Mammalian nest predator feces as a cue in avian habitat selection decisions

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 262-266

  Forsman, Jukka T ^a   Mönkkönen, Mikko ^b   Korpimäki, Erkki ^c   Thomson, Robert L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

community structure; habitat selection; information use; nest predation.

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; FECES; HABITAT SELECTION; MAMMAL; MORTALITY; NEST PREDATION; PASSERINE; PREDATION RISK; URINE;

ANIMALIA; AVES; MAMMALIA; MUSTELA; PASSERI; PASSERIFORMES;

EID: 84871257390     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ars162     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Amo L, Galvan I, Tomas G, Sanz JJ. 2008. Predator odour recognition and avoidance in a songbird. Funct Ecol. 22:289-293.
2. Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC, Partridge JC, Maier ES. 1996. Ultraviolet vision and mate choice in zebra finches. Nature. 380:433-435.
3. Chalfoun AD, Martin TE. 2010. Parental investment decisions in response to ambient nest-predation risk versus actual predation on the prior nest. Condor. 112:701-710.
4. Church SC, Bennett ATD, Cuthill IC, Partridge JC. 1998. Ultraviolet cues affect the foraging behavior of blue tits. Proc R Soc B. 265:1509-1514.
5. Dall SRX, Giraldeau L-A, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW. 2005. Information and its use in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:187-193.
6. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH. 2004. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science. 305:487-491.
7. Doligez B, Clobert J. 2003. Clutch size reduction in response to increased nest predation rate in the collared flycatcher. Ecology. 84:2582-2588.
8. Dunstone N, Birks JDS. 1987. The feeding ecology of mink (Mustela vison) in coastal habitat. J Zool. 212:69-83.
9. Eggers S, Griesser M, Nystrand M, Ekman J. 2006. Predation risk induces changes in nest-site selection and clutch size in the Siberian jay. Proc R Soc B. 273:701-706.
10. Emmering QC, Schmidt KA. 2011. Nesting songbirds assess spatial heterogeneity of predatory chipmunks by eavesdropping on their vocalizations. J Anim Ecol. 80:1305-1312.
11. Erlinge S. 1977. Spacing strategy in stoat Mustela erminea. Oikos. 28:32-42.
12. Fontaine JJ, Martin TE. 2006a. Parent birds assess nest predation risk and adjust their reproductive strategies. Ecol Lett. 9:428-434.
13. Fontaine JJ, Martin TE. 2006b. Habitat selection responses of parents to offspring predation risk: an experimental test. Am Nat. 168:811-818.
14. Forsman JT, Hjernquist MB, Gustafsson L. 2009. Experimental evidence for the use of interspecific density based information use in forest birds. Ecography. 32:539-545.
15. Forsman JT, Martin TE. 2009. Habitat selection for parasite-free space by hosts of parasitic cowbirds. Oikos. 118:464-470.
16. Forstmeier W, Weiss I. 2004. Adaptive plasticity in nest-site selection in response to changing predation risk. Oikos. 104:487-499.
17. Fretwell SD. 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
18. Honkavaara J, Koivula M, Korpimäki E, Siitari H, Viitala J. 2002. Ultraviolet vision and foraging in terrestrial vertebrates. Oikos. 98:505-511.
19. Jaenike J, Holt RD. 1991. Genetic variation for habitat preference: evidence and explanations. Am Nat. 137:S67-S90.
20. Järvinen O, Väisänen RA. 1976. Finnish line transect censuses. Ornis Fennica. 53:115-118.
21. Jedrzejewska B, Sidorovich VE, Pikulik MM, Jedrzejewski W. 2001. Feeding habits of the otter and the American mink in Białowieza Primeval Forest (Poland) compared to other Eurasian populations. Ecography. 24:165-180.
22. Kessler A, Baldwin I. 2002. Manduca quinquemaculata's optimization of intra-plant oviposition to predation, food quality, and thermal constraints. Ecology. 83:2346-2354.
23. Koivula M, Viitala J, Korpimäki E. 1999. Kestrels prefer scent marks according to species and reproductive status of voles. Ecoscience. 6:415-420.
24. Lima SL. 2009. Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation. Biol Rev. 84:485-513.
