the following sequence: date (day.month.year), location,
country, reference and category. Country codes: AL – Albania, AT – Austria, BE – Belgium, CH – Switzerland, DE –
Germany, DK – Denmark, ES – Spain, FI – Finland, FR – France, GB – Great Britain, IT – Italy, LU – Luxembourg,
MA – Morocco, NL – the Netherlands, NO – Norway, PL – Poland, SE – Sweden, UA – Ukraine.

1889, Marburg, DE (Kleinschmidt 1903) cat. 6 / 18.04.1906, Taucha bei Leipzig, DE (Kleinschmidt 1907/08) cat. 3 /
May 1929, Meurthe-et-Moselle, FR (Heim de Balsac 1929, Bull. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle 2e Serie 1: 304–
306) cat. 3 / 15.09.1932, Ungiasca de Cossogno, IT (Moltoni 1946, Rivista italiana di Ornitologia, 2nd Ser., 16: 169–172)
cat. 1 / 1932, Leipzig, DE (Dathe 1950, Ornithol. Mitt. 2: 59–62) cat. 3 / 25.05.1948, Helgoland, DE (Ringleben 1958,

208 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210

 Redstart hybrids in Europe and North Africa

Vogelwarte 15: 40–41) cat. 3 / 13.10.1975, Bryher, Scilly, GB (Stoddart 2016) cat. 4 / 15.10.1978, Saltfleetby, Lincolnshire,
GB (Stoddart 2016) cat. 3 / 1978–79, Regensburg, DE (Klose 1986, Anz. der Ornithol. Gesellschaft in Bayern 24: 184)
cat. 3 / 03.10.1979, Flamborough Head, Yorkshire, GB (Stoddart 2016) cat. 4 / 31.05.1987, Oerlinger Ried, CH
(S. Gysel in Droz 2011) cat. 3 / June 1987, Gothenburg, SE (Andersson 1988, Vår Fågelvärld 47: 149–150) cat. 3 / May
1988, Köln, DE (Grosch 2000) cat. 3 / 16.10.1988, Donna Nook, Lincolnshire, GB (Stoddart 2016) cat. 4 / 21.07.1989,
Lac de Bouverans, FR (D. Michelat & M. Montadert in Droz 2011) cat. 3 / 02.06.1990, Harlingen, NL (A. van den
Berg, http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/71158) cat. 3 / 12.10.1991, Flamborough Head, Yorkshire, GB (Stoddart 2016)
cat. 4 / 1992, Donzdorf-Unterweckerstell, DE (Nowak 1999) cat. 3 / 26.05.1993, Läufelfingen, CH (Blattner &
Kestenholz 1993, Ornithol. Beob. 90: 241–245) cat. 1 / 08.10.1993, Subigerberg, CH (T. Lüthi, T. Schwaller,
https://bebbibabbler.jimdo.com), cat. 2 / 16.05.1994, Donzdorf-Unterweckerstell, DE (Nowak 1999) cat. 4 / 29.05.1994,
Oberhof, DE (Nowak 1999) cat. 3 / 15.09.1994, Donzdorf, DE (Nowak 1999) cat. 3 / 1994, Malmö, SE (Olsson 1994
in Petersson et al. 2014) cat. 3 / May 1995, Agadir, MA (Robel & Nicolai 2009) cat. 4 / May 1995, Casablanca, MA
(Robel & Nicolai 2009) cat. 4 / 12.06.1995, Bad Harzburg, DE (Heuer 1999, Milvus 18: 57–58) cat. 1 / 20.04.1996,
Mardorf, DE (Frauendorf, Gunther, Schrack & Ernst 1997, Mitt. Ver Säch. Orn. 8: 105–109) cat. 3 / 21.04.1996,
Niederstetten, DE (Dornberger, Dehner & Nicolai 1996, Faun. & Flor. Mitt. Taubergrund 14: 36–46) cat. 1 / 22.04.1996,
Insbeck Wevelinghoven, DE (Frede 2012, Charadrius 48: 84–86) cat. 2 / 29.04.1996, Kozienice, PL (Rebis 1998, Not.
Ornithol. 38: 50) cat. 1 / 04.05.1996, Istein, DE (T. Stalling in Grosch 2000) cat. 2 / 12.05.1996, April 1997,
Mariembourg, BE (Lambert 1997) cat. 2 / June 1996, Dessau, DE (Grosch 2000) cat. 3 / 07.03.1997, Rome, IT
(Bulgarini & Fraticelli 1998) cat. 3 / 1997–2000, Schlat, DE (Nowak 1999, Naturkdl. Mitt. Lks. Göppingen 18: 9–15)
cat. 6 / 25.04.1998, Desues, FR (M. Giroud in Droz 2011) cat. 3 / July 1998, Hemmental, CH (H-P. Bieri, M. Roost)
cat. 2 / 30.12.1998, Agadir, MA (Robel & Nicolai 2009) cat. 3 / 02.05.2000, Jyväskylä, FI (Lindholm 2001) cat. 3 / 2000–
02, Ruhestein, DE (Förschler 2005, Vogelwarte 43: 195–198) cat. 2 / 06.06.2000, Monte Meta, IT (L. Juillerat in Droz
2011) cat. 3 / 03.10.2000, Fano, DK (Steijn 2005) cat. 1 / 23.04.2001, Porvoo, FI (Lindholm 2001) cat. 1 / 2001, Tampere,
FI (Lindholm 2001) cat. 2 / 28.04.2002, Erstavik, SE (Steijn 2005) cat. 1 / 05.05.2002, Littau, CH (W. Burri,
www.ornitho.ch) cat. 3 / 23.03.2003, Sursee, CH (S. Birrer in Droz 2011) cat. 2 / 26.05.2003, Steibach, DE (Zedler
2004, Falke 51: 324–325) cat. 2 / 17.03.2004, Dresden, DE (Töpfer 2005, Mitt. Ver Säch. Orn. 9: 74–75) cat. 3 /
13.04.2004, Groote Peel, NL (van Dongen, Haas & de Rouw 2004, Dutch Birding 26: 272–281) cat. 2 / 2004 Subigerberg,
CH (T. Schwaller, https://bebbibabbler.jimdo.com) cat. 6 / 29.01.2005, Firenze, IT (D. Occhiato, www.pbase.com) cat.
6 / 24.03.2005, Cabrera NP, Baleares, ES (Perez-Garcia & Sallent 2011) cat. 1 / 01.04.2005, 30.04.06, 18.05.07,
Chamoson, CH (L. Maumary in Droz 2001) cat. 2 / 22.04.2005, Ospeldijk, NL (Steijn 2005) cat. 1 / 30.04.2005,
19.04.06, 08.04.07, Hausen, im Killertal, DE (B. Nicolai, V. Keinath in litt.) cat. 2 / 06.10.2005, Pisa, IT (D. Occhiato,
www.pbase.com) cat. 2 / 27.11.2005, ES (J. M. Puig, www.geocities.ws/ocellsosona_id/Phoenicurus.html) cat. 6 / 2005,
23.03.06, Saint-Laurent-de-la-Prée, FR (J. Gonin, N. Gendre, www.surfbirds.com) cat. 1 / 21.05.2006, Elstal, DE (Dürr
2007, Otis 15: 33–36) cat. 1 / 31.05.2006, Schöffengrund-Niederquembach, DE (Lay 2017, Vogelkund. Hefte Edertal
43: 63–68) cat. 3 / 13.06.2006, Grembergen, BE (Driessens 2006, Dutch Birding 28: 255–264) cat. 2 / 12.09.2006, Col
de Jaman, CH (Droz 2011) cat. 1 / February 2007, Cadiz, ES (Tag, www.birdforum.net) cat. 5 / 02.04.2007, Lampedusa,
IT (A. Corso, www.ebnitalia.it) cat. 1 / 09.04.2007, Rüeggisberg, CH (www.ornitho.ch) cat. 4 / 27.04.2007, BE
(G. Vermeersch, www.pbase.com) cat. 2 / 01.05.2007, Romrod, DE (Stübing, Heckmann & Roland 2013, Vogel &
Umwelt 20: 15–78) cat. 3 / 27.05.2007, Dillenburg-Erbach, DE (Stübing, Heckmann & Roland 2013, Vogel & Umwelt
20: 15–78) cat. 3 / 04.04.2008, Leusden, NL (T. van de Kamp, http://waarneming.nl) cat. 2 / 10.04.2008, Villeneuve-
lès-Maguelone, FR (P-A. Crochet, http://chr.lr.free.fr) cat. 2 / 24.04.2008, Hindelbank, CH (www.ornitho.ch) cat. 4 /
April 2008, Gothenburg, SE (Petersson et al. 2014) cat. 1 / 03.05.2008, Tuniberg, DE (J. Wiegand in Droz 2011) cat. 3
/ 17.09.2008, Gurnigel, CH (W. & P. Oberhänsli, M. Roost, www.ornitho.ch) cat. 5 / 08.10.2008, Cap Ferret, FR
(L. Barbaro, www.faune-aquitaine.org) cat. 3 / 27.10.2008, Aguelmouss, MA (Demey 2009) cat. 2 / 05.04.2009, 2010,
Dobro, ES (M. Alsonso, http://avesnortedeburgos.blogspot.ch) cat. 2 / April 2009, LU (www.ornitho.lu) cat. 4 /
16.06.2009, 2010, Träullit, Österbymo, SE (M. Thorin, www.hoglandsobsar.se, Petersson et al. 2014) cat. 1 / 2009–10,
Dachslern, CH (R. Wiedmer, F. Ducry, www.chclub300.ch) cat. 2 / 12.02.2010, Lincoln Cathedral, Lincolnshire, GB
(M. Garner) cat. 6 / 31.03.2010, Landsende Romo, DK (I. Jensen, www.netfugl.dk) cat. 2 / 14.04.2010, Leusden, NL
(R. Wilschut, http://kansloosvogelen.blogspot.nl) cat. 2 / 27.07.2010, Fusio, CH (S. Mombelli, www.ornitho.ch) cat. 2
/ 2010–2013, Grobau, DE (Lang in prep.) cat. 2 / 19.03.2011, Spurn, Yorkshire, GB (M. Garner) cat. 6 / 06.04.2011,
Groote Peel, NL (M. van der Velde, https://waarneming.nl) cat. 2 / 25.04.2011, Neustadt am Rübenberge, DE (Lehmhus
& Rinas 2018, Aves Braunschweig 9: 19–30) cat. 2 / 01.05.2011, Hov, NO (http://artsobservasjoner.no) cat. 4 /
08.05.2011, 14.04.2012, Brockenplateau, DE (Hellmann 2015, Ornithol. Jber. Mus. Heineanum 33: 1–96) cat. 2 /
24.05.2011, Rodersdorf, CH (A. Capol, www.ornitho.ch) cat. 2 / 2011–12, Falun, SE (P. Adenäs in Petersson et al.
2014) cat. 3 / 31.03.2012, Wyhlen, DE (D. Kratzer, www.ornitho.de) cat. 2 / 03.04.2012, Burghalde u. Herrenwäldle,
DE (J. Gommel, www.ornitho.de) cat. 3 / 15.04.2012, Schweina, DE (D. Volkmar, www.ornitho.de) cat. 3 / 27.04.2012,
Hilchenbach, DE (Frede 2012, Charadrius 48: 84–86) cat. 1 / 30.04.2012, Västra Tunhem, SE (G. Darefelt,
https://artportalen.se/Image/1163510) cat. 2 / 10.05.2012, Lindberg Rindelloch, DE (T. Sacher, www.ornitho.de) cat.
2 / 13.05.2012, Ijmuiden, NL (H. de Nobel, http://waarneming.nl) cat. 2 / 28.05.2012, Picon, FR (S. Tillo, www.faune-
aquitaine.org) cat. 2 / May 2012, Joensuu, FI (Normaja 2013, Linnut 48(2): 52) cat. 2 / 11.06.2012, Freising, DE
(www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 29.09.2012, 20.09.13, Schollene, DE (M. Schönenberg, www.ornitho.de) cat. 3 / 05.10.2012,
Rosswasen, DE ( www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 12.10.2012, Lampedusa, IT (G. Papale in litt.) cat. 1 / 19.10.2012, Diekholzen,
DE (H. Verdaat, www.observation.org) cat. 5 / 2012, Limhamn, SE (S. Cherrug in Petersson et al. 2014) cat. 3 /
27.03.2013, Gingen, DE (M. Nowak in litt.) cat. 5 / 22.04.2013, 29.04.14, 15.04.15, Wenslingen, CH (H. Hersberger,
N. Martinez, https://bebbibabbler.jimdo.com) cat. 1 / April 2013, Bodensee, DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 5 / 24.05.2013,
Næroset, NO (Simon Rixx, http://oslobirder.blogspot.ch) cat. 1 / 03.07.2013, 09.04.2014, Wehrheim, DE (Salzmann
& Soerensen 2014, Vögel 01/14: 82–83, http://flickriver.com) cat. 2 / 07.07.2013, Tiefentaler Köpfe, DE

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210 209

Martinez et al.

