Influences of the Tamarisk Leaf Beetle (Diorhabda 

carinulata) on the Diet of Insectivorous Birds Along the 

Dolores River in Southwestern Colorado

By Sarah L. Puckett and Charles van Riper III

Open-File Report 2014-1100

U.S. Geological Survey

Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Puckett, S.L., and van Riper, III, C., 2014, Influences of the Tamarisk Leaf Beetle (Diorhabda carinulata) on the 

diet of insectivorous birds along the Dolores River in Southwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2014–1100, 51 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141100.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner.

ISSN: 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................1

Methods .........................................................................................................................................................................3

Study Area..................................................................................................................................................................3

Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................................................3

Phenology ..................................................................................................................................................................4

Focal Avian Species...................................................................................................................................................4

Avian Surveys.............................................................................................................................................................4

Foraging Behavior ......................................................................................................................................................4

Arthropod Availability..................................................................................................................................................5

Avian Diet...................................................................................................................................................................6

Palatability Experiment...............................................................................................................................................7

Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................7

Foraging Behavior ......................................................................................................................................................7

Arthropod Availability..................................................................................................................................................8

Avian Diet...................................................................................................................................................................9

Palatability Experiment.............................................................................................................................................10

Discussion....................................................................................................................................................................10

Avian Use of Tamarisk .............................................................................................................................................10

The Arthropod Community in Tamarisk ....................................................................................................................12

Avian Use of D. carinulata as a Food Resource.......................................................................................................12

Palatability of D. carinulata to Birds..........................................................................................................................14

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................15

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................................16

Appendix 1. Figures and Tables...................................................................................................................................22

Figures

 1. Study area in southwestern Colorado, showing locations of three representative study sites at river 

miles 47, 54, and 97 (Slick Rock, Crocker-Bedford Ranch, and Bedrock) along the Dolores River..........22

 2. Arthropod structures commonly observed in regurgitated gizzard contents from birds.............................24

 3. Percent availability of Shrub-species and percent selected by birds during 2010-12 on the Dolores 

River, Colorado. ........................................................................................................................................25

 4. Mean total abundance of arthropods (number per 25 sweeps) in eight plant species along the Dolores 

River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location)................................................................26

 5. Mean abundance of arthropod categories (number per 25 sweeps) from eight dominant plant species 

along the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location)...................................27

 6. Mean biomass of arthropod categories (milligrams per 25 sweeps) in eight dominant plant species 

along the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location)...................................28

 7. Mean species richness (number of morphospecies per 25 sweeps) of arthropods in eight dominant 

plant species along the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location).............29

 8. Availability of total and preferred arthropods versus abundance of arthropods in diets of all birds along 

the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location).. ..........................................30

 9. Availability of total and preferred arthropods versus biomass (in milligrams), of arthropods in diets of all 

birds along the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location)..........................31
iv

 10. Percentage, by abundance, of Diorhabda carinulata in diets of four bird species whose gizzards 

contained fragmented remains of tamarisk leaf beetles. dual arthropods detected in gizzards of these 

species, pooled.........................................................................................................................................32

 11. Percentage, by biomass (in milligrams), of Diorhabda carinulata in diets of four bird species whose 

gizzards contained fragmented remains of tamarisk leaf beetles..............................................................33

 12. Average percentage of food items eaten by wild yellow-breasted chats over the course of a 2-hour 

food-choice experiment.............................................................................................................................34

 13. Three life-stages of the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda carinulata). a. First instar larva. b. Third instar 

larvae. c. Adult beetles..............................................................................................................................35

Tables

 1. Phytochemical constituents of Tamarix gallica. ..........................................................................................36

 2. Coverage and mean height of dominant shrub species in the study area. .................................................37

 3. Avian species and sample sizes in the study area. ....................................................................................38

 4. Arthropod fragments used as indicators of prey taken by passerine birds in the study area. .....................40

 5. Numbers of observations and mean heights of foraging events for all bird species combined in the study 

area, 2010-12. ...........................................................................................................................................41

 6. Bird family, sample size, number of foraging observations, and number of foraging events for all 

substrates in the study area, 2010-12. .......................................................................................................42

 7. Use and availability of dominant shrub species in the study area, 2010-12................................................43

 8. Mean total abundance (number per 25 sweeps) of arthropod categories collected per sample (n = 503) 

among all plant species in the study area, 2010-11....................................................................................46

 9. Mean total biomass (in milligrams per 25 sweeps) of arthropod categories collected per sample (n =503) 

among all plant species in the study area, 2010-11....................................................................................47

 10. Bird family, sample size, number of food items, and mean use of food items in diet samples (n = 188) of 

birds along the Dolores River, Colo., 2010-11.............................................................................................48

 11. Bird family, sample size, biomass of food items, and mean biomass of food items in diet samples

(n = 188) of birds along the Dolores River, Colo., 2010-11. ........................................................................49
Influences of the Tamarisk Leaf Beetle (Diorhabda 

carinulata) on the Diet of Insectivorous Birds Along the 

Dolores River in Southwestern Colorado

By Sarah L. Puckett1 and Charles van Riper III2

Abstract

We examined the effects of a biologic control agent, the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda

carinulata), on native avifauna in southwestern Colorado, specifically, addressing whether and to what 

degree birds eat tamarisk leaf beetles. In 2010, we documented avian foraging behavior, characterized 

the arthropod community, sampled bird diets, and undertook an experiment to determine whether 

tamarisk leaf beetles are palatable to birds. We observed that tamarisk leaf beetles compose 24.0 percent 

(95-percent-confidence interval, 19.9-27.4 percent) and 35.4 percent (95-percent-confidence interval, 

32.4-45.1 percent) of arthropod abundance and biomass in the study area, respectively. Birds ate few 

tamarisk leaf beetles, despite a superabundance of D. carinulata in the environment. The frequency of

occurrence of tamarisk leaf beetlesin bird diets was 2.1 percent (95-percent-confidence interval, 1.3- 2.9 

percent) by abundance and 3.4 percent (95-percent-confidence interval, 2.6-4.2 percent) by biomass. Thus, 

tamarisk leaf beetles probably do not contribute significantly to the diets of birds in areas where biologic 

control of tamarisk is being applied.

Introduction

Riparian corridors, narrow belts of vegetation along streams and rivers, are crucial components

of ecosystems in the Southwestern United States, owing to their importance to the perpetuation of water 

and wildlife in an otherwise-arid region (Knopf and others, 1988; Skagen and others, 1998). Although 

riparian vegetation contributes to only a small percentage of land cover in the Western United States, it

is critically important for maintaining high richness and densities of birds in this region (Anderson and

Ohmart, 1977; Krueper and others, 2003; Brand and others, 2010). However, anthropogenic changes to 

natural patterns of riverflow contribute to the susceptibility of riparian corridors to invasion by nonnative 

species (Baker, 1986; Mack and others, 2000). Naturalization of nonnative species alters ecosystem 

structure and function significantly and is considered one of the primary threats to rare and endangered 

species (Randall, 1996; Culliney, 2005). As a result, control of the populations of invasive species is 

commonly a management priority. Biologic control, or introduction of host-specific natural enemies to 

control nonnative pests, may be a sustainable and relatively inexpensive option for management of 

invasive species. Biologic control agents, however, may have adverse or unexpected effects on native 

species (Louda and others, 2003; Kimberling, 2004). Therefore, monitoring the interactions between 

biologic control agents and native communities is essential, so that the appropriateness of this control 

method and its overall success can be evaluated objectively (Blossey, 1999).

 1

University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources and the Environment

2

U.S. Geological Survey
2

Tamarisk (a.k.a. saltcedar, Tamarix spp.; Radford and others, 1965), a deciduous shrub native to 

drier regions of Eurasia and Africa, was introduced into the United States in the mid-1800s as an 

ornamental plant and to provide shade and erosion control. Aided by its capacity to grow in saline soil, 

its prolific seed production, and its tolerance for drought conditions, tamarisk now occupies ~400,000 to 

600,000 ha of waterways and flood plains in the Western United States (Neill, 1985; Zavaleta, 2000;

Gaskin and Schaal, 2002), particularly in areas where natural flood regimes have been altered (Warren 

and Turner, 1975; Cleverly and others, 1997; DiTomaso, 1998; Glenn and Nagler, 2005). Naturalization

of this vigorous invader can culminate in substantial changes to the structure and function of streams 

(Stromberg and others, 2007), including reduction in water quantity due to an increase in 

evapotranspiration rates, degradation of habitat for some native species, increase in the frequency and 

severity of fire, and displacement of native vegetation (Anderson and Ohmart 1977; Shafroth and others,

2005). Several studies, however, have shown that tamarisk can also be an important habitat feature for 

various birds (Brown and Trosset, 1989; Hunter and others, 1988; Ellis, 1995). An emerging perspective 

suggests that the abundance of bird species is highest at intermediate abundances of tamarisk and native 

vegetation (van Riper and others, 2008). Regardless, controlling tamarisk appeals to many agencies, 

especially in light of its expanding geographic distribution (Duncan and others, 2004; Shafroth and

Briggs, 2008; Barz and others, 2009).

Traditional strategies for controlling tamarisk include mechanical removal, fire, and herbicide.

These techniques, each of which has its advantages and limitations, may affect growth of native 

vegetation in riparian communities (Hultine and others, 2010). A relatively new addition to management 

of tamarisk is biologic control. Tamarisk leaf beetles (Diorhabda carinulata; Desbrochers, 1870),

originally from Eurasia, were selected as a biologic control agent for tamarisk, owing to their high host 

specificity, broad geographic range, and presumed ability to adapt to conditions in the United States. 

Biologic control of tamarisk, which was first implemented in 2001, has resulted in successful 

defoliations in Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming (Dudley and DeLoach, 2004). Tamarisk plants 

produce new foliage after ~3-6 weeks, however, and multiple defoliation events per year are needed to

affect mortality at a given site. In northern Nevada, tamarisk mortality reached 40 percent by the fourth 

year of consecutive defoliation events (Dudley and others, 2006), and 3 years of defoliation by tamarisk 

leaf beetles culminated in ~25-percent mortality of tamarisk at Big Springs, Tex. (Moran and others,

2009). Benefits of biologic control include relatively low cost once initial research and development 

have been completed, low maintenance, and automatic dispersal of agents. Some questions remain with 

this approach, however, because it involves introduction of nonnative organisms that can alter the

structure of riparian communities.

Tamarisk leaf beetles are able to spread broadly and defoliate tamarisk on a grand scale (Paxton 

and others, 2011). Widespread loss of riparian vegetation, coupled with the addition of a potential food 

resource that is commonly superabundant, may affect native wildlife. Proponents of biologic control of 

tamarisk suggest that birds eat tamarisk leaf beetles and that the presence of D. carinulata in areas

inhabited by tamarisk may enhance habitat quality for birds during defoliation (DeLoach and others,

2004; Dudley and DeLoach, 2004; Longland and Dudley, 2008). However, any beneficial response by 

birds to an increase in the abundance of prey depends upon palatability of the prey (Paxton and others, 

2011).

Palatability in arthropods is generally predictable on the basis of coloration, behavior, and the 

presence of potential defensive compounds in host plants (Bowers and Farley, 1990). Although little is 

currently known about the palatability or nutritional value of D. carinulata, the tamarisk leaf beetle

feeds almost exclusively on tamarisk, a plant rich in noxious substances (Dudley and DeLoach, 2004; 

Drabu and others, 2012). Of the chemical compounds that occur naturally in Tamarix gallica L, one of 

several Tamarix spp. naturalized in the Southwestern United States, ~50 percent are tannins, which are 

bitter, astringent, and able to function in a defensive role against herbivory in plants (see table 1; Levin,

1976; Coley, 1986). Two other compounds produced by several plant species for their insecticidal 
3

properties, germacrene D and benzyl benzoate, were also detected in T. gallica (Landegren and others, 

1979; Arimura and others, 2004). Sequestration of the noxious or unpalatable compounds produced by 

tamarisk may provide D. carinulata with defense mechanisms against predation.

We decided to investigate how tamarisk leaf beetles influence native birds. Specifically, we used

observational and experimental methods to determine whether and to what degree birds eat tamarisk leaf 

beetles. This interaction has implications for the success of biologic control of tamarisk, as well as for 

the welfare of avian communities in areas where biologic control is being applied. To answer these 

questions, we (1) determined in what substrates and to what heights birds forage, (2) determined the

composition of the arthropod community at sites where birds forage, (3) evaluated the diets of 

insectivorous birds, and (4) tested the palatability of tamarisk leaf beetles to native avifauna. 

Additionally, we characterized the phenology of tamarisk to determine its availability of green-leaf, flower, 

and fruit coverage and to provide an index of damage to tamarisk by D. carinulata (brown leaves). We then 

compared these phenological data with avian use of tamarisk to track the response of birds to beetle damage and 

defoliation of tamarisk.

Methods

Study Area

The Dolores River, a tributary to the Colorado River, flows ~400 km through parts of southwest 

Colorado and southeastern Utah. Three study sites, at river miles 47, 54, and 97 (Slick Rock, CrockerBedford Ranch, and Bedrock, respectively, fig. 1), were selected along the Dolores River in 

southwestern Colorado to evaluate the use of tamarisk leaf beetles and tamarisk by birds and to estimate

the availability of arthropod prey (see fig. 1).

Each study site covered ~4 ha of riparian corridor. Study sites were dominated by seven species 

of shrub: coyote willow (Salix exigua; Davis, 1952), desert olive (Forestiera neomexicana; Kearney and 

Peebles, 1960), sumac (Rhus aromatic; Booth and Wright ,1966), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate; 

Davis, 1952), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus; Davis, 1952), greasewood (Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus; Davis, 1952), and exotic tamarisk (see table 2). Other, less common plants included 

fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens; Davis, 1952), boxelder (Acer negundo; Deam, 1940), Gambeloak (Quercus gambelii; Kearney and Peebles, 1960), Siberian-elm (Ulmus pumila; McGregor and 

others, 1977), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia; Abrams, 1960). Cottonwood (Populus spp.; Kearney 

and Peebles, 1960) was rare at all sites, and pinyon (Pinus edulis; Kearney and Peebles, 1960) and 

juniper (Juniperus spp.; House, 1924) dominated scree along the canyon slope. Annual precipitation 

averaged ~30 cm at these sites, and summer temperatures ranged from 7°C to 35°C. Data were collected 

between June 1 and August 15, 2010, through 2012.

