In May 2007 Melinda and Meng came across a pair of nesting Grey-rumped Treeswift (Hemiprocne longipennis) in a patch of secondary growth in the north of the island. They built their nest attached to a slender branch of an acacia tree (Acacia auriculariformis) some 20 metres high. The sexes are easily distinguished, with the male having rufous ear-coverts (left top) and the female blackish ear-coverts (left bottom).

The nest is a half-saucer made from hardened saliva incorporated with feathers, mosses and flakes of tree bark. Ornithologists believe that the feathers come mostly from the bodies of the birds themselves.

Chantler (2000) reports that the single egg laid is stuck to the nest surface with saliva. And because the nest is so frail and delicate and only attached at its side to the branch, the bird does not sit directly on the nest during incubation. Based on the images obtained, the weight of the bird was obviously not wholly on the nest. It was sitting on the branch and had its tarsus over the nest with the talons clutching the nest edge. This position allowed the brood patch to make contact with the egg. Gibson-Hill (1950) has similarly reported that the parent birds brooded by perching on the branch above the nest and fluffing their breast feathers out to cover it.

Both birds helped incubate the egg. Melinda and Meng witnessed the changing of shift three times, at 1.20 pm, 1.30 pm and 1.40 pm on three different days. Each time the female flew in and carefully perched besides the incubating male (below left). The male then flew off and the female carefully slided over the nest (below right). On one day there was no bird incubating the egg at 1.00 pm. However, 20 minutes later the female flew in and settled on the nest. Unfortunately, before they could observe when the male flew in to relieve the female for incubating duty as well as make other observations, the tree was heavily pruned and the nest destroyed.

At shift changing time, the incubating bird flew off at an angle, dropping backwards. This no doubt helped minimised the chances of the feet lifting the egg from its shallow bed as the bird flew off. Again, this is consistent with the observation made by Gibson-Hill (1950).

The images below by Daniel Koh of the bird at rest clearly show the characteristic long wing tips crossing over the shorter forked tail.

Some details of the nesting have been posted earlier.

Input by Melinda Chan, YC and Wang Luan Keng; images by Chan Yoke Meng except bottom panel by Daniel Koh.

References:
Chantler, P. (2000). Swifts. A guide to the swifts and treeswifts of the world. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. (2nd ed.)

Gibson-Hill, C. A. (1950). A note on the Crested Tree-swift. Malayan Nature Journal, 5: 5-8.

It was a quiet morning of the 3rd July 2007 when I suddenly heard the soft cries of a fledgling begging for food: ‘kwok-kwok-kwok’. The cries did not sound familiar so I went outside to have a look. Sure enough, there perching in the umbrella tree (Schefflera actinophylla) was an adult Banded Woodpecker (Picus miniaceus), also known as Banded Yellownape (above left). It was flying from one point of the tree to another, actively gleaning ants from among the apical portion of branches and bases of the leave stalks (above right).

Then I spotted the fledgling (left). It was perched on the branch of a nearby terap tree (Artocarpus odoratissimus), calling on and off. Whenever the adult had harvested enough ants, it went to the fledgling and fed it.

They were around for about ten minutes before the adult flew off followed by the fledgling.

Now, the umbrella tree is native to New Guinea and Northern Australia. It is commonly grown in the tropics as the flowering branches are rather attractive (below). What is not commonly known is that it is very invasive. Saplings sprout

easily, on the ground as well as on the branches of other trees. Not commonly known is that the plant is an epiphyte, beginning life on the trunk/branches of trees and sending roots round the trunk of the host tree. It behaves like a strangling fig but does not strangle its host. Grown on the ground, its near-superficial roots spread all over, and can cause problems.

The plant attracts butterflies and birds when in flower, and as such it is good to have around. It is best to grow it off the wayside as the wood is brittle and branches or even the main trunks tend to collapse frequently. However, it makes a excellent potted plant that does not need to be repotted for a few years.

This is another example of an exotic plant that does attract wildlife.

The Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve is famed for its migratory birds. But there are more than migratory birds. There are a number of uncommon resident species that can be seen, like the Stork-billed Kingfisher (Halcyon capensis) (below: top left). Common residents species include Brown-throated Sunbird (Anthreptes malacensis) (below: bottom left), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea) (below: bottom right) and Ashy Tailorbird (Orthotomus ruficeps) (below: top right). Once in a while, you may be able to see the Milky Stork (Mycteria cinerea), an escapee.

