ArticlePDF Available

Flight call identification of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit

Authors:

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
87
[Dutch Birding 36: 87-95, 2014]
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit
and Water Pipit
Thijs P M Fijen
Identication of ight calls of Rock Pipit Anthus
petrosus and Water Pipit A spinoletta has been
discussed many times, especially since the species
were split (cf Oreel 1980). In autumn, winter and
early spring, when both species meet in western
Europe, most birders tend to call migrating birds
near the coast (salt water environment) Rock Pipit,
and birds inland (fresh water environment) Water
Pipit. This tendency is mostly based on birds on the
ground, in which this strong spatial division is in-
deed nearly always the case. However, when mi-
grating, the two species are less spatially divided.
For example, in the Netherlands, at ringing station
Van Lennep, Bloemendaal, Noord-Holland (c 700
m inland from the North Sea coast), 162 Rock
Pipits and 47 Water Pipits were trapped between
1958 and 2011 (Buckx et al 2012). For the ringing
station at Castricum, Noord-Holland (c 1000 m
inland from the North Sea coast), these numbers
are 966 and 319, respectively, between 1960 and
2006 (Levering & Keijl 2008). Although the actual
ratio along the coast could be different from what
the trapping results suggest, these data at least
show that Water Pipit regularly occurs within 1 km
from the North Sea coast. This is supported by
many (documented) sightings in coastal areas (see,
eg, http://waarneming.nl/soort/maps/358 and
http://waarneming.nl/soort/maps/196). Hustings et
al (2006) mention 39 sightings of Rock Pipit for the
land-locked province of Limburg in the south-east
of the Netherlands (c 150-200 km inland), al-
though most of these sightings are y-by’s not doc-
umented by sound-recordings and disputed by
some reviewers.
In their discussion on the Limburg records,
Hustings et al (2006) refer to the difculty of iden-
tifying the calls of both taxa and the lack of useful
descriptions in well-known literature. For exam-
110 Rock Pipit / Oeverpieper Anthus petrosus, Volharding, Texel, Noord-Holland, Netherlands, 4 October 2005
(René Pop)
88
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
111 Water Pipit / Waterpieper Anthus spinoletta, Oostermiddenmeerweg, Wieringermeer, Noord-Holland,
Netherlands, 4 December 2010 (Fred Visscher)
ple, Glutz von Blotzheim & Bauer (1985) do not
differentiate between the ight calls of the two;
they treat Rock Pipit and Water Pipit as conspe-
cic and only show a sonagram of (Water) ight
calls. Cramp (1988) describes the ight call of
Rock as pseeit and psee-er and notes that there
might be slight differences with Water: rising pitch
in Rock and a more stable pitch in Water. The de-
scriptions in del Hoyo et al (2004) are wiisst,
phi(s)t or tsup for Rock and, amongst others,
(h)isst, wisst or dzip for Water. However, del Hoyo
et al (2004) do not mention that calls of Rock and
Water are distinguishable. In the species account
of Rock, Alström et al (2003) mention that all types
of calls are indistinguishable from those of Water
and describe the call of Rock as ueezt or peezp.
The ight call of Water, however, is described as
ueest (!) or peezp. It can be concluded that the
descriptions of the calls and possible differences
between Rock and Water vary widely in literature
(see also Cramp 1988).
Alström et al (2003) note the difference between
the calls of two Western Palearctic (WP) sub-
species of Water Pipit, A s spinoletta (Europe) and
A s coutellii (from Turkey and Caucasus to Iran),
with the latter generally sounding thinner, more
‘cracked’ (trace of r-sound) and tending to be less
rising in pitch. A s coutellii is ‘more distinctly
streaked above and more buff below’ than A s spi-
noletta (Svensson et al 2009) and can be identi-
ed relatively easily in the eld. A recent short
study on the structure of the calls of A s coutellii
was published on the blog avesrares.wordpress.
com; it supported the statement of Alström et al
(2003), although differences were not quantied
(Honold & Martin 2013).
