Madeira petrel photo expedition - the desire & challenge to experience the enigmatic Zino's Petrel at sea, by Hadoram Shirihai

MADEIRA PETREL PHOTO EXPEDITION

The desire and challenge to experience the enigmatic Zino’s Petrel at sea

by Hadoram Shirihai



A report of April 2008 Expedition

Major part (at sea) of the following report is originally published in the Birding World (issue: 21. 6, pp 282-288), the essential magazine for WP birding discoveries (for obtaining hard copies of the paper and yearly subscription log to www.birdingworld.co.uk)

"I reached the island of Madeira on 21st April 2008, aiming to spend a few days trying to see and photograph Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira at sea. Nowadays, Zino’s Petrel can be seen (or mostly heard) on organised and specially permitted nocturnal tours to the breeding sites in the high mountains of Madeira, but there are still probably fewer than ten records of claimed Zino’s Petrels identified and separated from Fea’s Petrels P. feae at sea – if any at all!

In a previous visit to Madeira, at the end of May 2003, Hans Jornvall and I had the privilege of visiting the breeding locality at night and participating in the ringing of Zino’s Petrels by Frank Zino himself. Frank’s dedicated conservation work on the petrels is to be greatly respected. During that visit, Frank and I sailed south of the island on 1st June, attempting to see Zino’s Petrel at sea. Zino’s Petrel is, of course, extremely difficult to separate from the more numerous Fea’s Petrel, which breed very close to Madeira, on the island of Bugio (one of the Desertas islands).

It is important to say at this point that Magnus Robb and Killian Mullarney (2008) treat the Pterodroma petrels of Bugio as a distinct species — Desertas Petrel P. deserta) — separate from Fea’s Petrel P. feae of the Cape Verde Islands, based mainly on vocalizations and breeding phenology. Although variable, Desertas birds have on average the deepest bill of the three North Atlantic gadfly petrels, the bill of (Cape Verde) Fea’s being somewhat intermediate between Desertas and Zino’s Petrel. Further confirmation of this split is awaited and, to be consistent with former works, all further mentions of Fea’s in this article should be taken to mean both feae and deserta (i.e. one species, Fea's Petrel). However, it should be borne in mind that most direct comparisons actually refer to the geographically closer Desertas Islands population.

Zino’s Petrel is essentially smaller and lighter than Fea’s, with a smaller bill. After seeing several Fea’s Petrels, we saw one bird which seemed to us to be smaller and lighter in build, but we could not be sure that we were judging the size correctly, so we left the identification simply as a Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel.

I had experienced an almost identical situation on an earlier seabird-orientated visit to Madeira, with my friend Lars Svensson and others, back in August 1999. On 8th August, from the Porto Santo ferry, at about 9.00am, one of five Fea’s/ Zino’s seen seemed smaller and more compact, but again we left the bird as unidentified. On the 2003 visit, I also studied the specimens of Zino’s and Fea’s Petrels in the pretty museum in Funchal, but this did not really help me obtain a better idea of how to separate the two species at sea.

With the lack of a breakthrough in this at-sea identification challenge, and because of my ongoing book projects (especially Shirihai & Bretagnolle in prep.), photographs of Zino’s Petrel at sea have become badly needed, so I undertook a special expedition in 2008. On the recommendation of Frank Zino, I chose the second half of April for my visit, as this is when Zino’s Petrels are already very actively visiting their breeding sites in the Madeira highlands, but the Fea’s Petrels P. (feae) deserta of nearby Bugio are not yet visiting theirs (they normally visit their breeding sites from mid May onwards). Ned Brinkley (2004) also suggested that the end of April should be the best time, for the same reason and, on his visit at this time of year, he successfully observed and described a bird that I was convinced was indeed a Zino’s Petrel. I should add here that I invited several of my friends on this 2008 expedition, but unfortunately they could not join me and could only wish me success. However, Brian Small reported that, some years back, he had also encountered a Fea’s/Zino’s which seemed to be small, and Killian Mullarney sent me images of an apparently small billed Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel that he had photographed off Madeira, while Catarina Fagundes (see also below) also showed me images of a suspected Zino’s she had photographed at sea off Madeira (although recent examination of these has suggested that the bill size and wing shape are inconclusive for Zino’s). Furthermore, Michael Tove (2001) and Francis Zino et al. (2008), in their excellent papers, described characters that could serve to identify Zino’s at sea, but I wanted actually to test these ideas in the field. Thus, these valuable publications and my pre-voyage correspondences made me even more enthusiastic about my upcoming mission in Madeiran waters....


