Nest predation in Reed Buntings Emberiza schoeniclus: An experimental study

Ibis

Volumn 149, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 365-373

  Schiegg, Karin ^a   Eger, Marc ^a   Pasinelli, Gilberto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DENSITY DEPENDENCE; EDGE EFFECT; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT LOSS; LOWLAND ENVIRONMENT; NATURE RESERVE; NEST PREDATION; NEST SITE; PASSERINE; PREDATION RISK; REEDBED; SEASONAL VARIATION;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; SWITZERLAND;

AVES; COTURNIX; COTURNIX JAPONICA; EMBERIZA SCHOENICLUS; PHASIANIDAE; PHRAGMITES;

EID: 34047139463     PISSN: 00191019     EISSN: 1474919X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00654.x     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Aebischer, A., Perrin, N., Krieg, M., Studer, J. & Meyer, D.R. 1996. The role of territory choice, mate choice and arrival date on breeding success in the Savi's Warbler, Locustella luscinioides. J. Avian Biol. 27: 143-152.
2. Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Petrov, B.N. & Csáki, F. (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory: 267-281. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
3. Allison, P.D. 2001. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
4. Ammon, E.M. & Stacey, P.B. 1997. Avian nest success in relation to past grazing regimes in a montane riparian system. Condor 99: 7-13.
5. Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. & Thomson, W.L. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 912-923.
6. Andrén, H. 1995. Effects of landscape composition on predation rates at habitat edges. In Hansson, L., Fahrig, L. & Merriam, G. (eds) Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes: 225-255. London: Chapman & Hall.
7. Andrén, H. & Angelstam, P. 1988. Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental evidence. Ecology 69: 544-547.
8. Báldi, A. & Batáry, P. 2000. Do predation rates of artificial nests differ between edge and interior reedbed habitats? Acta Oecol. 35: 53-55.
9. Bart, J. & Robson, D.S. 1977. Estimating survivorship when the subjects are visited periodically. Ecology 63: 1078-1090.
10. Batáry, P. & Báldi, A. 2004. Evidence of an edge effect on avian nest success. Conserv. Biol. 18: 389-400.
11. Batáry, P. & Báldi, A. 2005a. Nest predation in European reedbeds: different losses in edges but similar losses in interiors. Folia Zool. 54: 285-292.
12. Batáry, P. & Báldi, A. 2005b. Factors affecting the survival of real and artificial Great Reed Warbler's nests. Biologia 60: 215-219.
13. Batáry, P., Winkler, H. & Báldi, A. 2004. Experiments with artificial nests on predation in reed habitats. J. Ornithol. 145: 59-63.
14. Blümel, H. 1995. Die Rohrammer: Emberiza schoeniclus. Magdeburg: Westarp Wissenschaften.
15. Brittingham, M.C. & Temple, S.A. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? Bioscience 33: 31-35.
16. Burke, D.M., Elliott, K., Moore, L., Dunford, W., Nol, E., Phillips, J., Holmes, S. & Freemark, K. 2004. Patterns of nest predation on artificial and natural nests in forests. Conserv. Biol. 18: 381-388.
17. Burnham, K.P. & Anderson, D.R. 2001. Kullback-Leibler information as a basis for strong inference in ecological studies. Wildlife Res. 28: 111-119.
18. Burnham, K.P. & Anderson, D.R. 2002. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer.
19. Chalfoun, A.D., Thompson, F.R. III & Ratnaswamy, M.J. 2002. Nest predators and fragmentation: a review and meta-analysis. Conserv. Biol. 16: 306-318.
20. Conner, M.L. & Perkins, M.W. 2003. Nest predator use of food plots within a forest matrix: an experiment using artificial nests. Forest Ecol. Manage. 179: 223-229.
21. Crabtree, R.L., Broome, L.S. & Wolfe, M.L. 1989. Effects of habitat characteristics on gadwall nest predation and nest-site selection. J. Wildl. Manage. 53: 129-137.