25. Martin TE. 1993. Nest predation and nest sites: new perspectives on old patterns. BioScience. 43:523-532.
26. Martin TE. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monogr. 65:101-127.
27. Martin TE. 1998. Are microhabitat preferences of coexisting species under selection and adaptive? Ecology. 79:656-670.
28. Mönkkönen M, Forsman JT, Kananoja T, Ylönen H. 2009. Indirect cues of nest predation risk and avian reproductive decisions. Biol Lett. 5:176-178.
29. Mönkkönen M, Härdling R, Forsman JT, Tuomi J. 1999. Evolution of heterospecific attraction: using other species as cues in habitat selection. Evol Ecol. 13:91-104.
30. Mönkkönen M, Husby M, Tornberg R, Helle P, Thomson RL. 2007. Predation as a landscape effect: the trading off by prey species between predation risks and protection benefits. J Anim Ecol. 76:619-629.
31. Morosinotto C, Thomson RL, Korpimäki E. 2010. Habitat selection as an antipredator behaviour in a multi-predator landscape: all enemies are not equal. J Anim Ecol. 79:327-333.
32. Niemimaa J. 1995. Activity patterns and home ranges of the American mink (Mustela vison) in the Finnish outer Archipelago. Ann Zool Fenn. 31:117-121.
33. Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E. 1998. Fear in farmlands: how much does predator avoidance affect bird community structure? J Avian Biol. 29:79-85.
34. Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E. 2000. Do predators limit the abundance of alternative prey?: experiments with vole eating avian and mammalian predators. Oikos. 91:528-540.
35. Pärt T, Gustafsson L. 1989. Breeding dispersal in the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis: possible causes and reproductive consequences. J Anim Ecol. 58:305-320.
36. Resetarits WJ Jr. 2005. Habitat selection behaviour links local and regional scales in aquatic systems. Ecol Lett. 8:480-486.
37. Rieger JF, Binckley CA, Resetarits WJ Jr. 2004. Larval performance and oviposition preference along a predation gradient. Ecology. 85:2094-2099.
38. Robinson SK, Thompson FR III, Donovan TM, Whitehead DR, Faaborg J. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science. 267:1987-1990.
39. Roth TC, Cox JG, Lima SL. 2008. Can foraging birds assess predation risk by scent? Anim Behav. 76:2021-2027.
40. Salo P, Toivola M, Nordström M, Korpimäki E. 2010. Effects of homerange characteristics on the diet composition of female American mink in the Baltic Sea archipelago. Ann Zool Fenn. 4:111-122.
41. Seppänen J-T, Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Thomson RL. 2007. Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology. 88:1622-1633.
42. Siitari H, Honkavaara J, Huhta E, Viitala J. 2002. Ultraviolet reflection and female mate choice in the pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Anim Behav. 63:97-102.
43. Söderström B, Pärt T, Ryden 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.
44. Stamps JA. 1988. Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat. 131:329-347.
45. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Reid ML. 2005. Search costs and habitat selection by dispersers. Ecology. 86:510-518.
46. Steiger SS, Fidler AE, Valcu M, Kempenaers B. 2008. Avian olfactory receptor gene repertoires: evidence for a well-developed sense of smell in birds? Proc R Soc B. 275:2309-2317.
47. Suhonen J, Norrdahl K, Korpimäki E. 1994. Avian predation risk modifies breeding bird community on a farmland area. Ecology. 75:1626-1634.
48. Trnka A, Peterková V, Grujbárová Z. 2011. Does Reed Bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) predict the risk of nest predation when choosing a breeding territory? An experimental study. Ornis Fennica. 88:179-184.
49. Tschanz B, Schmid E, Bacher S. 2005. Host plant exposure determines larval vulnerability-do prey females know? Funct Ecol. 19:391-395.
50. Valkama J, Currie D, Korpimäki E. 1999. Differences in the intensity of nest predation in the curlew Numenius arquata: a consequence of land use and predator densities? Ecoscience. 6:497-504.
51. Viitala J, Korpimäki E, Palokangas P, Koivula M. 1995. Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet light. Nature. 373:425-427.