Predation on Artificial Nests Imitating the Broods of Two Rallid Species: The Influence of Habitat Features

• Autorzy: Chibowski P. , Brzeziński M. , Jedlikowski J.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3161/15052249PJE2015.63.4.009

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We tested the influence of nest concealment (vegetation type, density and height), water depth and nest distance from the bank on predation rates upon simulated nests of the water rail (Rallus aquaticus) and the little crake (Porzana parva). Broods of both rallids were simulated by real and wax-filled quail (Coturnix coturnix) eggs coloured typically for each species. Three grades of nest concealment were used: uncovered nests located on wooden floating boards, nests hidden in littoral vegetation and nests hidden under a plastic mesh covered with plants, which made them invisible from the air. Concealment proved to have a stronger impact on the fate of artificial nests than water depth; 95% of the nests on boards were depredated after one week of exposure. Nests attached to a peg at water level and hidden in vegetation had survival rates of 18 and 22%, after three weeks of exposure in two experiment repetitions. In 2012, we found significant differences between survival rates of nests located in different types of vegetation after the first week of the experiment: nests in bulrush (Typha spp.) had a higher survival rate than nests in sedge (Carex spp.) and common reed (Phragmites australis), and nests in sedge had a better survival rate than nests in reed. Those differences disappeared after the end of the experiment. In 2013, nests located in sedge (Carex spp.) had a better survival rate than nests located in bulrush (Typha spp.) or the common reed (Phragmites australis). Covering nests with plastic mesh and plants increased nest survival up to 38% after a three-week-long exposure period. Potential nest predators were monitored: mammals (mustelids and rodents) using live traps and birds by observation of their hunting activity. Filling quail eggshells with wax allowed us to identify the marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) as the main nest predator — in 67% of depredated nests, wax eggs carried marks of a raptor beak. American mink (Neovison vison) and the water vole (Arvicola amhibius), though abundant in the study area, were not important nest predators, as only a few bite marks of these mammals were recorded.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

water rail; little crake; nest concealment; littoral vegetation; water vole; marsh harrier

PL

wodnik zwyczajny; gniazdo; ukrywanie; roślinność przybrzeżna; szlam; błotniak stawowy

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 63, nr 4
• Strony: 573--584
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 57 poz., fot., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Chibowski P.

• Faculty of Biology, Biological and Chemical Research Centre, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 101, 02-089 Warszawa, Poland

autor

Brzeziński M.

• Faculty of Biology, Biological and Chemical Research Centre, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 101, 02-089 Warszawa, Poland

autor

Jedlikowski J.