The voyage plan
Frank Zino recommended collaborating with Madeira Wind Birds, a birding company run by Catarina Fagundes and Hugo Romano, and thus they became the principle organizers of the expedition. Both are young and enthusiastic Madeirans with an exceptional knowledge of their island’s avifauna, and they made my visit very enjoyable and successful. Hugo prepared the chum for my visit some days before my arrival, and Catarina joined the voyage on 23rd-24th April.

The plan was first to explore the far, deep waters south of Madeira by fast motorboat on 22nd April, and then to take a combined sail/motor boat for another two periods of two days each (23rd-24th & 25th-26th), mainly to explore the waters to the southeast of Madeira. Thus a total of five days at sea was planned, and this was divided as follows:
22nd April: Using the MV Katherine B, run by Peter Bristow and Norberto Silva, a 40-foot motor boat originally built and commissioned by the Royal Navy as a gunboat for use in Abu Dhabi. This boat proved to very good for covering long distances, and Peter and Norberto proved to be extremely good at spotting seabirds at great distances; they were very friendly and helpful, as well as being keen to learn about the birds and to operate the chum. Peter uses the Katherine B mostly for catching marlins, which he tags and releases, and I found this to be a most positive point in their attitude to marine conservation. On that day, we travelled up to about 28 miles south of Madeira. The weather was very calm, with an almost flat sea. The most interesting seabirds observed are listed below.

23rd-24th April: Using the very new, 40-foot sailing/motorboat, Aquaholic, run by the local Marco Sousa. This boat has a very good set of sails and an engine. Marco operated the boat with Vitor Nóbrega, and both are very experienced sailors with good international records in major competitions. The boat proved to be extremely good and stable even in the quite rough weather (with up to about a 20 knot wind) that developed during these two days. On the night of 23rd-24th, we planned to overnight in the shelter of the Desertas Islands but, due to the direction of the wind, we could not find a safe anchorage, so we returned to shelter off the eastern side of Madeira, from where we continued our voyage on the 24th. The most interesting seabirds observed are detailed below, including a description of the Zino’s Petrel seen on the 23rd (as is the chumming technique used during the voyage).

25th-26th April: I planned another two days at sea for these days, but these had to be cancelled due to very strong winds. Thus, I used the time in these two days for some land-birding which was to prove highly successful: a full account of my land birding, included the rarely photographed Melanistic Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla heineken, is detailed below.

Chum
The chum used on the 22nd consisted of fish waste (heads, guts etc) soaked in sardine oil and then placed in an onion-bag and towed behind the boat. On 23rd-24th, we used about 150kg of chum of grated fish waste mixed with used cooking oil (since we could not find fish or sardine oil) and then frozen into 10kg blocks. By using frozen blocks, the offal floats for a substantial period, permitting the petrels to take the food from the surface before it sinks. I was surprised to find two major differences in response to the two types of chum: to the fish placed in the onion-bag, virtually only storm petrels were attracted, but to the floating frozen blocks we received a constant stream of visits from Cory’s Shearwaters — and to this chum we also attracted the Zino’s Petrel. It seems that the larger seabirds, and in particular the Pterodroma petrels, are more easily attracted to this floating food, permitting more prolonged and closer views.