Vegetation

At each study site, we sampled vegetation within ten 0.04-ha (11.3-m radius) circular plots with 

their centers ~25 m from the bank and at 100-m intervals parallel to the river (James and Shugart, 1970).

All trees (any woody species >7.5 cm in diameter at breast height [DBH]) were identified as to species, 

counted, and their DBHs measured to the nearest centimeter. Density, frequency, and dominance were 

estimated by species and averaged across plots for each study site.

We established one 22.6-m transect perpendicular to the river across each 0.04-ha plot to 

measure shrub density by species. All woody stems <7.5 cm in diameter that made contact with a 2-m 

rod, held at breast height parallel to the ground, were counted. The percentage of coverage of woody 

stems per hectare was calculated for seven dominant species of shrubs: coyote willow, desert olive, 

sumac, big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and tamarisk. Estimates of the availability of various 
4

shrub species were then compared with observations of foraging behavior to characterize the selection of

different plants by birds.

Phenology

We sampled tamarisk phenology in 2010-12 to determine the availability of green-leaf, flower, 

and fruit coverage, as well as to provide an index of damage to tamarisk by D. carinulata (brown 

leaves). A 1-km transect was established through the middle of each study site, and observers walked 

each transect monthly, visually sampling a total of 100 tamarisk plants per transect for phenological 

patterns (after van Riper, 1980). Individual plants within 50 m of the transect were assessed by 

visualizing a full crown and estimating the proportion of the plant currently covered by green leaves, 

brown leaves, flowers, and fruit. Data from 100 plants per transect were averaged to obtain monthly 

stand conditions. We compared phenological data with avian use of tamarisk to assess the associations 

of birds to beetle damage and defoliation of tamarisk.

Focal Avian Species

We analyzed the diets of 25 bird species spanning nine families in the order Passeriformes (see 

table 3). All passerines were subject to diet analysis. However, to ensure that birds were responding to 

the vegetation and arthropod communities at each study site, only species of resident, breeding birds 

were used.

Avian Surveys

Point-count surveys (Reynolds and others, 1980; Ralph and others, 1993) were made monthly

from June through August 2010-12 at 20 points per study site to characterize the avian community (see 

table 3). Counting stations with 100-m radii were established at 200-m intervals parallel to the river. 

Surveys began at sunrise and ended by 10:00 a.m., except during periods of rain or high winds. To 

minimize bias, observers alternated study sites, and starting points for avian surveys were reversed 

monthly. Observers waited 2 minutes upon arriving at a census point to minimize the effects of the 

disturbance created by approaching the station, then recorded all birds seen and heard for 5 minutes.

Foraging Behavior

Observations of foraging behavior were made along a 1-km transect at each study site during the 

2010-12 seasons. For each foraging event, we recorded the substrate and height of the attack maneuver, 

which was defined as a directed movement toward a potential food item. Substrates included seven 

dominant species of shrub (coyote willow, desert olive, sumac, big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, greasewood, 

and tamarisk) and four supplemental substrates (air, grass, ground, and other). “Other” substrates, which 

were used rarely, included fourwing saltbush, mulefat, boxelder, pinyon, juniper, Gambel-oak, and 

Siberian-elm.

Each transect was walked at least once a week from sunrise to 10:30 a.m. The starting points for 

transects were reversed weekly to minimize bias associated with time of day, and all parts of transects

received an approximately equal amount of coverage. When possible, the identity of prey taken by birds 

was recorded.

We used the location of first attack maneuver, as opposed to the location of first detection, when 

analyzing observations of foraging behavior (McGrath and others, 2009). Use of first attack maneuver 

specifically addresses the foraging location, whereas the location of first detection may provide 

information relative to other aspects of avian behavior (perching, singing, and searching). Additionally, 

use of the first attack maneuver reduces visual bias associated with foraging behavior in different plant 

species (Bell and others, 1990).
5

Percentage of use of all substrates was calculated for 14 bird families: Aegithalidae, 

Cardinalidae, Corvidae, Emberizidae, Fringillidae, Icteridae, Mimidae, Parulidae, Polioptilidae, 

Thraupidae, Troglodytidae, Turdidae, Tyrannidae, and Vireonidae. Observations of foraging maneuvers 

in supplemental substrates were excluded in the analysis of use versus availability but were used to 

characterize the foraging behavior of avian families. Heights of attack maneuvers were averaged within 

substrates to coordinate the collection of arthropods, such that the sampling location could be 

determined by the foraging behavior of birds.

One-way analysis of variance was used to test for differences in substrate use by all birds, and 

then within each avian family. We used repeated-measures analysis of variance that included date as a 

repeated measure to test for an interaction between use and availability of shrub species by birds at each 

study site. We corrected for multiple tests by using a Bonferroni adjustment. Between-subject measures 

were plant species, percentage of use/availability, and date. All interactions were included in the model.

We also tested for differences in shrub-species use versus availability by using a paired t-test of the 

average preferences and availability of each shrub species for each month at each study site.

A mixed model for multiple regression was used to test for an effect of tamarisk phenology on 

avian use of tamarisk that included date as a repeated measure, phenology as a covariate, and avian 

family as a factor.

Arthropod Availability

Arthropods were sampled from eight plant species monthly from June through August 2010-11: 

coyote willow, desert olive, sumac, big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, greasewood, grass, and tamarisk. Sweep 

nets were used to collect arthropods at 10 plots spaced 100 m apart along the same 1-km transects used 

for foraging and phenologic observations. Sample collections were 25 vertical sweeps per plant species 

per plot at a height of 0 to 3 m above ground with a standard 38-cm-diameter canvas sweep net.

Arthropod samples were collected from dawn to 10:00 a.m., concurrent with the collection of diet 

samples from birds.

Arthropods collected by sweep net were transferred to vials and preserved in 70-volume-percent 

ethanol. Later, in the laboratory, arthropods were identified as to order, then as to level of 

morphologically distinct taxa, which were categorized as morphospecies. When a range of size classes 

within a morphospecies was noted (for example, Lepidoptera larvae), similar-size individuals were 

placed into subgroups. Body lengths were measured to the nearest 0.05 mm from the frons to the tip of 

the abdomen with an ocular micrometer fitted to a dissecting binocular microscope (Rogers and others,

1977). Voucher specimens of all morphospecies were placed into a reference collection.

The purpose of sampling the arthropod community was to quantify arthropod abundance and 

biomass from dominant plant species and then to compare these measures with arthropod prey observed

in the diets of birds. Additionally, we compared the arthropod community in tamarisk with the arthropod 

communities of native plant species, where arthropod abundance is the number of individual arthropods, 

biomass is the estimated dry weight (in milligrams) of arthropods collected per sample or per 25 sweeps, 

and species richness is the number of morphospecies detected per sample. Samples were averaged 

among plant species within each sampling period and study site. The arthropod community was 

subdivided into 10 general categories: D. carinulata, Araneae (spiders), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera 

(flies), Hemiptera: Heteroptera (true bugs), Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha (leafhoppers), Hymenoptera 

(ants and wasps), Lepidoptera (largely caterpillars), Orthoptera (grasshoppers), and other (Acari, 

Isoptera, Mantidae, Neuroptera, Phasmatodea, Thysanoptera, Thysanura, and Trichoptera). We used a 

generalized regression equation that permits an estimate of dry weight (in milligrams) based on length 

(in millimeters) to calculate biomass for each morphospecies group (Rogers and others, 1976).

One-way analysis of variance was used to test for differences in mean abundance and biomass 

among arthropod categories. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustments was
6

used to test for overall differences in mean arthropod abundance, biomass, and species richness among 

plant species, with date as the repeated measure and plant species, abundance, biomass, and species 

richness as between-subject measures.

We tested for the influence of plant species on the abundance and biomass of distinct arthropod 

categories by using repeated-measures analysis of variance, with date as the repeated measure. Betweensubject effects were arthropod category, date, and plant species.

Avian Diet

Diet samples were collected from 25 bird species in nine families in the order Passeriformes. 

Birds were captured with passive mist netting in 2010-11, whereby 6- and 12-m mist nets (30-mm mesh)

were erected adjacent to stands of tamarisk at each of the three study sites (fig. 1) and opened 1 hour 

after sunrise to ensure that birds had sufficient time to forage before capture. In addition to taking diet 

samples, all birds were identified as to species, aged, sexed, and banded with U.S. Geological Survey 

aluminum leg bands.

Immediately upon capture, we used a modified irrigation technique that has proved effective in 

sampling both hard- and soft-bodied arthropods to acquire gizzard contents from birds (Moody, 1970;

Laursen, 1978; Rosenberg and Cooper, 1990). This protocol was approved by the University of Arizona 

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #11-273). A 3-cm3 syringe was filled with 

warm water, and a French feeding tube was attached to its head; the size of the bird determined the inner 

diameter of the tube used (3.5 Fr = 1.2 mm, 5 Fr = 1.7 mm, 8 Fr = 2.7 mm). French feeding tubes are 

soft, resilient, and completely flexible; one end of the feeding tube is flared to fit a syringe, whereas the 

other end has a smooth, rounded tip to prevent injury to the animal. Tubing was guided slowly and 

gently along the roof of the bird’s mouth and into the esophagus. No force was needed, and care was 

taken to align the tube at the junction of the esophagus and body cavity to allow for easy insertion. The 

bird was then inverted to prevent water from entering its trachea, and water was pushed into its digestive 

tract at a rate of 1cm3

/s. As fluid was forced into the digestive tract, excess fluid plus crop and gizzard

contents were collected in a plastic dish positioned beneath the bird for this purpose. Regurgitated 

contents were transferred to a vial and preserved with 70-volume-percent ethanol.

Later, in the laboratory, diet samples were placed in a petri dish and sorted under a variablepower dissecting microscope. Arthropod fragments were identified to the lowest taxonomic level 

possible, according to Tatner (1983), Ralph and others (1985), Moreby (1987), and Borror and others

(1989). Common features used to identify items in the diet are listed in table 4. Some of these structures 

are shown in figure 2.

The minimum number of individual arthropods in each sample was estimated by counting single 

body parts (for example, head capsules, dorsal sclerites, ovipositors) and pairs of corresponding body 

parts (for example, antennae, legs, mandibles, wings) of a known number in the intact arthropod (Jenni 

and others, 1989; Rosenberg and Cooper, 1990). Fragments of elytra could generally be used to identify 

and count beetles, in the same way that fangs could be used to quantify spiders.

A reference collection assembled from concurrent arthropod sampling was critical for identifying

fragmented arthropods. Arthropods from the reference collection were macerated to facilitate matches 

between parts observed in diet samples and fragments taken from known, intact specimens. The 

piecemeal form of the evidence made it impossible to establish individual weights or volumes of 

arthropod prey. However, multiplying the numbers of prey items observed in the diet by the known 

weights of similar arthropods in the reference collection allowed for an indirect estimate of biomass 

(Tatner, 1983). Consequently, the percentages both by number of individuals (abundance) and by 

estimated biomass were used to describe the relative contributions of arthropod categories to avian diet.

Percentages of the abundance and biomass of food items in gizzard contents within each avian 

family were pooled and calculated for 11 food-item categories: D. carinulata, Araneae (spiders), 
7

Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Hemiptera: Heteroptera (true bugs), Hemeptera:

Auchenorrhyncha (leafhoppers), Hymenoptera (ants and wasps); Lepidoptera (largely caterpillars),

Orthoptera (grasshoppers), other (Neuroptera and Trichoptera), and seed (fruit and seed taken from 

vegetation). Seeds were used to characterize the diets of avian families, but were excluded in the 

analysis of use versus availability of arthropod prey. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for 

differences in the mean percentage of use of all food-item categories by birds in general and within each 

avian family.

Because birds do not forage on all arthropods, we identified preferred species of arthropod prey 

from the diets of birds. We then tested for the influence of both total and preferred arthropods available 

in the environment on the arthropod prey observed in the diets of birds by using repeated-measures 

analysis of variance, with date as the repeated measure. Between-subject effects were arthropod 

category, arthropod source (total and preferred available, used), and date.

Palatability Experiment

Yellow-breasted chats (Icteria virens; Linnaeus, 1758) were chosen for a palatability experiment 

because they are insectivorous, abundant in the study area, and potential consumers of D. carinulata.

Over a period of 3 months, from June 1 to August 15, 2011, a total of 10 yellow-breasted chats were 

captured with mist nets, aged, sexed, and banded with U.S. Geological Survey aluminum legbands.

Captive chats were held individually for the duration of the experiment (2 hours) in small enclosures 

covered with fine mesh (0.3 by 0.3 by 0.3 m) and provided with shelter, an artificial perch, and with free

access to water. Experimental protocol was approved by the University of Arizona Institutional Animal 

Care and Use Committee (protocol 11-273).

Adult tamarisk leaf beetles were collected in the field on the day of each experiment. 

Mealworms, larvae of the beetle (Tenebrio molitor; Linnaeus, 1758), were store bought and maintained 

for the duration of the field season at 1.6°C. Mealworms were removed from storage the evening before 

use and allowed to acclimate to ambient temperatures. All insects were presented live to experimental 

birds.

Upon capture, chats were randomly assigned to either control or treatment groups. The control

group was offered 20 mealworms, and the treatment group offered 20 adult tamarisk leaf beetles. The 

control group consisted of three adults, all female, and two hatch-year birds, whose sex was unknown. 

The treatment group included two adults, both female, and three hatch-year birds. Consumption of 

mealworms by birds was used to demonstrate that capture and containment in enclosures does not 

inhibit foraging behavior by wild chats. Consumption of food items was measured by the number of 

individual insects missing or partially eaten from enclosures at the conclusion of the experiment.