22. Cramp, S. & Perrins, C.M. (eds) 1994. The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Faaborg, J. 2004. Truly artificial nest studies. Conserv. Biol. 18: 369-370.
24. Ferguson, J.W.H. 1993. Do nest site characteristics affect breeding success of Red Bishops Euplectes orix? Ostrich 65: 274-280.
25. Gates, J.E. & Gysel, L.W. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59: 871-883.
26. Gendron, R.P. 1986. Searching for cryptic prey: evidence for optimal search rates and the formation of search images in quail. Anim. Behav. 34: 898-912.
27. Glutz von Blotzheim, U.N. & Bauer, K.M. 1991. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Vol. 12. Wiesbaden: Aula.
28. Glutz von Blotzheim, U.N. & Bauer, K.M. 1997. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Vol. 14. Wiesbaden: Aula.
29. Gutzwiller, K.J., Riffell, S.K. & Anderson, S.H. 2002. Repeated human intrusion and the potential for nest predation by gray jays. J. Wildl. Manage. 66: 372-380.
30. Hanski, I.K. & Laurila, A. 1993. High nest predation rates of the Chaffinch. Ornis Fennica 70: 65-70.
31. Hansson, B., Bensch, S. & Hasselquist, D. 2000. Patterns of nest predation contribute to polygyny in the Great Reed Warbler. Ecology 81: 319-328.
32. Hartley, M.J. & Hunter, M.L. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial nest predation rates. Conserv. Biol. 12: 465-469.
33. Haskell, D.G. 1995. Forest fragmentation and nest predation: are experiments with Japanese Quail eggs misleading? Auk 112: 767-770.
34. Hoi, H., Darlova, A. & Kristofik, J. 2001. Factors influencing nest depredation in European reed passerines. In Hoi, H. (ed.) The Ecology of Reed Birds: 27-36. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
35. Hoi, H. & Winkler, H. 1988. Feinddruck auf Schilfbrüter: Eine experimentelle Untersuchung. J. Ornithol. 129: 439-447.
36. Hoi, H. & Winkler, H. 1994. Predation on nests: a case of apparent competition. Oecologia 98: 436-440.
37. Honza, M., Øien, I.J., Moksnes, A. & Røskaft, E. 1998. Survival of Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus clutches in relation to nest position. Bird Study 45: 104-108.
38. Hoover, J.P., Brittingham, M.C. & Goodrich, L.J. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on nesting success of Wood Thrushes. Auk 112: 146-155.
39. Johnson, J.B. & Omland, K.S. 2004. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 101-108.
40. Keddy, P.A. 2000. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41. Kristiansen, J.N. 1998. Egg predation in reedbed nesting Greylag Geese Anser anser in Vejlerne, Denmark. Ardea 86: 137-145.
42. Lahti, D.C. 2001. The 'edge effect on nest predation' hypothesis after twenty years. Biol. Conserv. 99: 365-374.
43. Lenington, S. 1979. Predators and blackbirds: the 'uncertainty principle' in field biology. Auk 96: 190-192.
44. Maier, T.J. & DeGraaf, R.M. 2000. Predation on Japanese Quail vs. House Sparrow eggs in artificial nests: small eggs reveal small predators. Condor 102: 325-332.
45. Major, R. 1990. The effect of human observers on the intensity of nest predation. Ibis 132: 608-611.
46. Martin, T.E. 1993. Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. Am. Nat. 141: 897-913.
47. Martin, T.E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol. Monogr. 65: 101-127.
48. Mayer-Gross, H., Crick, H.Q.P. & Greenwood, J.J.D. 1997. The effect of observers visiting the nests of passerines: an experimental study. Bird Study 44: 53-65.
49. McElligott, A.G., Altwegg, R. & Hayden, T.J. 2002. Age-specific survival and reproductive probabilities: evidence for senescence in male fallow deer (Dama dama). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 1129-1137.
50. Møller, A.P. 1988. Nest predation and nest site choice in passerine birds in habitat patches of different size: a study of magpies and blackbirds. Oikos 53: 215-221.
51. O'Grady, D.R., Hill, D.P. & Barclay, M.R. 1996. Nest visitation by humans does not increase predation on Chestnut-collared Longspur eggs and young. J. Field Ornithol. 67: 275-280.