(www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 13.07.2013, Eifel, DE (H. Dolmans, https://observation.org) cat. 2 / 13.10.2013, Skærbæk,
DK (M. Elley, www.netfugl.dk) cat. 6 / 2013–14, Llupia, FR (J. Piette, www.faune-lr.org) cat. 2 / 2013, Dortmund, DE
(Frede 2012, Charadrius 48: 84–86) cat. 3 / 20.03.2014, Heeslingen, DE (H. Postels, www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 27.03.2014,
Görlitz-Nikilaivorstadt, DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 22.04.2014, Mantena Hamar, NO (L. Kapelrud,
www.artsobservasjoner.no) cat. 2 / 27.04.2014, Meerle, BE (http://waarnemingen.be) cat. 4 / April 2014, Dnipro, UA
(Fesenko & Shybanov 2016) cat. 2 / 2014–2016, Fulda, DE (P. Hess, www.hgon.de) cat. 2 / 07.05.2014, Dortmund, DE
(www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 13.05.2014, Heinsberg, DE (G. de Hoog, https://observation.org) cat. 3 / 13.05.2014,
Usikapunki, FI (P. Alho, www.tarsiger.com) cat. 1 / 18.05.2014, Ruhestein, DE (M. Förschler, www.ornitho.de) cat. 3
/ 20.05.2014, Braunau, AT (M. Mitterbacher, www.ornitho.at) cat. 3 / 01.09.2014, Arcen en Velden, NL
(H. Crommentuyn, http://waarneming.nl) cat. 2 / 04.01.2015, Brunsbüttel, DE (K. Dallmann, www.ornitho.de) cat. 5
/ 13.01.2015, Málaga, ES (A. Paterson, http://birdspain.blogspot.ch) cat. 5 / 09.04.2015, les Fénis, CH (M. Muller,
www.ornitho.ch) cat. 2 / 11.04.2015, Helgoland, DE (J. Dierschke, https://birdingfrontiers.wordpress.com) cat. 6 /
18.04.2015, Bad Laer, DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 18.04.2015, Lammersdorf, DE (M. Lay, www.ornitho.lu) cat. 2 /
09.05.2015, Ayent, CH (A. Barras, www.ornitho.ch) cat. 2 / 13.05.2015, Hansdorf, DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 /
23.05.2015, Ballern Merzig, DE (www.ornitho.lu) cat. 4 / 30.05.2015, Sylt, DE (M. Kuschereitz, www.ornitho.lu) cat.
2 / 04.06.2015, Hambuchen, DE (Hinterkeuser & Schmied 2015, Berichtsheft der Arbeitsgem. Bergischer Ornithol. 65:
30–33) cat. 2 / 08.06.2015, Hohentauern, AT (www.ornitho.at) cat. 4 / 17.06.2015, Jokioinen, FI (P. Mäkelä,
www.tarsiger.com) cat. 1 / 21.06.2015, Gent, BE (H. Blockx, http://waarnemingen.be) cat. 1 / 18.07.2015,
Vorderweidenthal, DE (N. Roth, R. Klein, www.ornitho.de) cat. 1 / 24.08.2015, Fromelennes, FR
(https://observation.org) cat. 4 / 11.09.2015, Katzenstein, DE (E. Bezzel, www.ornitho.de) cat. 3 / 09.04.2016,
Neubrandenburg, DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 22.04.2016, Wroclaw, PL (Z. Marciniak,
www.facebook.com/BirdingPoland) cat. 2 / 04.05.2016, Hohenkreuz, DE (J. Mayer, www.ornitho.de) cat. 3 /
07.05.2016, Teich Junkershammer, DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 18.05.2016, Wildschönau, AT (www.ornitho.at) cat.
4 / 26.05.2016, Vermosh, AL (Ernst 2017, Ornithol. Jber. Mus. Heineanum 34) cat. 1 / 03.07.2016, 09.04.2017, Rosenthal,
DE (M. Lay, www.ornitho.lu) cat. 1 / 22.07.2016, Langwies, CH (P. Knaus, www.ornitho.ch) cat. 3 / 21.09.2016,
Schlangenberg, DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 03.10.2016, Haute Savoie, FR (A. Chappuis, www.ornitho.ch) cat. 6 /
08.10.2016, Vacquerie-et-Saint-Martin-de-Castries, FR (P. Gitenet, www.faune-lr.org) cat. 5 / 06.04.2017, Friedberg,
DE (www.ornitho.de) cat. 4 / 13.04.2017, Bordenau, DE (Lehmhus & Rinas 2018, Aves Braunschweig 9: 19–30) cat. 1
/ 19.04.2017, Aigen im Ennstal, AT (www.ornitho.at) cat. 4 / 28.04.2017, Gmina Lwówek, PL (Paweł Szyma ski,
www.xeno-canto.org/366713) cat. 1 / 19.05.2017, Teufen, CH (K. Frueh, L. Fitze, www.ebird.org, www.ornitho.ch)
cat. 1 / 30.05.2017, Wenslingen, CH (H. Hersberger, N. Martinez, T. Lüthi, https://bebbibabbler.jimdo.com) cat. 1 /
31.05.2017, Köpfingen, DE (J. Honold, www.ornitho.de) cat. 1 / June 2017, Cracow, PL (T. Stawarczyk in litt.) cat. 2
/ 20.09.2017, Nederheim Tongeren, BE (C. Richerzhagen, E. Colson, http://trektellen.org) cat. 1 / 01.11.2017, San
Leonardo in Passiria, IT (H. Maier, www.ornitho.it) cat. 6 / 16.11.2017, Parc Natural del Garraf, ES (N. Teufenbacher
in litt.) cat. 5.

Appendix 2.
Records of mixed pairings between Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros and Common Redstart
P. phoenicurus considered in the article.
Details of each record (separated by / ) are presented in the following sequence: year, location, country and refer-
ence. Country codes: AT – Austria, CH – Switzerland, DE – Germany, FI – Finland, FR – France, NO – Norway, SE
– Sweden.

c. 1929, FR (Heim de Balsac 1929, Bull. Musém national d’Histoire naturelle (Paris) 1: 304–306) / 1959, Sköde, SE
(Andersson 1963, Vår Fågelvärld 22: 290–291) / 1959–1960, Tirol, AT (Landmann 1987, Ökol. Der Vögel 9: 97–106)
/ 1960, Sköde, SE (Andersson 1963, Vår Fågelvärld 22: 290–291) / 1963, Aschersleben, DE (Böhm & Strohkorb
1964, Beitr. Vogelk. 10: 235–236) / c. 1963, SE (Andersson 1963, Vår Fågelvärld 22: 290–291) / 1980, Amiens, FR
(Robert & Toulon 1984, Aves 21: 105–108) / 1985, SE (Orhult 1986, Natur pa Dal 12: 6–7) / 1985, Halberstadt, DE
(B. Nicolai) / c. 1987, DE (Gaumnitz in Landmann 1987) / 1989, Muotas Muragl, CH (Ruppen & Ruppen 1990,
Ornithol. Beob. 87: 59) / 1994, Rüdlingen, CH (Hegelbach & Nabulon 1998, Ornithol. Beob. 95: 129–136) / 1995,
Boos an der Nahe, DE (Buchmann 2007, Fauna und Flora in Rheinland-Pfalz, Band 11, Heft 1) 1998–1999, Nettetal,
DE (Thomas 1999, Ornithologischer Jahresbericht für den Kreis Viersen. Nettetal.) / 1999, Schlat, DE (Nowak 2001,
Naturkdl. Mitt. Lks. Göppingen 20: 18) / 1999, Oensingen, CH (Grosch 2000) / 1999, Freiberg, DE (Grosch 2000) /
1999, Karlsruhe, DE (Grosch 2000) / 2000, Schlat, DE (Nowak 2001, Naturkdl. Mitt. Lks. Göppingen 20: 18) / 2005,
Schlat, DE (M. Nowak in litt.) / 2007, Tampere, FI (J. Lindfors, www.tarsiger.com) / 2007, Turku, FI (T. Lindroos,
https://tomlindroos.1g.fi & www.tarsiger.com) / 2008, Dornach, CH (O. Hurt, www.ornitho.ch) / 2008, Chavannes,
CH (C. Plummer in Droz 2011) / 2011, Therwil, CH (N. Martinez, www.bebbibabbler.jimdo.com) / 2011, Oslo, NO
(http://nofoa.no) / 2013, Hamburg, DE (Team Sammelbericht NWR 2014, Charadrius 50: 127–216) / 2014, Maclas,
FR (http://naturellementnature.free.fr) / 2015, Ziefen, CH (A. Fasolin, S. Hohl, N. Martinez, Y. Wennberg,
www.bebbibabbler.jimdo.com).

210 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 190 – 210

Red-winged Blackbird in
Orkney: new to Britain
Simon Davies
Abstract Following several transatlantic storms in April 2017, a female Red-
winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus was discovered on North Ronaldsay, Orkney,
on 29th April 2017, where it remained until 14th May. It developed a predictable
routine that enabled the many visiting observers to enjoy prolonged views. Since
imports of wild birds from North America into Britain and Europe ceased several
years earlier, there was little doubt that this was a wild bird, and it was added to
Category A of the British List.

A
pril 2017 on North Ronaldsay,
Orkney, was not a pleasant month.
After what seemed to be weeks of
endless strong winds, swinging between west
and north and bringing snow and hail most
days, we were overjoyed when the wind
finally turned to the east. After a day of slack
weather, the wind picked up again on 29th
April, becoming a cold, gale-force 6–7, but at
least it was still from the east! I had enjoyed a
pretty decent morning while carrying out the
northern census route, the highlights being
some wildfowl moving offshore, a few Snow
Buntings Plectrophenax nivalis in full
breeding plumage, a Black Redstart
Phoenicurus ochruros and a Merlin Falco
columbarius, which caught a Common
Starling Sturnus vulgaris right in front of me.
As I was walking past the house at Garso with
my mind half on what we had to do in the
afternoon to prepare the Bird Observatory
for the arrival of a tour group the next day,
I was distracted by a strange little ‘chup’ call. I
spun round in time to see a Starling-sized
bird land on top of some gas bottles outside
the house.
I could just see the bird’s head poking out:
it showed a broad supercilium, yellowish
throat, streaked chest and pointed bill with
straight upper and lower mandibles creating
a thin cone-like shape – unlike the bill of
most European birds. My brain stuttered for
a second as I thought to myself ‘Oh, Redwing
[Turdus iliacus]… no, yes, NO!’ I took a few
steps to my right and could now see the
whole bird, which was about 15 m away. It
was a chunky passerine with a dark crown,
broad and flaring supercilium that was yel-
lowish at the front, dark eye-stripe, yellowish
chin patch and dark, bold streaks down the
breast. Two white wing-bars were obvious, as
were the chestnut scapulars and mantle.
Despite being just brown and streaky, it was a
stunning bird with an intricately marked
plumage, and so much going on within the
‘brown and streaky’ bracket!
I said to myself ‘What the hell is that?’ (or
words to that effect) and looked more closely
at it, using binoculars and then camera, while
trying to work it out in my head. My jumbled
thoughts ran something like: ‘look at that
bill… looks like an American oriole… but it’s
not one of those… but it must be
American… what else is like that?… some
kind of blackbird/grackle thing… no,
grackles are bigger… must be a blackbird…
which ones have I seen… Red-winged in
Texas… no others… but there are others…
females are dark and streaky like that…
GOD… it might actually be a Red-winged
Blackbird [Agelaius phoeniceus]….’. After a
few minutes it flew up onto the wires, where
it perched for a minute or so before dropping
down into a nearby iris bed. It had a particu-
larly distinctive floppy flight, and showed a
fan-shaped tail which also flopped around.
At this point I found some shelter from
the wind and began phoning the Obs volun-
teers who were working other parts of the
island: ‘Odd bird at Garso, it’s American and