For this paper, I have tested whether ight calls
of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit are different and
made an attempt to quantify perceived differ-
ences. Furthermore, I elaborate on the study of
Honold & Martin (2013) on the differences be-
tween the two WP subspecies of Water Pipit.
Methods
To be 100% sure that potential differences be-
tween calls are assigned to the right (sub)species,
I have only used sound recordings of birds that
were said to be identied by the recordist on
plumage details (and not by location). No distinc-
tion has been made here between subspecies of
Rock Pipit (A p littoralis and A p petrosus) and it is
likely that both are represented in the dataset.
89
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
Calls, as in the sonagrams (gure 1), generally
consist of 2-3 parts, a steep ascending part (here-
after ‘uprise’) with 1-2 ‘kinks’, a modulating part
and often a short but steep descending part.
From each sonagram with no gaps and with a
clearly visible structure, I measured: 1 lowest fre-
quency of the rst part; 2 frequency of the rst
‘kink’; 3 highest frequency; 4 length of the as-
cending part to the rst ‘kink’; 5 length of the ‘up-
rise’; 6 length to the highest frequency; and 7 total
length (see gure 1). I also calculated: 8 location
of the ‘kink’ relative to total length; 9 length of the
‘uprise’ relative to total length; and 10 highest fre-
quency relative to total length. There may be some
differences between (sub)species giving single or
double calls (eg, wisst or wisst wisst, respectively)
but, as individual recognition on sound record-
ings is difcult, this variable has not been taken
into account. It is, however, certain that some re-
cordings contain calls of more than one individu-
al. By treating each call independent of an indi-
vidual, pseudoreplication is introduced. To gain
insight in the variation of the (sub)species, I sum-
marize the means of all measured variables (so
each call represents one data point). I assumed
that each recording is an ‘individual’. With this
assumption in mind, it is possible to gain insight
in the ‘individual’ variation by averaging values
per recording and I also summarize these values
of the variables. Additionally, to test if the varia-
tion in calls is mainly caused by the variation be-
tween individuals or within individuals, I calcu-
lated the proportion of the total variation ex-
plained by individual variation (repeatability;
Lessells & Boag 1987, Boake 1989). A low pro-
portion indicates that there is much variation
within individuals (here recordings) and less
among individuals (recordings), and a large pro-
portion the other way around. Repeatability was
calculated using package ‘rptR’ (Nakagawa &
Schielzeth 2010) in R (R Development Core Team
2013).
For measuring frequencies, Raven Lite 1.0 was
used and for measuring lengths Adobe Audition
CS6. Descriptive and statistical analyses were per-
formed in R with Mixed Models (recording as ran-
dom factor; function ‘lmer’ in package ‘lme4’
(Bates 2005)) and Tukey multiple comparisons test
(function ‘glht’ in package ‘Multcomp’; Hothorn
et al 2009) in R 3.0.2 (R Development Core Team
2013).
In total, 145 calls of 19 recordings were ana-
lysed for Rock Pipit (hereafter petrosus), 115 calls
of 17 recordings for Water Pipit A s spinoletta
(hereafter spinoletta) and 142 calls of 35 record-
ings for A s coutellii (hereafter coutellii) (see ap-
pendix 1 for details, eg, on locations).
Results
Table 1 summarizes the measured values. Con-
sider able overlap exists for all values. Multiple
comparison tests showed that the length to the
rst ‘kink’, the length to the highest frequency and
the relative location to the highest frequency are
signicantly different between all (sub)species
(table 2). Additionally, when plotting variables
against each other, the combination of the highest
frequency of the call and the relative location of
the highest frequency predicts the (sub)species
best (gure 2): coutellii has on average the lowest
0 0.2 0.4 s
kHz
15.0
0.1 0.3
13.0
9.0
7.0
5.0
3.0
1.0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
11.0
FIGURE 1 Example sonagram of typical calls of Rock Pipit Anthus petrosus and subspecies of Water Pipit A s spino-
letta and A s coutellii, showing important elements analysed in this study. Blue arrows: kink (left) and highest fre-
quency (right). Red arrows (from left to right): begin, uprise, end.