Besides birds, there are a number of interesting animals like the Plantain Squirrel (Callosciurus notatus singapurensis) (below: bottom left), Common Flying Dragon (Draco volans) (below: bottom right) and the large Malayan Water Monitor (Varanus salvator) (below: top right). Sometimes you can even see the heavily camouflaged Shore Pit Viper (Trimeresurus purpureomaculatus) (below: top left). The monitor lizard and pit viper are generally harmless, unless you go out of your way to confront them.

There is another, larger reptile that has always been lurking in the reserve for sometime now. There are conspicuous signs all around warning of the crocodiles (below top). Once in a while you can spot one in the water.

On 10th July 2007, KC Tsang was taking his morning walk in the reserve when he was confronted with a 2-metres long crocodile (below bottom). Well, the reptile did not ambush him. It was actually sleeping peacefully under some bushes. But it was still a shock to come face to face with such a large predator.

As KC continues, “Last year there was one that went up to the visitors center and was taken away… This one is quite far away at the other end of the park, and hopefully it will stay away from the visitors center.

“These must be the ones that may have escaped from the croc farms when Kota Tinggi area got flooded, and are now slowly floating down stream.”

KC has never taken the croc warning signs seriously, like everybody else, but not so now – especially after he came face to face with a big one.

According to R. Subaraj: “Actually the crocs have been around at Buloh for a few years now and we believe that they may be wild as photos appear to show genuine Estuarine Croc (Crocodylus porosus) rather than the hybrid estuarine/Siamese variety in most croc farms.

“We just don’t talk too much about their presence because many people are paranoid about crocs and elsewhere in Singapore, most croc sightings become a hunt to get rid of them. They are the top mangrove predators and along with the Smooth Otters (Lutrogale perspicillata), their return to Buloh is a good sign that the habitat there is maturing well and the protection afforded to the reserve is reaping rewards. There is an ample supply of easy-to-catch fish and the crocs and otters are never hungry.

“The large individual that was caught last year actually crawled on to the main bridge to sun-bathe and that caused a panic. It probably just got really comfortable with his new home! Anyway, he was driven back into the river…

“There should not be a bias toward the presence of crocs at Buloh. They are very much part of the mangrove ecosystem and if left alone, they will do likewise. Following the rules of the reserve and not wandering off the designated paths and boardwalks will ensure the safety of all who visit Buloh.”

KC has this to say: “…from a safety point of view, I think Sungei Buloh should now educate visitors about crocodiles in the reserve. Anyways, Sungei Buloh being a wildlife sanctuary, the crocodiles should be well protected from poachers and others. Then we can have more crocodiles there. Maybe the staff at the entrance should also alert visitors about the possibilities of being bitten by a Shore Pit Viper if they come in their shorts and slippers etc… So what I am saying is that visitors to Sungei Buloh should be made more wildlife savvy.”

And according to Keith Hiller who do volunteer guiding there, “On all the guided tours we also give this warning (about crocodiles).”

The last say came from Subaraj who wrote: “…more can always be done to educate the public about the need to be careful while enjoying the joys of nature. The general public still does not understand the difference between a created public park and a nature reserve/park and behave the same way at both. …School kids running wild, treasure hunts and huge family days are not entirely appropriate in our limited and fragile nature reserves.”

Input by KC Tsang, R Subaraj, Keith Hiller; images by KC.

On 6th April 2007 Eddy Lee chanced upon a nest of the Collared Kingfisher (Todiramphus chloris):

“The nest was located about 3 m above the ground in a dead tree trunk (above). The chicks were still young for I did not notice their beaks protruding from the nest hole when the parents returned with food. Both parents took turns to feed them at an interval of about 10-15 minutes. A variety of food was included in the chicks diet, consisting of forest cockroach, beetle, earthworm, centipede and gecko, among others (below).

“By 29th April, I noticed that the two chicks had left the safety of the nest and were seen flying with the parents around the nest area (below). The parents continued to bring food for them. Seven days later the chicks were seen hunting by themselves alongside with the parents.