© British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 211– 216 211

 Davies

mega, not 100% certain what it is but best Kevin Woodbridge and Alison Duncan,
guess is Red-winged Blackbird.’ With the bird the observatory wardens, were off island for
now out of view, I had a bit of time to reflect the day (as they always seem to be when rare
on what I had just seen and cast my mind birds are found!), but they returned on the
back to Texas a couple of years earlier, when last scheduled flight and soon had great views
big, noisy flocks of Red-winged Blackbirds as the bird followed the same pattern of
dominated the bird tables and marshes I heading to the gas bottles after feeding in the
visited – it all seemed to fit! I tramped iris bed. The phones were red hot for the rest
around for ten minutes and failed to refind it of the evening with people booking in,
before Harris Brooker, Sam Perfect and making plans and congratulating us while we
Larissa Simulik arrived. After what seemed just sat back and relaxed with a beer or two!
like ages, but was probably only another 15 The first planes arrived at 09.30 hrs the
minutes, the bird flew up from the irises and next morning, and thankfully the bird stuck
made a beeline back to the gas bottles, where to its routine so that everyone had great
we all had excellent views. Larissa, being from views. Many people were initially sceptical
Canada and familiar with most North about our casual advice: ‘Just stand here, it’ll
American icterids, was probably best-placed come back and land on those gas bottles’ –
to help with the identification, and tenta- but return it did, time after time. It seemed a
tively agreed with my first thoughts, as did slightly odd behaviour pattern, maybe the
Pete Donnelly, who arrived shortly after- colour or the cold metal of the canisters
wards. I then tweeted back-of-the-camera reminded the bird of the ship it came across
pictures out into the world – and that was on?! The following two weeks passed by in a
that! whirlwind with endless trips to the site, the
Landrover packed
full of long-dis-
tance twitchers; and
endless phone calls,
which surprisingly
included a whole
host of reporters
for newspapers,
radio stations and
TV programmes, as
seemingly everyone
had picked up on
the story.
Towards the end
of its prolonged
stay on the island,
the bird’s behaviour
subtly changed as it
became less tied to
the gas cannisters.
It flew onto the
overhead wires
more frequently
and began to fly-
Simon Davies

catch regularly,
showing extremely
well on occasion –
this behaviour
120. Female Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus, North Ronaldsay, could perhaps be
Orkney, May 2017. attributed to the

212 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 211– 216

 Red-winged Blackbird in Orkney: new to Britain
121. Female Red-winged Blackbird, North Ronaldsay, Orkney, May 2017.
advancing spring, and an increased avail-
ability of flying insects, as well as the fast-
growing irises becoming taller, thicker and
harder to move around in. It was also seen to
carry out high and wide flights around the
area – perhaps it was preparing to move on?
And so it proved as it was last seen on 14th
May.
Description
Size and structure
When observed by itself, the Red-winged
Blackbird seemed to be just smaller than a
Starling with some similar mannerisms. This
size difference was more pronounced when it
was perched next to a Starling on the wires.
Head
The head was intricately patterned and all the
features you see in standard bird topography
diagrams were well marked and obvious. It
had a broad white supercilium, which flared
widely towards the back of the head, with the
part in front of the eye a prominent burnt-
yellow colour; this yellow extended to the
front part of the submoustachial stripe and
the chin (where it formed a little yellow ‘soul
patch’). Above the supercilium the lateral
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 211– 216
Simon Davies
crown-stripes were a dark, chocolate brown,
either side of a poorly defined, whitish
median crown-stripe. There was an obvious
brown eye-stripe behind a small, dark eye
and paler brown lores; the cheek patch was
light brown and weakly framed from behind
(an extension of the eye-stripe); and the
short brown moustachial stripe, pale sub-
moustachial stripe and dark brown lateral
throat stripe were all well defined.
Underparts
The underparts were obviously and broadly
streaked on a whitish background, the streaks
(although they could be described as spots
running vertically downwards as opposed to
actual streaks) were heavier just below the
throat and on the chest, merging together in
this area so that the whitish ground colour
was not so clear. The spots/streaks were larger
and more prominent on the flanks and nar-
rower in the centre and it often showed some
large dark patches in the centre of the belly,
which could possibly have been wet feath-
ering caused by it feeding on the ground in
among the irises. The undertail-coverts were
dark brown, narrowly but neatly edged
whitish.
213
 Davies
Upperparts
The upperparts were richly coloured, with
well-defined areas, especially when viewed in
bright conditions. The dark brown mantle
feathers had broad, rich chestnut edges cre-
ating a bright square patch on the back; also
obvious were two whitish mantle stripes.
There was a well-defined cut-off with the
lower back, the feathers having pale grey
edges, creating a broad grey band across the
back; these edges gradually became thinner,
better defined and browner further down to
the rump (hence appearing blacker). The tail
was largely black. The most obvious feature
on the closed wing was the bright, white-
tipped median and greater coverts, creating a
blackish wing patch bordered with white.
The remiges and tertials were blackish,
narrowly but neatly edged light brown.
Bare parts
The bill was distinctive in that both upper
and lower mandibles were straight-edged,
creating a medium-length, very pointed and
sharp-looking bill, which was largely grey.
Behaviour
The bird quickly settled into a predictable
routine of feeding unseen in the iris beds sur-
rounding Garso, although it was particularly
Simon Davies
122. Female Red-winged Blackbird, North Ronaldsay, Orkney, May 2017.
214
faithful to one area c. 40 m east of the road.
When disturbed it showed a remarkable
attachment to the stacked red gas bottles by
Garso house, to which it would often fly to
directly, landing in full view. This behaviour
changed slightly when the twitch was at its
biggest, as it often flew up to the wires above
the iris beds before either dropping back
down into the irises or then flying over to the
gas bottles or the shed roof. On calm, sunny
days it sometimes changed its feeding routine
and began flycatching from the wires, stone
dykes, fences or the irises themselves, and
showing well, sometimes coming close to
observers – just like Red-winged Blackbirds
do back in the USA, where they seem fearless,
especially when breeding and at bird feeders.
The bird was often seen in flight between
its favoured spots, and it had a distinctive
flying style. It seemed very floppy in flight,
almost appearing to roll its shoulders as it
flapped, with the floppiness accentuated by
the characteristic fan-shaped tail, which also
appeared to rock from side to side as it flew –
this brought back memories of birds I’d seen
in big flocks in Texas.
Age
With guidance from Canadian ringers, we
aged it as a first-winter (2CY) bird, based on
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 211– 216
 Red-winged Blackbird in Orkney: new to Britain
the colour of the face/cheeks and throat.
They advised that an adult female should
show a more peachy or salmon-coloured
wash to its face/cheeks and down to its
throat, with the burnt-yellow coloration
much reduced. Furthermore, an adult female
should show more reddish hues to the lesser
and median coverts – often very red, imi-
tating the red ‘shoulders’ of a male. They hes-
itated against ageing it on tail shape, moult
limit or the bright chestnut fringes on the
mantle.
Provenance
Although there were no questions about the
identification, our thoughts inevitably
turned to the likely provenance of the bird,
and the dreaded word ‘escape’ naturally crept
into our conversations. The species was
imported into Britain in some numbers
during the nineteenth centur y, and
inevitably some did manage to escape or
were deliberately released, producing a
number of records around that time (e.g.
Witherby et al. 1943). Evans (1994) listed 18
birds from 12 counties throughout Britain
between 1824 and 1885 which he considered
likely to relate to escaped captive birds.
These included four in March, three in May,
five in June and another two in ‘spring’. The
remaining records involved singles in July–
August, December, ‘autumn’ and one was
undated.
In addition, a bird was captured at Nash
Lig hthouse, in what is now East
Glamorgan, dur ing the nig ht of 27th
October 1866 (D’Urban et al. 1892). Evans
(1994) considered that this was possibly a
genuine vagrant but Witherby et al. (1943)
did not refer to it, and it was not admitted
to the British List. There are no recent
records from Br itain or elsewhere in
Europe, where the importation of wild
birds from North America and elsewhere
has been illegal for many years.
Prior to the discovery of this bird, a
weather system sweeping across the North
Atlantic had brought a Hermit Thrush
Catharus guttatus to Shetland the previous
week, and the obvious potential for ship-
assistance left no doubts in our minds. This
was a genuine vagrant in our eyes (although
we were of course slightly biased!).
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 211– 216
Distribution and movements
The Red-winged Blackbird breeds in a variety
of wetland and upland habitats throughout
much of North America. The northern limit
of its range extends from central and south-
east Alaska, USA, east through Canada
including southern Yukon, central and
southern Mackenzie, central Manitoba,
northern Ontario, south-central Quebec and
the Codroy Valley in Newfoundland. To the
south it is widespread throughout the USA to
southern California, the Gulf Coast and
Florida, the Caribbean region, Mexico and
central America south to the Tempisque and
lower Bebedero basins of Costa Rica
(Yasukawa & Searcy 1995).
Although the Red-winged Blackbird is not
a classic long-distance migrant in North
America, most birds breeding in Canada and
the northern states in the USA do migrate
south in winter. Small numbers may,
however, remain in southern Nova Scotia,
southeast Quebec and Ontario, and coastal
Maine to Vermont, southeast Alaska and
British Colombia. Farther south in the USA,
birds are non-migratory, though they do
form large flocks with other icterids and
Starlings and disperse widely in search of
food and safe roosting sites. On average, indi-
viduals from the Great Lakes region move c.
1,200 km, from the lower mid-west c. 1,000
km, from New England c. 800 km and from
the mid-Atlantic states c. 600 km (Dolbeer
1982). These northern birds spend the winter
throughout the species’ breeding range in the
USA, and in Baja California and the northern
Pacific slope in Mexico, and possibly else-
where within the species’ breeding range.
Occasional birds also winter in Bermuda
(Amos 1991).
On a personal note, this bird brought back
great memories of Fair Isle in May 2009,
when a couple of islanders stopped me
outside their home with news of a strange
bird in their garden; a quick check revealed a
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater strut-
ting round their garden at Upper
Stoneybreck.
References
Amos, E. J. R. 1991. A Guide to the Birds of Bermuda.
Warwick, Bermuda.
Dolbeer, R. A. 1982. Migration patterns for age and sex
215
Davies

classes of blackbirds and starlings. J. Field Ornithol.
53: 28–46.
D’Urban, W. S. M., Mathew, M. A., & Keulemans, J. G.
1892. The Birds of Devon. R. H. Porter, London.
Evans, L. G. R. 1994. Rare Birds in Britain, 1800–1990.
Privately published.
Pyle, P. 1997. Identification Guide to North American
Birds. Part I: Columbidae to Ploceidae. Slate Creek
Press, Bolinas, CA.
Witherby, H. F., Jourdain, F. C. R., Ticehurst, N. F., &
Tucker, B. W. 1943. The Handbook of British Birds.
Vol. 1. Witherby, London.
Yasukawa, K., & Searcy, W. A. 1995. Red-winged
Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), version 2.0. In:
Poole, A. F., & Gill, F. B. (eds.). The Birds of North
America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.184

Simon Davies, North Ronaldsay Bird Observatory, Twingness, North Ronaldsay,

Orkney KW17 2BE; e-mail wfbeeeater@hotmail.com

Editorial comment Paul French, Chairman of BBRC, commented: ‘While possibly on the
radar of the most optimistic, this Red-winged Blackbird was certainly one of the major sur-
prises of recent springs. It is one of those unusual species where the female may actually be
more attractive and distinctive than the male. While there are several blackish icterids in the
genus Agelaius (of which only Red-winged Blackbird is a possible natural vagrant, although the
others could theoretically occur as escapees or with ship assistance), only female Red-winged
Blackbirds sport the combination of pale base colour to the underparts with extensive streaking,
striking head pattern, rufous upperparts and prominent pale mantle lines that may actually
make it the ultimate “streaky brown job”.
‘Identifying this individual to race is a different matter, however. Pyle (1997) stated that
“Except in the coastal western subspecies group, females are similar in plumage (and likely
inseparable), showing substantial intrasubspecific variation.” However, there was nothing about
this bird’s plumage to point away from the nominate eastern subspecies, and this would be the
most expected in a vagrancy context, being found over most of eastern North America. It was a
straightforward assessment and acceptance process for BBRC, as the description and
photographs left no room for error.’
Andrew Harrop, Chairman of BOURC, commented: ‘As noted in Ibis 160: 936–942, at least
17 historical records of Red-winged Blackbird between 1824 and 1885, at a time when American
passerines were regularly imported into Britain, were considered likely to involve either escapes
or frauds. The pattern of historical records of the Icteridae is very different from that of modern
records (see Brit. Birds 56: 204–217).
‘In contrast to those historical records, the 2017 Orkney bird occurred after imports had
ceased, at a time when the species was no longer known in captivity in Europe. Whether or not
its attachment to gas canisters was a trait developed onboard ship is a matter for speculation,
and in any event ship-assisted vagrancy is not a bar to acceptance so long as the species is
considered capable of arriving without (further) assistance (Ibis 147: 246–250).
‘Although the subspecies was undetermined, BOURC considered that the North Ronaldsay
bird was consistent with one of the eastern populations, which migrate nearly 1,200 km
between breeding and winter ranges; females typically migrate further than males (HBW), so
might be more likely to occur as vagrants. Accordingly, the record was accepted following a
single circulation.’