90
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
relative location of the highest frequency of all
(sub)species (38%), spinoletta has on average a
slightly higher relative location of the highest fre-
quency (65%) and petrosus the highest relative
location (87%). On average, the highest frequency
of petrosus lies at 7.8 kHz whereas this is 6.8 kHz
and 6.9 kHz for spinoletta and coutellii, respec-
tively (table 1, gure 2). Although the length to the
rst ‘kink’ was signicantly different, it is not a
practical measure as it is sensitive for measure-
ment error due to the small range in values of this
variable. Therefore, I will focus on the relative lo-
cation of the highest frequency and the highest
frequency (as shown in gure 2). Repeatability of
the relative location of the highest frequency was
0.12 (Condence Interval (CI) -0.03-0.29, F=2.03),
0.06 (CI -0.13-0.14, F=1.04) and 0.25 (CI 0.06-
0.43, F=2.33) for petrosus, spinoletta and coutel-
lii, respectively. For the highest frequency these
values are 0.47 (CI 0.25-0.68, F=7.39), 0.21 (CI
0.0-0.43 F=2.70) and 0.51 (CI 0.33-0.68, F=5.10)
for petrosus, spinoletta and coutellii, respectively.
Especially in the relative location of the highest
frequency much variation exists within recordings
and less among recordings. Therefore, by averag-
ing values per recording, the overlap becomes
less (gure 3). This shows that a certain identica-
tion seems more likely when as many calls as pos-
sible are recorded and analysed.
TABLE 2 Signicance levels for all measured variables after multiple comparison test (Tukey HSD).
Signicance levels: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p <0.001, ns = not signicant.
Rock Pipit Water Pipit (spinoletta) Water Pipit (coutellii)
Water Pipit Water Pipit Rock Pipit Water Pipit Rock Pipit Water Pipit
(spinoletta) (coutellii) (coutellii) (spinoletta)
1 Lowest frequency of rst part ns ns ns ns ns ns
2 Frequency of rst ‘kink’ *** ** *** ns ** ns
3 Highest frequency *** *** *** ns *** ns
4 Length of ascending part
to rst ‘kink’ ** *** ** *** *** ***
5 Length of uprise ns *** ns *** *** ***
6 Length to highest frequency *** *** *** *** *** ***
7 Total length ** *** ** ns *** ns
8 Location of ‘kink’ relative
to total length *** ns *** *** ns ***
9 Length of ‘uprise’ relative
to total length ns *** ns *** *** ***
10 Highest frequency relative
to total length *** *** *** *** *** ***
TABLE 1 Measured variables (mean and range) of calls of Rock Pipit Anthus petrosus and Water Pipit A s spinoletta
and A s coutellii. Note considerable overlap in extreme values for all variables.
