Predation rate on artificial nests increases with human housing density in suburban habitats

Ecography

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 188-196

  Thorington, Katherine K ^a   Bowman, Reed ^b  

^a WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARCHBOLD BIOLOGICAL STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL NEST; DENSITY DEPENDENCE; NEST PREDATION; SUBURBAN AREA; URBANIZATION;

UNITED STATES;

AVES; MAMMALIA; PHASIANIDAE; QUERCUS;

EID: 0037687730     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03351.x     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Aldrich, J. W. and Coffin, R. W. 1980. Breeding bird populations from forest to suburbia after thirty-seven years: resident generalists thrive as migratory forest-interior species disappear. - Am. Birds 34: 3-7.
2. Anon 1999. SPSS advanced models 10.0. - SPSS.
3. Bayne, E. M. and Hobson, K. A. 1997. Temporal patterns of predation on artificial nests in the southern boreal forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 61: 1227-1234.
4. Beissinger, S. R. and Osborne, D. R. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. - Condor 84: 75-83.
5. Bergan, T. M., Best, L. B. and Freemark, K. E. 1997. An experimental study of predation on artificial nests in roadsides adjacent to agricultural habitats in Iowa. - Wilson Bull. 109: 437-448.
6. Bowman, R. and Woolfenden, G. E. 2001. Nest success and the timing of nest failure of Florida scrub-jays in suburban and wildland habitats. - In: Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. and Donnelly, R. (eds), Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 383-402.
7. Brand, L. A. and George, T. L. 2000. Predation risks for nesting birds in fragmented coast redwood forest. - J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 42-51.
8. Buler, J. J. and Hamilton, R. B. 2000. Predation of natural and artificial nests in a southern pine forest. - Auk 117: 739-747.
9. Butler, M. A. and Rotella, J. A. 2000. The validity of using artificial nests to assess duck nest success. - J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 163-171.
10. Chalfoun, A. D., Thompson, F. R. and Ratnaswamy, J. A. 2002. Nest predators and fragmentation: a review and meta-analysis. - Conserv. Biol. 16: 306-318.
11. Clergeau, P. J. et al. 1998. Bird abundance and diversity along an urban-rural gradient: a comparative study between two cities on different continents. - Condor 100: 413-425.
12. Clergeau, P. J., Jokimäki, J. and Savard, J. L. 2001. Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes? - J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 1122-1134.
13. Cresswell, W. 1997. Nest predation: the relative effects of nest characteristics, clutch size and parental behaviour. Anim. Behav. 53: 93-103.
14. Davison, W. B. and Bollinger, E. 2000. Predation rates on real and artificial nests of grassland birds. - Auk 117: 147-153.
15. DeGraaf, R. M., Maier, T. J. and Fuller, T. K. 1999. Predation of small eggs in artificial nests: effects of nest position, edge, and potential predator abundance in extensive forest. - Wilson Bull. 111: 236-242.
16. DeSanto, T. L. and Willson, M. F. 2001. Predator abundance and predation of artificial nests in natural and anthropogenic coniferous forest edges in southeast Alaska. - J. Field Ornithol. 72: 136-199.
17. Dijak, W. D. and Thompson, F. R. 2000. Landscape and edge effects on the distribution of mammalian predators in Missouri. - J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 209-216.
18. Donovan, T. M. et al. 1997. Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. - Ecology 78: 2064-2075.
19. Eden, S. F. 1985. The comparative breeding biology of magpies Pica pica in an urban and a rural habitat (Aves: Corvidae). - J. Zool. Lond. 205: 325-334.
20. Gering, J. C. and Blair, R. B. 1999. Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? - Ecography 22: 532-541.
21. Hartley, M. J. and Hunter, M. L. Jr 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects and artificial nest predation rates. - Conserv. Biol. 12: 465-469.
22. Haskell, D. G. 1995. A reevaluation of the effects of forest fragmentation on rates of bird-nest predation. - Conserv. Biol. 9: 1316-1318.
23. Haskell, D. G., Knapp, A. M. and Schneider, M. C., 2001. Nest predator abundance and urbanization. - In: Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. and Donnelly, R. (eds), Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 243-258.
24. Hatchwell, B. J. et al. 1999. Reproductive success and nest-site selection in a cooperative breeder: effect of experience and a direct benefit of helping. - Auk 116: 355-363.
25. Jobin, B. and Picman, J. 1997. Factors affecting predation on artificial nest in marshes. - J. Wildl. Manage. 61: 792-800.
26. Johnston, R. F. 2001. Synanthropic birds of North America. In: Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. and Donnelly, R. (eds), Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 49-68.
27. Jokimäki, J. and Suhonen, J. 1993. Effects of urbanization on the breeding bird species richness in Finland: a biogeographical comparison. - Ornis Fenn. 70: 71-77.
28. Jokimäki, J. and Huhta, E. 2000. Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient. - Condor 102: 838-847.
29. Knutson, M. G., Gutreuter, S. J. and Klaas, E. E. 2000. Patterns of artificial nest predation in a large floodplain forest. - J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 576-583.
30. Kosinski, Z. 2001. Effects of urbanization on nest site selection and nesting success of the greenfinch Carduelis chloris in Krotoszyn, Poland. - Ornis Fenn. 78: 175-183.