216 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 211– 216

Seabird recovery on Lundy
population change in Manx
Shearwaters and other seabirds in
response to the eradication of rats
Helen Booker, David Price, Peter Slader,
Tim Frayling, Tom Williams and Mark Bolton
Abstract The island of Lundy, in Devon, once supported large numbers of
breeding seabirds, but declines during the twentieth century left the island with
only remnants of its former colonies. One major concern during this time was the
impact of rat predation on eggs and chicks, especially of burrow-nesting Manx
Shearwaters Puffinus puffinus and Puffins Fratercula arctica. A major project to
eradicate rats from Lundy was completed in the spring of 2004. This paper
examines the results of the latest Manx Shearwater survey and how the species has
responded since rats were eradicated, and sets this into the context of how the
overall status of seabirds on Lundy has changed over the last 15 years.
Introduction clear indication of numbers with hugely vari-
Lundy, a 430-ha island in the Bristol Channel, able estimates ranging from the low hundreds
once supported 3,500 pairs of Puffins to several thousand (Price & Booker 2000).
Fratercula arctica, 19,000 pairs of Common Manx Shearwaters are of particular impor-
Guillemots Uria aalge and 10,500 pairs of tance as Britain holds an estimated 68–93% of
Razorbills Alca torda, contributing to a total the global breeding population, and over 90%
seabird assemblage in 1939 of c. 40,000 pairs of the British population is confined to Rum
(c. 80,000 birds; Perry 1940). Over the subse- and the Pembrokeshire islands (Mitchell et al.
quent decades of the twentieth century, 2004). As a burrow-nesting species, the Manx
seabird numbers on the island fell drastically Shearwater occupies offshore islands,
and by the time of the national census in attending the colony at night to avoid avian
2000, the total seabird assemblage was just predators, such as Great Black-backed Gulls
7,351 birds (Mitchell et al. 2004). By then, all Larus marinus (Brooke 1990). On islands with
species were in decline, with 2,348 populations of rats (usually introduced unin-
Guillemots, 950 Razorbills and just 13 Puffins tentionally in previous centuries through ship-
remaining. Contributing to this total was the wreck, maritime trading, or movements of
small population of Manx Shearwaters foodstuffs and livestock) or other mammalian
Puffinus puffinus, estimated at 166 (later predators, populations of burrow-nesting
adjusted to 297) breeding pairs in the island’s seabirds are often suppressed or absent
first comprehensive survey, in 2001. The through predation of their eggs and chicks
number of breeding Manx Shearwaters was (Atkinson 1978; Micol & Jouventin 2002).
considered to be far short of the island’s Both Brown Rats Rattus norvegicus and
potential given its size and the amount of Black Rats R. rattus were found on Lundy
available nesting habitat (Price & Booker and concerns were raised throughout the
2002; Booker & Price 2010). Previous assess- twentieth century over their impact on the
ments of the population were often based on island’s seabirds (e.g. Perry 1940, Studdy
night-time observations, but provided no 1948, Taylor 1986, 1990). The low numbers

© British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230 217

 Booker et al.
Jonathan Evans
123. Lundy from the air, looking northeast, in July 2009.
recorded in the 2001 Manx Shearwater
survey, compared with the vast populations
on the relatively close and rat-free
Pembrokeshire islands of Skomer and
Skokholm, added further weight to this
concern. Population size on Lundy was
unlikely to be limited by food availability,
since tracking has shown that shearwaters
breeding on Lundy have similar access to for-
aging areas in the Irish Sea used by birds
breeding on Skomer, in addition to local for-
aging areas in the Celtic Sea (Dean et al.
2015). The most likely explanation for the
low numbers of Manx Shearwaters on Lundy
was the presence of rats.
A feasibility study into the eradication of
rats (Bell 2001) was followed by the establish-
ment of the Lundy Seabird Recovery Project,
a partnership between English Nature (now
Natural England), the RSPB, the National
Trust and the Landmark Trust. The project
appointed expert contractors (Wildlife
Management International Ltd) supported
by RSPB and National Trust volunteers, and
successfully eradicated rats from the island
over the winters of 2002/03 and 2003/04.
Following further monitoring and a ‘final
check’ in 2006, the island was declared rat-
free (Appleton et al. 2006). The project had a
218
cash cost of £180/ha, plus in-kind contribu-
tions from partners for project set-up, trans-
port, accommodation and management
(Lock 2006). Recovery of the island’s Manx
Shearwaters was the primary focus of the rat
eradication. It seemed unlikely at the time
that Puffins, having declined to such a low
level, would recover rapidly.
Seabird monitoring on Lundy up to 2008
showed an initially encouraging response to
the island’s rat-free status (Brown et al.
2011), but five years is a relatively short time
over which to assess changes in seabird
breeding populations. Another ten years of
data are now available, and this paper pre-
sents the results. In particular, we report on
the latest survey of breeding Manx
Shearwaters on Lundy, in 2017 and 2018, and
compare the results with previous surveys in
2001, 2008 and 2013.
Methods
Manx Shearwater survey coverage
Survey coverage in 2017 and 2018 is shown in
fig. 1 and is very similar to that of previous
surveys (Price & Booker 2002; Booker & Price
2010, 2014). We aimed to survey all suitable
and accessible areas of the island, with areas
of most favourable habitat given priority. The
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230
 Seabird recovery on Lundy

highest-priority areas
(accessible sites with
high burrow densities)
have been covered in
all years. Weather and
time constraints have
accounted for the vari-
ability in coverage of the
lower-priority sites,
where habitat is less
suitable and burrow
density is low (see table
1).
Survey methods have
remained as similar as
possible but for health
and safety reasons the
strip of habitat within
5 m of the cliff edge has
been excluded since
2013. An adjustment in
the number of Appar-
ently Occupied Burrows
(AOB) has subsequently
been made, based on
the proportion of birds
that occupied this 5-m
zone on the last occa-
sion it was surveyed
(2008). In all surveys,
cliffs and unstable rock
falls were excluded and
the island plateau was
surveyed selectively.

Timing of surveys
Surveys have been
timed to coincide with
the middle of the shear-
waters’ incubation
period. Incubation
starts in early May and
lasts for around 51 days
Fig. 1. Areas surveyed for Manx Shearwaters Puffinus puffinus on Lundy
(Brooke 1990) and in 2017 and 2018.
accordingly all surveys
were conducted between late May and the entrance to all potential burrows for up to 15
first week of June. seconds. Surveyors waited for up to 20
seconds for a response from an incubating
Playback methods adult. Each surveyor recorded the number of
Surveys have used a repeatable playback burrows checked and the number of burrows
method, employing the same recording of from which a response was obtained, all of
calls of male and female (duetting) Manx which were collated at the end of each tran-
Shearwaters, played during the daytime at the sect line. The approximate locations of

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230 219

Booker et al.

Table 1. Manx Shearwater surveys on Lundy: coverage by section in all surveys since 2001.

Section Priority Coverage

A High Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in all survey years.
B High Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in all survey years.
C High Suitable areas surveyed in all years. A small area added from 2013.
Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in all survey years. A small area added
D High
from 2013 (site of a former gull colony).
Received little coverage. Some areas are precipitous; most accessible areas have
E Low
thin soil and few burrows. Small sample areas surveyed in each year.
F High Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in all survey years.
Made up of small areas of habitat between large rock buttresses. Covered where
G1 Medium possible in all years; one area excluded in 2013 owing to time constraints
(but no birds recorded there in previous surveys).
G2 High Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in all survey years.
Puffin slope covered in all surveys. An additional area of habitat was surveyed
H High
in the west of this section from 2013. There is a further area yet to be surveyed.
I High Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in all survey years.
Sample surveyed in 2001 and 2008 due to extensive nature of the slopes;
J Low
comprehensively surveyed in 2018. Generally thin soil, few burrows, but
K1 Low patches of suitable habitat.
K2 High Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in all survey years.
L1 Medium Suitable areas surveyed comprehensively in 2001, 2008 and 2018.
L2 Low Much unsuitable habitat. Some accessible areas covered in
L3 Low 2001 and 2008, with areas added in 2018
L4 Low following rhododendron clearance.
Rat Island surveyed in 2008 only; no burrows found. Rest of section surveyed
L5 Low
in 2008 and 2013 and partially in 2017 (few burrows in excluded area).

burrows from which responses were obtained
were sketched on a map. Visual signs of occu-
pancy, such as droppings or feathers, which
have been shown to be unreliable indicators
of burrow occupancy (Perkins et al. 2017),
were not recorded.
Lundy’s perimeter of steep slopes was
divided into subsections, with each further
divided into manageable survey areas based
on topographic features, to enable systematic
survey using transect lines. Surveyors covered
all accessible areas in each section by con-
touring the slopes 5 m apart and checking
every burrow, including holes under boul-
ders. In other places, such as steep, narrow
gaps between rock buttresses, the use of ver-
tical transects was more effective. Transects
were followed by eye, though marker canes
were used where necessary to help identify
the right course. Sprigs of bracken placed in
burrow entrances as they were checked pre-
vented double-checking of burrows.
Although the aim was to survey the popu-
lation in a single year, fieldwork could not be
completed in 2017 owing to poor weather in
early June. In 2018, with good weather condi-
tions and a large team, we were able to survey
all areas we had missed and repeat a sample of
areas surveyed in 2017 to assess any differ-
ences. In addition, we were able to survey
parts of the island not covered since 2008 and
also to check completely new areas, previously
overgrown with dense Rhododendron pon-
ticum and therefore unsuitable for occupation
by Manx Shearwaters. Rhododendron on
Lundy is subject to an eradication programme
(Day et al. 2010), which has opened up new
potential nesting habitat for the shearwaters.
Playback equipment
In 2001 and 2008, all areas were surveyed
using the same type of cassette tape recorder.
In 2013 and 2017/18, other electronic devices
were introduced and formed a proportion of
the survey equipment. In 2017 the use of
certain digital devices (in particular MP3

220 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230


124. Surveying Manx Shearwater burrows along the east coast of Lundy, June 2018.
players with built-in speakers from Hunter
Electronics, specifically marketed for play-
back of bird calls) posed problems with
sound reproduction quality. This appeared to
result in poor levels of response from incu-
bating birds. Usage of these particular devices
was discontinued early in the survey, but the
issue was investigated further after the field-
work was completed. (Box 1 describes the
approach and results from this investigation.)
In 2018 we tested the MP3 players prior to
use to ensure all the devices were up to the
standard required and used a combination of
these and the traditional cassette players.
Correction for non-response to
playback
Incubating Manx Shearwaters do not always
respond to playback. In order to account for
non-response from occupied burrows, we
estimated, separately for 2017 and 2018, the
daily response rate. We conducted playback
each day that weather conditions were suit-
able (avoiding heavy rain and strong winds)
to a sample of 110 marked burrows within a
calibration plot. On each day of calibration
playback, response or lack of response was
noted for each burrow. Since the occupancy
status of each burrow was not known, we esti-
mated the total number of occupied burrows
in both 2017 and 2018 within the sample
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230
Seabird recovery on Lundy
Helen Booker
using the du Feu mark-recapture method (du
Feu et al. 1983; Bolton et al. 2010). For each
day, response rate was calculated as the
number of burrows from which responses
were elicited, divided by the estimate of the
number of occupied burrows in that year.
Correction factors for 2017 and 2018 were
derived from the median of the reciprocals of
the daily response rates for each year. The
95% confidence limits (CLs) of the correction
factors were estimated by bootstrapping (with
replacement) 9,999 samples.
Population estimate
The number of occupied burrows within the
areas surveyed in 2017 and 2018 was esti-
mated from the number of burrows from
which a response was elicited, multiplied by
the correction factor for the respective year.
This gave an estimate of the actual number of
occupied burrows in the areas surveyed. This
was then increased by 6% to include the esti-
mated proportion of occupied burrows in
the 5-m strip adjacent to the cliff edge that
had been excluded for safety reasons. Since it
was not possible to survey the whole island in
a single year, the whole-island estimate was
obtained by combining the estimates for
non-overlapping areas from 2017 and 2018.
For the area that was surveyed in both years,
the data collected in 2018 were used (see
221
Booker et al.
results). The confidence limits of the whole-
island population estimate were derived from
9,999 randomly paired bootstrapped samples
of the 2017 and 2018 components.
Results
Calibration for non-response to
playback
Calibration trials were conducted on ten days
in 2017 and seven days in 2018. A small
number of burrows for which response rates
were ambiguous (e.g. due to multiple nests in
close proximity) were censored, resulting in a
sample of 102 burrows in 2017 and 105 in
2018. The mean response rates were 39.6%
in 2017 and 50.6% in 2018, and the mean
correction factors were 2.558 (95% CLs
2.375–2.739) for 2017 and 2.000 (95% CLs
1.846–2.176) for 2018.
Playback survey
In 2017, between 27th May and 7th June,
10,527 burrows were surveyed by playback,
and responses were obtained from 1,394. In
2018, between 2nd and 9th June, 6,822
burrows were surveyed, and responses
obtained from 1,560. It was therefore clear
that the proportion of burrows checked from
which a response was heard was considerably
higher in 2018 than in 2017 (22.9% and
13.2% respectively). For areas surveyed in
6,000
5,000
Lundy
rat-free
4,000 in spring
no. breeding pairs
2004
3451
3,000
2,000
1081
1,000
297
0
2001 2008
Fig. 2. Breeding Manx Shearwaters on Lundy: estimated population
trend 2001–18, based upon results from four surveys. Rat eradication
was undertaken between autumn 2002 and spring 2004. Error bars
show 95% confidence limits.
222
both 2017 and 2018, results from 2018 were
used. This produced a combined total for
2017–18 of 2,370 responses from 13,624
burrows checked (810 responses from 2017
and 1,560 responses from 2018).
The distribution of responses is shown in
fig. 3, illustrating all the 2018 results and the
results from 2017 for areas not covered in
2018. These are presented alongside the
number of responses in previous surveys.
The maps show an expansion of Manx
Shearwater subcolonies since 2001 and the
establishment of newly occupied sites across
the island, in particular on the east and
northwest coasts of the island.
Breeding population estimate
Applying the correction factors to the
number of responses obtained from non-
overlapping areas for each year gives a figure
of 2,072 AOB in 2017 and 3,120 AOB in
2018. Adding the 6% uplift to each year
increases the estimate to 2,197 in 2017 and
3,307 in 2018, giving an all-island estimate of
5,504 breeding pairs (95% confidence limits:
5,203–5,833 pairs).
Fig. 2 illustrates the change in Lundy’s
Manx Shearwater population between 2001
and 2018. Whilst there have been some
minor variations in survey coverage, there is
no doubt about the general trend: a major
increase in the breeding
population since 2001.
5504 Playback quality issues
in 2017
As described above, diffi-
culties were encountered
during the 2017 fieldwork
season as a result of
adverse weather conditions
combined with the scale of
coverage required and the
limited time available.
These factors were recog-
nised as potential risks at
the outset. However, prob-
lems with the playback
2013 2017–18 process were not antici-
pated. After the 2017 field-
work we analysed the
pattern of playback
responses from a sample of
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230
 Seabird recovery on Lundy