A two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in the mean number of prey items eaten 

between control and treatment groups.

Results

Foraging Behavior

In general, birds foraged most often in desert olive (16.5percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 

6.3-26.7 percent), followed by tamarisk, air, ground, other, willow, grass, sumac, greasewood, 

sagebrush, and rabbitbrush (F10, 198 =1.89; two-sided p-value, 0.0479 from a one-way-analysis-ofvariance F-test). Birds foraged preferentially within a zone ~0 to 3 m off the ground (see table 5).

Of 14 avian families, 6 preferred certain substrate types (see table 6). Emberizidae preferentially 

foraged on the ground (35.5 percent) and in grass (18.7 percent) more than in all other substrates (F10, 198

= 1.89; two-sided p-value, 0.0479 from a one-way-analysis-of-variance F-test). Fringillidae foraged in 

desert olive (46.6 percent) and on the ground (25.6 percent) (F10, 198 = 2.62; two-sided p-value, 0.0052), 
8

Parulidae foraged in willow (22.8 percent) and desert olive (22.8 percent) (F10, 198 = 3.88; two-sided pvalue, <0.0001), Polioptilidae foraged in tamarisk (28.0 percent) (F10, 198 = 2.76, two-sided p-value, 

0.0033), and Turdidae foraged in desert olive (63.6 percent) (F10, 198 = 2.07; two-sided p-value, 0.0281). 

Finally, Tyrannidae foraged in air (57.0 percent) more than in all other substrates (F10, 198 = 6.31; twosided p-value, <0.0001).

The selection of foraging substrates within bird families was affected by the interaction between 

plant species, availability, and date (F48, 1227.40 = 2.38; two-sided p-value, <0.0001 from a repeatedmeasures-analysis-of-variance F-test; see table 7). Birds foraged most often in desert olive (26.6 

percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 6.1-47.0 percent), followed by tamarisk, willow, sumac, 

greasewood, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush. In general, birds foraged more in desert olive than expected, 

given its availability (t18 = 2.97; two-sided p-value, 0.0081 from a paired t-test). Birds foraged less in 

willow, given its availability (t18 = 11.59; two-sided p-value, <0.0001; see fig. 3).

No evidence was obtained that the phenology of tamarisk affected its use by birds (green leaf, F1, 

208.32 = 0.18; two-sided p-value, 0.669; brown leaf, F1, 192.65 = 0.82; two-sided p-value, 0.367; flower F1, 

223.43 = 0.12; two-sided p-value, 0.734; fruit, F1, 210.33 = 0.14; two-sided p-value, 0.712 from a repeatedmeasures-analysis-of-variance F-test).

Arthropod Availability

A total of 18,855 individual arthropods representing 141 morphospecies in 17 orders were 

collected from eight plant species. We noted a difference in the mean abundance of arthropod categories 

in the study area (see fig. 1) in general (F9, 1110 = 13.40, two-sided p-value <0.0001 from a one-way

analysis of variance F-test). D. carinulata was collected most commonly (24.0 percent; 95-percentconfidence interval, 19.9-27.4 percent) followed by Auchenorrhyncha, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, 

Diptera, Araneae, Heteroptera, other, Lepidoptera, and Orthoptera (see table 8).

Additionally, D. carinulata contributed the most to total biomass of arthropods in the study area 

(35.4 percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 32.4-45.1 percent), followed by Orthoptera, 

Hymenoptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Heteroptera, other, Diptera, and Araneae (see 

table 9).

Plant species affected the abundance of arthropods collected per sample (F7, 17.36 = 2.77; twosided p-value, 0.04 from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test). Total arthropod abundance in 

tamarisk was higher than in all other plant species, whereas arthropod abundance was similar among 

native plant species. However, when tamarisk leaf beetles were excluded, arthropod abundance in 

tamarisk was lower than in willow and rabbitbrush but comparable to that in other plant species (F76, 931

= 3.47; two-sided p-value, <0.0001 from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test; see fig. 4).

Abundance within each arthropod category was affected by plant species (F63, 297.72 = 6.89; twosided p-value, <0.0001 from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test; see fig. 5). In tamarisk, D. 

carinulata was more abundant than any other arthropod category (F9, 130 = 20.56; two-sided p-value, 

<0.0001 from a one-way-analysis-of-variance F-test). On average, D. carinulata composed 73.6 percent 

of the arthropod abundance in tamarisk (95-percent-confidence-interval, 66.8-80.3 percent).

Biomass of arthropods was affected by plant species (F118, 891 = 6.90; two-sided p-value, <0.0001

from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test). Total arthropod biomass in tamarisk was higher 

than in all other plant species, whereas no significant difference was detected in arthropod biomass

among native plant species. When the tamarisk leaf beetle was excluded, arthropod biomass in tamarisk 

was again lower than that in willow and rabbitbrush but comparable to that in other plant species (F116, 

891 = 4.46; two-sided p-value, <0.0001 from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test).

Similarly, biomass within each arthropod category was affected by plant species (F63, 309.84 = 

5.31; two-sided p-value, <0.0001 from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test; see fig. 13). The 

biomass of D. carinulata in tamarisk was greater than that of all other arthropod categories (F9, 130 = 
9

16.68; two-sided p-value, <0.0001 from a one-way-analysis-of-variance F-test). On average, the 

biomass of D. carinulata composed 87.7 percent of the total biomass of arthropods in tamarisk (95-

percent-confidence intervals, 78.9-96.4 percent). No significant difference was detected in the 

abundance or biomass of the other arthropod categories in tamarisk.

Mean richness of arthropod morphospecies was also affected by plant species (F7, 24.31 = 3.57;

two-sided p-value, 0.009 from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test). Arthropod richness in 

tamarisk was lower than that in willow and sagebrush, but higher than that in greasewood (fig. 14). On 

average, samples from tamarisk contained 4.0 fewer arthropod morphospecies than those from willow 

(two-sided p-value = 0.0007; 95-percent-confidence interval, 1.3- 6.7 percent), 2.5 fewer morphospecies 

than those from sagebrush (two-sided p-value, 0.0091; 95-percent-confidence interval, -0.16 to 5.21

percent), and 1.4 more morphospecies than those from greasewood (two-sided p-value, 0.0425; 95-

percent-confidence interval, -1.30 to 4.08 percent).

Avian Diet

Diets of 188 individual birds spanning 25 species and nine families in the order Passeriformes

were analyzed in this study. We identified 520 arthropod prey items from diet samples, representing 76 

arthropod morphospecies from 10 orders.

The frequency of occurrence by abundance of food-item categories in the diets of birds varied 

significantly among avian families (F10, 144 = 4.04; two-sided p-value, <0.0001 from a one-way-analysisof-variance F-test). Overall, seed (17.0 percent), Coleoptera (14.4 percent), and Hymenoptera (13.0 

percent) were most abundant. Seeds were detected in the diets of four avian families (Cardinalidae, 

Emberizidae, Fringillidae, and Parulidae) and contributed significantly to the diets of Cardinalidae (51.7

percent, F10, 143 = 2.10; two-sided p-value, 0.0277), Emberizidae (61.1 percent, F10, 143 = 3.08; two-sided 

p-value, 0.0014), and Fringillidae (96.7 percent, F10, 143 = 2.57; two-sided p-value, 0.0069). Parulidae ate 

more Hymenoptera (27.9 percent) and Coleoptera (23.7 percent) than all other food-item categories (F10, 

143 = 2.10; two-sided p-value, <0.0001). No difference was detected in the frequency of occurrence of 

food items in Icteridae, Mimidae, Polioptilidae, Tyrannidae, or Vireonidae (table 10).

By biomass, birds generally ate significantly more Lepidoptera (29.0 percent) than any other 

food-item category (F10, 1375 = 3.07; two-sided p-value, 0.0007 from a one-way-analysis-of-variance Ftest). Fringillidae preferred seed (98.2 percent, F10, 143 = 2.58; two-sided p-value, 0.0066), whereas 

Parulidae ate more Coleoptera (24.5 percent) than all other food-item categories (F10, 143 = 2.91; twosided p-value = 0.0024). No preferential use of food items was detected in Cardinalidae, Emberizidae, 

Icteridae, Mimidae, Polioptilidae, Tyrannidae, or Vireonidae (table 11).

When seed was excluded from analysis, the interaction between arthropod category and 

availability by abundance (total and preferred) affected the frequency of occurrence of arthropod 

categories in the diets of birds (F18, 155.14 = 2.47; two-sided p-value, <0.0001 from a repeated-measuresanalysis-of-variance F-test; fig. 15). Birds ate fewer Auchenorrhyncha than expected, given their 

availability. More Coleoptera, Heteroptera, and Araneae were eaten by birds than expected, given their 

availability in the total and preferred arthropod communities. Finally, fewer D. carinulata were eaten by 

birds (2.1percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 1.3-2.9 percent) than expected, given its availability in 

both the total (24.0 percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 19.9- 27.4 percent) and preferred (16.8 

percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 13.0- 20.6 percent) arthropod communities.

The percentage by biomass of arthropod categories in the diets of birds was affected by the 

availability of arthropods by biomass (preferred and total) (F10, 155.14 = 2.47; two-sided p-value, 0.009

from a repeated-measures-analysis-of-variance F-test; fig. 16). Orthoptera were eaten less than expected, 

whereas Coleoptera and Lepidoptera were eaten more than expected, given their availability in the total 

and preferred arthropod communities. Again, fewer D. carinulata were eaten by birds (3.4 percent; 95-

percent-confidence interval, 2.6-4.2 percent) than expected, given its availability by biomass in both the 
10

total (35.4 percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 32.4-45.1 percent) and preferred (30.1 percent; 95-

percent-confidence interval, 23.8-36.5 percent) arthropod communities.

D. carinulata was observed in the diets of 11 of 188 birds (5.9 percent; 95-percent-confidence 

interval, 4.1-7.7 percent). Overall, the frequency of occurrence of D. carinulata in the diets of birds was 

2.1 percent (95-percent-confidence interval, 1.5-2.7 percent) by abundance and 3.4 percent (95-percentconfidence interval, 2.6-4.2 percent) by biomass. Four bird species from two families (Parulidae and 

Tyrannidae) ate D. carinulata: yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial; Gmelin, 

1789), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas; Linnaeus, 1766), and Cordilleran flycatcher 

(Empidonax occidentalis; Nelson, 1897). Most of the D. carinulata eaten by birds (8/11) were by 

yellow-breasted chats (72.7 percent; 95-percent-confidence interval, 46.4-99.0 percent). However, the 

frequency of occurrence of D. carinulata in the diets of yellow-breasted chats was only 3.3 percent (95-

percent-confidence interval, 2.2-4.4 percent) by abundance (fig. 17) and 5.6 percent (95-percentconfidence interval, 4.1-7.1 percent) by biomass (fig. 18). Only adult beetles were observed in the diet 

samples collected from birds; no D. carinulata larvae were detected.

Palatability Experiment

No evidence was obtained of a difference in selection between the number of D. carinulata and 

mealworm prey items eaten by captive chats (two-sided P-value, 0.678 from a two-sample t-test; t-value 

= 0.431, DF = 7.194). Yellow-breasted chats ate 42 and 30 percent of the tamarisk leaf beetles and 

mealworms offered during the experiment, respectively.

Hatch-year and adult chats ate 66.7 and 5.0 percent of the tamarisk leaf beetles offered during 

the experiment, respectively (two-sided p-value, 0.221 from a two-sample t-test; t-value = 1.54, DF = 3).

On average, hatch-year birds ate 61.7 percent more D. carinulata than did adult birds (95-percet 

confidence interval, -65.7 to 189.0 percent; fig. 19). No evidence was obtained of a difference between 

the proportion of mealworm prey items eaten by hatch-year and adult birds (two-sided P-value, 0.432 

from a two-sample t-test; t-value = 0.906, DF = 3).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to provide a better understanding of how a biologic control agent, 

the tamarisk leaf beetle, affects native birds. Our results can be summarized as follows. (1) Birds 

foraged more often in tamarisk relative to several species of native shrubs, and approximately in 

proportion to the availability of tamarisk in the environment, (2) Tamarisk leaf beetles contributed to 

24.0 percent of the abundance and 35.4 percent of the biomass of arthropods in the study area (see fig. 

1), and to 73.6 and 87.7 percent of the abundance and biomass of arthropods in tamarisk, respectively.

Arthropod abundance and biomass are high in tamarisk, but the community is dominated by tamarisk 

leaf beetles. Morphospecies richness of arthropods in tamarisk was comparable to that in native plant 

species. (3) Birds ate few tamarisk leaf beetles, despite a superabundance of D. carinulata in the 

environment. Overall, the frequency of occurrence of tamarisk leaf beetlesin the diets of insectivorous birds was 

2.1 percent by abundance, and 3.4 percent by biomass. Four species of birds (yellow-breasted chat, common 

yellowthroat, yellow warbler, and Cordilleran flycatcher) from two families (Parulidae and Tyrannidae) 

ate tamarisk leaf beetles, though less than their availability or biomass by abundance in the environment.

(4) Captive yellow-breasted chats ate tamarisk leaf beetles in a palatability experiment, although adult 

birds ate fewer tamarisk leaf beetles than did hatch-year birds.

Avian Use of Tamarisk

Observations of foraging behavior along the Dolores River (see fig. 1), where average coverage 

of tamarisk was approximately 15 percent (range, 5- 33 percent; table 2), suggests that birds foraged 
11

significantly more in tamarisk than in several species of native shrubs. Only ~16 percent of foraging 

maneuvers by birds occurred in tamarisk when all substrates were included in analysis. Avian use of 

tamarisk in this study indicates that tamarisk can provide some of the necessary vertical structure, foliar 

cover, and food resources for birds that use riparian vegetation (van Riper and others, 2008).

We observed no effect of tamarisk phenology and defoliation on the foraging behavior of birds.

