Water repellency and feather structure of the Blue Swallow Hirundo atrocaerulea |
| |
| Authors: | A M Rijke W A Jesser S W Evans H Bouwman |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Materials Science-SEAS , University of Virginia , Charlottesville, Virginia, 22903, USA;2. BirdLife South Africa , PO. Box 515, Randburg, 2125, South Africa;3. School for Environmental Sciences and Development (Zoology) , Potchef tmom University for Chrisitan Higher Education , Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa |
| |
| Abstract: | Rijke, A.M., Jesser, W.A., Evans, S.W & Bouwman, H. 2000. Water repellency and feather structure of the Blue Swallow Hirundo atrocaerulea. Ostrich 71 (1 & 2): 143–145. The Blue Swallow is an endangered species in southern Africa and is probably the most endangered passerine. It is restricted to escarpments with grasslands above 1 000 m where mists are frequent. It appears to forage on the wing even in thick mist raising the question of feather wettability in relation to its adaptation. Extensive physical and behaviourial adaptations are known to occur in a wide variety of birds to deal with the problem of shedding water continuously. To study the water repellency and resistance to water penetration of Blue Swallow feathers, we have examined the microscopic structure of head, back, throat, breast and abdominal feathers as well as remiges and tail feathers by transmission light microscopy. The width (2R) and separation (2D) of rami and barbules have been measured and were used to calculate the parameter (R + D)/R that serves as an indicator ofwater shedding potential. For the remiges and tail feathers the values of the (R+D)/R range from 5 to 10 which is comparable to values for other terrestrial birds. However, for body feathers the range is from 10 (head) and 35 (abdomen)-higher than previously observed for any other bird including Swifts, Apodidae. Blue Swallow feathers are thus the most effective feather yet discovered at repelling water drops. The water repellency is highest in those feathers that are relatively shielded From the direct impact of small water drops (throat, breast, abdomen, back). By contrast, the flight feathers must possess a relatively large resistance to water penetration to avoid becoming waterlogged and this is coupled to low (R+D)/R values. Values for the barbules lay between 2 and 6—the same as found for other bird families—supporting an earlier conclusion that they have little direct effect in repelling water. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