52. Ortega, C.P., Ortega, J.C., Rapp, C.A. & Backensto, S.A. 1997. Validating the use of artificial nests in predation experiments. J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 925-932.
53. Pasinelli, G. & Schiegg, K. 2006. Fragmentation within and between wetland reserves: the importance of spatial scales for nest predation in reed buntings. Ecography 29: 721-732.
54. Paton, P.W. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conserv. Biol. 8: 17-26.
55. Rangen, S.A., Clark, R.G. & Hobson, K.A. 2000. Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117: 136-146.
56. Reitsma, L.R., Holmes, R.T. & Sherry, T.W. 1990. Effects of removal of red squirrels, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, and eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus, on nest predation in a northern hardwood forest: an artificial nest experiment. Oikos 57: 375-380.
57. Ricklefs, R.E. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 9: 1-48.
58. Robinson, S.K., Thompson, F.R. III, Donovan, T.M., Whitehead, D.R. & Faaborg, J. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267: 1987-1990.
59. Roos, S. 2002. Functional response, seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia 133: 608-615.
60. Roper, J.J. 1992. Nest predation experiments with quail eggs: too much to swallow? Oikos 65: 528-530.
61. Sæther, B.-E. & Bakke, O. 2000. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81: 642-653.
62. SAS Institute Inc. 2002-03. SAS Proprietary Software Release 9.1.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
63. Schäfer, T. 2002. Adaption an Nestprädation bei der Mönchsgrasmücke. PhD thesis. Max-Planck-Forschungsstelle für Ornithologie, Vogelwarte Radolfzell, Zoologisches Institut, Georg-August - Universität zu Göttingen.
64. Schaub, R., Mumme, R.L. & Woolfenden, G.E. 1992. Predation on the eggs and nestlings of Florida Scrub Jays. Auk 109: 585-593.
65. Skutch, A.F. 1985. Clutch size, nesting success, and predation on nests of neotropical birds, reviewed. Ornithol. Monogr. 36: 575-603.
66. Stephens, S.E., Koons, D.N., Rotella, J.J. & Willey, D.W. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on avian nesting success: a review of the evidence at multiple spatial scales. Biol. Conserv. 115: 101-110.
67. Stuart-Smith, A.K. & Hayes, J.P. 2003. Influence of residual tree density on predation of artificial and natural songbird nests. Forest Ecol. Manage. 183: 159-176.
68. Tryjanowski, P. & Kuzniak, S. 1999. Effect of research activity on the success of Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio nests. Ornis Fennica 76: 41-43.
69. Villard, M.A. & Pärt, T. 2004. Don't put all your eggs in real nests: a sequel to Faaborg. Conserv. Biol. 18: 371-372.
70. Weggler, M. & Widmer, M. 2001. Brutvögel im Kanton Zürich - Status und Bestandsveränderungen 1986/88-1999/2000. Vjschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 146: 15-28.
71. Whelan, C.J., Diliger, M.L., Robson, D., Hallyn, N. & Dilger, S. 1994. Effects of olfactory cues on artificial nest experiments. Auk 111: 945-952.
72. Wilcove, D.S., McLellan, C.H. & Dobson, A.P. 1985. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In Soulé, M.E. (ed.) Conservation Biology: 237-256. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
73. Wilson, G.R. & Brittingham, M.C. 1998. How well do artificial nests estimate success of real nests? Condor 100: 357-364.
74. Winkler, D.W. 2004. Nests, eggs, and young: breeding biology of birds. In Podulka, S., Rohrbaugh Jr, R., Bonney, R. (eds) Handbook of Bird Biology: 8.0-8.152. Ithaca: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
75. Yahner, R.H. & Wright, A.L. 1985. Depredation on artificial ground nests: effects of edge and plot age. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 508-513.
76. Zanette, L. 2002. What do artificial nests tells us about nest predation? Biol. Conserv. 103: 323-329.