Data on phenology and defoliation patterns were recorded monthly and so may not reflect the nuances 

associated with changes in leaf, flower, fruiting, and defoliation of tamarisk and the subsequent effect on 

use of tamarisk by birds. However, we also observed no effect of time, indirectly a measure of 

phenologic change and defoliation, on the abundance or biomass of arthropods collected from tamarisk.

The patchy distribution of tamarisk at the study sites (see fig. 1, table 2), coupled with defoliation and 

refoliation patterns that were distributed in space and time, may have allowed the arthropod community 

in tamarisk to retain some of its richness and abundance. Effects of defoliation on the foraging behavior 

by birds that breed in monocultures of tamarisk may be more severe (Paxton and others, 2011).

Naturalization of tamarisk in the Southwestern United States has been implicated in the 

degradation of riparian corridors (Shafroth and others, 2005; Stromberg and others, 2007; Brand and 

others, 2010). The presence of tamarisk in riparian regions purportedly lowers the habitat quality for 

some native plants and animals (DeLoach and others, 2003) but not for others, such as the southwestern 

willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; Durst and others, 2006). Insectivorous and frugivorous 

birds show the greatest intolerance for tamarisk, whereas groundfeeders, granivores, and species that 

feed largely on other plant species appear to be unaffected by its presence (Cohan and others, 1978).

Recent research, however, suggests that the abundance of some bird species can be highest at 

intermediate levels of tamarisk (40-60 percent), owing to the complex vegetation structure and 

potentially greater abundance and biomass of arthropods provided by heterogeneous stands of tamarisk 

(van Riper and others, 2008). In the Mohave Desert on the Muddy River in Nevada, species richness of 

birds was predicted best by total vegetation volume (Fleishman and others, 2003), and a diverse and 

abundant community of breeding birds was observed in tamarisk along the Pecos River in New Mexico

(Livingston and Schemnitz, 1996). As long as the vegetation community retained structural diversity, 

the presence of tamarisk did not negatively affect the species richness of native birds (Fleishman and 

others, 2003).

Use of tamarisk by birds in the current study may be explained by the increase in vegetation 

height and volume associated with the addition of tamarisk to the riparian vegetation community, which 

potentially increases both the number of feeding strategies that can be supported and the total volume of 

arthropod food available. Additionally, some functional redundancy may exist with regard to structure 

within the vegetation community. Some birds do not have a strong preference for the plant species in 

which they forage, so long as availability of arthropod prey is comparable (Fleishman and others, 2003). 

For example, stands of tamarisk created by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam were ecologically 

equivalent to native vegetation for some riparian birds. Birds nested in areas that were structurally 

similar among sites dominated by tamarisk and by native plant species (Brown and Trosset, 1989; Yard 

and others 2004).

Colonization of tamarisk potentially helps maintain a relatively diverse vegetation community 

under ecologically altered conditions where native species, such as willow and cottonwood, are no 

longer successful. Tamarisk provides structure for some animal species that may otherwise disappear 

after the decline of native plant species (Anderson, 1998). Along Queen Creek in Arizona, construction 

of an earthfill dam in 1960 has culminated in the striking growth of an artificial riparian-gallery forest of 

Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii) and tamarisk (Szaro and DeBano, 1985). Bird communities 

responded to the greater structural diversity in the riparian interior and riparian edge. Thus, bird density 

within this riparian island was 3 times that on the adjacent desert upland, and 10 species were observed 

only in the riparian area (Szaro and DeBano, 1985). In places where tamarisk monocultures have 

formed, removal can drastically reduce habitat availability for some bird species and especially when 
12

tamarisk is the only riparian vegetation. Where tamarisk has ecological value, it should be carefully 

managed, and not necessarily eradicated (Livingston and Schemnitz, 1996; Barz and others, 2009).

The Arthropod Community in Tamarisk

The effect of tamarisk on arthropods, an important food resource for many birds, can profoundly

affect birds that breed in riparian regions. We observed that tamarisk supports a higher abundance and 

biomass of arthropods than do many native plant species (see figures 6 and 7). High arthropod 

abundance in tamarisk, however, was almost entirely the product of superabundance of tamarisk leaf 

beetles. When tamarisk leaf beetles were excluded, abundance and biomass of arthropods were lower in 

tamarisk than in willow and rabbitbrush but comparable to those in other plant species.

Species richness in tamarisk was comparable to that in most native plant species. Arthropod 

richness in tamarisk was lower than that in willow and sagebrush but higher than that in greasewood.

Currently, five hypotheses have been presented with regard to the species richness and biomass 

of arthropods in areas dominated by tamarisk (reviewed for aerial arthropods by Durst and others, 2008).

1. Tamarisk supports arthropod communities with lower biomass and diversity relative to native

vegetation (Liesner, 1971; Yong and Finch, 1997; DeLoach and others, 2000; Dudley and DeLoach, 

2004).

2. Arthropod biomass is high in tamarisk, but the arthropod community is dominated by a nonnative 

leafhopper, Opsius stactogalus, that was introduced with the tamarisk (Yard and others, 2004; 

Wiesenborn, 2005).

3. The arthropod community supported by tamarisk is as diverse as that in native vegetation, and 

arthropod biomass is potentially higher, owing largely to the profuse and long-lasting flowering of 

tamarisk. The abundance of this flower and nectar resource attracts nonresident bird species from 

neighboring riparian and upland vegetation (Ellis and others, 2000; Drost and others, 2003).

4. The biomass and species richness of the arthropod community are intermediate in areas with both 

tamarisk and native species because elements of both vegetation communities are present (Haddad 

and others, 2001; Durst and others, 2008).

5. Biomass and species richness are actually higher in mixed vegetation because of the higher diversity 

relative to native or exotic monocultures (van Riper and others, 2008).

Results of the current study support the third hypothesis: the arthropod community sustained by 

tamarisk was as diverse as that in native vegetation, and arthropod biomass was higher. However, 

greater arthropod biomass in tamarisk was not the product of profuse and long lasting flowering in

tamarisk but instead was caused by superabundance of tamarisk leaf beetles. Moreover, introduction of 

tamarisk leaf beetles to the Southwestern United States has the potential to alter vegetation structure and, 

consequently, arthropod communities in this region.

Avian Use of D. carinulata As a Food Resource

Information related to the diets of birds is an important aspect of any ecologic study of avian 

communities or individual species. Such data are vital when evaluating the role of birds as potential 

consumers of arthropod prey (Ford and others, 1982). We observed that the use of arthropod categories 

by birds varied with the availability of these arthropods, by both abundance and biomass.

On the Colorado River in Colorado, Hymenoptera contributed to a large proportion of the diets 

of six species of warblers. Ants composed 82 percent of the diet of yellow-breasted chats (Yard and 

others, 2004). Similarly, in the current study, Parulidae ate more Hymenoptera (27.85 percent) and 

Coleoptera (23.73 percent) by abundance than all other food-item categories.
13

Of 188 birds, only 11 ate tamarisk leaf beetles. The total frequency of occurrence of tamarisk 

leaf beetles in the diets of birds was 2.1 percent by abundance and 3.4 percent by biomass. Four bird 

species from two families (Parulidae and Tyrannidae) ate tamarisk leaf beetles: yellow-breasted chat, 

yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, and Cordilleran flycatcher. Of the birds that ate D. carinulata, 

~75 percent were yellow-breasted chats. Notably, only a single tamarisk leaf beetle was detected in the 

diets of individual birds that ate D. carinulata, and only adult beetles were observed in diet samples; no 

tamarisk leaf beetle larvae were detected. This result may have been an artifact of the differential 

digestion of hard- and soft-bodied prey (Ford and others, 1982). However, Lepidoptera larvae were 

commonly observed in diet samples, suggesting that tamarisk leaf beetle larvae were not eaten by birds. 

Overall, fewer tamarisk leaf beetles were eaten by birds than expected, given their availability by 

abundance and biomass in the arthropod community.

Importantly, only insectivorous birds ate tamarisk leaf beetles. Species that tend toward more 

frugivorous and granivorous diets (for example, Cardinalidae, Emberizidae, Fringillidae, Turdidae) 

probably will not use D. carinulata as a significant food resource, nor will tamarisk leaf beetles likely 

contribute to the diets of Columbiformes like the mourning dove (Dudley and DeLoach, 2004).

Groundfeeders, granivores, and bird species that feed largely in other habitat types (for example, 

agriculture) have been observed to use tamarisk as cover (Cohan and others, 1978). Therefore, 

observations of these bird species in tamarisk do not in themselves indicate that birds are eating tamarisk 

leaf beetles.

Use of tamarisk leaf beetles as a food resource by birds has implications for the welfare of avian 

communities in areas where biologic control is in place. D. carinulata can potentially affect native birds 

positively or negatively through changes in food abundance and vegetation structure. In places where 

avian populations increased after the arrival of biologic control agents, this success was attributed to an 

increase in the abundance of defoliating insects as prey and to environmental changes due to defoliation

(Paxton and others, 2011).

The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), for example, is a prolific nonnative arthropod whose 

populations are capable of massive increases in numbers, similar to those of the tamarisk leaf beetle.

Gypsy moths exploit a wide range of deciduous and coniferous host trees (Liebhold and others, 1992).

Several warblers feed readily on early and late instars of gypsy-moth larvae (Whelan and others, 1989).

However, given a simultaneous choice between gypsy-moth larvae and alternative prey, birds showed a 

preference for the alternative. Such may also be true for tamarisk leaf beetles and may explain the 

presence of D. carinulata in the diets of birds and why it occurs at such low frequencies.

Analysis of the gizzard contents from 557 birds of 17 species showed that 24 percent contained 

gypsy-moth remains (Smith, 1985), much higher than the frequency of occurrence of D. carinulata in 

the diets of birds in the current study. Gypsy moths, however, are an important food item for only a few 

predators and appear to be a low-preference food item that constitutes only a fraction of most avian 

diets. Predators were opportunistic feeders, and the selection of gypsy-moth prey was largely a function 

of the availability of other food items. Defoliation of vegetation by gypsy moths may affect the diversity 

and density of predators and, thus, the dynamics of predator-prey relations (Smith, 1985). Defoliation of 

tamarisk by D. carinulata may have a similar effect on the distributions and densities of the arthropods 

that occur in tamarisk and, thus, on the birds that forage in tamarisk.

Although few birds eat gypsy-moth larvae, potentially because of their hair-like setae, native 

cuckoos are commonly considered hairy-caterpillar specialists, enabling them to take advantage of 

nonnative gypsy moths, and may have a facultative effect on this native species (Barber and others,

2008). Yellow-breasted chats may have a similar and relatively singular capacity to prey upon tamarisk 

leaf beetles.
14

Palatability of D. carinulata to Birds

Results of our palatability experiment indicate that (1) yellow-breasted chats will eat tamarisk 

beetles in captivity when no other food resource is available; (2) overall, no difference is evident 

between the percentages of tamarisk beetles and mealworm prey eaten by chats; and (3) hatch-year birds 

ate more tamarisk beetles than did adult birds (66.7 versus 5.0 percent, respectively).

Thus, our results demonstrate that the tamarisk leaf beetle is not a preferred food resource for 

adult chats. Although coleopterans make up a significant percentage of the diets of riparian birds in the 

Southwest (Yard and others, 2004), D. carinulata is a member of the family Chrysomelidae. Many

beetles in this family produce secondary chemicals distasteful to some birds (Rowell-Rahier and

Pasteels, 1986; Hilker and Kopf, 1994; Pasteels and others, 1995; Rowell-Rahier and others, 1995;

Labeyrie and others, 2003). Furthermore, tamarisk leaf beetles feed almost exclusively on tamarisk, a 

plant rich in noxious substances (Drabu and others, 2012). Thus, the tamarisk leaf beetle may exploit 

chemical defenses derived from its host plant that make it unpalatable to some degree, which birds learn 

as they encounter this food item while foraging.

The spectrum of palatability within chemically defended arthropods, as well as the persistent 

need for trial-and-error learning, may explain the large number of tamarisk leaf beetles eaten by young, 

naïve birds in this study (Brower, 1958a, 1958b; Brower and others, 1968). For example, a range of 

unpalatability among several species of European ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) was detected when 

they were given as food to nestling blue tits. Chemical defense in these beetles ranged from a toxic 

effect that made nestlings severely ill or retarded their development, to unpalatability with no observable 

toxic effects (Marples, 1993). Palatability of tamarisk leaf beetles to birds may lie somewhere along a 

similar spectrum-- not so noxious that beetles are inedible, but distasteful enough to discourage 

predators when more palatable prey are available. Alternatively, the diets of young willow flycatchers 

contained higher numbers of odonates and beetles in comparison with the diets of adult birds (Drost and 

others, 2003). The greater number of tamarisk leaf beetles eaten by hatch-year chats may be a product of 

a disparity in experience and food choice among age classes in birds.

Despite the huge variety of defensive chemicals that occur in arthropods, recognizable patterns 

exist among physiologic and life-history traits that are suggestive of toxicity and unpalatability, 

including aposematism, gregariousness, and monophagy (Pasteels and others, 1983). Aposematism, a 

strategy for predator deterrence that combines a warning signal with unpalatability, contributes to high 

visibility in unpalatable insects. These insects are commonly eye-catching, colored in blatant schemes of 

black, orange, yellow, or white (Bowers, 1992). The combination of yellow and black, in particular,

contributes to conspicuousness when placed against a natural green-and-brown background, and some 

birds demonstrate an innate reluctance to peck at black-and-yellow prey (Cott, 1940; Schuler and Hess, 

1985). When laid, tamarisk leaf beetle eggs are initially bright yellow but soon dull to a light tan. All 

three larval instars are black, the second with an indistinct and the third with a conspicuous yellow 

lateral stripe (fig. 20). Pupae remain a uniform yellow color throughout their development. Upon 

emerging, adults are yellowish-green, with two dark-brown stripes on each elytron (Lewis and others,

2003). The black-and-yellow motif used by tamarisk leaf beetle larvae may be a warning signal 

advertising unpalatability.