Rock Pipit Water Pipit Water Pipit
(spinoletta) (coutellii)
Number of recordings 19 17 35
Number of calls analysed 145 115 142
mean (min-max) mean (min-max) mean (min-max)
1 Lowest frequency of rst part (kHz) 4.8 (3.7-5.8) 4.5 (3.3-5.7) 4.6 (3.2-6.1)
2 Frequency of rst ‘kink’ (kHz) 5.8 (4.8-7.0) 5.2 (3.4-7.0) 5.4 (3.7-7.2)
3 Highest frequency (kHz) 7.8 (5.9-9.6) 6.8 (4.8-7.9) 6.9 (4.7-7.9)
4 Length of ascending part to rst ‘kink’ (ms) 13.0 (6.0-15.0) 15.3 (5.0-34.0) 10.2 (5.0-22.0)
5 Length of uprise (ms) 35.4 (10.0-115.0) 31.8 (19.0-47.0) 21.4 (12.0-32.0)
6 Length to highest frequency (ms) 96.8 (41.0-175.0) 58.7 (28.0-96.0) 33.1 (18.0-92.0)
7 Total length (ms) 110.6 (62.0-180.0) 91.0 (64.0-139.0) 88.8 (56.0-145.0)
8 Location of ‘kink’ relative to total length (%) 12 (4 - 28) 17 (6-47) 12 (5-26)
9 Length of ‘uprise’ relative to total length (%) 32 (10-70) 35 (19-55) 25 (12-40)
10 Highest frequency relative to total length (%) 87 (54-100) 65 (29-96) 38 (28-91)
91
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
112 Caucasian Water Pipit / Kaukasische Waterpieper Anthus spinoletta coutellii, Oman, 23 March 2013
(René Pop)
113 Caucasian Water Pipit / Kaukasische Waterpieper Anthus spinoletta coutellii, Kobi, Georgia, 25 June 2005
(René Pop)
92
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
20 40 60 80 100
Location of highest frequency relative to total length (% of total length)
Highest frequency (kHz)
5
7
8
9
6
10 Species (subspecies)
Rock Pipit
Water Pipit (A s coutellii)
Water Pipit (A s spinoletta)
FIGURE 2 Plot of height of highest frequency (kHz) against relative location of highest frequency (% of total call
length) of calls of Rock Pipit Anthus petrosus and subspecies of Water Pipit A spinoletta spinoletta and A s coutellii.
Ellipses drawn around mean (large round black-margined dot) and include 95% of all data points of corresponding
(sub)species.
20 40 60 80 100
Location of highest frequency relative to total length (% of total length)
Highest frequency (kHz)
Species (subspecies)
Rock Pipit
Water Pipit (A s coutellii)
Water Pipit (A s spinoletta)
5
7
8
9
6
10
FIGURE 3 Plot of height of highest frequency (kHz) against relative location of highest frequency of calls (% of total
call length) of Rock Pipit Anthus petrosus and subspecies of Water Pipit A spinoletta spinoletta and A s coutellii, using
mean values of variables per recording. Ellipses drawn around mean (large round black-margined dot) and include
95% of all data points of corresponding (sub)species. Note that through averaging, individual variation is lost. Through
averaging values per recording, it becomes safer to identify (sub)species.
93
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
Discussion
In this section, I will mainly focus on the differ-
ences between petrosus and spinoletta, and be-
tween spinoletta and coutellii, as these pairs of
(sub)species are most likely to occur in the same
areas.
Petrosus vs spinoletta
Typical ight calls of petrosus are a bit longer and
higher in pitch compared with spinoletta (table 1).
Furthermore, the highest frequency of the call of
petrosus is reached nearly at the end of the ight
call, whereas in spinoletta this is reached at two-
third (gure 2-3). Typical petrosus calls have a ris-
ing pitch whereas spinoletta will appear more
evenly levelled in pitch, although this is very dif-
cult to distinguish in the eld. When describing
calls of petrosus and spinoletta in a sonagram
structure, typical petrosus generally has a steep
slide, with the highest point on the right, while
characteristic spinoletta has a structure with a less
steep slide with two main peaks: in the beginning
and in the middle. In most cases, the highest fre-
quency is in the second peak (gure 1).
Spinoletta vs coutellii
Typical calls of spinoletta and coutellii are of the
same length and have the same highest frequency
(table 1). The relative location of the highest fre-
quency in spinoletta is on average reached at two-
third of the call, whereas in coutellii this is on av-
erage reached at two-fth of the call (gure 2-3).
Where spinoletta is more levelled than petrosus,
typical coutellii will appear even more evenly lev-
elled and less rasping. Honold & Martin (2013)
showed that typical coutellii calls show a rst
modulating part that resembles an ‘M’, although
this structure was less visible when birds were
perched. They found the ‘M’-structure to be less
often visible and more variable in spinoletta and
the second ‘peak’ of the call was often higher than
the rst one (Honold & Martin 2013). In the re-
cordings used in this study, the variability of this
structure was apparent but, when present, charac-
teristic in coutellii (see also gure 1). In general,
the second ‘peak’ was higher in spinoletta.