The Zino’s Petrel
On the late-afternoon/evening of 23rd April we chummed about 35 miles (c.56km) southeast of the easternmost tip of Madeira, which is about 55 miles (c.90km) from the Zino’s Petrel breeding locality at Pico do Areeiro on Madeira. My reason for chumming here and at this time was firstly that if Zino’s Petrels were returning to their breeding site from the east in the evening they might hit this location at that time. Secondly, I thought that Porto Santo and especially the Desertas Islands, might provide ‘leading lines’ into our chumming position, as marked on the map below.


Zino's Petrel expedition chumming map


A schematic diagram of the positioned chum slick on the 23rd April 2008 and where the Zino’s Petrel was observed: see main text for explanation on how it worked.


Due to the rather choppy conditions, rather than just drifting next to the floating chum, we were forced to circle it at a distance of about 100-200m. At 7.40pm, as we turned the front of the boat to face the chum, Victor spotted some bird action above the block and, using my binoculars, I immediately located a bird that I could readily identify as a Zino’s Petrel (see below). The whole observation lasted about one to two minutes, with the bird zig-zagging above the frozen chum block over and over again (8- 10 times). It was also seen being chased by two Yellow-legged Gulls. These were not present a few minutes earlier, so it seems that while we were making our loop around the chum and having our backs to the floating frozen blocks, the petrel slipped in and its active feeding flight attracted the two gulls too. I realised that with our rather distant position (and with the very bumpy sea) I was not going to be able to obtain good photographs of the bird, so I decided not even to try to lift my heavy camera, but just to try to learn as much as possible about the features and flight behavior of this so rarely watched species.

Identification
The advantage that I gained by making my trip in April is that any Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel observed at this time is presumably more likely to be a Zino’s rather than a Fea’s. However, I based my identification on features that I found I could detect reasonably easily, even in this quite brief observation. Since there are very few (or virtually no) unassailable records of Zino’s at sea, my observation should have considerable value for observers keen to know how Zino’s Petrel really appears at sea. Rather than provide a full description, I here itemize the key identification marks of my Zino’s Petrel.

  1. Small size: clearly smaller and lighter in build than Fea’s Petrel, based on my previous experience with the latter at sea off Madeira and especially off Cape Verde islands. There were a few Manx Shearwaters flying around at the time and, in contrast to them (although not in direct comparison) the Zino’s appeared at most only slightly larger (i.e. longer winged by estimation of wingspan). However, since Manx Shearwater is a different shape, and flies in a different manner, such size comparisons are somewhat subjective.


  2. Rounded wing-shape: this was a striking feature; the wing-tip was certainly more rounded than the usually pointed wing-tip of Fea’s Petrel. Overall, the wing, and especially the hand, looked relatively short too. Of course, it should of course be remembered that wing shape can alter significantly in differing flight modes (being more pointed in normal flight, but more 'splayed' at the tip when maneuvering).



    3. Small bill: this bird definitely did not give the impression of having such a chunky bill as Fea’s Petrel. Even in the rather brief observation, I could detect the smaller and more delicate bill; it seemed to be noticeably more slender and less bulbous.

    Other plumage features (none of them distinguishing characters) were as follows:

  3. Head-pattern: the bird appeared to have a combination of (a) a quite well-marked dark eye-mask, (b) a broad, well-defined and clean white forehead and a quite pale crown. The distinct eye-mask and bill appeared conspicuously contrasting, giving the effect of two small back patches divided by the clean white forehead. Fea’s tends to have a less clearly defined, more mottled, but even broader whitish area above the bill, while its dark patch around the eye is larger and often appears to merge with the darkish crown, giving a somewhat dark-headed appearance. However, it must be emphasised that there is a wide degree of variation in this in Fea’s. Some Fea’s are paler around the head, including on the crown, and thus there is much overlap in these features between the two species. Also, I have noted that with Fea’s Petrels off the Cape Verde Islands, if one watches a passing Fea’s, these dark and pale elements of the head pattern change constantly with the angle and lighting. In certain conditions, a typical Fea’s, or even the darkest, can appear to have a restricted dark eye-patch, a whiter forehead and a paler crown, just as with the Zino’s I observed on 23rd April 2008.