31. Lahti, D. C. 2001. The "edge effect on nest predation" hypothesis after twenty years. - Biol. Conserv. 99: 365-374.
32. Langen, T. A., Bolger, D. T. and Case, T. J. 1991. Predation on artificial bird nests in chaparral fragments. - Oecologia 86: 395-401.
33. Lewis, K. P. and Montevecchi, W. A. 1999. Predation on different-sized quail eggs in an artificial-nest study in western Newfoundland. - Can. J. Zool. 77: 1170-1173.
34. Mackin-Rogalska, R. et al. 1988. Changes in vegetation, avifauna, and small mammals in a suburban habitat. - Polish Ecol. Stud. 14: 293-330.
35. Maier, T. J. and DeGraaf, R. M. 2000. Predation on Japanese quail vs. house sparrow eggs in artificial nests: small eggs reveal small predators. - Condor 102: 325-332.
36. Major, R. E. 1991. Identification of nest predators by photography, dummy eggs and adhesive tape. - Auk 108: 190-195.
37. Major, R. E. and Kendal, C. E. 1996. The contribution of artificial nest experiments to understanding avian reproductive success: a review of method and conclusions. - Ibis 138: 298-307.
38. Major, R. E., Gowing, G. and Kendal, C. E. 1996. Nest predation in Australian urban environments and the role of the pied currawong, Streptera graculina. - Aust. J. Ecol. 21: 399-409.
39. Marzluff, J. M. 2001. Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. - In: Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. and Donnelly, R. (eds), Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 19-48.
40. McIntyre, N. E. 2000. Ecology of urban arthropods: a review and a call to action. - Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 94: 825-835.
41. Melampy, M. N., Kershner, E. L. and Jones, M. A. 1999. Nest predation in suburban and rural woodlots of northern Ohio. - Am. Midl. Nat. 141: 284-292.
42. Miller, J. R. 1998. Avian nest predation and urbanization: a dent in the dogma. - In: Ecological Society of America 83rd Annual Meeting Program.
43. Miller, J. R. et al. 2001. Urbanization, avian communities, and landscape ecology. - In: Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. and Donnelly, R. (eds), Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 117-138.
44. Mills, G. S., Dunning, J. B. Jr and Bates, J. M. 1989. Effects of urbanization on breeding bird community structure in southwestern desert habitats. - Condor 91: 416-428.
45. Mitchell, A. 1999. The ESRI guide to GIS analysis: Volume 1: geographic patterns and relationships. - ESRI Press.
46. Myers, R. L. and Ewel, J. J. 1991. Ecosystems of Florida. - Univ. Central Florida Press.
47. Norušis, M. J. 1999. SPSS regression models 10.0. - SPSS.
48. Part, T. and Wretenberg, J. 2001. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? - J. Avian Biol. 33: 39-46.
49. Paton, P. W. C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? - Conserv. Biol. 8: 17-26.
50. Rangen, S. A., Clark, R. G. and Hobson, K. A. 2000. Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. - Auk 117: 136-146.
51. Rangen, S. A., Clark, R. G. and Hobson, K. A. 2001. Predator responses to similarity and dispersion of artificial nest sites: implications for the structure of boreal forest songbird communities. - Auk 118: 105-115.
52. Reichard, S. H., Chalker-Scott, L. and Buchanan, S. 2001. Interactions among non-native plants and birds. - In: Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R. and Donnelly, R. (eds), Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publ., pp. 179-224.
53. Ricklefs, R. E. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. - Smithson. Contr. Zool. 9: 1-48.
54. Schmidt, K. A., Goheen, J. R. and Naumann, R. 2001. Incidental nest predation in songbirds: behavioral indicators detect ecological scales and processes. - Ecology 82: 2937-2947.
55. Skagen, S. K., Stanley, T. R. and Dillon, M. B. 1999. Do mammalian nest predators follow human scent trails in the shortgrass prairie? - Wilson Bull. 111: 415-420.
56. Sowls, L. K. 1948. The Franklin ground squirrel, Citellus franklinii (Sabine), and its relationship to nesting ducks. J. Mammal. 29: 113-137.
57. Tatner, P. 1982. The breeding biology of magpies Pica pica in an urban environment. - J. Zool. Lond. 197: 559-581.
58. Weidinger, K. 2001. How well do predation rates on artificial nests estimate predation on natural passerine nests? - Ibis 143: 632-641.
59. Whelan, C. J. et al. 1994. Effects of olfactory cues on artificial-nest experiments. - Auk 111: 945-952.
60. Wilcove, D. S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. - Ecology 66: 1211-1214.
61. Willebrand, T. and Marcström, V. 1988. On the danger of using dummy nests to study predation. - Auk 105: 378-379.
62. Willson, M. F. et al. 2001. Patterns of predation risk and survival of bird nests in a Chilean agricultural landscape. Conserv. Biol. 15: 447-456.
63. Wilson, G. R., Brittingham, M. C. and Goodrich, L. J. 1998. How well do artificial nests estimate success of real nests? - Condor 100: 357-364.
64. Winter, M., Johnson, D. H. and Faaborg, J. 2000. Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in tallgrass prairie. - Condor 102: 256-266.
65. Woolfenden, G. E. and Fitzpatrick, J. W. 1996. Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). - In: Poole, A. and Gill, F. (eds), The birds of North America, No. 228. Academy of Natural Science and American Ornithologists' Union, pp. 1-28.
66. Yahner, R. H. and Piergallini, N. H. 1998. Effects of microsite selection on predation of artificial ground nests. - Wilson Bull. 110: 439-442.
67. Zanette, L. 2002. What do artificial nests tells us about nest predation? - Biol. Conserv. 103: 323-329.
68. Zar, J. 1997. Biostatistical analysis, 3rd ed. - Prentice Hall.