Considering this difference in call structure and
plumage characters, it can be argued that perhaps
coutellii deserves a species status as well. Ongoing
and future studies on plumage and genetics could
contribute to its status.
General
Although differences in most measured variables
in this study are statistically signicant between
the species, they are difcult to apply in the eld
as variation in calls is considerable, both in each
individual and between individuals. A stressed
bird will call differently from a relaxed bird and
also Doppler-effect and measurement errors in the
analysis of recordings will contribute to observed
variation. However, when recorded, ight calls of
Rock Pipit and (subspecies of) Water Pipit can of-
ten be used for identication when variables are
carefully measured on as many calls as possible
and performed on recordings of reasonable qual-
ity. The repeatability analysis showed that, espe-
cially for the relative location of the highest fre-
quency, individual variation explains most of the
total variation measured in the (sub)species. This
stresses the importance of measuring as many
calls as possible for safer identication. Apart from
that, it must be accepted that often no conclusive
identication can be reached.
To conclude, contrary to what many may have
assumed, there are differences in ight calls of
Rock Pipit and (subspecies of) Water Pipit. To
elaborate on this research, I am happy to receive
more sound recordings of visually conrmed Rock
Pipits and Water Pipits of all subspecies.
Acknowledgements
All recorders (see appendix 1) are thanked for pro-
viding their sound recordings. Sander Bot and
Magnus Robb (The Sound Approach) are gratefully
thanked for discussing the subject and giving help-
ful comments. Johannes Honold and especially
Ralph Martin (avesrares.wordpress.com) are thank-
ed for discussions on coutellii. Rinse van der Vliet
is thanked for giving comments on the manu script
and lastly Pieter van Veelen and Martijn Hammers
are thanked for discussing the statistics.
Samenvatting
He r k e n n i n g v a n v l u c H t r o e p e n v a n oe v e r p i e p e r e n
Wat e r p i e p e r Oeverpieper Anthus petrosus en Water-
pieper A spinoletta hebben een sterk gelijkende vlucht-
roep. Beschrijvingen van de geluiden in de literatuur
variëren sterk evenals conclusies over soortherkenning
op basis van alleen de vluchtroep. Kaukasische Water-
pieper A s coutellii is een ondersoort van Waterpieper in
het West-Palearctische gebied (WP) en is op kleed vrij
goed te herkennen. Eventuele verschillen in roep tussen
de ondersoorten van Waterpieper zijn pas recent beter
onderzocht. Door middel van het analyseren van sona-
grammen blijkt het vaak mogelijk om vluchtroepen van
Oeverpieper en Waterpieper (van beide WP-onder-
soorten spinoletta en coutellii) van elkaar te onderschei-
den. Dit is mogelijk aan de hand van met name de
hoogste frequentie en de relatieve ligging van deze fre-
quentie ten opzichte van de totale lengte van de roep.
Hiervoor moeten gemiddelden van liefst zo veel moge-
94
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
lijk roepjes per exemplaar worden genomen en zijn al-
leen kwalitatief goede opnames te gebruiken. Op basis
van deze kenmerken is een deel van opgenomen vogels
op (onder)soort te herkennen. Er is echter ook veel over-
lap, zodat lang niet alle individuen met zekerheid gede-
termineerd kunnen worden.
References
Alström, P, Mild, K & Zetterström, D 2003. Pipits & wag-
tails of Europe, Asia and North America: identica-
tion and systematics. London.
Bates, D 2005. Fitting linear mixed models in R. R news
5: 27-30.
Boake, C R 1989. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary
studies of mating behavior. Evolutionary Ecology 3:
173-182.
Buckx, H, Buckx, L, Maassen, E & van Aken, A B 2012.
Jaarverslag 2011 van de Stichting Vinkenbaan ‘Mr
Cornelis van Lennep, 1751-1813’. Heemstede.
Cramp, S (editor) 1988. The birds of the Western
Palearctic 5. Oxford.
del Hoyo, J, Elliott, A & Christie, D A (editors) 2004.
