100 
THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY • Vol. 123, No. 1, March 2011 
TABLE 2. Characteristics of Swallow-tailed Kite nest (n = 5) and paired random sites (n = 5) in the White River 
National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, USA. 
Nest site 
Random site 
Variable 
Mean ± 
SD 
Mean ± SD 
t 
df 
p 
Tree height, m 
31.28 ± 
4.78 
27.12 ± 6.40 
2.56 
4 
0.125 
Diameter at breast height, DBH (cm) 
83.92 ± 
7.20 
49.33 ± 15.09 
6.74 
4 
0.003 
Nest tree emergence, m a 
7.15 ± 
5.66 
0.42 ± 4.74 
3.01 
3 b 
0.057 
Distance to nearest edge, m 
498.1 ± 
56.5 
451.9 ± 185.8 
0.73 
4 
0.508 
Wilcoxon’s signed-ranks test used for analysis. 
Nest tree emergence data not collected in 2006. 
the strong nest site fidelity of the species (Meyer 
1995) indicates that reuse of a relatively small 
area (4 km) for nesting in the refuge suggests at 
least one individual from the nesting pair 
observed in 2002 may have returned to nest in 
subsequent years. The repeated use of this area 
indicates the existence of suitable nesting habitat. 
The most important characteristics within the 
Swallow-tailed Kite’s breeding range are exis¬ 
tence of tall, accessible trees and open areas that 
facilitate prey capture (Meyer 1995). Many 
relatively tall trees exist throughout the refuge 
and, although not quantified in this study, the 
many bayous, sloughs, lakes, and ponds in the 
refuge likely provide ample openings for prey 
acquisition. Similar to our results, kites nesting in 
South Carolina and Florida placed nests near the 
tops of trees that projected above the surrounding 
canopy (Cely and Sorrow 1990. Meyer and 
Collopy 1995, Meyer 2004a). Kites in Arkansas 
selected nest trees with significantly greater 
DBHs than those of random trees, which may 
alloid kites stronger nest supporting limbs 
decreasing the likelihood of failure during high 
winds, a common cause of failure in south Florida 
(Meyer and Collopy 1995, Meyer 2004a). 
Cely and Sorrow (1990) noted the variability in 
tolerance of Swallow-tailed Kites to human 
disturbances near nests, but indicated most kites 
appeared unaffected by observer presence early in 
the nesting cycle. In contrast, the kites we 
monitored appeared to be sensitive to disturbance 
near the nest. Helicopters have been used in 
Florida to search for and monitor kite nests 
without any negative effects (Meyer and Collopy 
1995, Meyer 2004a, b). We cannot discount the 
possibility that our helicopter search may have 
caused abandonment in 2002. The pair may have 
been more prone to disturbance-associated nest 
abandonment due to the lack of parental invest¬ 
ment (i.e., no eggs or young), or the relatively late 
initiation of the nesting attempt. It is also possible 
the nest may have been constructed and not used 
(Meyer 1995) or was depredated during the week 
following its discovery when no nest checks 
occurred. 
We observed no fledglings despite repeated 
searches throughout the breeding and post¬ 
breeding periods during years when no nests were 
located. We installed a camera at the nest in 2008 
to record nesting activity and causes of failure, 
because all previously located nests and presum¬ 
ably all undocumented nesting attempts failed. 
We delayed camera installation until 1 week into 
the nestling stage to reduce the likelihood of 
abandonment; the only case of camera-related 
abandonment was reported by Meyer in Coulson 
et al. (2008) and occurred during incubation. We 
believe the camera and not necessarily our 
climbing to the nest was the reason for abandon¬ 
ment, as we observed two adults flying within 
100 m of the nest during camera removal, 
suggesting they remained in the nest area. We 
did not monitor the kites’ response to the camera, 
as we left the area immediately following setup to 
avoid further disturbing the pair. Had we checked 
the nest sooner and noticed the kites not returning, 
we could have removed the system and possibly 
prevented abandonment. Our experiences, and 
those reported by Meyer in Coulson et al. (2008) 
indicate that some nesting Swallow-tailed Kites 
may be particularly sensitive to disturbances 
associated with camera systems, especially during 
incubation and the early nestling stage. 
Observations of Swallow-tailed Kites have in¬ 
creased in parts of Arkansas in recent years, which 
may represent increased visitation by dispersing and 
migrating kites, or increased effort by observers. 
Monitoring of kites observed during the breeding 
season should be undertaken to ascertain if kites are 