  4. Wing pattern: I saw the upperwing pattern only briefly; the best views I obtained of the bird were from the side and from below. However, the bird certainly did not appear to show a distinct ‘M’ pattern above, as Fea’s often does. Even given the brief view obtained, my impression of the underwing was that it appeared to be rather contrastingly patterned: an extensive whitish area was obvious on the basal area of the primaries and inward the across the center of the underwing. There was also a clear contrast between the dark and pale areas, with the latter appearing both more extensive and whiter than any Fea’s I have seen, making the dark areas of the wing-tip and the trailing-edge appear even more contrasting. This pattern and contrast corresponded with the underwing pattern of the Zino’s that I was fortunate to examine in the hand during the ringing operations with Francis Zino (see opposite photo). The paler underwing elements on the Zino’s of 23rd April could perhaps be explained by the overall paler plumage of the bird too, and it is too early to say if the underwing pattern observed on this Zino’s, and compared to Fea’s, is valuable in separating the two. Since the basic underwing pattern is thus far known to be similar in both species, I urge observers not to regard the white belt-like area across the center of the underwing as a reliable field character, at least until further evidence is available. The variation (in both species) is still unknown, as is the degree of overlap, and the effects of varying light and viewing angles.



Conclusion
A few points can be learned from this observation of a presumed Zino’s Petrel and some previous experiences with Fea’s. The first is that there is considerable variation in Fea’s (in size and plumage) and some are truly smaller overall and smaller-billed than others, or appear such, and superficially more like Zino’s, but only prior to actually seeing a Zino’s. If eventually you see a real Zino’s, and given a reasonable view (plus previous experience with Fea’s), it will be most likely prove to be quite straightforward to separate at sea, by its distinctly smaller size, rather shorter wings and more rounded wing-tips, and smaller (less deep) bill. Whilst I could not detect any reliable plumage characters to separate the Zino’s, the species perhaps has as a tendency to show a paler but more contrasting head pattern and especially more contrasting underwing markings. As highlighted above, however, even if such plumage features (and differences in the underwing) exist, it would probably be very difficult to detect them reliably at sea or from even good photographs since the constant changes of light and angles of view may limit their usefulness.
From my experience of Zino’s Petrel, I conclude that Zino’s Petrel can be a distinct and diagnosable species even at sea. However, since it appears to differ from Fea’s Petrel at sea mostly in size and slight structural differences, it is best to employ as much comparative size judgment as possible. My observation of this Zino’s at least in part supported the at-sea differences between Zino’s and Fea’s Petrels suggested by Tove (2001) and Zino et al. (2008).



At-sea observation summaries


The following is a selective list of the offshore birds recorded during my pelagic in April 2008, with only the species of particular interest for my studies listed.

22nd April
Fulmar 1, pale bird. Apparently the first at sea record for Madeira, or at least the first documented at sea record of the species (see photos); there is a recent record of one dead bird collected by D. Câmara on the beach at Porto Santo (Frank Zino pers. com.)
Bulwer’s Petrel c.100
Cory’s Shearwater hundreds
Manx Shearwater c.30
Barolo’s Shearwater P. (b.) baroli 3
Wilson’s Petrel 1; apparently about the fourth record for Madeira, and perhaps the first documented record of the species (see photos)
Madeiran Storm Petrel 20-30
White-faced Petrel 1; one of few records observed close to Madeira Island
Sabine’s Gull 1; apparently the third record for Madeira, it fed at the chum slick with the Fulmar and the Wilson’s Petrel.

23rd April
Zino’s Petrel 1; see above for details
Bulwer’s Petrel c.20
Cory’s Shearwater hundreds
Manx Shearwater 20-30
Barolo’s Shearwater P. (b.) baroli 1
Madeiran Storm Petrel 1

24th April
Bulwer’s Petrel 5
Cory’s Shearwater c.3000, with a spectacular feeding frenzy NE of Madeira Island (it should be added here that during these three pelagic days I did not have time to make a careful check for the odd Scopoli’s Shearwater C. (d.) diomedea, but the few I checked closely or photographed were all borealis)
Manx Shearwater c.20
Barolo’s Shearwater P. (b.) baroli 1
Madeiran Storm Petrel 2.