Hand book of the birds of the world 9. Barcelona.
Glutz von Blotzheim, U N & Bauer, K M (editors) 1985.
Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas 10/II. Wies baden.
Honold, J & Martin, R 2013. Calls of Caucasian Water
Pipits Anthus spinoletta coutellii. Website: http://
avesrares.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/calls-of-
caucasian-water-pipits-anthus-spinoletta-coutellii.
[Last accessed 2 February 2014.]
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F, Westfall, P, & Heiberger, R M 2009.
Multcomp: simultaneous inference for general linear
hypotheses. Website: http://cran.r-project.org/web/
packages/multcomp/index.html, R package version
1-0.
Hustings, F, van der Coelen, J, van Noorden, B, Schols,
R & Voskamp, P 2006. Avifauna van Limburg.
Maastricht.
Lessells, C M & Boag, P T 1987. Unrepeatable repeata-
bilities: a common mistake. The Auk: 116-121.
Levering, H P A & Keijl, G O 2008. Vinkenbaan Castri-
cum 1960-2006 – een halve eeuw vogels ringen.
Castricum.
Nakagawa, S & Schielzeth, H 2010. Repeatability for
Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide
for biologists. Biol Rev 85: 935-956.
Oreel, G J 1980. Dutch Birding Association Checklist 2.
Dutch Birding 2: 82-104.
R Development Core Team 2013. R: A language and en-
vironment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna. Website:
www.R-project.org.
Svensson, L, Grant, P J, Mullarney, K & Zetterström, D
2009. Collins bird guide. Second edition. London.
Thijs P M Fijen, c/o Redactie Dutch Birding, Duinlustparkweg 98A, 2082 EG Santpoort-Zuid
(thijsjen@gmail.com)
APPENDIX 1 Details of analysed recordings of Rock Pipit Anthus petrosus and subspecies of
Water Pipit A spinoletta spinoletta and A s coutellii
Species Recordist Location Date Calls analysed
Rock Pipit Dick Groenendijk Oosterscheldekering, Zeeland, 15 January 2005 6
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Stuart Fisher Norfolk, England December 2005 17
Rock Pipit Sjaak Schilperoort Scheveningen, Zuid-Holland, 3 December 2008 3
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Patrik Aberg Brevik, Sweden 22 September 2009 11
Rock Pipit Herman van Oosten Schiermonnikoog, Friesland, 27 September 2009 7
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Niels Krabbe Hallands Väderö, Sweden 28 May 2010 14
Rock Pipit Sam Gobin Terschelling, Friesland, 12 October 2011 3
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Stuart Fisher Norfolk, England 24 October 2011 7
Rock Pipit Julien Rochefort Penvénan, France 25 July 2012 5
Rock Pipit Julien Rochefort Penvénan, France 25 July 2012 9
Rock Pipit Thijs Fijen Camperduin, Noord-Holland, 23 September 2012 5
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Robert van der Meer Texel, Noord-Holland, 17 October 2012 2
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Thijs Fijen Vlieland, Friesland, 20 October 2012 2
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Sander Bot Schiermonnikoog, Friesland, 26 October 2012 7
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Sander Bot Paesens, Friesland, 13 November 2012 9
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Pamela Rasmussen Norfolk, England 22 December 2012 4
Rock Pipit Guus van Duin Vlieland, Friesland, 11 January 2013 31
Netherlands
Rock Pipit Thomas Luiten Breskens, Zeeland, 23 March 2013 2
Netherlands
95
Flight call identication of Rock Pipit and Water Pipit
Rock Pipit Thomas Luiten Breskens, Zeeland, 23 March 2013 1
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Dick Groenendijk Botshol, Utrecht, 14 November 2003 4
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Dick Groenendijk Oostvaardersplassen, Flevoland, 19 January 2008 1
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Stuart Fisher London, England February 2008 5
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Ruud van Beusekom Zeewolde, Flevoland, 19 December 2008 7
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Sjaak Schilperoort Starrevaart, Zuid-Holland, 25 December 2008 4
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) David Thorns Vaires-sur-Marne, 5 March 2011 9
Seine-et-Marne, France
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Jarek Matusiak Bieszczady, Poland 3 April 2011 28
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Jarek Matusiak Bieszczady, Poland 3 April 2011 3
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Jan-Kees Bossenbroek Heerjansdam, Zuid-Holland, 5 November 2011 4
