Proximity of shrub nests to ground nests increases the chance of ground nest predation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51812/of.136659Avainsanat:
artificial nest, daily survival rate, forest edge, plasticine egg, predator community, predator-prey relationshipsAbstrakti
In nature, ground-nesting birds rarely nest under an active shrub nest of another species. In the case of the proximity of the two nest types, we assumed that if a nest predator finds one nest, it will most likely rob the other nest as well. To test this, we exposed artificial nests with one quail and one plasticine egg on shrubs and underneath on the ground, in oleaster shrub rows and forest edges. We found a higher predation on ground nests than on shrub nests in both habitats. More importantly, predation events in shrub nests resulted in a higher predation of more concealed ground nests too. Our results suggest that proximity of two nest types can be detrimental to predation pressure, especially in forest edges.
Lähdeviitteet
Bankovics, A. 2006: The birds of the Mecsek Mountains. — Folia Comloensis 15: 317–360. (In Hungarian)
Batáry, P. & Báldi, A. 2004: Evidence of an edge effect on avian nest success. — Conservation Biology 18: 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00184.x
Batáry, P. & Báldi, A. 2005: Factors affecting the survival of real and artificial great reed warbler’s nests. — Biologia 60: 215–219.
Batáry, P., Fronczek, S., Normann, C., Scherber, C. & Tscharntke, T. 2014: How do edge effect and tree species diversity change bird diversity and avian nest survival in Germany's largest deciduous forest? — Forest Ecology and Management 319: 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.004
Bateman, P. W., Fleming, P. A. & Wolfe, A. K. 2017: A different kind of ecological modelling: the use of clay model organisms to explore predator–prey interactions in vertebrates. — Journal of Zoology 301: 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12415
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. 2015: Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. — Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bayne, E. M, Hobson, K. A. & Fargey, P. 1997: Predation on artificial nests in relation to forest type: contrasting the use of quail and plasticine eggs. — Ecography 20: 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1997.tb00366.x
Bayne, E. M. & Hobson, K. A. 1999: Do clay eggs attract predators to artificial nests? — Journal of Field Ornithology 70: 1–7.
Bravo, C., Pays, O., Sarasa, M. & Bretagnolle, V. 2020: Revisiting an old question: Which predators eat eggs of ground-nesting birds in farmland landscapes? — Science of The Total Environment 744: 140895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140895
Elmberg, J. & Pöysä, H. 2011: Is the risk of nest predation heterospecifically density-dependent in precocial species belonging to different nesting guilds? — Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 1164–1171. https://doi.org/10.1139/z11-093
Fontaine, J. J., Martel, M., Markland, H. M., Niklison, A. M., Decker, K. L. & Martin, T. E. 2007: Testing ecological and behavioral correlates of nest predation. — Oikos 116: 1887–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.16043.x
Hazler, K. R. 2004: Mayfield logistic regression: a practical approach for analysis of nest survival. — Auk 121:707–716.