On land observation summaries (27 April 08):

My birding experiences in Madeira did not ended with ‘just’ pelagic works. Since working with Lars Svensson on the forthcoming Handbook of Western Palearctic Birds, A & C Black, I thought I should also take a closer look of some of the local landbirds of Madeira. I was more than fortunate to be guided by two local guides, that know so well the birding sites, the birds and their calls, and in general very enthusiastic to find and learn more, and above all very good bird-spotters and kind in nature. These were Catarina Fagundes and Tania Pestana. We have birded only one main site in the northwest side of the island. Again, the list below is just a selective one with emphasizes on the bird species and races that I have most interest of. Nevertheless, in the Madeira archipelago over 300 species of bird have been recorded (of which c 40 breeders), including two endemic landbirds, the Trocaz Pigeon and the Madeira Firecrest, as well as several endemic and very special subspecies:

Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus granti: Resident breeder, we saw two birds.
Buzzard Buteo buteo harterti: Resident/localized breeder and widespread, we saw two birds on the way.
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus canariensis: Resident breeder and seem to be widespread, as we saw several birds.
Trocaz Pigeon Columba trocaz: Endemic of Madeira Laurel forest with fortunate population increases reported, even though much lost due to nest robs by Black Rat. We have found several pairs in displays (song and displays) with very close views. In one case I almost got the best ever image, from almost 5 meter. It was a female which has chased by display male, just as I lifted my camera to take image. What a miss, again…
Plain Swift Apus unicolor: Only in Macaronesia, and apparently fairly common and widespread in Madeira in breeding season. However, I only saw two birds.
[Berthelot's Pipit Anthus berthelotii madeirensis: It is a localized breeder in dry habitats. In this trip I did not tried to look for the species, but saw good numbers in 1999 visit. It is definitely one of the key bird to see in Madeira.]
Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea schmitzi: Resident breeder, with several birds seen.
Robin Erithacus rubecula rubecula: Resident breeder, we saw/heard few birds. Good that no one claimed the Robin of Madeira as endemic race, because they are indeed just looking like the mainland European birds.
Blackbird Turdus merula cabrerae: Resident breeder, very widespread bird.
[Spectacled Warbler Sylvia conspicillata bella: A localized resident, and I only seen it in my previous visit.]
Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla heineken: A resident and perhaps the most widespread breeder. This ‘rather weak’ subspecies is also found in the Canary Islands and NW Africa, and to Western Iberia. However, my wish was to see at least one of the melanistic morph. I must mention first that in my previous visits I never seen the melanistic morph, while also Catarina, Hugo and Tania said that over the past few years they knew only one melanistic male territory near Ponta do Sol. The melanistic morph is apparently a truly scarce bird on Madeira, and very rarely photographed in the wild. While working on the Sylvia monograph (Shirihai et al 2001) I could not find any photographer that has taken images of the melanistic morph in the wild! Well, on that morning with Catarina and Tania (27th April) we have found two melanistic males, one adult and the other 1st-summer which I included here photos of. Catarina and Tania also told me that there is local legend saying that ‘if female Blackcap laying clutch of 5 eggs one of which will be melanistic morph’. More information on the melanistic morph can be find in the Sylvia monograph (see notes in page 56), which also indicating that the melanistic morph was probably most common in Madeira, where Vaurie cited its frequency as seven of 22 specimens. It would be interesting to survey its current and to investigate its past abundance of this attractive melanistic Blackcap in Madeira.
Madeira Firecrest Regulus madeirensis: Resident and probably one of commonest forest breeders. We saw and photo good number of individuals.
Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis: Resident, with few birds seen.
Rock Sparrow Petronia petronia madeirensis: Resident breeder, with few groups seen or heard.
Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs maderensis: A resident breeder and very common on Madeira, usually in Pine and Laurel forests. This race is endemic to the Madeiran archipelago but still closely resembles the North African races, and both perhaps merit split. I find it quite amazing the degree in brightness of colour of males.
Canary Serinus canaria: This attractive bird is a resident breeder of the archipelago, and we saw and photo good numbers.

