Tables and Appendices

Appendix 1

Linear measurements (mm) and mass (g) of Northern Cardinals from various populations. Data shown as mean ± SD (range, n).

⁽¹⁾ Measurements taken January to May.

⁽²⁾ Measurements taken throughout year.

⁽³⁾ Measurements taken December to February, following completion of molt.

⁽⁴⁾ Measurements taken May–July.

⁽⁵⁾ Measurements taken in March before breeding.

⁽⁶⁾ Subspecies C. c. floridanus.

⁽⁷⁾ In southern Indiana (Kinser data), culmen; in western Ohio, anterior edge of nasal fossa to bill-tip; in south-central Wisconsin, exposed culmen.

⁽⁸⁾ Study skins of specimens collected 15 Feb–14 May, measured by William E. Cook (unpublished); specimens from American Museum of Natural History, New York City, New York; Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Columbia-Greene Community College Museum, Hudson, New York; Connecticut State Museum, Storrs, Connecticut; Cornell University Division of Biological Sciences, Ithaca, New York; Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois; University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan; National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC; New York State Museum, Albany, New York; Rochester Museum of Science, Rochester, New York; and Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven, Connecticut. Student t-tests were used by Cook to compare mean measurements from different populations. C. c. superbus is significantly larger than C. c. canicaudus, C. c. cardinalis, or C. c. floridanus on the basis of all four characteristics measured. C. c. floridanus has significantly shorter wing and tail than C. c. superbus, C. c. canicaudus, or C. c. cardinalis. C. c. canicaudus wing significantly shorter than that of C. c. superbus or C. c. cardinalis, significantly longer than that of C. c. floridanus. Differences between populations of C. c. cardinalis may indicate clinal variation in this subspecies.

⁽⁹⁾ Subspecies C. c. canicaudus.

⁽¹⁰⁾ Subspecies C. c. superbus.

⁽¹¹⁾ Anterior edge of nasal fossa to bill-tip; population 9 significantly different (p < 0.001) from all others; population 8 significantly different (p < 0.01) from all but population 6; population 7 significantly different (p < 0.01) from all but populations 2 and 6; population 6 significantly different (p < 0.02) from all but populations 2, 7, and 8.

⁽¹²⁾ Wing unflattened; populations 7, 8, and 9 significantly different (p < 0.03) from one another and from all others; population 3 significantly different (p < 0.03) from all but population 4.

⁽¹³⁾ Populations 7 and 9 significantly different (p < 0.001) from one another and from all others; population 8 significantly different (p < 0.01) from all but populations 1, 2, 3, and 4; population 6 significantly different (p < 0.05) from all but populations 1, 2, 4, and 5.

⁽¹⁴⁾ Population 9 significantly different (p < 0.001) from all others; population 3 significantly different (p < 0.01) from all but populations 2 and 4; population 1 significantly different (p < 0.05) from all but populations 2, 4, and 5; population 7 significantly different (p < 0.05) from all but populations 2, 5, 6, and 8; population 8 significantly different (p < 0.02) from all but populations 2, 5, 6, and 7; population 6 significantly different (p < 0.03) from all but populations 2, 5, 7, and 8; population 5 significantly different (p < 0.03) from populations 3, 4, and 9.

⁽¹⁵⁾ Data from Storer 1952a Storer, R. W. (1952). A comparison of variation, behavior, and evolution in the sea bird genera Uria and Cepphus. University of California Publication Zoology 52:121-222. Close : males from "Pennsylvania to Virginia" (13), South Carolina and Georgia (4), and "Mississippi Valley" (14); females from "Pennsylvania to Virginia" (22), South Carolina and Georgia (2), and "Mississippi Valley" (13).

⁽¹⁶⁾ Wing length measur

Appendix 2

Reproductive success of Northern Cardinal in various parts of its range. See footnotes for differences in methodology that may account for some apparent differences in reproductive success.

⁽¹⁾Lemon 1957 Lemon, R. E. (1957). A study of nesting Cardinals (Richmondena cardinalis) at London, Canada. M.S. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. Close ; 1955 and 1956 breeding seasons, university campus. Nests discovered before egg-laying began. Success calculations include nest construction and egg-laying periods; data include 3 nests in which no cardinal eggs were found (they were abandoned after cowbirds laid eggs there before cardinals did), 1 nest destroyed by researcher during egg-laying period, and 3 nests destroyed by researcher during nestling period.

⁽²⁾Average clutch size of 3.1 ± 0.50 SD (range 2–4, n = 31 nests) separately reported.

⁽³⁾n = 6 pairs in 1955, 7 pairs in 1956, likely some same as 1955 pairs; mix of banded and unbanded birds. On basis of many more years of data, 2.8 young fledged/female/yr in this population (D. M. Scott and R. E. Lemon, unpublished data).

⁽⁴⁾Kinser 1973 Kinser, G. W. (1973). Ecology and behavior of the Cardinal, Richmondena cardinalis (L), in southern Indiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA. Close ; 1964, 1965, and 1966 breeding seasons, successional fields. Data include only nests discovered with ≥1 cardinal egg before incubation began; success calculations include egg-laying period, although some eggs may have disappeared before nests were discovered.

⁽⁵⁾Average clutch size of 2.64 ± 0.49 SD (range 1–3, n = 90 nests from 1965 and 1966) separately reported.

⁽⁶⁾n = 8 pairs in 1965, 15 pairs in 1966, likely some same as 1965 pairs; most birds banded.

⁽⁷⁾Best and Stauffer 1980 Best, L. B., and D. F. Stauffer (1980). Factors affecting nesting success in riparian bird communities. Condor 82: 149–157. Close ; mid-April–mid-July 1976 and 1977, varied riparian habitats. Data include nests found throughout nesting cycle; success calculated from start of incubation using Mayfield’s (Mayfield 1975a Mayfield, H. F. (1975). Suggestions for Calculating Nest Success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456–466. Close ) exposure method.

⁽⁸⁾Filliater et al. 1994 Filliater, T. S., R. Breitwisch, and P. M. Nealen (1994). Predation on cardinal nests: Does choice of nest site matter? Condor 96: 761–768. Close ; April–August 1991 and 1992, varied rural habitats. Data include nests found throughout nesting cycle; success rate of 68% for nest construction and egg-laying period, 39% for incubation period, and 57% for nestling period, calculated as recommended by Mayfield (Mayfield 1975a Mayfield, H. F. (1975). Suggestions for Calculating Nest Success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456–466. Close ).

⁽⁹⁾Mobley 1994 Mobley, J. E. (1994). A general model for iteroparity: Development of the model and investigation of phylogenetic patterns with specific reference to the Northern Cardinal. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA. Close ; late March–31 August 1990, 1991, and 1992, varied rural habitat and university campus. n = 20 pairs over 3 yr, likely with some overlap in membership (mix of banded and unbanded birds). Data include nests found throughout nesting cycle with ≥1 cardinal egg or nestling; success calculated from start of egg-laying, and may be overestimated because some eggs or nestlings may have disappeared before nests were discovered (Mayfield 1975a Mayfield, H. F. (1975). Suggestions for Calculating Nest Success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456–466. Close ).