An inexpensive method for identifying predators of passerine nests using tethered artificial eggs

New Zealand Journal of Ecology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 377-385

  Boulton, Rebecca L ^a,c   Cassey, Phillip ^b  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Artificial egg; Clay egg; Introduced birds; Nest predation; New Zealand

Indexed keywords

INTRODUCED SPECIES; NEST PREDATION; PASSERINE;

AUSTRALASIA; NEW ZEALAND; NORTH ISLAND;

AVES; CIRCUS; CIRCUS APPROXIMANS; GYMNORHINA TIBICEN; PASSERIFORMES; RATTUS; RATTUS SP.;

EID: 33846597140     PISSN: 01106465     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Anthony, R.M.; Grand, J.B.; Fondell, T.F.; Manly, B.F. J. 2004. A quantitative approach to identifying predators from nest remains. Journal of Field Ornithology 75: 40-48.
2. Berry, L.; Lill, A. 2003. Do predation rates on artificial nest accurately predict predation rates on natural nests? The effects of nest type, egg type and nestsite characteristics. Emu 103: 207-214.
3. Boulton, R.L.; Clarke, M.F. 2003. Do yellow-faced honeyeaters (Lichenostomus chrysops) nests experience higher predation at forest edges? Wildlife Research 30: 119-125.
4. Briskie, J.V. 2003. Frequency of egg rejection by potential hosts of the New Zealand cuckoos. Condor 105: 719-727.
5. Brown, K.P. 1997. Predation at nests of two New Zealand endemic passerines; implications for bird community restoration. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 91-98.
6. Brown, K.P.; Moller, H.; Innes, J.; Jansen, P. 1998. Identifying predators at nests of small birds in a New Zealand forest. Ibis 140: 274-279.
7. Buler, J.J.; Hamilton, R.B. 2000. Predation of natural and artificial nests in a southern pine forest. Auk 117: 739-747.
8. Davies, N.B.; Brooke, M.D. 1989. An experimental-study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculuscanorus, and its hosts. 1. Host egg discrimination. Journal of Animal Ecology 58: 207-224.
9. Deeming, D.C. 2002. Behaviour patterns during incubation. In: Deeming, D.C. (Editor), Avian incubation: Behaviour environment, and evolution, pp 63-87. Oxford University Press, New York.
10. Grim, T.; Honza, M. 2001. Differences in behaviour of closely related thrushes (Turdus philomelos and T. merula) to experimental parasitism by the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Biologia 56: 549-556.
11. Groom, D.W. 1993. Magpie Pica pica predation on blackbird Turdus merula nests in urban areas. Bird Study 40: 55-62.
12. Hatchwell, B.J.; Chamberlain, D.E.; Perrins, C.M. 1996. The reproductive success of blackbirds Turdus merula in relation to habitat structure and choice of nest site. Ibis 138: 256-262.
13. Higuchi, H. 1989. Response of the bush warbler Cettia diphone to artificial eggs of Cuculus cuckoos in Japan. Ibis 131: 94-98.
14. Innes, J. 2001. Advances in New Zealand mammology 1990-2000: European rats. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 31: 111-125.
15. Innes, J.; Brown, K.; Jansen, P.; Shorten, R.; Williams, D. 1996. Kokako population studies at Rotoehe Forest and on Little Barrier Island. Science for conservation: 30. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
16. Keedwell, R.J.; Sanders, M.D. 2002. Nest monitoring and predator visitation at nests of banded dotterels. Condor 104: 899-902.
17. Kentish, B.J.; Dann, P.; Lowe, K.W. 1995. Breeding biology of the common blackbird Turdus merula in Australia. Emu 95: 233-244.
18. King, C.M.; Innes, J.G.; Flux, M.; Kimberley, M.O.; Leathwick, J.R.; Williams, D.S. 1996. Distribution and abundance of small mammals in relation to habitat in Pureora Forest Park. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20: 215-240.
19. King, D.I.; DeGraaf, R.M.; Champlin, P.J.; Champlin, T.B. 2001. A new method for wireless video monitoring of bird nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 349-353.
20. Lariviére, S. 1999. Reasons why predators cannot be inferred from nest remains. Condor 101: 718-721.