Surprise-surprise: Catarina was very proud to show me the Green-winged Teal Anas carolinensis that she and Hugo have discovered, as the first record for Madeira. Here include image of that bird.


    References:
  • Brinkley, N. 2004. http://madeira.seawatching.net/files/Madeira2004_NB.pdf

  • Clarke, T. 2006. Birds of the Atlantic Islands. (Illustrated by Chris Orgill and Tony Disley) Christopher Helm, London.

  • Robb, M. & Mullarney, K. 2008. Petrels night and day. Poole.

  • Shirihai, H. & Bretagnolle, V. In prep. Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the World: a handbook to their taxonomy, identification, ecology and conservation. (Illustrated by John Cox.) A & C Black, London.

  • Shirihai, H., G. Gargallo, and A. Helbig. (2001) Sylvia Warblers: Identification, taxonomy, and phylogeny of the genus Sylvia. Christopher Helm, London.

  • Tove, M. 2001. Verification of suspected field identification differences in Fea’s and Zino’s Petrels. Birding World 14: 283–289.

  • www.madeirabirds.com/madeira_birds

  • Zino, F.; Biscoito, M. J. & Zino, P. A. 1995. Birds of the Archipelago of Madeira and the Selvagens new records and checklist. Bol. Mus. Mun. Funchal, 47 (262): 63-100.

  • Zino, F., Brown, R. & Biscoito, M. 2008. The separation of Pterodroma madeira (Zino’s Petrel) from Pterodroma feae (Fea’s Petrel). Ibis 150: 326–333.

Final statements and acknowledgments: first I like to thank again to Francis Zino for information and great hospitality in my 2003 visit, and recently helping in editing this report with Catarina Fagundes and Hugo Romano. I like to use these lines to congratulate Catarina and Hugo for the incredible birding company, ‘Madeira Wind Birds’, that they have created in Madeira. Without their involvement the ‘Zino’s Petrel At Sea Photographic Expedition No 1’ could not be so successful. Indeed, I missed photographing the Zino’s Petrel, but we successfully for the first time managed to attract this enigmatic species on the chum slick and to test its distinctiveness at sea. I highly recommend the birding services by the experience and friendly attitude of ‘Madeira Wind Birds’.
Above I already mentioned the great contribution to my work in Madeira by locals Peter Bristow & Norberto Silva, as well as Tania Pestana, Vitor Nóbrega and Marco Sousa.
Francis Zino and Mike Tove kindly sent their useful and instructive comments on the earlier draft of the Birding World paper, while Tony Pym, Brian Small and Lars Svensson also briefly commented on the first edited manuscript. Killian Mullarney kindly provided highly instructive criticism and comments, most of which have been incorporated in this text. Even though we do not agree on everything in this article, we do broadly agree that the at-sea identification of Zino’s Petrel needs further study and would benefit from a rigorously objective analysis. I would like to thank to Richard Millington and Steve Gantlett (Birding World. www.birdingworld.co.uk) for their extensive editorial help and advice, and in encouraging my at-sea petrel studies in Madeira.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this pioneering at sea expedition in Madeira waters to the local people working hard in conserving the Zino’s Petrel, and in particular Francis Zino and his close team.

The future: Personally, I still need to photograph Zino's Petrel at sea, and with this in mind I am planning a further 10-day expedition in April 2009. Due to limited space, I can allow to take max two more photographers that will be willing to share equally the privat charter of the boat. The voyage will again be in collaboration with Madeira Wind Birds, and for further information please contact me".

Hadoram Shirihai/ Birding World/ Madeira Wind Birds © Copyright

Join Madeira Wildlife Monthly Newsletter. All the updates on your email every month.