Gregariousness, association of individuals with large numbers of their kind, is a strategy for 

predator avoidance that contributes to individual fitness in various ways (Cott, 1940). Several 

hypotheses explain this phenomenon in aposematic insects. Aposematic insects, no longer constrained to 

a solitary lifestyle because of their heightened defenses, become gregarious for reasons unrelated to 

chemical defense (for example, ready acquisition of mates). Alternatively, gregariousness is an 

aposematic strategy in its own right. The behavior may enhance the effectiveness of chemical defense or 

be a warning signal that advertises unpalatability through amplification of aversion to aposematic insects 

by naïve predators and through speed and memorability of avoidance learning (Gamberale and Tullberg, 
15

1998). Gregariousness generally is more common in aposematic insects than in cryptic and palatable 

species (Eisner and Kafatos, 1962; Jarvi and others, 1981).

Defensive chemicals also commonly function as intraspecific signals, and aposematic beetles 

have been known to emit aggregation pheromones (Roth and Eisner, 1962; Pasteels and others, 1983).

D. carinulata is a gregarious species; a single tamarisk plant can foster hundreds of feeding beetles, 

whereas surrounding plants can contain none. Plants colonized by a small number of feeding beetles can 

be quickly (<30 minutes) joined by numerous other beetles (Cossé and others, 2006). Two compounds, 

(2E, 4Z)-2,4-heptadienal and (2E, 4Z)-2,4-heptadien-1-ol, are produced almost exclusively by male

beetles (Cossé and others, 2005). These aldehydes have been shown to have a stimulating effect on both 

male and female beetles, provoking both sexes to swarm toward the source of the pheromone.

Insect herbivores that forage on only one or a few host plants are potentially more predictable to 

predators (Pasteels and others, 1983). As a result, scores of chemical, mechanical, and behavioral 

defensive mechanisms have arisen in monophagous arthropods (Rowell-Rahier and Pasteels, 1986).

According to the requirements of a biologic control agent, extensive laboratory and outdoor cage testing 

suggest that the host range of D. carinulata is almost completely restricted to tamarisk (Lewis and 

others, 2003; Moran and others, 2009). The ovipositing female is the most highly selective life stage, 

and eggs are laid in masses on tamarisk. All three larval instars and adult beetles feed on tamarisk.

Although we cannot conclude whether or not tamarisk leaf beetles are completely unpalatable,

given what is currently known about their physiology and the results of our feeding experiment, 

inferences are possible on the basis of relevant data. Tamarisk leaf beetles are large, conspicuous insects, 

and early life stages exhibit morphologies consistent with those of aposematic arthropods. The beetle is 

highly gregarious and secretes chemicals that elicit aggregation in conspecifics. Tamarisk leaf beetles 

are monophagous and feed almost exclusively on tamarisk, a plant rich in noxious substances (Drabu 

and others, 2012). Thus, tamarisk leaf beetles may exploit chemical defenses derived from its host plant, 

rendering it partially unpalatable to avian predators.

Conclusions

Biologic control is potentially an environmentally sound and effective option for management of 

some invasive species. However, this approach calls for the introduction of additional nonnative 

organisms that can contribute to changes in the existing structure of native communities. Extensive 

defoliation of tamarisk caused by tamarisk leaf beetles and the resulting widespread loss of riparian 

vegetation may have a considerable impact on birds that breed in riparian regions dominated by 

tamarisk.

Although addition of tamarisk leaf beetles to arthropod communities in the Southwestern United 

States contributes to a superabundance of potential prey items, any beneficial response by birds to an 

increased abundance of prey depends upon palatability of that prey. Tamarisk leaf beetles are 

monophagous and feed almost exclusively on Tamarix spp. Sequestration of the noxious compounds 

produced by this plant as a defense against herbivory may provide tamarisk leaf beetles with a similar 

defense against predation.

Our data indicate that tamarisk leaf beetles contributed little to the diets of birds along the 

Dolores River in southwestern Colorado, despite a high availability of the beetles. Thus, tamarisk leaf 

beetles could be less useful as a supplement to avian diet while defoliation of tamarisk takes place than 

predicted by advocates of their release (Dudley and DeLoach, 2004; Longland and Dudley, 2008). Low 

rates of predation on beetles by native avifauna may facilitate population growth in this biologic control 

agent and contribute to management of tamarisk. It seems unlikely, however, that the negative effects of 

large-scale defoliation in areas dominated by tamarisk will be compensated for by the use of tamarisk 

leaf beetles as a food resource by birds.
16

References Cited

Abrams, L., 1960, An illustrated flora of the Pacific states: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press, p 

740.

Anderson, B.W., and Ohmart, R.D., 1977, Vegetation structure and bird use in the lower Colorado River 

Valley, in Johnson, R.R., and Jones, D.A., eds., Importance, preservation, and management of riparian 

habitat—a symposium: Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-43, p. 23-34.

Anderson, B.W., 1998, The case for salt cedar: Restoration and Management Notes, v. 16, p. 130–134.

Arimura, G., Huber, D.P.W., and Bohlmann, J., 2004, Forest tent caterpillars (Malacosoma disstria) 

induce local and systemic diurnal emissions of terpenoid volatiles in hybrid poplar (Populus 

trichocarpa×deltoides)—cDNA cloning, functional characterization, and patterns of gene expression

of (−)-germacrene D synthase, PtdTPS1: Plant Journal, v. 37, p. 603–616.

Baker, H.G., 1986, Patterns of plant invasion in North America, in Mooney,H.A., and Drake, J.A., eds.,

Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii: New York, Pringer-Verlag, p. 44-58.

Barber, N.A., Marquis, R.J., and Tori, W.P., 2008, Invasive prey impacts the abundance and distribution 

of native predators: Ecology, v. 89, p. 2678–2683.

Barz, D., Watson, R.P., Kanney, J.F., Roberts, J.D., and Groeneveld, D.P., 2009, Cost/benefit 

considerations for recent salt cedar control, Middle Pecos River, New Mexico: Environmental 

Management, v. 43, p. 282–298.

Bell, G.W., Hejl, S.J., and Verner, J., 1990, Proportional use of substrates by foraging birds—model 

considerations on first sightings and subsequent observations: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 13, p. 161-

165.

Blossey, B., 1999, Before, during, and after—the need for long-term monitoring of invasive plant 

species management: Biological Invasions, v. 1, p. 301–311.

Booth, W.E., and Wright, J.C., 1966, Flora of Montana: Bozeman, Montana State University, p. 305. 

Borror, D.J., Triplehorn, C.A., and Johnson, N.E., 1989, An introduction to the study of insects (6th ed.):

Philadelphia, Saunders College Publishing, p. 875.

Bowers, M.D., and Farley, S., 1990, The behaviour of grey jays, Perisoreus Canadensis, towards 

palatable and unpalatable Lepidoptera: Animal Behaviour, v. 39, p. 699–705.

Bowers, M.D., 1992, The evolution of unpalatability and the cost of chemical defense in insects, in

Roitberg, B.D., and Isman, M.B., eds., Insect chemical ecology—An evolutionary approach: London,

Chapman and Hall, p. 216-244.

Brand, L.A., Stromberg, J.C., and Noon, B.R., 2010, Avian density and nest survival on the San Pedro 

River—importance of plant species and hydrologic regime: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 74, p. 

739–754..

Brower, J.V.Z., 1958a, Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies–Part I The 

monarch, Danaus plexippus, and viceroy, Limenitis archippus archippus: Evolution, v. 12, no. 1, p. 

32–47.

Brower, J.V.Z., 1958b, Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies–Part II

Battus philenor and Papilio troilus, P. polyxenes and P. glaucus:, Evolution, v. 12, no. 2, p. 123–136.

Brower, L.P., Ryerson, W.N., Coppinger, L.L., and Glazier, S.C., 1968, Ecological chemistry and the 

palatability spectrum: Science, v. 161, p. 1349–1350.

Brown, B.T., and Trosset, M.W., 1989, Nesting-habitat relationships of riparian birds along the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Southwestern Naturalist, v. 34, p. 260–270.

Cleverly, J.R., Smith, S.D., Sala, A., and Devitt, D.A., 1997, Invasive capacity of Tamarix ramosissima

in a Mojave Desert floodplain—the role of drought: Oecologia, v. 111, p. 12–18.

Cohan, D.R., Anderson, B.W., and Ohmart, R.D., 1978, Avian population responses to salt cedar along 

the lower Colorado River, in Johnson, R.R., and McCormick, J.F., eds., Strategies for protection and 
17

management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems: U.S. Forest Service General 

Technical Report WO-12, p. 371-382.

Coley, P.D., 1986, Costs and benefits of defense by tannins in a neotropical tree: Oecologia, v. 70, p. 

238–241.

Cossé, A.A., Bartelt, R.J., Zilkowski, W., Bean, D.W., and Petroski, R.J., 2005, The aggregation 

pheromone of Diorhabda elongata, a biological control agent of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)—

identification of two behaviorally active components: Journal of Chemical Ecology, v. 31, p. 657–670.

Cossé, A.A., Bartelt, R.J., Zilkowski, B.W., Bean, D.W., and Andress, E.R., 2006, Behaviorally active

green leaf volatiles for monitoring the leaf beetle, Diorhabda elongata, a biocontrol agent of saltcedar, 

Tamaix spp.: Journal of Chemical Ecology, v. 32, p. 2695–2708.

Cott, H.B., 1940, Adaptive coloration in animals: London, Methuen and Co., p. 508.

Culliney, T.W., 2005, Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants: Critical 

Reviews in Plant Sciences, v. 24, p. 131–150.

Davis, R., 1952, Flora of Idaho: Dubuque, Idaho, W.C. Brown Co., p. 560. 

Deam, C.C., 1940, Flora of Indiana: Indianapolis, W. B. Burford, p.1236.

DeLoach, C.J., Carruthers, R.I., Lovich, J.E., Dudley, T.L., and Smith, S.D., 2000, Ecological 

interactions in the biological control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United States—toward a new 

understanding: International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, 10th, Bozeman, Mont., 

2000, Proceedings, p. 819-873.

DeLoach, J.C., Lewis, P.A., Herr, J.C., Carruthers, R.I., Tracy, J.L., and Johnson, J., 2003, Host 

specificity of the leaf beetle, Diorhabda elongata deserticola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) from Asia, 

a biological control agent for saltcedars (Tamarix: Tamaricaceae) in the Western United States:

Biological Control, v. 27, p. 117–147.

DeLoach, C.J., Carruthers, R.I., Dudley, T.L., Eberts, D., Kazmer, D.J., Knutson, A.E., Bean, D. W., 

Knight, J., Lewis, P.A., Milbrath, L. R.., Tracey, J. L., Tomic-Carruthers, N., Herr, J. C. Abbott, G., 

Prestwich, S. Harruff, G., Everitt, J. H., Thompson, D. C. Mityaev, I., Jashenko, R., Li, B., Sobhian, 

R., Kirk, A. Robbins, T. O., and Delfosse, E. S., 2004, First results for control of saltcedar (Tamarix

spp.) in the open field in the western United States: International Symposium on Biological Control of 

Weeds, 11th, Canberra, Australia, 2004, Proceedings, p. 505-513.

Desbrochers des Loges, M.J., 1870, Descriptions de Coléoptères nouveaux d'Europe et confins:

L'Abeille, v. 7, p. 10–135.

DiTomaso, J.M., 1998, Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern 

United States: Weed Technology, v. 12, p. 326–336.

Drabu, S., Chaturvedi, S., and Sharma, M., 2012, Tamarix gallica—an overview: Asian Journal of 

Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, v. 5, p. 17–19.

Drost, C.A., Paxton, E.H., Sogge, M.K., and Whitfield, M.J., 2003, Food habits of the Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher during the nesting season: Studies in Avian Biology, v. 26, p. 96–103.

Dudley, T.L., and DeLoach, C.J., 2004, Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), endangered species, and biological 

weed control--can they mix?: Weed Technology, v. 18, p. 1542–1551.

Dudley, T.L., Dalin, P., and Bean, D.W., 2006, Status of biological control of Tamarix spp. in 

California: California Conference on Biological Control, 5th, Riverside, Calif., 2006, p. 137-140.

Duncan, C.A., Jachetta, J.J., Brown, M.L., Carrithers, V.F., Clark, J.K., Ditomaso, J.M., Lym, R.G., 

McDaniel, K.C., Renz, M.J., and Rice, P.M., 2004, Assessing the economic, environmental, and 

societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands: Weed Technology, v. 18, p. 1411–

1416.

Durst, S.L., Sogge, M.K., English, H.C., Williams, S.O., III, Kus, B.E., and Sferra, S.J., 2006, 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher breeding site and territory summary—2005: Flagstaff, Ariz., U.S. 

Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, p. 20.
18

Durst, S.L., Theimer, T.C., Paxton, E.H., and Sogge, M.K., 2008, Temporal variation in the arthropod 

community of desert riparian habitats with varying amounts of saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima):

Journal of Arid Environments, v. 72, p. 1644–1653.

Eisner, T., and Kafatos, F.C., 1962, Defense mechanisms of arthropods, X—A pheromone promoting 

aggregation in an aposematic distasteful insect: Psyche, v. 69, p. 53–61.

Ellis, L.M., 1995, Bird use of saltcedar and cottonwood vegetation in the middle Rio Grande Valley of 

New Mexico, U.S.A.: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 30, p. 339–349.

Ellis, L.M., Molles, M.C., Jr., Crawford, C.S., and Heinzelmann, F., 2000, Surface-active arthropod 

communities in native and exotic riparian vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico:

Southwestern Naturalist, v. 45, p. 456–471.

Fleishman, E., McDonal, N., MacNally, R., Murphy, D.D., Walters, J., and Floyd, T., 2003, Effects of 

floristics, physiognomy and non-native vegetation on riparian bird communities in a Mojave Desert 

watershed: Journal of Animal Ecology, v. 72, p. 484–490.

Ford, H.A., Forde, N., and Harrington, S., 1982, Non-destructive methods to determine the diets of 

birds: Corella, v. 6, p. 6–10.