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Jan-Kees Bossenbroek Heerjansdam, Zuid-Holland, 5 November 2011 1
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Harm Dijkstra Ryptsjerksterpolder, Friesland, 14 November 2011 7
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Jarek Matusiak Bieszczady, Poland 30 September 2012 19
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Guus van Duin Diemen, Noord-Holland, 15 October 2012 10
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Jarek Matusiak Piaseczno, Poland 14 February 2013 2
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Bart Gras Beugen, Noord-Brabant, 3 April 2013 6
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Bart Gras Beugen, Noord-Brabant, 3 April 2013 3
Netherlands
Water Pipit (spinoletta) Matthias Feuersenger Mittenwald, Bayern, Germany 4 May 2013 2
Water Pipit (coutellii) Arnoud van den Berg Rize, Turkey 12 May 1987 10
Water Pipit (coutellii) Arnoud van den Berg Rize, Turkey 15 May 1987 7
Water Pipit (coutellii) Herman van Oosten Muntasar, Oman 29 January 2010 4
Water Pipit (coutellii) Pamela Rasmussen Oman 7 March 2010 8
Water Pipit (coutellii) Thijs Fijen Barr al Hikman, Oman 15 November 2012 2
Water Pipit (coutellii) Thijs Fijen Barr al Hikman, Oman 15 November 2012 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Thijs Fijen Barr al Hikman, Oman 15 November 2012 9
Water Pipit (coutellii) Ralph Martin Sun Farms, Oman 28 January 2013 4
Water Pipit (coutellii) Ralph Martin Muntasar, Oman 11 February 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Ralph Martin Muntasar, Oman 11 February 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Ralph Martin Cape Greco, Cyprus 21 March 2013 5
Water Pipit (coutellii) Ralph Martin Cape Greco, Cyprus 25 March 2013 5
Water Pipit (coutellii) Ralph Martin Cape Greco, Cyprus 25 March 2013 4
Water Pipit (coutellii) Ralph Martin Cape Greco, Cyprus 8 April 2013 8
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 13 November 2013 1
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 13 November 2013 1
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 13 November 2013 1
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 13 November 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 1
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 6
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 5
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 1
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 1
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 2
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 4
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Hula Valley, Israel 15 November 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 16 November 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 16 November 2013 7
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 16 November 2013 6
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Beit Shean, Israel 16 November 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Negev desert, Israel 19 November 2013 3
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Negev desert, Israel 19 November 2013 7
Water Pipit (coutellii) Sander Bot Negev desert, Israel 19 November 2013 3
Species Recordist Location Date Calls analysed
... This subspecies of the Water Pipit, called Caucasian Water Pipit, was noted in the Little Rann of Kachchh in February 2017 . While this is currently treated as a subspecies of Water Pipit, based on a preliminary genetic analysis and differences in plumage and flight calls, there is a proposal to split it and treat it as a separate species (Fijen 2014, Garner et al. 2015. If this is split in the future and treated as a separate species, then it will be an addition to the state checklist. ...
Article
Full-text available
First update to the Gujarat checklist: December 2017
... Sonograms also show 2-3 deep modulations to the flight call, giving it a characteristic 'M'-shape, which is consistent with the perceived raspiness in the field and a sharp beginning and ending. While there is some variation in the calls, two recent studies of the calls of coutellii have confirmed this analysis (Honold & Martin 2013;Fijen 2014 We have not had the opportunity to study the calls of blakistoni in the field. Recordings suggest that the typical flight call of blakistoni is different again, with a simpler sonogram shape, and fewer modulations than coutellii, the product of a sweeter, more Meadow Pipit A. pratensis-like call. ...