different devices; this highlighted a low from some of the other devices. We then
number of responses per burrow checked analysed the playback sound quality from
from the Hunter Electronics MP3 player, but different devices and the findings are
also indicated wide variability in responses described in Box 1.

Fig. 3. Distribution of playback responses by Manx Shearwaters in all surveys on Lundy since 2001.

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230 223

Booker et al.

Assessment of sound reproduction of different playback devices. BOX 1

To assess the sound quality of a selection of devices used in the Lundy Manx Shearwater survey
in 2017, each was loaded with an identical recording of Manx Shearwater calls. The audio
output of each device was then recorded using a Rode NT1A studio microphone connected to
a Sound Devices MixPre-3 recorder. The microphone was placed approximately 50 cm directly
above the speaker on each device. An identical section of each recording was then isolated and
normalised to -3dBFS. The frequency analysis tool in Adobe Audition CC was then used to
generate a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) profile of the file.
original MP3 file Sony cassette player TCS-580V
0 0
-10 Fig. 4.1 -10 Fig. 4.2
-20 -20
amplitude (dBFS)

amplitude (dBFS)
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
-60 -60
-70 -70
-80 -80
-90 -90
-100 -100
100 1000 10000 100 1000 10000
frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz)

Hunter Electronics MP3 player Hunter Electronics MP3 player + RadioShack speaker
0 0
-10 Fig. 4.3 -10 Fig. 4.4
-20 -20
amplitude (dBFS)

amplitude (dBFS)

-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
-60 -60
-70 -70
-80 -80
-90 -90
-100 -100
100 1000 10000 100 1000 10000
frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz)

Fig. 4. Analysis of sound frequency distribution (as FFT profile) of the standard recording of
Manx Shearwater calls (4.1), together with reproduction of this recording on three different
device configurations.

Fig. 4.1 shows the resulting frequency distribution of the original playback file, while fig. 4.2
shows the trace for one of the cassette recorders used, which is reasonably faithful to the orig-
inal MP3 file, albeit with a slight notch in the middle of the 3 kHz frequency peak. The other
cassette recorders tested performed similarly. However, the trace for the Hunter Electronics
MP3 player (fig. 4.3) shows a worrying 20 dB reduction in the 1 kHz peak, along with distor-
tion to the 3 kHz peak. This perhaps suggests that the unit has been optimised to reproduce
the higher-frequency calls of small songbirds at the expense of performance at lower frequen-
cies. Connecting a small external speaker through the headphone socket improved the situa-
tion considerably (fig. 4.4), though still with some residual distortion around 2 kHz. Other
digital devices tested, such as smartphones and mini-MP3 players, produced a reasonably
faithful frequency distribution, but were invariably short on volume and all needed a mini
external speaker to reach the output level of the cassette recorders. This issue of volume, par-
ticularly where smartphones were used without a speaker, may have contributed to the other
poor response rates apparent for some surveyors during 2017.

Population changes in other breeding at a perilously low level at the time of rat
seabirds on Lundy eradication. The population in 2000 was just
The eradication of rats appears to have been 13 birds and this dipped still further, to just
a turning point not only for Manx five individuals in 2004, the year the rat erad-
Shearwaters but also for many of Lundy’s ication was completed (Price & Slader 2004).
breeding seabirds. Surveys since 2000 have Since then, their recovery has been remark-
shown that the most dramatic changes have able with 375 birds recorded in 2017 (Booker
occurred in the auk populations. Puffins were et al. 2018). Guillemots have increased from

224 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230

 Seabird recovery on Lundy

2,348 to 6,198 individuals

since the Seabird 2000
survey and Razorbills
from 950 to 1,735 individ-
uals (Booker et al. 2018).
As with Puffin numbers,
these increases have
occurred since 2004 (see
fig. 5) and have been
accompanied by an expan-
sion in nesting distribu-
tion. All three species are
now increasingly occu-
pying breeding sites in the
broken ground where the
clifftop grades into the
steep grassy slope and pro-
vides a mix of boulders,
soil and crevices. These
areas would have been
accessible to rats but are
now safe nesting sites for
auks.
Another notable devel-
opment was the discovery
of a juvenile European

David Price
Storm-petrel Hydrobates
pelagicus in 2014, which
constituted the first con-
firmed breeding for Lundy 125. Marking a burrow for inclusion in the calibration plot, June 2018.
(Taylor 2015). This has
been followed by the establishment of a small Nests, AON) and Fulmars Fulmarus glacialis
colony of 9–16 AOB in 2018 (RSPB unpub- (227 Apparently Occupied Sites, AOS)
lished data). Prior to 2014, studies had found remained relatively stable (Booker et al.
no evidence of breeding storm-petrels (Perry 2018), despite UK population declines of
1940; Webb 1991; Price
2002; Booker & Townend 7,000
6,198
2010). Although it cannot Guillemots
be proven, it is likely that 6,000
Razorbills
this species was wiped out Lundy
no. birds at breeding sites

5,000
by rats and it will be fasci- rat-free
nating to see how the pop- in spring
4,000 2004
ulation responds in future
years. 3,000 2,321
For other seabirds, the
impact of the rat eradica- 2,000
1,735
tion programme is less
clear, and perhaps 841
1,000
obscured by other factors.
Between 2000 and 2017, 0
2000 2004 2008 2013 2017
populations of Shags
Phalacrocorax aristotelis Fig. 5. Population change in breeding Razorbills Alca torda and
(55 Apparently Occupied Common Guillemots Uria aalge on Lundy, 2000–17.

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230 225

 Booker et al.

2018) against a UK decline

estimated at 11% since
2000 (JNCC 2016).
By contrast, Herring
Gulls L. argentatus and
Lesser Black-backed Gulls
L. fuscus have declined
markedly between 2000
and 2018, though the
latter had previously
increased (Price 2018; fig.
6). Kittiwakes Rissa tri-
dactyla declined from a
2000 population of 237
AON down to 127 AON in
2013, but they appear to
have rallied subsequently
with 238 AON recorded in
2017 (Booker et al. 2018).
The declines in Herring
and Lesser Black-backed
Gulls on Lundy are
broadly in line with wider
trends. Breeding Lesser
Black-backed Gulls in
England declined by an
estimated 48% between
David Price

2000 and 2013, largely

driven by declines at ‘tra-
ditional’ coastal colonies
126. Occupied Manx Shearwater burrow (marked by the cassette (JNCC 2016). Similarly,
recorder) above the narrow gully near St John’s Stone, almost on the the UK Herring Gull pop-
main plateau of Lundy, June 2018. ulation has declined by an
estimated 43% since 2000
34% and 31% respectively between 2000 and despite some local increases, for example in
2015 (Hayhow et al. 2017). Similarly, Great several urban centres in England (JNCC
Black-backed Gulls Larus marinus, with 46 2016).
AON in 2018, are also fairly stable (Price
Discussion
1,200 The increase in Lundy’s
Herring Lesser Black-
Manx Shearwater
population
no. apparently occupied nests

1,000 Gulls backed Gulls

The increase in Lundy’s

800
Manx Shearwater popula-
600 tion since 2001 is dramatic.
Although the rat eradica-
400 tion took two winters to
complete, the vast majority
200
of the island was cleared
0 during the first winter,
1986 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2013 2017–18
giving the seabirds virtually
Fig. 6. Population change in Herring Larus argentatus and Lesser rat-free breeding condi-
Black-backed Gulls L. fuscus, 1986–2018. tions from 2003 onwards.

226 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230


The typical age of first breeding of Manx
Shearwaters is six years (Brooke 1990), yet
the increase in population has been rapid,
from an estimated 297 pairs in 2001 to over
1,000 pairs by 2008 (Booker & Price 2010).
Such a rate of increase could be explained
only by immigration of birds reared at other
colonies, most likely Skomer and Skokholm.
Since there was no evidence of successful
breeding on Lundy prior to the rat eradica-
tion (Taylor 1990), it would seem that the
population was being maintained at a low
level only by immigration.
Fig. 2 shows a notable upturn in the rate
of increase from 2008 onwards and while
immigration will no doubt have continued,
birds reared on Lundy since 2003 should
have been returning to the island during this
period, to provide additional recruitment
into the breeding population. Ringing activi-
ties, which have supported the survey work
since the rat eradication, have been targeted
at both adults and newly emerged chicks, and
the recapture of an adult in 2011 that had
been ringed as a chick on Lundy in 2008 con-
firmed that birds were indeed returning
(Davis & Jones 2012). The higher rate of
population increase after 2008 was main-
tained after 2013 to the 2017/18 population
figure. This suggests that not only are more
Lundy chicks being recruited into the
127. Surveying Pyramid slope on the west coast of Lundy, June 2018.
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217 – 230
Seabird recovery on Lundy
population, but that the rate of immigration
has also increased – perhaps a function of the
larger colony size on Lundy proving a greater
attraction to prospecting birds (Price &
Booker 2013).
The increase in the numbers of burrows
checked over each survey is also of interest.
Manx Shearwaters will occupy vacant cham-
bers (including European Rabbit Oryctolagus
cuniculus burrows) or dig their own (Brooke
1990). The increase in the number of
burrows during each survey may also reflect
the highest densities of the rabbit population
(up to 20,000 in the years prior to 2010; Day
et al. 2010), but perhaps also the increasing
numbers of birds digging their own burrows,
and increasing the overall availability of nest
sites.
Manx Shearwaters have also responded
positively to rat eradication projects else-
where. For example, on the Pembrokeshire
island of Ramsey, the recovery pattern has
been similar to that observed on Lundy. On
Ramsey, the 1998 population of 849 pairs
increased to 4,796 pairs in 2016, following rat
eradication in 1999/2000 (RSPB unpublished
data). The more recent Isles of Scilly Seabird
Recovery Project worked to eradicate rats
from the islands of St Agnes and Gugh in
2013. Declared rat-free in March 2016, these
islands recorded the first Manx Shearwater
Tim Frayling
227
 Booker et al.
Elisabeth Price
128. Juvenile Manx Shearwater at night, exploring the immediate environs of its burrow; Lundy,
September 2018.
chicks to fledge there in living memory in
August and September 2014, and in 2015
European Storm-petrels were also found
breeding there (Heaney & St Pierre 2017).
Such a rapid response to rat eradication
demonstrates both the devastating impact of
these predators and the huge conservation
benefits these recovery projects can provide.
Playback issues encountered during
2017 fieldwork
The technical analysis of sound reproduction
from playback devices described in Box 1
highlighted an important consideration for
similar surveys proposing to use digital
recordings during the fieldwork. Though
digital format per se may be assumed to be
superior to analogue, it is critical to ensure
that the playback devices are adequate in
producing faithful sound reproduction. In
addition, although devices such as smart-
phones may faithfully produce the range of
sound frequencies of the original recording,
our results suggest that in most cases it is
advisable to use an external speaker plugged
into the device to ensure that the playback is
at an adequate volume to penetrate the
typical length of a Manx Shearwater burrow.
228
Conclusions
Despite declines in Herring and Lesser Black-
backed Gulls, the total seabird assemblage on
Lundy has tripled since 2000 to just over
21,000 birds in 2017/18 and now exceeds
international importance thresholds both for
its total assemblage (over 20,000 breeding
seabirds; JNCC 1999) and for its Manx
Shearwater population (3,700 pairs; Mitchell
et al. 2004).
Brown et al. (2011) speculated whether
the increases in seabirds between 2001 and
2008 could be the start of a major recovery
following rat removal. A decade on there
seems little doubt that the absence of rats is
the main driver for such positive changes not
only for Manx Shearwaters, but also for
Puffins, Guillemots and Razorbills, and has
enabled the (re)colonisation of European
Storm-petrels.
The seabird response to the removal of
rats has far exceeded our expectations, raising
the question of how much the populations
will continue to grow. For Manx Shearwaters,
it certainly appears that habitat and burrow
availability will not be limiting for many
years to come. Maintaining a rat-free island
will be critical to the ongoing recovery and
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230

