Density-Related Predation by the Carolina Chickadee, Poecile carolinensis, on the Leaf-Mining Moth, Cameraria hamadryadella at Three Spatial Scales

Oikos ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward F. Connor ◽  
James M. Yoder ◽  
Julie A. May
2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison M. Mostrum ◽  
Robert L. Curry ◽  
Bernard Lohr

2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany A. Coppinger ◽  
Anasthasia Sanchez de Launay ◽  
Todd M. Freeberg

2005 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 820-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie L Bloomfield ◽  
Leslie S Phillmore ◽  
Ronald G Weisman ◽  
Christopher B Sturdy

Species of the genus Poecile Kaup, 1829 (the chickadees) are well suited to comparative studies of acoustic communication because their songs and calls occur in similar contexts and are acoustically similar. Here we provide careful, reliable descriptions and spectrographic exemplars for seven note types observed in the chick-a-dee calls of the Carolina chickadee, Poecile carolinensis (Audubon, 1834). The note types include A, C, and D notes similar to those found in the chick-a-dee calls of the black-capped chickadee, Poecile atricapillus (L., 1766), a complex of three B-note subtypes (B1, B2, and B3) and a rare note type previously identified as high-tee-chick. In common with black-capped chickadees, the organization of note types in Carolina chickadees follows a stringent syntax; the position of note types within a call is fixed. In contrast with black-capped chickadees, the chick-a-dee call syntax of the Carolina chickadee includes a B-note complex composed of three acoustically distinct subtypes of B notes, and follows a strict syntax: A→(B1→B2→B3)→C→D. Analysis of call variability suggests that the B-note complex (in particular, the most commonly sung note, B2) and the D note may provide reliable cues for species and individual recognition.


2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison M. Mostrum ◽  
Robert L. Curry ◽  
Bernard Lohr

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison M. Mostrom ◽  
Robert L. Curry ◽  
Bernard Lohr

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison M. Mostrum ◽  
Robert L. Curry ◽  
Bernard Lohr

Author(s):  
J. R. Michael

X-ray microanalysis in the analytical electron microscope (AEM) refers to a technique by which chemical composition can be determined on spatial scales of less than 10 nm. There are many factors that influence the quality of x-ray microanalysis. The minimum probe size with sufficient current for microanalysis that can be generated determines the ultimate spatial resolution of each individual microanalysis. However, it is also necessary to collect efficiently the x-rays generated. Modern high brightness field emission gun equipped AEMs can now generate probes that are less than 1 nm in diameter with high probe currents. Improving the x-ray collection solid angle of the solid state energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) results in more efficient collection of x-ray generated by the interaction of the electron probe with the specimen, thus reducing the minimum detectability limit. The combination of decreased interaction volume due to smaller electron probe size and the increased collection efficiency due to larger solid angle of x-ray collection should enhance our ability to study interfacial segregation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document