Manipulated density of adult mallards affects nest survival differently in different landscapes

Canadian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 85, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 589-595

  Elmberg, Johan ^a   Gunnarsson, Gunnar ^a,b  

^a KRISTIANSTAD UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; LAKES; MAMMALS; POPULATION DYNAMICS; WATER;

AVIAN PREDATORS; LANDSCAPES; PREDATION;

BIRDS;

ABUNDANCE; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; INTRODUCED SPECIES; LAKE ECOSYSTEM; NEST PREDATION; POPULATION DENSITY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SURVIVAL; WATERFOWL;

ANAS; ANAS PLATYRHYNCHOS; ANATIDAE; AVES; MAMMALIA;

EID: 34547872367     PISSN: 00084301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/Z07-038     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ackerman, J.T., Blackmer, A.L., and Eadie, J.McA. 2004. Is predation on waterfowl nests density dependent? - Tests at three spatial scales. Oikos, 107: 128-140. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13226.x.
2. Afton, A.D., and Paulus, S.L. 1992. Incubation and brood care. In Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Edited by B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. pp. 62-108.
3. Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Budapest, Hungary, 1973. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif. pp. 267-281.
4. Albon, S.D., Coulson, T.N., Brown, D., Guinness, F.E., Pemberton, J.M., and Clutton-Brock, T.H. 2000. Temporal changes in key factors and key age groups influencing the population dynamics of female red deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 1099-1110. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00485.x.
5. Albrecht, T., and Klvana, P. 2004. Nest crypsis, reproductive value of a clutch and escape decisions in incubating female mallards Anas platyrhynchos. Ethology, 110: 603-613. doi:10.1111/j-1439-0310.2004. 00992.x.
6. Andrén, H., Angelstam, P., Lindström, E., and Widén, P. 1985. Differences in predation pressure in relation to habitat fragmentation: an experiment. Oikos, 45: 273-277. doi:10.2307/3565714.
7. Baldassarre, G.A., and Bolen, E.G. 2006. Waterfowl ecology and management. 2nd ed. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Fla.
8. Batt, B.D.J., Afton, A.D., Anderson, M.G., Ankney, C.D., Johnson, D.H., Kadlec, J.A., and Krapu, G.L. (Editors). 1992. Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
9. Burnham, K.P., and Anderson, D.R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
10. Butler, M.A., and Rotella, J.J. 1998. Validity of using artificial nests to assess duck-nest success. J. Wildl. Manag. 62: 163-171.
11. Clark, R.G., and Wobeser, B.K. 1997. Making sense of scents: effects of odour on survival of simulated duck nests. J. Avian Biol. 28: 31-37. doi:10.2307/3677091.
12. Esler, D., and Grand, J.B. 1993. Factors influencing depredation of artificial duck nests. J. Wildl. Manag. 57: 244-248.
13. Fontaine, J.J., and Martin, T.E. 2006. Parent birds assess nest predation risk and adjust their reproductive strategies. Ecol. Lett. 9: 428-434, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00892.x.
14. Glutz von Blotzheim, U. 1990. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, Band 2 Anseriformes. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.
15. Hein, E.W., and Hein, W.S. 1996. Effect of flagging on predation of artificial duck nests. J. Field Ornithol. 67: 604-611.
16. Hildén, O. 1964. Ecology of duck populations in the island group of Valassaaret, Gulf of Bothnia. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 1: 153-279.
17. Hill, D.A. 1984. Clutch predation in relation to nest density in mallard and tufted duck. Wildfowl, 35: 151-156.
18. Koskimies, P., and Väisänen, R.A. 1991. Monitoring bird populations. Zoological Museum, Finnsih Museum of Natural History, Helsinki.
19. Krebs, J.R., and Davies, N.B. 1993. An introduction to behavioural ecology. 3rd ed. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
20. Larivière, S. 1999. Reasons why predators cannot be inferred from nest remains. Condor, 101: 718-721. doi:10.2307/1370209.
21. Larivière, S., and Messier, F. 1998. Effect of density and nearest neighbours on simulated waterfowl nests: can predators recognize high-density nesting patches? Oikos, 83: 12-20. doi:10.2307/3546541.
22. Larivière, S., and Messier, F. 2001. Temporal patterns of predation of duck nests in the Canadian Prairies. Am. Midl. Nat. 146: 339-344. doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2001)146[0339:TPOPOD]2.0.CO;2.
23. Loos, E.R., and Rohwer, F.C. 2004. Laying-stage nest attendance and onset of incubation in prairie nesting ducks. Auk, 121: 587-599. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2004)121[0587:LNAAOO]2.0.CO;2.
24. Major, R.E. 1990. The effect of human observers on the intensity of nest predation. Ibis, 132: 608-612.