Gamberale, G., and Tullberg, B.S., 1998, Aposematism and gregariousness—the combined effect of 

group size and coloration on signal repellence: Biological Sciences, v. 265, p. 889–893.

Gaskin, J.F., and Schaal, B.A., 2002, Hybrid Tamarix widespread in the U.S. invasion and undetected in 

native Asian range: U.S. National Academy of Sciences Proceedings, v. 99, p. 11256–11259.

Glenn, E.P., and Nagler, P.L., 2005, Comparative ecophysiology of Tamarix ramosissima and native 

trees in western U.S. riparian zones: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 61, p. 419–446.

Haddad, N.M., Tilman, D., Haarstad, J., Ritchie, M., and Knops, J.M.H., 2001, Contrasting effects of 

plant richness and composition on insect communities—a field experiment: American Naturalist, v. 

158, p. 17–35.

Hilker, M., and Kopf, A., 1994, Evaluation of the palatability of chrysomelid larvae containing 

anthraquinones to birds: Oecologia, v. 100, p. 421–429.

House, H.D., 1924, Annotated list of the ferns and flowering plants of New York State: New York State 

Museum Bulletin 254, p. 759.

Hultine, K.R., Belnap, J., van Riper, C., III, Ehleringer, J.R., Dennison, P.E., Lee, M.E., Nagler, P.L., 

Snyder, K.A., Uselman, S.M., and West, J.B., 2010, Tamarisk biocontrol in the western United 

States—ecological and societal implications: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 8, p. 467–

474.

Hunter, W.C., Ohmart, R.D., and Anderson, B.W., 1988, Use of exotic saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) by 

birds in arid riparian systems: Condor, v. 90, p. 113–123.

Kearney, T., and Peebles, R.H., 1960, Arizona flora with supplement: Los Angeles, University of 

California Press, p. 1085.

Kimberling, D.N., 2004, Lessons from history—predicting successes and risks of intentional 

introductions for arthropod biological control: Biological Invasions, v. 6, p. 301–318.

Krueper, D., Bart, J., and Rich, T.D., 2003, Response of vegetation and breeding birds to the removal of 

cattle on the San Pedro River, Arizona U.S.A.: Conservation Biology, v. 17, p. 607–615.

James, F.C., and Shugart, H.H., Jr., 1970, A quantitative method of habitat description: Audubon Field 

Notes, v. 24, p. 727–736.

Jarvi, T., Sillen-Tullberg, B., and Wiklund, C., 1981, The cost of being aposematic—an experimental 

study of predation on larvae of Papilio machaon by the great tit Parus major: Oikos, v. 36, p. 267–

272.

Jenni, L., Reutimann, P., and Jenni-Eiermann, S., 1989, Recognizability of different food types in faeces 

and in alimentary flushes of Sylvia warblers: Ibis. v. 132, p. 445–453.

Knopf, F.L., Johnson, R.R., Rich, T., Samson, F.B., and Szaro, R.C., 1988, Conservation of riparian 

ecosystems in the United States: Wilson Bulletin, v. 100, p. 272–284.
19

Labeyrie, E., Blanckenhorn, W.U., and Rahier, M., 2003, Mate choice and toxicity in two species of leaf 

beetles with different types of chemical defense: Journal of Chemical Ecology, v. 29, p. 1665–1680.

Landegren, J., Borglund, E., and Storgards, K., 1979, Treatment of scabies with disulfiram and benzyl 

benzoate emulsion—a controlled study: Acta Derm Venereol, v. 59, p. 274–276.

Laursen, K., 1978, Interspecific relationships between some insectivorous passerine species, illustrated 

by their diet during spring migration: Ornis Scandidinavica, v. 9, p. 178–192.

Levin, D.A., 1976, The chemical defenses of plants to pathogens and herbivores: Annual Review of 

Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, v. 7, p. 121–159.

Lewis, P.A., DeLoach, C.J., Knutson, A.E., Tracy, J.L., and Robbins, T.O., 2003, Biology of Diorhabda 

elongata deserticola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), an Asian leaf beetle for biological control of 

saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) in the United States: Biological Control, v. 27, p. 101–116.

Liebhold, A.M., Halverson, J.A., and Elmes, G.A., 1992, Gypsy moth invasion in North America—a 

quantitative analysis: Journal of Biogeography, v. 19, p. 513–520.

Liesner, D.R., 1971, Phytophagous insects of Tamarix spp. in New Mexico: Las Cruces, New Mexico 

State University, M.S. Thesis, p. 146.

Linnaeus, C., 1758, Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, 

cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (10th ed,): Tomus 1: Stockholm, L. Salvii, v. 1.

Linnaeus, C., 1766, Systema naturae (12th ed.): Stockholm, Laurantius Salvius.

Linné, C., 1789, Systema naturae: Lipsiae , J.F. Gmelin, J.F., v. 1, pt. 3.

Longland, W.S., and Dudley, T.L., 2008, Effects of a biological control agent on the use of saltcedar 

habitat by passerine birds: Great Basin Birds, v. 10, p. 21–26.

Livingston, M.F., and Schemnitz, S.D. 1996, Summer bird/vegetation associations in tamarisk and 

native habitat along the Pecos River, southeastern New Mexico: Desired future conditions for 

southwestern riparian ecosystems-bringing interests and concerns together, p.171-180 in Shaw, D.W. 

and D.Finch, eds., U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, RMGTR-272. 359 pages.

Louda, S.M., Pemberton, R.W., Johnson, M.T., and Follett, P.A., 2003, Non-target effects—the 

Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol 

introductions: Annual Review of Entomology, v. 48, p. 365–396.

Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F.A., 2000, Biotic 

invasions—causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control: Ecological Applications, v. 10, p. 

689–710.

Marples, N.M., 1993, Toxicity assays of ladybirds using natural predators: Chemoecology, v. 4, p. 33–

38.

McGrath, L.J., van Riper, C., III, and Fontaine, J.J., 2009, Flower power—tree flowering phenology as a 

settlement cue for migrating birds: Journal of Animal Ecology, v. 78, p. 22–30.

McGregor, R.L., and William T. Barkley, 1977, Atlas of the flora of the Great Plains: Ames, Iowa State 

University Press, p. 600.

Moody, D.T., 1970, A method for obtaining food samples from insectivorous birds: Auk, v. 87, p. 579.

Moran, P.J., DeLoach, C.J., Dudley, T.L., and Sanabria, J., 2009, Open field host selection and behavior 

by tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda spp.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in biological control of exotic 

saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) and risks to non-target athel (T. aphylla) and native Frankenia spp.:

Biological Control, v. 50, p. 243–261.

Moreby, S.J., 1987, An aid to the identification of arthropod fragments in the faeces of gamebird chicks 

(Galliformes): Ibis, v. 130, p. 519–526.

Neill, W.M., 1985, Tamarisk: Fremontia, v. 12, p. 22–23.

Nelson, E.W., 1897, Preliminary descriptions of new birds from Mexico and Guatemala in the collection 

of the United States Department of Agriculture: Auk, v. 14, p. 42–76.
20

Pasteels, J.M., Gregoire, J.C., and Rowell-Rahier, M., 1983, The chemical ecology of defense in 

arthropods: Annual Review of Entomology, v. 28, p. 263–89.

Pasteels, J.M., Dobler, S., Rowell-Rahier, M., Ehmke, A., and Hartmann, T., 1995, Distribution of 

autogenous and host-derived chemical defenses in Oreina leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae):

Journal of Chemical Ecology, v. 21, p. 1163–1179.

Paxton, E.H., Theimer, T.C., and Sogge, M.K., 2011, Tamarisk biocontrol using tamarisk beetles—

potential consequences for riparian birds in the southwestern United States: Condor, v. 113, p. 255–

265.

Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.A., and Bell, C.R., 1965, Atlas of the vascular flora of the Carolinas: Chapel 

Hill, University of North Carolina, Department of Botany Technical Bulletin 165, p. 208.

Ralph, C.P., Nagata, S.E., and Ralph, C.J., 1985, Analysis of droppings to describe diets of small birds: 

Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 56, p. 165–174.

Ralph, C.J., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E., and DeSante, D.F., 1993, Handbook of field methods 

for monitoring landbirds: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical 

Report PSW-GTR-144, 41 p.

Randall, J.M., 1996, Weed control for the preservation of biological diversity: Weed Technology, v. 10, 

p. 370–338.

Reynolds, R.T., Scott, J.M., and Nussbaum, R.A., 1980, A variable circular-plot method for estimating 

bird numbers: Condor, v. 82, p. 309–313.

Rogers, L.E., Hinds, W.T., and Bushbom, R.L., 1976, A general weight vs. length relationship for 

insects: Entomological Society of America Annals, v. 69, p. 387–389.

Rogers, L.E., Buschbom, R.L., and Watson, C.R., 1977, Length-weight relationships of shrub-steppe 

invertebrates: Entomological Society of America Annals, v. 70, p. 51–53.

Rosenberg, K.V., and Cooper, R.J., 1990, Approaches to avian diet analysis: Studies in Avian Biology, 

v. 13, p. 80–90.

Roth, L.M., and Eisner, T., 1962, Chemical defenses of arthropods: Annual Review of Entomology, v. 7, 

p. 107–136.

Rowell-Rahier, M., and Pasteels, J.M., 1986, Economics of defense in chrysomelinae: Journal of 

Chemical Ecology, v. 12, p. 1189–1203.

Rowell-Rahier, M., Pasteels, J.M., Alonso-Mejia, A., and Brower, L.P., 1995, Relative unpalitability of 

leaf beetles with either biosynthesized or sequestered chemical defense: Animal Behavior, v. 49, p. 

709–714.

Shafroth, P.B., Cleverly, J.R., Dudley, T.L., Taylor, J.P., van Riper, C., III, Weeks, E.P., and Stuart, 

J.N., 2005, Control of Tamarix in the western United States—implications for water salvage, wildlife 

use, and riparian restoration: Environmental Management, v. 35, p. 231–246.

Shafroth, P.B., and Briggs, M.K., 2008, Restoration ecology and invasive riparian plants—an 

introduction to the special section on Tamarix spp. in western North America: Restoration Ecology, v. 

16, p. 94–96.

Schuler, W., and Hesse, E., 1985, On the function of warning coloration—a black and yellow pattern 

inhibits prey-attack by naïve domestic chicks: Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, v. 16, p. 249255.

Skagen, S.K., Melcher, C.P., Howe, W.H., and Knopf, F.L., 1998, Comparative use of riparian corridors 

and oases by migrating birds in southeast Arizona: Conservation Biology, v. 12, p. 896–909.

Smith, H.R., 1985, Wildlife and the gypsy moth: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 13, p. 166–174.

Stromberg, J.C., Lite, S.J., Marler, R., Paradzick, C., Shafroth, P.B., Shorrock, D., White, J.M., and 

White, M.S., 2007, Altered stream-flow regimes and invasive plant species—the Tamarix case: Global 

Ecology and Biogeography, v. 16, p. 381–393.

Szaro, R.C., and DeBano L.F., 1985, The effects of streamflow modification on the development of a 

riparian ecosystem, in Johnson, R.R., Ziebell, C.D., Patton, D.R., Folliott, P.F., and Hamre, R.H., eds.,

Riparian ecosystems and their management—reconciling conflicting uses: Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. 
21

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report 

RM-120, p. 211-215.

Tatner, P., 1983, The diet of urban magpies Pica pica: Ibis, v. 125, p. 90–107.

van Riper, C., III., 1980, The phenology of the dryland forest of Mauna Kea, Hawaii, and the impact of 

recent environmental perturbations: Biotropica, v. 12, p. 282–291.

van Riper, C., III, Paxton, K.L., O’Brien, C., Shafroth, P.B., and McGrath, L.J., 2008, Rethinking avian 

response to Tamarix on the lower Colorado River—a threshold hypothesis: Restoration Ecology, v. 

16, p. 155–167.

Warren, D.K., and Turner, R.M., 1975, Saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) seed production, seedling 

establishment, and response to inundation: Arizona Academy of Science Journal, v. 10, p. 135–144.

Whelan, C.J., Holmes, R.T., and Smith, H.R., 1989, Bird predation on Gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: 

Lymantriidae) larvae—an aviary study: Environmental Entomology, v. 18, p. 43–45.

Wiesenborn, W.D., 2005, Biomass of arthropod trophic levels on Tamarix ramosissima (Tamaricaceae) 

branches: Environmental Entomology, v. 34, p. 656–663.

Yard, H.K., van Riper, C., III, Brown, B.T., and Kearsley, M.J., 2004, Diets of insectivorous birds along 

the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: The Condor, v. 106, p. 106–115.

Yong, W., and Finch, D.M., 1997, Migration of the Willow Flycatcher along the middle Rio Grande:

Wilson Bulletin, v. 109, p. 253–268.

Zavaleta, E., 2000, The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub: Ambio, v. 29, p. 462–467.
22

Appendix 1. Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Study area in southwestern Colorado, showing locations of three representative study sites at river 

miles 47, 54, and 97 (Slick Rock, Crocker-Bedford Ranch, and Bedrock) along the Dolores River.
23

ABCDEFG
24

H

Figure 2. Arthropod structures commonly observed in regurgitated gizzard contents from birds. Fragments to the 

right of whole arthropods were derived from that taxon. A, Araneae, family Sparassidae. From left to right: (a.) 

whole (x16), (b.) whole leg (x25), (c.) tibia (x25), (d.) fang (x40), and (e.) chelicerae fang absent (x40). B, 

Hemiptera, family Cicadellidae. From left to right: (a.) whole (x20), (b.) whole leg (x25), (c.) fragments of femur 

or tibia (x25), (d.) hindwing and forewing (x25) and (e.) head fragment (x30). C, Hemiptera, family Lygaeidae. 