Hoi, H. & Winkler, H. 1994: Predation on nests: a case of apparent competition. — Oecologia 98: 436–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324234
Isenmann, P. & Fradet, G. 1995: Is the nesting association between the Orphean Warbler (Sylvia hortensis) and the Woodchat Shrike (Lanius senator) an anti-predator oriented mutualism? — Journal of Ornithology 136: 288–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01651297
Kurucz, K., Bertalan, L. & Purger, J. J. 2012: Survival of blackbird (Turdus merula) clutches in an urban environment: experiment with real and artificial nests. — North-Western Journal of Zoology 8: 362–364. http://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/content/v8n2/nwjz.121205.Kurucz.pdf
Kurucz, K., Batáry, P., Frank, K. & Purger, J. J. 2015: Effects of daily nest monitoring on predation rate – an artificial nest experiment. — North-Western Journal of Zoology 11: 219–224. http://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/content/v11n2/nwjz_141605_Kurucz.pdf
Lenth, R.V. 2021: emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. — R package version 1.5.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Ludwig, M., Schlinkert, H., Holzschuh, A., Fischer, C., Scherber, C., Trnka, A., Tscharntke, T. & Batáry, P. 2012: Landscape-moderated bird nest predation in hedges and forest edges. — Acta Oecologica 45: 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2012.08.008
Madden, C. F., Arroyo, B. & Amar, A. 2015: A review of the impacts of corvids on bird productivity and abundance. — Ibis 157: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12223
Major, R. E. & Kendal, C. E. 1996: The contribution of artificial nest experiments to understanding avian reproductive success: a review of methods and conclusions. — Ibis 138: 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1996.tb04342.x
Martin, T. E. 1988: Habitat and area effects on forest bird assemblages: is nest predation an influence? — Ecology 69: 74–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943162
Martin, T. E. 1993: Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. — American Naturalist 141: 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1086/285515
Mikulić, K., Radović, A., Kati, V., Jelaska, S. & Tepić, N. 2014: Effects of land abandonment on bird communities of smallholder farming landscapes in post-war Croatia: implications for conservation policies. — Community Ecology 15: 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.15.2014.2.5
Moore, R. P. & Robinson, W. D. 2004: Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. — Ecology 85: 1562–1567. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0088
Nice, M. M. 1941. The role of territory in bird life. — American Midland Naturalist 26: 441–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/2420732
Olsen, H. & Schmidt, N.M. 2004: Response of Hooded Crow Corvus corone cornix and Magpie Pica pica to exposure to artificial nests. — Bird Study 51: 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650409461337
Pärt, T. & Wretenberg, J. 2002: Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? — Journal of Avian Biology 33: 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-048X.2002.330107.x
Polak, M. 2014: Protective nesting association between the Barred Warbler Sylvia nisoria and the Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio: an experiment using artificial and natural nests. — Ecological Research 29: 949–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-014-1183-9
Purger, J. J., Mészáros, L. A. & Purger, D. 2004a: Predation on artificial nests in post-mining recultivated area and forest edge: contrasting the use of plasticine and quail eggs. — Ecological Engineering 22: 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.05.004
Purger, J. J., Mészáros, L. A. & Purger, D. 2004b: Ground nesting in recultivated forest habitats - a study with artificial nests. — Acta Ornithologica 39: 141–145. https://doi.org/10.3161/068.039.0211
Quinn, J. L. & Ueta, M. 2008: Protective nesting associations in birds. — Ibis 150(S1): 146–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00823.x
R Core Team 2020: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. — R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
Ricklefs, R. E. 1969: An analysis of nestling mortality in birds. — Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.9
Schmidt, K. A. & Whelan, C. J. 1999: Nest predation on woodland songbirds: when is nest predation density dependent? — Oikos 87: 65–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546997
Söderström, B., Pärt, T. & Rydén, J. 1998: Different nest predator faunas and nest predation risk on ground and shrub nests at forest ecotones: an experiment and a review. — Oecologia 117: 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050638
Trnka, A., Prokop, P. & Batáry, P. 2008: Dummy birds in artificial nest studies: an experiment with Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio. — Bird Study 55: 329–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650809461539
Wozna, J. T., Hromada, M., Reeve, N. F., Szymański, P., Zolnierowicz, K. M. & Tobolka, M. 2017: Patchy versus linear non-cropped habitats in farmland: which is better for nesting success of the Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio? — Bird Study 64: 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2016.1270897
Tiedostolataukset
Julkaistu
Versiot
- 2024-10-18 (2)
- 2024-07-30 (1)
Numero
Osasto
Lisenssi
Copyright (c) 2022 Jenő J. Purger, Kornélia Kurucz, Dragica Purger, Péter Batáry
Tämä työ on lisensoitu Creative Commons Nimeä 4.0 Kansainvälinen Julkinen -lisenssillä.