21. Maier, T.J.; DeGraaf, R.M. 2001. Differences in depredation by small predators limit the use of plasticine and zebra finch eggs in artificial-nest studies. Condor 103: 180-183.
22. Major, R.E. 1991. Identification of nest predators by photography, dummy eggs, and adhesive tape. Auk 108: 190-195.
23. Major, R.E.; Gowing, G. 1994. An inexpensive photographic technique for identifying nest predators at active nests of birds. Wildlife Research 21: 657-666.
24. Major, R.E.; Kendall, C.E. 1996. The contribution of artificial nest experiments to understanding avian reproductive success: a review of methods and conclusions. Ibis 138: 298-307.
25. Major, R.E.; Pyke, G.H.; Christy, M.T.; Gowing, G.; Hill, R.S. 1994. Can nest predation explain the timing of the breeding season and the pattern of nest dispersion of New Holland Honeyeaters? Oikos 69: 364-372.
26. Mayfield, H.F. 1961. Nesting success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bulletin 73: 255-261.
27. Mayfield, H.F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin 87: 456-466.
28. Moksnes, A.; Roskaft, E.; Braa, A.T.; Korsnes, L.; Lampe, H.M.; Pedersen, H.C. 1991. Behavioral responses of potential hosts towards artificial cuckoo eggs and dummies. Behaviour 116: 64-89.
29. Møller, A.P.; Jennions, M.D. 2002. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132: 492-500.
30. Moors, P.J. 1983a. Predation by mustelids and rodents on the eggs and chicks of native and introduced birds in Kowhai Bush, New Zealand. Ibis 125: 137-154.
31. Moors, P.J. 1983b. Predation by stoats (Mustela erminea) and weasels (M. nivalis) on nests of New Zealand forest birds. Acta Zoologica Fennica 174: 193-196.
32. Morgan, D.; Waas, J.R., Innes, J. 2006. The relative importance of Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) as nest predators of rural birds in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 33: 17-29.
33. Ortega, C.P.; Ortega, J.C.; Cruz, A. 1994. Use of artificial brown-headed cowbird eggs as a potential management tool in deterring parasitism. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 488-492.
34. Osborne, P.; Osborne, L. 1980. The contribution of nest site characteristics to breeding success among blackbirds Turdus merula. Ibis 122: 512-517.
35. Pärt, T.; Wretenberg, J. 2002. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? Journal of Avian Biology 33: 39-46.
36. Rangen, S.A.; Clark, R.G.; Hobson, K.A. 2000. Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117: 136-146.
37. Ricklefs, R.E. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions Zoology 9: 1-48.
38. Sanders, M.D.; Maloney, R.F. 2002. Causes of mortality at nests of ground-nesting birds in the Upper Waitaki Basin, South Island, New Zealand: a 5-year video study. Biological Conservation 106: 225-236.
39. SAS Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT User's guide, Carey, NC.
40. Shaffer, T.L. 2004. A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121: 526-540.
41. Skutch, A.F. 1976. Parent birds and their young. University of Texas Press, Austin and London.
42. Staller, E.L.; Palmer, W.E.; Carroll, J.P.; Thornton, R.P.; Sisson, D.C. 2005. Identifying predators at northern bobwhite nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 124-132.
43. Storaas, T. 1988. A comparison of losses in artificial and naturally occurring capercaillie nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 123-126.
44. Thompson, F.R.I.; Burhans, D.E. 2004. Differences in predators of artificial and real songbird nests: evidence of bias in artificial nest studies. Conservation Biology 18: 373-380.
45. Thompson, F.R.I.; Dijak, W.; Burhans, D.E. 1999. Video identification of predators at songbirds nests in old fields. Auk 116: 259-264.
46. Williams, G.E.; Wood, P.B. 2002. Are traditional methods of determining nest predators and nest fates reliable? An experiment with wood thrushes (Hylocichla mustelina) using miniature video cameras. Auk 119: 1126-1132.
47. Zanette, L. 2002. What do artificial nests tell us about nest predation? Biological Conservation 103: 323-329.