future security of Lundy’s Manx Shearwaters
and the other seabirds that seem to be bene-
fiting from rat-free conditions. The island
has a comprehensive biosecurity plan
(MacDonald & Booker 2017), which sets out
measures to minimise the likelihood of rats
returning to Lundy. This, alongside an
ongoing monitoring programme to assist rat
detection and an action plan to restore the
island’s rat-free status in the event of an
incursion, should ensure that Lundy remains
a safe nesting island long into the future.
Adequate food supply is the other critical
factor supporting seabird productivity and
populations. It is vital that food remains
abundant within the foraging ranges of
Lundy’s seabirds, a matter of increasing
uncertainty in the face of climate change and
associated impacts on marine ecosystems.
Identification and protection of important
foraging areas and sensitive fisheries manage-
ment will help to ensure that our seabirds
can thrive into the future.
On Lundy, Manx Shearwaters and auks
appear to have the necessary combination of
safe nesting sites and adequate food and are
setting Lundy on track to re-establish itself as
a major UK seabird colony.
Acknowledgments
The survey was organised by the RSPB and was
supported by Landmark Trust, and thanks must go to
Derek Green, Lundy General Manager, and Dean
Woodfin Jones, Lundy Warden, for their support. We
also thank the following for assistance with fieldwork in
2017 and/or 2018: RSPB staff and volunteers (Laura
Bambini, A. J. Bellamy, Hadyn Brookes, Deborah
Deveney, Neil Duffield, Richard Halstead, Sarah Havery,
Tim Jones, Nikki Marks, Natalie Muirhead-Davies, Toby
Taylor, Lydia Titterton and Chris Townend), Natural
England staff (Sarah Ayling, Richard Caldow, Mags
Cousins, Ruth Crundwell, Bart Donato, Georgie Evans,
Vicky Gilson, Zoe Gorvett, Ivan Lakin, Rob Large, Katie
Lloyd, Esther Pawley, Ruth Porter, Thomas Shanta, Chris
Singfield and Nik Ward) and the Landmark Trust Lundy
conservation team (Robert Andrew, Vicky Edwards,
Kathryn MacKinnon, Siân Scott and Dean Woodfin
Jones).
References
Appleton, D., Booker, H., Bullock, D. J., Cordrey, L., &
Sampson, B. 2006. The Seabird Recovery Project:
Lundy Island. Atlantic Seabirds 8: 51–59.
Atkinson, I. A. E. 1978 Evidence for effects of rodents
on the vertebrate wildlife of New Zealand Islands.
In: Dingwall, P. R., Atkinson, I. A. E., & Hay, C. (eds.),
The Ecology and Control of Rodents in New Zealand
Nature Reserves, pp. 7–32. Information Series No. 4,
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230
Seabird recovery on Lundy
Dept of Lands and Survey, Wellington.
Bell, M. 2001. A feasibility study into the eradication
of rats from Lundy Island, Bristol Channel, UK.
Unpublished report to RSPB.
Bolton, M., Brown, J. G., Moncrieff, H., Ratcliffe, N.,
& Okill, J. D. 2010. Playback re-survey and
demographic modelling indicate a substantial
increase in breeding European Storm-petrels
Hydrobates pelagicus at the largest UK colony,
Mousa, Shetland. Seabird 23: 14–24.
Booker, H., & Price, D. 2010. Manx Shearwaters on
Lundy: a study of population and distribution
change from 2001 to 2008. J. Lundy Field Soc.
2: 105–112.
— & — 2014. Manx Shearwater recovery on Lundy:
population and distribution change from 2001 to
2013. J. Lundy Field Soc. 4: 105–116.
— & Townend, C. 2010. Lundy storm petrel survey
2010. RSPB unpublished report, Exeter.
—, Slader, P., Price, D., Bellamy, A., & Frayling, T. 2018.
Cliff nesting seabirds on Lundy: population trends
from 1981 to 2017. J. Lundy Field Soc. 6: 65–76.
Brooke, M. 1990. The Manx Shearwater. Poyser,
London.
Brown, A., Price, D., Slader, P., Booker, H., Lock, L., &
Deveney, D. 2011. Seabirds on Lundy: their current
status, recent history and prospects for the
restoration of a once-important bird area.
Brit. Birds 104: 139–158.
Davis, T., & Jones, T. 2012. Birds on Lundy 2011.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 61: 34.
Day, J., White, J., & Cruickshanks, K. 2010. Conservation
Management Plan for Lundy Island. The Landmark
Trust/Footprint Ecology.
Dean, B., et al. 2015. Simultaneous multi-colony
tracking of a pelagic seabird reveals cross-colony
utilization of a shared foraging area. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 538: 239–248.
du Feu, C. R., Hounsome, M. V., & Spence, I. M. 1983.
A single session mark/recapture method of
population estimation. Ringing and Migration
4: 211–226.
Hayhow, D. B., et al. The State of the UK’s Birds 2017.
The RSPB, BTO, WWT, DAERA, JNCC, NE and
NRW, Sandy.
Heaney, V., & St Pierre, P. 2017. The status of seabirds
breeding in the Isles of Scilly in 2015/16.
Unpublished RSPB Report.
JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee). 1999.
The Birds Directive – selection guidelines for
Special Protection Areas. JNCC, Peterborough.
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1405
— 2016. Seabird population trends and causes of
change: 1986–2015. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/
page-3201
Lock, J. 2006. Eradication of Brown Rats Rattus
norvegicus and Black Rats Rattus rattus to restore
breeding seabird populations on Lundy Island,
Devon, England. Conservation Evidence 3: 111–113.
MacDonald, R., & Booker, H. 2017. Lundy biosecurity
plan to prevent, detect and respond to rat and
House Mouse incursion. Unpublished report,
The Landmark Trust and RSPB.
Micol, T., & Jouventin, P. 2002. Eradication of rats and
rabbits from Saint-Paul Island, French Southern
Territories. In: Veitch, C. R., & Clout, M. N. (eds.),
Turning the Tide: the eradication of invasive species,
229
 Booker et al.
Dean Woodfin Jones

129. Surveying the former rhododendron areas on Lundy, June 2018.

pp. 199–295. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist
Group, Gland and Cambridge.
Mitchell, P. I., Newton, S. F., Ratcliffe, N., & Dunn, T. E.
2004. Seabird Populations of Britain and Ireland.
Poyser, London.
Perry, R. 1940. Lundy: Isle of Puffins, Drummond,
London.
Perkins, A. J., Douse, A., Morgan, G., Cooper, A., &
Bolton, M. 2017. Using dual-sex calls improves the
playback census method for a nocturnal burrow-
nesting seabird, the Manx Shearwater Puffinus
puffinus. Bird Study 64: 146–158.
Price, D. 2002. Lundy Island. Storm petrels: Survey of
potential breeding habitat. Unpublished report.
— 2018. Gulls on Lundy, 2018. Breeding season
survey. Unpublished RSPB report.
— & Booker, H. 2000. Lundy Island, Manx Shearwater
Survey – June 2000. Unpublished RSPB report.
— & — 2002. Manx Shearwaters on Lundy.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 51: 95–103.
— & — 2013. Lundy Island, Manx Shearwaters,
breeding population and distribution survey, 2013.
Unpublished RSPB report.
— & Slader, P. 2004. Lundy census of breeding
seabirds. Site Register 2004. Unpublished report.
Studdy, R. E. 1948. Report on the Manx Shearwater.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Report 1948: 25–26.
Taylor, A. M. 1986. Manx Shearwaters on Lundy: ringing
studies and observations. Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep.
36: 23–24.
— 1990. Manx Shearwaters on Lundy: further ringing
studies and observations on breeding status.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 40: 31–33.
— 2015. Storm Petrel: first confirmed breeding record
for Lundy and Devon. Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep.
64: 66–68.
Webb, A. 1991. Report on survey of burrow-nesting
seabirds on Lundy, 1–5 June 1991. Internal report
for JNCC.

Helen Booker, RSPB, 4th floor, North Block, Broadwalk House, Southernhay West,
Exeter EX1 1TS; e-mail helen.booker@rspb.org.uk
David Price, 8 Scattor View, Bridford, Exeter EX6 7JF
Peter Slader, 10 Moorland Way, Exeter EX4 2ET
Tim Frayling, Natural England, Ground Floor, Sterling House, Dix’s Field, Exeter EX1 1QA
Tom Williams, 12 Oxenpark Gate, Bridford, Exeter EX6 7RJ
Mark Bolton, RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL

Helen Booker is a Senior Conservation Officer at the RSPB and has been involved in running both the Lundy
Seabird Recovery Project and the monitoring of seabird population change. David Price is an active birdwatcher
and ringer in Devon, with a particular interest in population monitoring. Peter Slader spent most of his working
life in higher education. He first visited Lundy Island in 1992 to help with the survey of cliff-nesting seabirds and
has taken part in every survey since, including the surveys of Manx Shearwaters. Tim Frayling is a Senior Marine
Ornithologist at Natural England based in Exeter, and led the Natural England survey teams in 2017 and 2018.
Tom Williams has been involved in ecological survey work for over 20 years, and is also a photographer,
videographer and sound recordist. Mark Bolton works as a Principal Conservation Scientist at RSPB, and is
involved in a wide range of marine conservation projects.

230 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 217– 230

Short papers
Northern Wheatears on Lundy: the impact of rat eradication

Abstract Data on the breeding population of Northern Wheatears Oenanthe

oenanthe on Lundy, Devon, are presented, including recent surveys of the whole
island and a Retrapping Adults for Survival (RAS) project. The results suggest a
marked increase in breeding Wheatears since the successful rat eradication
project on the island. Potential reasons for these results are discussed.

T
he island of Lundy is situated in the has had a positive effect on breeding
Bristol Channel, 18 km NNW of Wheatears as well.
Hartland Point in Devon. It is a
granite outcrop, about 5 km long and 1 km Lundy’s Wheatear population
wide, and consists of a plateau 80–140 m before rat eradication
above sea level, fringed by steep grassy slopes Between 1947 and 1973, Lundy was operated
known as the Sidelands. These are inter- as a bird observatory. Much of the wardens’
spersed with rock buttresses, and lead down time was spent studying migrants and
to sheer cliffs that hold large numbers of breeding seabirds but there are some records
breeding seabirds. of the number of breeding pairs of
Wheatears on the island, which ranged from
The rat eradication project zero to ten pairs annually. No further details
During the twentieth century, it became clear were published in the Lundy Field Society
that the predation by rats, both Brown Rats (LFS) annual reports for the relevant years,
Rattus norvegicus and Black Rats R. rattus, so survey methods and the areas where pairs
was having a major impact on populations of were found are not known.
Lundy’s breeding seabirds, in particular From 1974 onwards, wardening of the
Manx Shearwaters Puffinus puffinus and island was directed primarily at the marine
Puffins Fratercula arctica (Taylor
1986, 1990). Following the
necessary feasibility studies, a
successful rat eradication pro-
gramme was carried out in the
winters of 2002/03 and 2003/04,
and since then the island’s
seabird populations have
increased markedly – see Booker
et al. (2019) and references
therein.
It was anticipated that rat
eradication would have a posi-
tive impact on Lundy’s seabirds,
and censuses carried out in 2000
and 2001 (Price & Booker 2002)
Rebecca Taylor

gave baseline figures against

which any increases could be
measured. The possible benefits
to landbird species, such as
Northern Wheatears Oenanthe 130. A Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe on Lundy, June
oenanthe, were less clear, but it 2015. This breeding female was colour-ringed in 2013 and seen
now appears that rat eradication in the following three summers.