Article
Full-text available
Based on a distinctive call, differences in plumage and a preliminary genetic analysis, the ‘Caucasian Water Pipit’ Anthus spinoletta coutellii may represent a separate species within the Rock A. petrosus/Water Pipit A. spinoletta complex. The differences between the taxa currently treated as three races of a single species, the Water Pipit A. spinoletta, are described in this short paper.
Article
Full-text available
Repeatability is a useful tool for the population geneticist or genetical ecolo- gist, but several papers have carried errors in its calculation. We outline the correct calcu- lation of repeatability, point out the common mistake, show how the incorrectly calculated value relates to repeatability, and provide a method for checking published values and calculating approximate repeatability values from the F ratio (mean squares among groups/ mean squares within groups).
Article
Repeatability, a concept derived from quantitative genetics theory, is a statistic that describes the degree to which variation within individuals contributes to total variation in a population. Its usual application has been to set an upper limit on heritability but it may also be useful for studies of stereotypy of behavior. The repeatability of the production of male mating signals gives information both about whether males differ sufficiently for selection to act and whether the differences could be appreciably heritable. Measures of the repeatability of female mating preferences will provide data that can describe the preference functions used in mathematical models of the evolution of sexually selected traits, as well as putting an upper bound on the heritability of preferences. A survey of the few measures in the literature shows that the repeatability of male signal production varies substantially (range 0.21–0.85) and does not necessarily reflect heritability. The repeatabilities of female preferences have not been published previously: for the response to conspecific pheromones by female flour beetles (Tribolium castaneum), my best estimate is zero. Measuring the repeatability of other traits such as parental care and foraging behavior may also lead to insights about selection on and the evolution of these traits.
Article
Repeatability (more precisely the common measure of repeatability, the intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) is an important index for quantifying the accuracy of measurements and the constancy of phenotypes. It is the proportion of phenotypic variation that can be attributed to between-subject (or between-group) variation. As a consequence, the non-repeatable fraction of phenotypic variation is the sum of measurement error and phenotypic flexibility. There are several ways to estimate repeatability for Gaussian data, but there are no formal agreements on how repeatability should be calculated for non-Gaussian data (e.g. binary, proportion and count data). In addition to point estimates, appropriate uncertainty estimates (standard errors and confidence intervals) and statistical significance for repeatability estimates are required regardless of the types of data. We review the methods for calculating repeatability and the associated statistics for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data. For Gaussian data, we present three common approaches for estimating repeatability: correlation-based, analysis of variance (ANOVA)-based and linear mixed-effects model (LMM)-based methods, while for non-Gaussian data, we focus on generalised linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) that allow the estimation of repeatability on the original and on the underlying latent scale. We also address a number of methods for calculating standard errors, confidence intervals and statistical significance; the most accurate and recommended methods are parametric bootstrapping, randomisation tests and Bayesian approaches. We advocate the use of LMM- and GLMM-based approaches mainly because of the ease with which confounding variables can be controlled for. Furthermore, we compare two types of repeatability (ordinary repeatability and extrapolated repeatability) in relation to narrow-sense heritability. This review serves as a collection of guidelines and recommendations for biologists to calculate repeatability and heritability from both Gaussian and non-Gaussian data.
Hand book of the birds of the world 9
  • J Del Hoyo
  • Elliott
  • D Christie
del Hoyo, J, Elliott, A & Christie, D A (editors) 2004. Hand book of the birds of the world 9. Barcelona.
Multcomp: simultaneous inference for general linear hypotheses
  • T Hothorn
  • F Bretz
  • P Westfall
  • R Heiberger
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F, Westfall, P, & Heiberger, R M 2009. Multcomp: simultaneous inference for general linear hypotheses. Website: http://cran.r-project.org/web/ packages/multcomp/index.html, R package version 1-0.
Dutch Birding Association Checklist 2
  • G Oreel
Oreel, G J 1980. Dutch Birding Association Checklist 2. Dutch Birding 2: 82-104.