From left to right: (a.) whole (x16), (b.) whole leg (x16), (c.) femur (x20), (d.) forewing with associated clavus 

and corium (x20), and (e.) pronotum (x25). D, Neuroptera, family Hemerobiidae. From left to right: (a.) whole 

(x10), (b.) whole leg (x20), (c.) whole leg (x20), (d.) wing (x16), and (e.) head (x25). E, Diptera, family 

Anthomyiidae. From left to right: (a.) whole (x16), (b.) whole leg (x16), (c.) tibia and tarsus (x16), (d.) wing (x25), 

and (e.) head (x16). F, Hymenoptera, family Formicidae. From left to right: (a.) whole (x10), (b.) whole leg (x25), 

(c.) mandible (x40), (d.) head (x25), and (e.) antenna (x25). G, Hymenoptera, family Halictidae. From left to 

right: (a.) whole (x10), (b.) whole leg (x16), (c.) femur (x25), (d.) hindwing and forewing (x16), and (e.) antenna 

(x25). H, Coleoptera, family Chrysomelidae (Diorhabda carinulata spp.). From left to right: (a.) whole (x10), (b.) 

whole leg (x25), (c.) tibia and femur (x20), (d.) wing and elytra (x16), and (e.) antennae (x25).
25

Figure 3. Percent availability of Shrub-species and percent selected by birds during 2010-12 on the Dolores 

River, Colorado. Observations of bird use from all years were combined. Birds foraged preferentially in desert 

olive over other species more than expected, given its availability. Birds foraged less in willow, given its 

availability.
26

Figure 4. Mean total abundance of arthropods (number per 25 sweeps) in eight plant species along the Dolores 

River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location). Numbers in parenthesis are sample sizes; error 

bars depict 95-percent-confidence intervals.
27

Figure 5. Mean abundance of arthropod categories (number per 25 sweeps) from eight dominant plant species 

along the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location). Categories are Diorhabda

carinulata, Araneae (spiders), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Heteroptera (true bugs), Auchenorrhyncha

(leafhoppers), Hymenoptera (ants and wasps), Lepidoptera (largely caterpillars), Orthoptera (grasshoppers), 

and other (Acari, Isoptera, Mantidae, Neuroptera, Phasmatodea, Thysanoptera, Thysanura, and Trichoptera).

Numbers in parenthesis are sample sizes.
28

Figure 6. Mean biomass of arthropod categories (milligrams per 25 sweeps) in eight dominant plant species along 

the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location). Categories are Diorhabda

carinulata, Araneae (spiders), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Heteroptera (true bugs), Auchenorrhyncha

(leafhoppers), Hymenoptera (ants and wasps), Lepidoptera (largely caterpillars), Orthoptera (grasshoppers), 

and other (Acari, Isoptera, Mantidae, Neuroptera, Phasmatodea, Thysanoptera, Thysanura, and Trichoptera).

Numbers in parenthesis are sample sizes.
29

Figure 7. Mean species richness (number of morphospecies per 25 sweeps) of arthropods in eight dominant plant 

species along the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location). Numbers in 

parenthesis are sample sizes; error bars depict 95-percent-confidence intervals.
30

Figure 8. Availability of total and preferred arthropods versus abundance of arthropods in diets of all birds along 

the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location). Error bars depict 95-percentconfidence intervals.
31

Figure 9. Availability of total and preferred arthropods versus biomass (in milligrams), of arthropods in diets of all 

birds along the Dolores River, southwestern Colorado, 2010-11 (see fig. 1 for location). Error bars depict 95-

percent-confidence intervals.
32

Figure 10. Percentage, by abundance, of Diorhabda carinulata in diets of four bird species whose gizzards

contained fragmented remains of tamarisk leaf beetles. Numbers in parenthesis are number of individual 

arthropods detected in gizzards of these species, pooled.
33

Figure 11. Percentage, by biomass (in milligrams), of Diorhabda carinulata in diets of four bird species whose 

gizzards contained fragmented remains of tamarisk leaf beetles. Numbers in parenthesis are combined number 

of individual arthropods detected in gizzards of these species.
34

Figure 12. Average percentage of food items eaten by wild yellow-breasted chats over the course of a 2-hour foodchoice experiment. Treatments consisted of 20 live tamarisk leaf beetles or mealworm prey items. Age classes: 

AHY, after hatch-year; HY, hatch-year.
35

Figure 13. Three life-stages of the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda carinulata). a. First instar larva. b. Third instar larvae. c. Adult beetle
36

Table 1. Phytochemical constituents of Tamarix gallica.

Compound Percent Characteristics

Tannin 49.4 Widely distributed in many species of plants; may protect against herbivory (Levin, 1976; Coley, 

1986)

Hexadecanoic 

acid 18.1 Most common fatty acid in animalsand plants

Docosane 13.3 Alkanes

Germacrene D 7.7 Produced by several plant species for their antimicrobial and insecticidal properties (Arimura 

and others, 2004)

Frenchyl acetate 7.3 A common building block for biosynthesis

Benzyl 

benzoate 4.1 As a topical solution, can be used as an antiparasitic insecticide (Landegren and others, 1979)
37

Table 2. Coverage and mean height of dominant shrub species in the study area.

[See figure 1 for locations. Data collected within 40 m of the riverbank. SE, standard error]

Cover (percent) Height (m)

Slick Rock

Crocker-Bedford 

Ranch Bedrock Mean SE Mean SE

Tamarisk 4.6 2.5 33.3 13.5 9.9 2.8 0.3

Willow 51.8 73.1 37.5 54.2 10.3 2.2 0.1

Desert olive 12.2 10.2 2.7 8.3 2.9 2.2 0.2

Rabbitbrush 7.8 3.7 6.3 5.9 1.2 1.3 0.1

Sumac 11.8 4.6 0.6 5.7 3.3 1.4 0.1

Greasewood 2.6 0.0 11.6 4.7 3.5 1.6 0.1

Sagebrush 7.8 3.4 7.1 6.1 1.4 1.4 0.1
38

Table 3. Avian species and sample sizes in the study area.

[See figure 1 for locations. Species codes used for labels in all tables are based on common names, according to nomenclature of the American Ornithological Union. 

Columns denote sample sizes for point count surveys, mist netting, foraging observations, and diet sampling. Data pooled for 2010-12]

Family Scientific name Common name Code Survey Net Forage Diet

Ardeidae Ardea herodias Great blue heron GBHE 2 − − −

Cathartidae Cathartes aura Turkey vulture TUVU 1 − − −

Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk COHA 1 − − −

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk RTHA 6 − − −

Falconidae Falco sparverius American kestrel AMKE 1 − − −

Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus Killdeer KILL 2 − − −

Scolopacidae Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper SPSA 7 − − −

Columbidae Zenaida macroura Mourning dove MODO 78 7 − −

Steptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove EUCD 2 − − −

Apodidae Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated swift WTSW 40 − − −

Trochilidae Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird ANHU 4 − 1 −

Archilochus alexandri Black-chinned hummingbird BCHU 22 1 1 −

Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed hummingbird BTAH 4 2 6 −

Selasphorus rufus Rufous hummingbird RUHU 21 − 2 −

Picidae Colaptes auratus Northern flicker NOFL 8 − − −

Tyranidae Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated flycatcher ATFL 96 11 25 7

Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe BLPH − − 3 −

Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird CAKI 3 − 2 −

Empidonax occidentalis Cordilleran flycatcher COFL 2 3 1 1

Sayornis saya Say's phoebe SAPH 37 − 24 −

Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird WEKI 60 3 14 1

Contopus sordidulus Western wood-pewee WEWP 8 3 8 3

Vireonidae Vireo vicinior Gray vireo GRVI 34 6 9 3

Vireo plumbeus Plumbeous vireo PLVI 9 − 1 −

Corvidae Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Pinyon jay PIJA 29 − 2 −

Aphelocoma californica Western scrub-jay WESJ 112 2 14 2

Corvidae Corvus corax Common raven CORO 12 − − −

Pica hudsonia Black-billed magpie BBMA 3 − − −

Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow CLSW 61 1 − −

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow BARS 3 − − −

Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green swallow VGSW 25 − − −

Paridae Baeolophus ridgwayi Juniper titmouse JUTI 4 − 2 −

Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit BUSH 20 10 14 −

Troglodytidae Catherpes mexicanus Canyon wren CANW 22 − 1 −

Troglodytes aedon House wren HOWR − − 1 −

Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren ROWR 80 − 11 −
39

Family Scientific name Common name Code Survey Net Forage Diet

Regulidae Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet RCKI 1 − − −

Polioptilidae Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher BGGN 195 8 83 5

Turdidae Turdus migratorius American robin AMRO 38 1 11 −

Sialia mexicana Western bluebird WEBL 7 − − −

Mimidae Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird NOMO 32 7 15 3

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird GRCA − 1 − 1

Parulidae Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat YBCH 496 69 35 53

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler YEWA 120 25 19 22

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated gray warbler BTYW 15 14 17 10

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat COYE 66 7 4 4

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler OCWA 3 4 5 1

Oreothlypis virginiae Virginia's warbler VIWA 3 4 1 4

Thraupidae Piranga ludoviciana Western tanager WETA 8 − 3 −

Cardinalidae Passerina amoena Lazuli bunting LAZB 19 1 1 1

Pheucticus melanocephalus Black-headed grosbeak BHGR 44 13 20 7

Passerina caerulea Blue grosbeak BLGR 191 14 29 6

Emberizidae Melospiza melodia Song sparrow SOSP 13 2 3 2

Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee SPTO 408 22 19 12

Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed towhee GTTO − 1 − 1

Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow LASP 80 50 29 17

Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow CHSP 23 1 1 −

Spizella breweri Brewer's sparrow BRSP 10 − 4 −

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow LISP − 1 − −

Passerella iliaca Fox sparrow FOSP − 1 − −

Amphispiza bilineata Black-throated sparrow BTSP 96 11 16 3

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow WCSP 48 − 4 −

Icteridae Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole BUOR 10 6 6 3

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird RWBL − 2 − −

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird BHCO 21 5 − 3

Fringillidae Carduelis psaltria Lesser goldfinch LEGO 27 1 4 −

Carpodacus mexicanus House finch HOFI 245 26 30 12
40

Table 4. Arthropod fragments used as indicators of prey taken by passerine birds in the study area. [See figure 1 for locations. Partly reproduced from Ralph and others (1985)]

Group Structure Description

Arachnids

Araneae (spiders) Fang (fig. 

2D)

Sharp and curved. Sometimes resembles tarsal claws, but this structure is more 

symmetrical.

Chelicera 

(fig. 2E)

Distinguishable by slightly asymmetrical, but conical, shape.

Leg (fig. 

2B)

Segments tend to be straight-sided, whereas those of insects tend to taper at the joint. 

Commonly hairy; simple tarsus with two claws is diagnostic.

Insects

Hemiptera (true bugs)

Auchenorrhyncha Tibia (fig. 

3C)

Has rows of prominent spines.

Heteroptera Tibia (fig. 

4B)

Tibia has two long rows of small, dark spines.

Hemelytra 

(fig. 4D)

Basal part of forewing is thickened and leathery, whereas

apical part is membranous.

Clavus, 

corium

Hardened sections of forewing,

recognizable even when membrane is unattached.

Neuroptera 

(lacewings)

Wing (fig. 

5D) ---

Mandible Smooth, slightly rounded, sickle-shaped.

Lepidoptera 

(butterflies/ moths)

Wing 

scales

Numerous small scales on wing.

Diptera (flies) Wing (fig. 

6D)

Leading edge commonly has small, curved bristles.

Leg (figs. 

7A, 7B)

Bristles common on leg.

Bristles 

(setae)

Strong, black, slightly curved, and tapered,

some still attached to leg.

Antenna Apical segment is acorn shaped.

Hymenoptera 

(ants/ wasps)

Leg (fig. 

7B, 8B)

Drumstick-shaped femur and slender tibia.

Wing (fig. 

8D) Pterostigma, a dark pigmented spot on leading edge of wing, sometimes on the forewing

Mandible 

(fig. 7C)

Has two apical teeth.

Head (fig. 

7D)

Hard, with a distinct round foramen where it connects with thorax.

Coleoptera 

(beetles)

Antennae 

(fig. 9e)

Form varies greatly within Coleoptera.

Head Usually heavily sclerotized; may be found intact for smaller beetles

Leg (fig. 

9b)

Tibia (fig. 

9c)

Femur (fig. 

9c)

Enlarged, oval shaped femur found on some species

Elytra (fig. 

9d)

Almost flat and square in shape with curled edge

Hind wing 

(fig. 9d)

Venation is reduced and modified
41

Table 5. Numbers of observations and mean heights of foraging events for all bird species combined in the study 

area, 2010-12.

[See figure 1 for locations. SE, standard error]

Substrate N Mean height (m) SE

Air 64 2.35 0.26

Desert olive 81 1.69 0.11

Ground 52 0.00 0.00

Greasewood 33 0.91 0.09

Grass 42 0.38 0.06

Rabbitbrush 11 0.68 0.08

Sagebrush 17 0.88 0.13

Sumac 35 1.69 0.16

Willow 43 1.27 0.13

Tamarisk 77 2.97 0.20
42

Table 6. Bird family, sample size, number of foraging observations, and number of foraging events for all substrates in the study area, 2010-12.