© British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 231– 236 231

Short papers
environment, with the waters around Lundy
becoming the UK’s first statutory Marine
Nature Reserve, in 1986. This meant that the
majority of bird records were casual observa-
tions by visitors, although important contri-
butions were made by several birders who
worked on the island in other capacities.
Between 1974 and 1999, the Wheatear
breeding population was not systematically
monitored and no annual census was under-
taken. A few of the LFS reports use wording
such as ‘at least five pairs’ (1985) or refer to
small numbers of fledged young being seen,
but most reports make no comment. The
highest estimates in these reports were ten
Fig. 1. Map of Lundy showing features mentioned in the text.
232
pairs, in both 1981 and 1996.
Between 2000 and 2004, three surveys of
Lundy’s breeding landbirds were carried out.
The first, in 2000, located 20 pairs of
breeding Wheatears (Davis & Jones 2007),
while in May 2001, a team of staff and volun-
teers from the RSPB and English Nature
located 23 pairs (Lock 2002). In 2004, Leigh
Lock repeated the 2001 survey, using similar
methodology, and located 20 pairs (Lock
2005).
The Wheatear population since rat
eradication
In early June 2010, Tim Davis and Tim Jones
visited Lundy to carry out census
work for Bird Atlas 2007–11
(Balmer et al. 2013). They esti-
mated the Wheatear breeding
population at 30–40 pairs (Tim
Davis pers. comm.), significantly
more than had been expected,
and the first indication that the
population was increasing. In
2012, Richard Taylor and Tony
Taylor (AMT) were on Lundy in
late May, primarily to study
Manx Shearwaters, and noticed
an unexpectedly large number of
breeding Wheatears. Since
Wheatears are a high priority for
the BTO’s Retrapping Adults
for Survival (RAS) project, a
study involving colour-ringing
breeding adults began in 2013,
with a view to registering the
work as a RAS project. In early
June 2013, 49 breeding Wheat-
ears were colour-ringed in the
south and west of the island,
between The Castle in the south-
east and The Battery on the west
coast (fig. 1). In late May and
early June 2014, more birds were
colour-ringed and resightings of
birds ringed in 2013 were
recorded.
From 2015, the fieldwork
season was extended to three
weeks and the study area
expanded north to Halfway
Wall, in order to colour-ring and
resight sufficient birds each year
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 231– 236
 Short papers

Tony Taylor
131. The west coast of Lundy between The Battery (left) and The Old Light (right), October 2009.
A probable total of 16 pairs of Northern Wheatears bred on the Sidelands and cliffs of this section
of coast in 2017.

to produce reliable RAS data. These changes On 31st May 2014, AMT and Ann Taylor
have been successful: in 2017, 51 breeding recorded all Wheatear sightings during a
adults were ringed and 48 adults from pre- one-day island-wide survey, moving at a con-
vious years were resighted. As a result of the stant speed around the edge of the plateau
RAS project, it has been possible to give accu- and stopping at regular intervals to scan the
rate figures for the number of pairs breeding plateau and Sidelands. As in 2013, a conver-
in the study area each year from 2013, since sion factor from data in the colour-ringing
almost all of the adult birds involved are study area was employed, and this generated
colour-ringed by the end of the season’s field- an estimated island total of 115 pairs (Taylor
work and most nest sites are known. From 2015).
these figures, population estimates for the In 2015 and 2016, weather conditions
whole island can be extrapolated. were unsuitable for repeat surveys using the
In June 2013, David Price took part in a same method as in 2014, but estimates of 100
Manx Shearwater population survey, which and 110 pairs were made using data from the
involved visiting the
Sidelands round the whole 125
island coast, and he noted
all Wheatears encountered 100 whole-island population
by the survey group. By study-area population
75
comparing the number of
birds recorded in the 50
colour-ringing study area
during the shearwater 25
survey with the number of
0
pairs known to be breeding 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
there, a simple conversion
factor was calculated and Fig. 2. Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe population
applied to the all-island estimates on Lundy, 1951–2018, for the whole island (blue bars) and
the current RAS study area (red bars). Data for the period 1951–96
Wheatear count to give an
are from the Lundy Field Society annual reports, and from 2000
island total of about 80 onwards from targeted surveys (see text). The rat eradication
pairs (Taylor 2014). programme was completed in winter 2003/04.

British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 231– 236 233

 Short papers

study area and a conversion factor based on
other years’ figures, together with island-wide
observations by Tim Davis and Tim Jones in
2015. Rebecca Taylor completed whole-island
surveys on 7th June 2017 and 6th June 2018,
and estimates of 121 pairs and 114 pairs
respectively were derived from these. The
estimated numbers of breeding Wheatears
between 1951 and 2018, and numbers in the
study area from 2013, are shown in fig. 2.
Feeding behaviour on Lundy
Wheatear nest sites on Lundy are currently
restricted almost entirely to the Sidelands
and cliffs. Pairs normally remain close to
their nest sites and feed in the immediate
vicinity until they have large young, unless
adverse weather conditions force the adults
to move farther afield to find more sheltered
feeding places.
As the demands of growing young
increase, the main feeding areas change.
Colour-ringing has shown that adults will fly
several hundred metres for each feeding trip,
with a climb of up to 90 m from some cliff
nest sites, to exploit the rich insect life in
areas of unimproved grassland on the
plateau. Although there is some aggression
between individuals there, these feeding areas
are effectively used ‘communally’. The partic-
ular locations exploited vary according to the
conditions, especially wind direction and
strength.
The unimproved grassland, which is
closely cropped (mainly by sheep), appears to
be important in the success of Lundy’s
Wheatears. The adjacent improved grassland
is largely avoided by Wheatears, even though
this necessitates long feeding flights by some
pairs; and the highest breeding concentra-
tions are close to
the unimproved
grazing land, with
many nest sites less
than 70 m apart
there.

Discussion
The distribution of
breeding Wheatears
around the island’s
fringe means that
many pairs are easy
to miss without
extensive searching,
and some birds
using inaccessible
cliff sites are not
evident until they
are feeding large
young. Colour-
ringing has been an
essential tool in
clarifying the situa-
tion. During the
current study, two
or three weeks of
Tony Taylor

full-time survey
work have been
needed each year
132. A Northern Wheatear breeding territory on Lundy’s south coast, May before surveyors are
2017. The nest site used in 2017 is arrowed. Within 150 m to the west of confident that all
this site were a further three nests. pairs in the study

234 British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 231– 236


133. The view north across Southwest Field on Lundy, May 2017. This sheep-grazed area of
unimproved grassland is used by at least 12 pairs of Northern Wheatears nesting on nearby
Sidelands and cliffs, when they are collecting food for large nestlings. This may involve a flight of
several hundred metres and height gain of 90 m to find a single large item, usually insect larvae.
area have been found. This suggests that
records from the twentieth century, when
survey work was much less intensive, prob-
ably underestimated the breeding popula-
tion. Nonetheless, the bird observatory
wardens spent much of each breeding season
visiting seabird colonies, so they would have
been climbing up and down the Sidelands to
reach them. This should have taken them
close to many potential Wheatear breeding
sites. Hence, while the Wheatear population
may have been underestimated, it seems
inconceivable that it could have been any-
where near the current population levels.
Lock (2002) suggested that changes in
grazing regimes might have benefited
Wheatears on Lundy. With high numbers of
Soay sheep in the northern half of the island
and domestic sheep being restricted to
certain fields and areas of moorland south of
Quarter Wall, several areas of unimproved
grassland are now more heavily grazed than
they were historically, leading to the shorter
swards that Wheatears favour.
Fig. 2 suggests that the increase in
breeding Wheatears recorded since 2010
more or less coincided with the rat eradica-
tion project, supporting the idea that the two
changes are linked. During the RAS study,
most fledged broods have consisted of five or
six young, and most observed nesting
attempts have been successful. Some pairs go
on to have a second brood. Adult survival is
high, with an average of 56% of colour-
ringed birds returning the following year. It
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 231– 236
Short papers
Tony Taylor
seems likely that current levels of produc-
tivity are sufficient to drive the observed
population increase without immigration.
Ringing has provided no evidence of
immigration or emigration so far. The only
bird seen away from Lundy was a male,
colour-ringed in 2015, photographed on
Guernsey on 13th March 2017 and back on
his Lundy breeding territory by 24th March
2017. Evidence of recruitment of young to
the breeding population is limited because
few Lundy nestlings can be reached for
ringing: most nest burrows are too deep, too
narrow and/or in dangerously steep areas. Of
the 47 nestlings ringed between 2013 and
2017, six have been retrapped and colour-
ringed as breeding adults the following year.
The 2018 season appeared to be adversely
affected by severe weather in spring. There
was a greater spread of arrival dates and,
compared with earlier years, much more
changing of territories and partners from the
previous breeding season. One early arriving
female, originally colour-ringed when
breeding in 2014, was photographed on
Lundy in snow on 18th March 2018 but not
seen again. So the slight decrease in the esti-
mated whole-island population may well be a
temporary, weather-related effect, rather than
indicating a long-term limit has being
reached.
Rat eradication on the RSPB’s Ramsey
Island reserve, off the Pembrokeshire coast,
also resulted in an increase in the island’s
Wheatear population. The average Wheatear
235
Short papers
population in 1993–2000 was 67 pairs.
During this period, repair work on Ramsey’s
broad field-boundary walls after the breeding
season revealed several predated nests, with
decapitated females on clutches of eggs. After
rat eradication, in 2001, the population
reached 115 pairs in 2009 and the average for
2008–17 was 98 pairs (Greg Morgan pers.
comm.). This increase has not been on the
same scale as Lundy’s, perhaps because the
majority of Ramsey nests are in field walls,
away from the seabird colonies. On Lundy,
rats were concentrated near the seabird
colonies and, with Wheatear nests close by,
the rats would have encountered them fre-
quently. Lundy’s field walls do not make suit-
able nest sites.
Bird Atlas 2007–11 reported a 14% con-
traction of the Wheatear’s breeding range in
Britain since the 1968–72 Atlas, mainly away
from lowland habitats (Balmer et al. 2013).
There was no annual UK-wide monitoring of
breeding Wheatears until the BTO/JNCC/
RSPB Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) scheme
started in 1994. Since then, the BBS index for
Wheatears has fluctuated, with no clear long-
term trend, but it fell every year from 2010 to
2017, with a 44% decline between those years
(Woodward et al. 2018). So the recent
increases on Lundy and Ramsey have bucked
the trend of declines at the national level.
Given that Wheatears nest in burrows and
rock crevices, it is unsurprising that rats
might have had a significant impact on their
survival and breeding success, but the scale of
the population increase on Lundy since rat
eradication has been remarkable. With no
clear evidence that the population has yet
reached the island’s carrying capacity, it will
be fascinating to see how long the upward
trend continues and to what level. There is
also a good chance that Wheatears will
respond positively on other islands where
rats have been eradicated recently, including
the Shiants and some of the Isles of Scilly.
Acknowledgments
I am greatly indebted to Richard Taylor, who has shared
the work of trapping, ringing and observing Wheatears
Tony Taylor, 26 High Street, Spetisbury, Blandford DT11 9DJ;
e-mail ammataylor@yahoo.co.uk
236
on Lundy throughout the RAS project. My wife Ann
and Richard’s wife Rebecca have given us invaluable
support in all this fieldwork. We are grateful to all the
observers who have reported sightings of colour-ringed
birds, particularly Tim Davis, Tim Jones and Dean Jones,
who have devoted many hours to the challenge of
identifying them; and to Tim Davis, Tim Jones, David
Price and Rebecca Taylor for making island-wide
systematic counts that were vital for the calculation of
population estimates. The hospitality of Helen Booker
and her teams carrying out seabird census work in
2013 and 2017, who shared their accommodation with
us, was much appreciated. The Birds of Lundy fund,
managed by Devon Birds, gave financial help for the
purchase of colour-rings. This fund was set up by Tim
Davis and Tim Jones, to channel the profits from their
book The Birds of Lundy into bird-related projects on
the island. My thanks also go to Tim Davis, Tim Jones
and Richard Taylor for their valuable comments on an
earlier draft of this paper.
References
Balmer, D. E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B. J., Swann, R. L.,
Downie, I. S., & Fuller, R. J. 2013. Bird Atlas 2007–11:
the breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland.
BTO Books, Thetford.
Booker, H., Price, D., Slader, P., Frayling, T., Williams, T., &
Bolton, M. 2019. Seabird recovery on Lundy:
population change in Manx Shearwaters and other
seabirds in response to the eradication of rats.
Brit. Birds 112: 217–230.
Davis, T., & Jones, T. 2007. The Birds of Lundy. Harpers
Mill, Berrynarbor.
Lock, L. 2002. The breeding land birds of Lundy.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 51: 104–112.
— 2005. The breeding landbirds survey of Lundy.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 54: 51–62.
Price, D., & Booker, H. 2002. Manx Shearwaters on
Lundy: report on the results of a breeding survey in
May 2001. Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 51: 95–103.
Taylor, A. M. 1986. Manx Shearwaters on Lundy: ringing
studies and other observations. Lundy Field Soc. Ann.
Rep. 36: 23–24.
— 1990. Manx Shearwaters on Lundy: further ringing
studies and observations on breeding status.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 40: 31–33.
— 2014. Lundy’s Wheatear population in 2013.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 63: 80–84.
— 2015. Lundy’s Wheatear population in 2014.
Lundy Field Soc. Ann. Rep. 64: 92–97.
Woodward, I. D., et al. 2018. BirdTrends 2018: trends in
numbers, breeding success and survival for UK
breeding birds. Research Report 708. BTO, Thetford.
www.bto.org/birdtrends
Note: All of the annual reports of the Lundy Field
Society and issues of the Journal of the Lundy Field
Society are available online: www.lundy.org.uk/
index.php/resources/annual-report-archive and
www.lundy.org.uk/index.php/resources/journal-
archive
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 231– 236
Recent reports
Compiled by Barry Nightingale and Harry Hussey

This summary of unchecked reports covers early February to early March 2019.
Headlines Two species on most birders’ most-wanted lists appeared at opposite ends of the
UK, with a Tengmalm’s Owl in Shetland and a Black-browed Albatross that made several
appearances off Cornwall. In an otherwise largely quiet period, a strong southerly airstream,
with record high temperatures, brought a Great Spotted Cuckoo to Co. Cork, five Red-rumped
Swallows and widespread reports of exceptionally early Barn Swallows and House Martins
across southern counties, plus an arrival of Glossy Ibises.