“On 25th June or less than two months after fledging, the chicks had left their parents as they were nowhere to be seen. Presumably they started their own independent lives.

“The same pair of adults started another brood soon after. They were again seen bringing food back to the nest for the second brood of young ones. In mid-July there were no signs of protruding beaks from the nest hole, so not certain how many chicks were there this time.

“The parents continued to fetch food back for them. The chicks were noticed to be very quiet, no chipping sounds were heard. However, bad weather prevented further observations till 20th July when the pair of recently fledged juveniles was found on a branch nearby (left). As before, the parents were seen to hunt and fetch food for them. However, a few days later, three recently fledged juveniles were seen together. The pair obviously raised three chicks during the second nesting.

“Observations are being continued.”

NOTE: The close-up of the two fledglings in the second from bottom image clearly shows what Wells (1999) describes juveniles as having “…fine black scalloping across the breast.”

Input and images by Eddy Lee.

Reference:
Wells, D.R. (1999). The birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsular. Vol. I, Non-passerines. Academic Press, London.

Introduction: The location of the eyrie was at one of the two sites close to Ipoh, discovered on 29 May 2005 by Chiu Sein Chiong, Laurent Molard and Dr. Chan Kai Soon where juvenile peregrines were observed flying (Suara Enggang Vol.14, No.3, 2006 Pg.11-15)

Observations from 22 January to 11 June 2006 were carried out weekly from the time of courtship displays to incubation and the frequency of our observations increased to 3-4 times a week during the brooding to post-fledging period.

Courtship: On 22 January 2006, Chiu Sein Chiong (CSC), Ooi Beng Yean (OBY) and Avril McLeod (AM) went to check out the site and heard the calls of a peregrine before a male appeared. It glided slowly across the face of the hill and displayed by “shivering” its wings similar to Crested Goshawk (Accipiter trivirgatus). Later in the evening we returned to the site and saw the female fly out from a hole (later to be used as the eyrie) in the face of the hill and perched on a tree. The male after finishing off a prey joined the female on a tree and the pair copulated.

Thereafter, follow-up observations were carried out by CSC & OBY. On 31 January, an hour after female had finished eating a prey it flew to a ledge. Male joined the female on ledge and in another courtship display started to bow and raise its head similar to Spotted Dove (Streptopelia chinensis) and Peaceful Dove (Geopelia striata). On 5 February, the pair copulated thrice within a half-hour period. The pair was also observed to fly to various ledges to eat prey that were most likely stored from earlier kills.

Incubation: On 12 February it was suspected that incubation was underway as the female walked out of the eyrie when the male appeared and landed above it. Female did not join the male as it usually did and after about 2 minutes female walked back into the eyrie when it realised that male did not bring back any food. On 14 February there was again only one adult around and no courtship displays observed reinforcing the belief that incubation was underway as suspected.

On 12 March it was confirmed that male also played a role in incubation duties when it exchanged places with the female. It was again noted that prey was kept in a few places as female, after preening for about 10 minutes on a tree, flew to a ledge and ate a prey. On 19 March, the male flew in with a prey and passed it to the female at the entrance of the eyrie. Female flew to a ledge and ate the prey while male went into the eyrie.

Hatching & Brooding: On 26 March the female flew out of the eyrie and perched on a tree leading us to believe that the egg(s) had hatched. This was confirmed on 2 April when both adults were seen flying towards the eyrie with one of them carrying prey. Throughout the brooding stage female guarded the eyrie, in the initial stages standing at or near the eyrie and later on trees on the hill top. Male was the main provider of food and each time male flew towards the eyrie the female would meet the male at the eyrie entrance, collect the prey and go in to feed the unseen young herself, not allowing male to do so. Occasionally female also hunted on its own especially when male did not return after a few hours.

On 9 April loud excited calls of young were heard coming from inside the eyrie when the female collected prey from the male at the entrance of the eyrie. On 16 April, CSC, caught the first quick glimpse of the wing of a young inside the eyrie and finally on the morning of 23 April and again in the evening one big chick was sighted, upperparts generally still with white downy feathers.