25. Major, R.E., and 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.
26. Martin, T.E. 1988. Processes organizing open-nesting bird assemblages: competition or nest predation? Evol. Ecol. 2: 37-50. doi:10.1007/ BF02071587.
27. Mezquida, E.T., and Marone, L. 2003. Are results of artificial nest experiments a valid indicator of success of natural nests? Wilson Bull. No. 115. pp. 270-276. doi:10.1676/02-117.
28. Miller, S.G., Knight, R.L., and Miller, C.K. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecol. Appl. 8: 162-169. doi:10.2307/2641318.
29. Nams, V.O. 1997. Density-dependent predation by skunks using olfactory search images. Oecologia (Berl.), 110: 440-448. doi:10.1007/ s004420050179.
30. Newton, I. 1998. Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, London.
31. Niemuth, N.D., and Boyce, M.S. 1995. Spatial and temporal patterns of predation of simulated sage grouse nests at high and low nest densities: an experimental study. Can. J. Zool. 73: 819-825.
32. Opermanis, O. 2004. Appearance and vulnerability of artificial duck nests to avian predators. J. Avian Biol. 35: 410-415. doi:10.1111/j.0908-8857. 2004.03243.x.
33. Opermanis, O., Mednis, A., and Bauga, I. 2001. Duck nests and predators: interactions, specialisation and possible management. Wildl. Biol. 7: 87-96.
34. Pearse, A.T., and Ratti, J.T. 2004. Effects of predator removal on mallard duckling survival. J. Wildl. Manag. 68: 342-350.
35. Phillips, M.L., Clark, W.R., Sovada, M.A., Horn, D.J., Koford, R.R., and Greenwood, R.J. 2003. Predator selection of prairie landscape features and its relation to duck nest success. J. Wildl. Manag. 67: 104-114.
36. Phillips, M.L., Clark, W.R., Nusser, S.M., Sovada, M.A., and Greenwood, R.J. 2004. Analysis of predator movement in prairie landscapes with contrasting grassland composition. J. Mammal. 85: 187-195. doi:10.1644/1545- 1542(2004)085〈0187:AOPMIP〉2.0.CO;2.
37. Picozzi, N. 1975. Crow predation on marked nests. J. Wildl. Manag. 39: 151-155.
38. Pärt, T., and Wretenberg, J. 2002. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? J. Avian Biol. 33: 39-46. doi:10.1034/j.1600-048X.2002.330107.x.
39. Pöysä, H. 2003. Parasitic common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) females lay preferentially in safe neighbourhoods. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 54: 30-35. doi:10.1007/s00265-003-0596-1.
40. Pöysä, H. 2006. Public information and conspecific nest parasitism in goldeneyes: targeting safe nests by parasites. Behav. Ecol. 17: 459-465. doi:10.1093/beheco/arj049.
41. Ringelman, J.K., Longcore, J.R., and Owen, J.B., Jr. 1982. Breeding habitat selection and home range of radio-marked Black Ducks (Anas rubripes) in Maine. Can. J. Zool. 60: 241-248.
42. Roos, S. 2002. Functional response, seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia (Berl.), 133: 608-615. doi:10.1007/s00442-002-1056-8.
43. Roos, S., and Pärt, T. 2004. Nest predators affect spatial dynamics of breeding red-backed shrikes (Lanius collurio). J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 117-127. doi:10.111/j.1365-2656.2004.00786.x.
44. Santisteban, L., Sieving, K.E., and Avery, M.L. 2002. Use of sensory cues by fish crows Corvus ossifragus preying on artificial bird nests. J. Avian Biol. 33: 245-252. doi:10.1034/j.1600-048X.2002.330306.x.
45. Sargeant, A.B., and Raveling, D.G. 1992. Mortality during the breeding season. In Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. Edited by B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. pp. 396-422.
46. Solman, V.E.F. 1945. The ecological relations of pike (Esox lucius L.) and waterfowl. Ecology, 26: 157-170. doi:10.2307/1930821.
47. Sugden, L.G., and Beyersbergen, G.W. 1986. Effect of density and concealment on American crow predation of simulated duck nests. J. Wildl. Manag. 50: 9-14.
48. Tewksbury, J.J., Garner, L., Garner, S., Lloyd, J.D., Saab, V., and Martin, T.E. 2006. Tests of landscape influence: nest predation and brood parasitism in fragmented ecosystems. Ecology, 87: 759-768.
49. Thomson, R.L., Forsman, J.T., Sardà-Palomera, F., and Mönkkönen, M. 2006. Fear factor: prey habitat selection and its consequences in a predation risk landscape. Ecography, 29: 507-514.
50. Tinbergen, N., Impekoven, M., and Franck, D. 1967. An experiment on spacing-out as a defense against predation. Behaviour, 28: 307-321.
51. Trost, R., Dickson, K., and Zavaleta, D. 1993. Harvesting waterfowl on a sustained yield basis: the North American perspective. IWRB Spec. Publ. 26: 106-112. Wetlands International, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
52. White, G.C., and Burnham, K.P. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study, 46(Suppl.): 120-139.
53. Willms, M.A., and Crawford, R.D. 1989. Use of earthen islands by nesting ducks in North Dakota. J. Wildl. Manag. 53: 411-417.
54. 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. doi:10.2307/1370277.