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii Long-stayers Islay
(Argyll), to 28th February, and North Uist (Outer
Hebrides), to 17th February. American Wigeon
Mareca americana Long-stayers Co. Derr y,
Highland, Northumberland and Worcestershire;
Lough Atedaun (Co. Clare), 9th–15th February.
Black Duck Anas rubripes Strontian (Highland),
long-stayer to 18th February. Ferruginous Duck
Aythya nyroca Long-stayers Holyfield Lake (Essex),
to 9th February and Blashford Lakes (Hampshire),
to 23rd February. King Eider Somateria spectabilis
Ynyslas area (Ceredigion), long-stayer to 12th
February. Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata
Records from Co. Clare (2), Co. Donegal, Fife,
Lothian, Co. Meath (2) and Outer Hebrides. Black
Scoter Melanitta americana Long-stayers
Bamburgh (Northumberland), again 16th
February and Rossbeigh (Co. Kerry), to 23rd
February.
Pacific Diver Gavia pacifica Crookhaven (Co.
Cork), long-stayer to 17th February. White-billed
Diver Gavia adamsii Records from North-east
Scotland (3), Orkney (2), Outer Hebrides and
Shetland (3).
Black-browed Albatross Thalassarche melanophris
Lizard Point (Cornwall), 8th–9th February.
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Long-stayers
Loch Feorlin (Argyll), again 20th February and
Loch of Spiggie (Shetland), to 8th March.
Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Influx, with records
from 16 English, one Welsh and five Irish
recording areas.
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus
Frampton Marsh (Lincolnshire), long-stayer to 7th

Andy Jordan

134. Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea, released from Stevenston Point (Ayrshire), in February 2019.

© British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 237– 238 237

 Recent reports
Larry Dalziel
135. Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus Bixter, Shetland, February 2019.
March. Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Long-
stayers Killongford (Co. Waterford), to 2nd March,
and Ferrybank (Co. Wexford), to 2nd March.
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Long-stayers
Devoran Quay (Cornwall), to 7th March and
Lodmoor (Dorset), to 8th March.
Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea Recuperated adult
released at Stevenston Point (Ayrshire), 11th
Februar y. Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus
philadelphia Kilmore (Argyll), 20th February;
Kilmore Quay (Co. Wexford), 20th February.
American Herring Gull Larus smithsonianus Bray
(Co. Wicklow), 10th February. Forster’s Tern
Sterna forsteri Nimmo’s Pier (Co. Galway), long-
stayer to 27th February.
Great Spotted Cuckoo Clamator glandarius
Ballycroneen (Co. Cork), 15th February. Snowy
Owl Bubo scandiacus Eday (Orkney), long-stayer to
11th Februar y ; Ronas Hill (Shetland), 28th
February. Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus Bixter,
19th–23rd February, then Tresta (Shetland), 25th
February to 2nd March.
Penduline Tit Remiz pendulinus Lodmoor, long-
stayer to 5th March; Crossness (Greater London),
18th February to 5th March. Red-rumped Swallow
238
Cecropis daurica Cwm Ivy (Gower), 16th–21st and
24th February; Bosherton (Pembrokeshire), 22nd
February; St Mary’s (Scilly), up to two 26th
February to 1st March, one to 6th March; Youghal
(Co. Cork), 7th–8th March.
Pallas’s Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus proregulus Long-
stayers Cornwall to 7th March and Co. Durham to
21st February. Blyth’s Reed Warbler Acrocephalus
dumetorum Hope Carr (Greater Manchester),
long-stayer to 25th February. Rose-coloured
Starling Pastor roseus Long-stayer Llandudno
(Caernarfonshire), to 27th February. Arctic
Redpoll Acanthis hornemanni Records from Norfolk
(2) and Shetland.
Notable records of commoner
species
Ring-billed Gulls Larus delawarensis At least 17 in
Ireland. Sand Martin Riparia riparia Widespread
early arrivals from mid February. Barn Swallow
Hirundo rustica Early arrivals in February from 15
English, four Welsh, three Irish and two Scottish
(Outer Hebrides and Shetland on 17th) recording
areas. House Martin Delichon urbicum Early
arrivals in February from eight English, three
Scottish (including four in Shetland 16th), two
Welsh and one Irish recording areas.
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 237– 238
My patch – Thetford
I
’ve been fortunate to have had excellent
local patches for the past two decades: the
green spaces of Shanghai, then Abu
Dhabi, and, since 2009, the Nunnery Lakes
and surroundings on the south side of
Thetford. The last attracts rather fewer
shrikes and rock thrushes than the others –
so far! – but the birds and other taxa provide
ample interest to keep me motivated on a
near-daily basis, and to learn more about it
every time I visit.
Thetford lies within Breckland, on the
Norfolk/Suffolk border, an area characterised
by a diverse mix of habitats including heath-
land, conifer plantations and arable farming,
and spread across a gently undulating plateau
covered largely with sandy soils. Breckland is
designated as a Special Protection Area – and
well known to birders – for supporting popu-
lations of European importance of European
Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus (up to
12.2% of the GB breeding population),
Stone-curlew Burhinus oedicnemus (up to
74.7%) and Woodlark Lullula arborea (up to
28.7%). My patch encompasses the former
gravel workings, riverside fen and drier grass-
land habitats of the BTO Nunnery Lakes
reserve (a County Wildlife Site), the typical
Breckland heaths of Barnhamcross Common
and Thetford Heath (both SSSIs), my house
and garden, and the BTO headquarters,
136. The habitat mosaic of southern Thetford, including the Nunnery Lakes, January 2018.
© British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 239 – 240
where I work. All of it is easily accessible on
foot from home, although my bike has occa-
sionally been employed for a ‘bird emer-
gency’! The surrounding land use is diverse,
including residential housing to the north, a
large estate with a sizeable gamebird shoot to
the east and open-access land to the west,
each bringing a blend of opportunities and
challenges for birds and other wildlife.
BirdTrack www.birdtrack.net shows that I
have just over 100,000 bird records from my
patch, the vast majority in more than 2,200
complete lists (visits where I logged all species
positively identified by sight or sound, not just
the highlights). An oft-mentioned benefit of
covering a local patch regularly is the potential
to find birds of site-level, local or even
national rarity. Such discoveries are certainly
rewarding, and for me they include the excite-
ment of stumbling across Kittiwake Rissa tri-
dactyla, Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, Lapland
Bunting Calcarius lapponicus and two Black-
winged Stilts Himantopus himantopus, and
dashing out of an interview – in which I’d
given a presentation about identifying
Acrocephalus warblers by song – to twitch a
singing Great Reed Warbler A. arundinaceus a
colleague had found less than 700 m away!
However, I think the tendency of some
birders and recording groups to emphasise
the rare and unusual can detract from the Justin Walker
239
My patch
100
80
60
40
20
2018
average 2011–17
0 patch visits keeps me focused
J F M A M J J A S O
Fig. 1. The percentage of visits to the Nunnery Lakes during
which I recorded Green Woodpecker Picus viridis.
value of the ‘ordinary’. For me, the beauty of
having an extensive BirdTrack dataset for my
patch is what it reveals about patterns of
occurrence/detectability of common birds.
Many such species would be easy to overlook
if applying a subjective approach to
recording, logging only the perceived ‘nota-
bles’ on each visit. Green Woodpecker Picus
viridis is a good example: a species I encoun-
tered on more than two in three visits during
my early years on the patch but that has
plummeted to just one in five visits since the
end of summer 2018. Herring Gull Larus
argentatus is another: recorded on just 3% of
my visits to the Nunnery Lakes from July
2009 to the end of 2012 (n = 373) but, fol-
lowing their colonisation of the warehouse
roofs of Thetford, featuring on two-thirds of
my lists since the start of 2018 (n = 233).
It took only a few years of consistently col-
lected data for weekly changes in species
diversity to become apparent, too. April –
specifically the last ten days – is the best time
for a big day list, and I’ve recorded 71% of all
the birds I’ve registered on patch during
April. In contrast, many a coastal patch-
watcher’s favourite month, October, is typi-
cally quiet in deepest Breckland (57% by the
same measure): most of the summer visitors
have gone and many autumn arrivals are yet
to filter the 60–70 km inland.
Whenever time allows, I count individ-
uals, including as many common species as
possible. This tells me that while Song
Thrush Turdus philomelos numbers peak
during the first week of October (max. site
count 27), the second week of November is
the week for Blackbirds T. merula (peak
240
count 94) and that while
Willow Warblers Phylloscopus
trochilus are most numerous –
or at least most detectable – in
the third week of April (peak
count 16), it’s all about the last
week of August for Chiffchaffs
P. collybita (peak count 43).
The discipline of doing
complete lists for most of my
N D during the quieter times and
has yielded some rarities, too.
In February 2019, I extended
an afternoon walk to a place
where a wintering Peregrine Falco peregrinus
can often be found along a line of pylons. As
I approached the spot, a flock of Yellow -
hammers Emberiza citrinella flew up into a
nearby oak. The urge to count them for my
complete list kicked in, and the sequence
went something like: Yellowhammer 1, 2, 3, 4,
5… wait: that next one is a Little Bunting
E. pusilla!
Patches are about a personal connection
not only with a place and its birds, but also
with the people who share it. Unsurprisingly,
BTO’s only reserve is monitored regularly by a
small but dedicated band of birders, ringers
and nest recorders from among the organisa-
tion’s staff, past and present. Several local
residents and anglers are also interested in the
site’s birdlife. Sharing and comparing discov-
eries with other frequent visitors certainly
adds to the experience. For me, this is further
enhanced by feeling part of a much larger
community of patch-focused birders via
BirdTrack, and through various light-hearted
competitions over the years, including
Patchwork Challenge and the Twenty Eleven
All-taxa Listing (TEAL) Cup. The TEAL Cup
involved BTO and RSPB staff scouring the
reserves around their respective headquarters
throughout 2011; whilst BTO fell a few
(hundred) beetles short on the all-taxa
element, The Nunnery did pip The Lodge on
birds! The overriding memory of that year was
how people from across the organisation got
involved, and how it highlighted the diversity
of birds and other wildlife on our doorstep –
the very essence of watching a local patch.
Nick Moran
British Birds 112 • April 2019 • 239 – 240
 REPAIRS & SERVICING OF
BINOCULARS & TELESCOPES

Optrep Optical
Repairs
SINCE 1960
www.opticalrepairs.com
Tel: 01243 601365
E-mail: info@opticalrepairs.com
Optrep (Ref: BB), 16 Wheatfield Road,
Selsey, West Sussex PO20 0NY
(5 minutes from Pagham HLNR)

FOCALPOINT
Binoculars & Telescopes

Show Room Sales

01925 730399
Top Makes, Top Models, Top Advice,
Top Deals, Part Exchange

www.fpoint.co.uk
Credit/debit cards accepted

COUNTY &
LOCAL BIRD
British Birds
REPORTS Binders
bought & sold, around 7,000 in stock; BB Binders are available
add your ‘wants’ to my database.
Plus, small stocks of other journals NOW
available e.g. British Birds, Birding in the following options:
World, British Wildlife, OBC etc.
Wirex – Royal Blue
Contact Steve Holliday or Brown
for catalogue at:
Cordex – Brown only
2 Larriston Place,
Price for all binders:
Cramlington
NE23 8ER or £9.60 each
birdreports@hotmail.co.uk British Birds, 4 Harlequin Gardens,
St Leonards on Sea,
or
East Sussex TN37 7PF
tel: 01670 731963 (eve’s/weekends). Tel and Fax: 01424 755155
My latest catalogue can also be found at call the British Birds office or order online at
http://callunabooks.co.uk/store.html www.britishbirds.co.uk using our secure site