From the evening of 23 April onwards Connie Khoo (CK) joined us in our observations. On 26 April some of the white down on the chick had started to turn a darker colour. On 27 April CK and AM saw two chicks (left) standing on the ledge of the eyrie waiting for food. Later male deposited food on the ledge of the eyrie as female flew in to take over the prey and fed the young. Similar behaviour was observed throughout the caring of the young where female was the one that fed the chicks every time. Chicks were mostly white with black wing edges and the beginnings of a black hood visible at the side of the face. One of the chicks seemed to have a more hooded appearance than the other. Throughout the brooding period female guarded the chicks while male was the provider of prey, later when the young were bigger female also occasionally hunted for bird prey.

Female was very protective of the chicks and dive-bombed a pair of resident White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) if any of eagles crossed an invisible boundary. The female also bravely dive-bombed at monkeys until they scampered away from the face of the hill.

From 1 May onwards the young started to train their wings (top). By 7 May, both fledglings were exercising vigorously and they would flap their wings and run into the eyrie at the same time (below). Juveniles also shed most of their white down feathers. They often stood on the ledge in front of the eyrie soaking in the happenings around them and surveying the wide expanse below the hill. The young were also able to eat on their own when male was seen depositing food on the ledge. The female as usual joined the male but after ensuring that male left the eyrie. Female also flew off and the fledglings took turns to eat the prey. After eating, the bigger fledgling pulled out remaining white down from the smaller fledgling and after a while the smaller fledgling laid down on the ledge to sleep.

On 9 May the bigger fledgling ventured onto a ledge below the eyrie, it was also seen flapping its wings strongly and appeared very eager to attempt its maiden flight.

Fledging & Post Fledging: On 10 May, the bigger fledgling fledged while the smaller fledgling followed suit on 12 May. Initially after fledging the young stayed on the ledges and rocks and were not very active as they learned to improve their flying skills. By 16 May their flying was much stronger and both started to play games in flight and chased each other around. The juveniles were also able to pluck off feathers on their own from the prey brought back by the adult male. Female continued to guard over the young.

On 19 May, the juveniles had progressed from landing on rocks to landing and perching unsteadily on tree branches. The bigger juvenile had also learned to take bird prey from the talons of the adult female while on the wing and also pluck feathers off the bird prey on their own. The adult female actively encouraged and enticed the young to master their flying skills. Back of juveniles were slate grey while breast was a “peachy” color (orangish) with very dark streaks.

The juveniles having mastered their flying skills would fly down onto the large rocks around the base of the hill and sometimes would come as close as 50 feet (above) from us. They would also eat the prey on these rocks. The juveniles generally stayed within the vicinity of the hill until 19 May but by 21 May they started to make short explorations away from the eyrie area.

On 31 May the juveniles still depended on the adults for food and by 6 June things were getting quieter around the eyrie as the juveniles stayed away for longer periods. On our last visit on 13 June the juveniles were not around the eyrie but their calls could be heard from behind the hill.

Discussion: This full observation gave us an opportunity to study and collect initial data on the breeding habits of Peregrine Falcon in Malaysia. Further observations will be carried out next year to determine if the same eyrie will be reused and also the breeding success rate and number of chicks produced. Due to the height of hill it was difficult to identify the species of bird preyed upon by the Peregrine Falcons but it was observed that they preyed on a variety of big and small species of birds whereas the other breeding pair at Tasek (Suara Enggang 2006 Vol. 14, No.3) preyed on House Swift (Apus affinis) most of the time.

Continuation – 2nd nesting (2007): In December 2006 the pair were courting once again. Copulation was observed from 7 January 2007 onwards and the same eyrie was used. On 25 March 2007 prey was seen being taken into the eyrie. On one occasion the prey was a Red Junglefowl. This time the pair had only one chick which was seen at the entrance of the eyrie on 19 April 2007 (right). On 1 May 2007 the fledged juvenile was flying around strongly within the vicinity of the limestone hill.

By Chiu Sein Chiong, Ooi Beng Yean & Connie Khoo Siew Yoong
Photos: Chiu Sein Chiong, Ooi Beng Yean & Connie Khoo Siew Yoong

You may be interested in viewing a clip of the Peregrine Falcon nesting in downtown San Jose, US, HERE.