[See figure 1 for locations. n, mean; ±, standard error]

Foraging substrate

Aegithalidae

(n = 14)

Cardinalidae

(n = 50)

Corvidae

(n = 16)

Emberizidae

(n = 76)

Fringillidae

(n = 34)

Icteridae

(n = 6)

Mimidae 

(n = 15)

Air 0 2 (4 ± 0) 3 (19 ± 2) 0 1 (3 ± 0) 0 0

Desert olive 2 (14 ± 2) 8 (16 ± 1) 0 6 (8 ± 0) 16 (47 ± 1) 4 (67 ± 8) 7 (47 ± 3)

Grass 2 (14 ± 2) 3 (6 ± 0) 1 (6 ± 2) 15 (20 ± 1) 1 (3 ± 0) 0 0

Greasewood 6 (43 ± 4) 2 (4 ± 0) 1 (6 ± 2) 4 (5 ± 0) 1 (3 ± 0) 0 0

Ground 0 1 (2 ± 0) 1 (6 ± 2) 27 (36 ± 1) 9 (26 ± 1) 0 3 (20 ± 3)

Other1 0 8 (16 ± 1) 8 (50 ± 3) 3 (4 ± 0) 1 (3 ± 0) 0 1 (7 ± 2)

Rabbitbrush 0 2 (4 ± 0) 0 0 1 (3 ± 0) 0 0

Sagebrush 2 (14 ± 2) 1 (2 ± 0) 0 2 (3 ± 0) 0 0 0

Sumac 0 8 (16 ± 1) 1 (6 ± 2) 5 (7 ± 0) 0 0 0

Tamarisk 2 (14 ± 2) 7 (14 ± 1) 1 (6 ± 2) 11 (14 ± 0) 2 (6 ± 1) 0 4 (27 ± 3)

Willow 0 8 (16 ± 1) 0 3 (4 ± 0) 2 (6 ± 1) 2 (33 ± 8) 0

Foraging substrate

Parulidae

(n = 81)

Polioptilidae

(n = 83)

Thraupidae

(n = 3)

Troglodytidae

(n = 13)

Turdidae

(n = 11)

Tyrannidae

(n = 77)

Vireonidae 

(n = 10)

Air 2 (2 ± 0) 5 (6 ± 0) 0 1 (8 ± 2) 0 44 (57 ± 1) 0

Desert olive 19 (23 ± 1) 5 (6 ± 0) 1 (33 ± 16) 0 7 (64 ± 4) 4 (5 ± 0) 0

Grass 5 (6 ± 0) 5 (6 ± 0) 0 0 0 6 (8 ± 0) 0

Greasewood 3 (4 ± 0) 13 (16 ± 0) 0 0 0 2 (3 ± 0) 1 (10 ± 3)

Ground 0 0 0 8 (62 ± 4) 1 (9 ± 3) 1 (1 ± 0) 0

Other1 10 (12 ± 0) 7 (8 ± 0) 0 1 (8 ± 2) 0 8 (10 ± 0) 5 (50 ± 5)

Rabbitbrush 1 (1 ± 0) 4 (5 ± 0) 0 0 0 2 (3 ± 0) 0

Sagebrush 3 (4 ± 0) 8 (10 ± 0) 0 0 0 1 (1 ± 0) 0

Sumac 5 (6 ± 0) 8 (10 ± 0) 2 (67 ± 16) 0 2 (18 ± 4) 2 (3 ± 0) 0

Tamarisk 14 (17 ± 0) 23 (28 ± 1) 0 3 (23 ± 3) 1 (9 ± 3) 6 (8 ± 0) 2 (20 ± 4)

Willow 19 (23 ± 1) 5 (6 ± 0) 0 0 0 1 (1 ± 0) 2 (20 ± 4)

1

Includes fourwing saltbush, mulefat, boxelder, pinyon, juniper, Gambel oak, and Siberian elm.
43

Table 7. Use and availability of dominant shrub species in the study area, 2010-12.

[See figure 1 for location. SE, standard error]

Use Available

Foraging substrate Percent SE Percent SE

Aegithalidae (n = 12)

Desert olive 16.7 3.1 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 50.0 4.2 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 16.7 3.1 6.1 1.4

Sumac 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 16.7 3.1 13.5 9.9

Willow 0.0 0.0 37.5 10.3

Cardinalidae (n = 36)

Desert olive 22.2 1.2 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 5.6 0.6 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 5.6 0.6 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 2.8 0.5 6.1 1.4

Sumac 22.2 1.2 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 19.4 1.1 13.5 9.9

Willow 22.2 1.2 37.5 10.3

Corvidae (n = 3)

Desert olive 0.0 0.0 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 33.3 15.7 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 33.3 15.7 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 33.3 15.7 13.5 9.9

Willow 0.0 0.0 37.5 10.3

Emberizidae (n = 31)

Desert olive 19.4 1.3 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 12.9 1.1 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 6.5 0.8 6.1 1.4

Sumac 16.1 1.2 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 35.5 1.5 13.5 9.9

Fringillidae (n = 22)

Desert olive 72.7 2.0 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 4.5 0.9 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 4.5 0.9 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 9.1 1.3 13.5 9.9

Willow 9.1 1.3 37.5 10.3
44

Use Available

Foraging substrate Percent SE Percent SE

Icteridae (n = 6)

Desert olive 66.7 7.9 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 0.0 0.0 13.5 9.9

Willow 33.3 7.9 37.5 10.3

Mimidae (n = 11)

Desert olive 63.6 4.4 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 36.4 4.4 13.5 9.9

Willow 0.0 0.0 37.5 10.3

Parulidae (n = 64)

Desert olive 29.7 0.7 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 4.7 0.3 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 1.6 0.2 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 4.7 0.3 6.1 1.4

Sumac 7.8 0.4 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 21.9 0.6 13.5 9.9

Willow 29.7 0.7 37.5 10.3

Polioptilidae (n = 66)

Desert olive 7.6 0.4 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 19.7 0.6 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 6.1 0.4 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 12.1 0.5 6.1 1.4

Sumac 12.1 0.5 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 34.8 0.7 13.5 9.9

Willow 7.6 0.4 37.5 10.3

Thraupidae (n = 3)

Desert olive 33.3 15.7 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 66.7 15.7 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 0.0 0.0 13.5 9.9

Willow 0.0 0.0 37.5 10.3
45

Use Available

Foraging substrate Percent SE Percent SE

Troglodytidae (n = 3)

Desert olive 0.0 0.0 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 100.0 0.0 13.5 9.9

Willow 0.0 0.0 37.5 10.3

Turdidae (n = 10)

Desert olive 70.0 4.6 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 20.0 4.0 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 10.0 3.0 13.5 9.9

Willow 0.0 0.0 37.5 10.3

Tyrannidae (n = 18)

Desert olive 22.2 2.3 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 11.1 1.7 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 11.1 1.7 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 5.6 1.3 6.1 1.4

Sumac 11.1 1.7 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 33.3 2.6 13.5 9.9

Willow 5.6 1.3 37.5 10.3

Vireonidae (n = 5)

Desert olive 0.0 0.0 8.3 2.9

Greasewood 20.0 8.0 4.7 3.5

Rabbitbrush 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2

Sagebrush 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.4

Sumac 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3

Tamarisk 40.0 9.8 13.5 9.9

Willow 40.0 9.8 37.5 10.3
46

Table 8. Mean total abundance (number per 25 sweeps) of arthropod categories collected per sample (n = 503) 

among all plant species in the study area, 2010-11.

[See figure 1 for location. SE, standard error]

Arthropod category Mean SE Percent

Diorhabda carinulata 7.8 1.9 24.0

Auchenorrhyncha 7.7 1.9 23.5

Hymenoptera 5.1 1.6 15.6

Coleoptera 4.1 1.5 12.7

Diptera 3.3 1.3 10.2

Araneae 2.0 1.1 6.1

Heteroptera 1.3 0.9 4.1

Other 0.5 0.6 1.6

Lepidoptera 0.4 0.5 1.1

Orthoptera 0.4 0.5 1.1
47

Table 9. Mean total biomass (in milligrams per 25 sweeps) of arthropod categories collected per sample (n = 503) 

among all plant species in the study area, 2010-11.

[See figure 1 for location. SE, standard error]

Arthropod category Mean SE Percent

Diorhabda carinulata 0.0180 0.0021 35.4

Orthoptera 0.0116 0.0019 22.8

Hymenoptera 0.0063 0.0015 12.4

Auchenorrhyncha 0.0044 0.0013 8.6

Coleoptera 0.0029 0.0010 5.7

Lepidoptera 0.0027 0.0010 5.3

Heteroptera 0.0016 0.0008 3.1

Other 0.0014 0.0007 2.8

Diptera 0.0013 0.0007 2.6

Araneae 0.0007 0.0005 1.4
48

Table 10. Bird family, sample size, number of food items, and mean use of food items in diet samples (n = 188) of birds along the Dolores River, Colo., 

2010-11.

[See figure 1 for locations] 

Food-item

category

Cardinalidae

(n = 14)

Emberizidae

(n = 36)

Fringillidae

(n = 12)

Icteridae

(n = 7)

Mimidae

(n = 5)

Parulidae

(n = 94)

Polioptilidae

(n = 5)

Tyrannidae

(n = 12)

Vireonidae

(n = 3)

Araneae 3 (11 ± 6) 9 (7 ± 2) 0 0 0 36 (9 ± 1) 3 (23 ± 12) 13 (27 ± 6) 0

Coleoptera 3 (11 ± 6) 19 (15 ± 3) 1 (1 ± 1) 2 (20 ± 13) 1 (17 ± 15) 96 (23 ±2) 1 (8 ± 7) 4 (8 ± 4) 2 (22 ±14)

Diorhabda 

carinulata 0 0 0 0 0 10 (2 ± 1) 0 1 (2 ± 2) 0

Diptera 1 (4 ± 4) 3 (2 ± 1) 0 0 0 30 (7 ± 1) 2 (15 ± 10) 11 (23 ± 6) 2 (22 ±14)

Heteroptera 2 (7 ± 5) 5 (4 ± 2) 0 3 (30 ± 15) 1 (17 ± 15) 31 (8 ± 1) 1 (8 ± 7) 3 (6 ± 3) 2 (22 ±14)

Auchenorrhyncha 2 (7 ± 5) 4 (3 ± 2) 1 (1 ± 1) 1 (10 ± 9) 0 20 (5 ± 1) 3 (23 ± 12) 3 (6 ± 3) 0

Hymenoptera 1 (4 ± 4) 7 (5 ± 2) 1 (1 ± 1) 0 3 (50 ± 20) 109 (28 ± 2) 0 9 (18 ± 6) 0

Lepidoptera 1 (4 ± 4) 3 (2 ± 1) 0 3 (30 ± 15) 1 (17 ± 15) 14 (4 ± 1) 2 (15 ± 10) 5 (10 ± 4) 1 (12 ± 1)

Orthoptera 0 1 (1 ± 1) 0 0 0 8 (2 ± 1) 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 1 (10 ± 9) 0 16 (4 ± 1) 1 (8 ± 7) 0 2 (22 ±14)

Seed 14 (52 ± 10) 79 (61 ± 4) 91 (97 ± 2) 0 0 33 (8 ± 1) 0 0 0
49

Table 11. Bird family, sample size, biomass of food items, and mean biomass of food items in diet samples (n = 188) of birds along the Dolores River, 

Colo., 2010-11. [See figure 1 for location. All values in milligrams, with means in parentheses; dashed, no data]

Food-item 

category

Cardinalidae

(n = 14)

Emberizidae

(n = 36)

Fringillidae

(n = 12)

Icteridae 

(n = 7)

Mimidae

(n = 5)

Parulidae

(n = 94)

Polioptilidae

(n = 5)

Tyrannidae

(n = 12)

Vireonidae

(n = 3)

Araneae 1.3 x 10-3 3.5 x 10-3 0 0 0 1.6 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-3 4.7 x 10-3 0

(4 ± 3) (1 ± 1) --- --- --- (2 ± 1) (13 ± 9) (2 ± 2) ---

Coleoptera 3.4 x 10-3 1.7 x 10-2 7.0 x 10-4 8.9 x 10-4 5.7 x 10-4 1.8 x 10-1 5.7 x 10-4 3.3 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-3

(10 ± 6) (5 ± 2) (1 ± 1) (7 ± 8) (3 ± 6) (24 ± 2) (2 ± 4) (1 ± 2) (16 ± 12)

Diorhabda 

carinulata

0 0 0 0 0 3.8 x 10-2 0 3.8 x 10-3 0

--- --- --- --- --- (5 ± 1) --- (2 ± 2) ---

Diptera 1.3 x 10-3 4.2 x 10-3 0 0 0 3.1 x 10-2 1.1 x 10-3 4.7 x 10-2 4.7 x 10-4

(4 ± 3) (1 ± 1) --- --- --- (4 ± 1) (5 ± 6) (20 ± 6) (3 ± 5)

Heteroptera 1.4 x 10-3 3.0 x 10-3 0 1.7 x 10-3 5.8 x 10-4 4.6 x 10-2 4.3 x 10-3 1.4 x 10-3 2.1 x 10-3

(5 ± 3) (1 ± 1) --- (13 ± 10) (3 ± 6) (6 ± 1) (18 ± 10) (1 ± 1) (11 ± 10)

Auchenorrhyncha 2.4 x 10-3 1.7 x 10-3 2.3 x 10-4 1.3 x 10-3 0 1.1 x 10-2 6.9 x 10-4 2.9 x 10-3 0

(7 ± 5) (1 ± 1) (0.5 ± 0.5) (10 ± 9) --- (2 ± 1) (2 ± 5) (1 ± 2) ---

Hymenoptera 1.1 x 10-2 8.4 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-4 0 6.0 x 10-3 1.4 x 10-1 0 1.6 x 10-2 0

(34 ± 9) (2 ± 1) (0.5 ± 0.5) - (30 ± 18) (18 ± 2) --- (7 ± 4) ---

Lepidoptera 2.4 x 10-3 9.8 x 10-2 0 7. x 10-3 1.2 x 10-2 1.3 x 10-1 1.4 x 10-2 1.5 x 10-1 1.3 x 10-2

(7 ± 5) (28 ± 4) --- (57 ± 16) (64 ± 20) (17 ± 2) (57 ± 14) (67 ± 7) (69 ± 15)

Orthoptera 0 1.1 x 10-1 0 0 0 9.4 x 10-2 0 0 0

--- (32 ± 4) --- --- --- (13 ± 2) --- --- ---

Other 0 0 0 1.7 x 10-3 0 1.4 x 10-2 7.5 x 10-4 0 3.1 x 10-5

--- --- --- (13 ± 10) --- (2 ± 1) (3 ± 5) --- (1 ± 1)

Seed 9.9 x 10-3 9.9 x 10-2 16.2 x 10-2 0 0 5.1 x 10-2 0 0 0

(29 ± 9) (29 ± 4) (98 ± 1) --- --- (7 ± 1) --- --- ---