Al Jaramillo says -

> I find the question of Chickadee habitat choice really interesting.
>In se. BC and Washington state Chestnut-backed Chickadees are largely
>associated with conifers, while here in coastal California they are not. In
>Vancouver I seldom saw a Chestnut-back away from conifers, here I
>consider them birds of riparian willow thickets! The key may be that there
>are no Black-capped Chickadees here, which may be a better competitor in
>the deciduous, pushing the CBCH out of that habitat in the north. An
>independent test of this is Vancouver Island, where Black-caps are absent.
>My impressions there were that Chestnut-backed Chickadees were much more
>catholic in their habitat choice than in Vancouver (any comments Bryan).
>Perhaps some chickadees cannot coexist. This appears to be the case with
>the Carolina and Black-cap, you either have one or the other, not both.
>Serge, is this not also true with Marsh Tit (Parus palustris) and Willow Tit
>(Parus montanus)? From what I understand, in parts of Europe the Willow
>Tit is a bird of the conifers (appropriate name, there BOU) while the Marsh
>is not.

The interior BC race of Chestnut-backed Chickadee is definitely tied
to the wet-belt red-cedar/hemlock associations, only moving out into
other habitats in the winter. However, Black-cappeds are not excluded
from the wet-belt although numbers are fewer than in drier sites. One
could turn your argument around, Al, and posit that the
Chestnut-backeds are superior wet-belt competitors which have
succeeded in limiting the intrusion of Black-cappeds into their
preferred habitat. This is conjecture since I have never seen a
Black-capped/Chestnut-backed interaction in the woods here. Boreals
and Mountains seem to have no problems associating with Black-cappeds
here, though. Would it be more plausible to suggest that each has
adapted to certain food types in certain habitats, this fact
determining to a large degree their chosen habitats? Chestnut-backeds
have more specfic dietary preferences thus a more restricted range?

>All goes to show that chickadees are evil little tyrants, not the cute stuff
>of ornamental china. Try banding one with a blister on your hand, they
>instinctively find it and know to peck at it, as they do on the edge of your
>nails- Ouch. If chickadees were the size of Sharp-shinned Hawks, not even
>Don would try and band them.

Evil little tyrants or damn good at surviving in a hostile world?
Sapsuckers take a close second at attempted injury of unsuspecting
first-time banders!

- Jack



Jack Bowling
Prince George, BC
CANADA
jcbowling at mindlink.bc.ca