• Faculty of Biology, Biological and Chemical Research Centre, University of Warsaw, Żwirki i Wigury 101, 02-089 Warszawa, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Ackerman J.T., Blackmer A.L., Eadie J.M. 2004 — Is predation on waterfowl nests density dependent? — Tests at three spatial scales — Oikos, 107: 128–140.
• 2. Bartoszewicz M., Zalewski A. 2003 — American mink, Mustela vison diet and predation on waterfowl in the Słońsk Reserve, western Poland — Folia Zool. 52: 225–238.
• 3. Batáry P., Báldi A. 2005 — Factors affecting the survival of real and artificial great reed warbler's nests — Biologia, Bratislava, 60: 215–219.
• 4. Batáry P., Winkler H., Báldi A. 2004 — Experiments with artificial nests on predation in reed habitats — J. Ornithol. 145: 59–63.
• 5. Berry L. Lill A. 2003 — Do predation rates on artificial nests accurately predict predation rates on natural nests? The effect of nest-type, egg-type and nest-site characteristics — Emu, 103: 207–214.
• 6. Brambilla M., Jenkins R.K.B. 2009 — Cost-effective estimates of water rail Rallus aquaticus breeding population size — Ardeola, 56: 95–102
• 7. Brzeziński M., Żmihorski M. 2009 — Nestling diet and parental provisioning behaviour in the marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) — Acta Zool. Litua. 19: 93–98.
• 8. Brzeziński M., & Żmihorski M., Barkowska M. 2010 — Spatiotemporal variation in predation on artificial ground nests: a 12-year experiment — Ann. Zool. Fen. 47: 173–183. Link
• 9. Clark, R.G., Wobeser, B.K. 1997 — Making sense of scents: Effects of odour on survival of simulated duck nests — J. Avian Biol. 28: 31–37.
• 10. Colwell M.A. 1992 — Wilson's phalarope nest success is not influenced by vegetation concealment — Condor, 94: 767–772.
• 11. De Kroon G.H.J., Mommers M.H.J. 2005 — Biology and breeding ecology of the East Asiatic water rail on Shunkunitai Island, Hokkaido, Japan — J. Yamashina Inst. Ornithol. 37: 30–42.
• 12. Dvernychuk L.W., Boag D.A. 1972 — Ducks nesting in association with gulls: an ecological trap? — Can. J. Zool. 50: 559–563.
• 13. Estrada A., Rivera A., Coates-Estrada R. 2002 — Predation of artificial nests in a fragmented landscape in the tropical region of Los Tuxtlas, Mexico — Biol. Conserv. 106: 199–209.
• 14. Evans R.D., Wolfe C.W. 1967 — Effects of nest searching on fates of pheasant nests — J. Wild-life Manage. 31: 754–759.
• 15. Faaberg J. 2004 — Truly artificial nest studies — Conserv. Biol. 18: 369–370.
• 16. Filliater T.S., Breitwisch R., Nealen P.M. 1994 — Predation on northern cardinal nests: Does choice of nest site matter? — Condor, 96: 761–768.
• 17. Fletcher R.J. Jr., Koford R.R. 2004 — Consequences of rainfall variation for breeding wetland blackbirds — Can J. Zool. 82:1316–1325.
• 18. Gotzman J., Jabłoński B. 1972 — [Our Bird's nests] — Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych, Warszawa, pp. 229–230 (in Polish).
• 19. Green R.E., Hawell J., Johnson T.H. 1987 — Identification of predators of wader eggs from egg remains — Bird Study, 34: 87–91.
• 20. Guyn K.L., Clark R.G. 1997 — Cover characteristics and success of natural and artificial duck nests — J. Field Ornithol. 68: 33–41.
• 21. Halupka K., Greeney H.F. 2009 — The influence of parental behavior on vulnerability to nest predation in tropical thrushes of an Andean cloud forest — J. Avian Biol. 40: 658–661.
• 22. Haskell D.G. 1995 — Forest fragmentation and nest predation: Are experiments with Japanese Quail eggs misleading? — Auk, 112: 767–770.
• 23. 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.
• 24. Janzen D.H. 1978 — Predation intensity on eggs on the ground in two Costa Rican forests — Am. Mid. Nat. 100: 467–470.
• 25. Jedlikowski J., Brambilla M., Malawska M. 2014 — Fine-scale selection of nesting habitat in little crake Porzana parva and water rail Rallus aquaticus in small ponds — Bird Study, 61: 171–181.
• 26. Jedlikowski J., Brzeziński M., Chibowski P. 2015 — Habitat variables affecting nest predation rates on small ponds: a case study of the little crake Porzana parva and water rail Rallus aquaticus — Bird Study, 62: 190–201.
• 27. Jobin B., Picman J. 1997 — Factors affecting predation on artificial nests in marshes — J. Wildlife Manage. 61: 792–800.
• 28. Keyser A.J., Hill G.E., Soehren, E.C. 1998 — Effects of forest fragment size, nest density and proximity to edge on the risk of predation to ground-nesting passerine birds — Conserv. Biol. 12: 986–994.
• 29. King D.I., De Graaf R.M., Griffin, C.R., Maier, T.J. 1999 — Do predation rates on artificial nests accurately reflect predation rates on natural bird nests? — J. Field Ornithol. 70: 257–262.
• 30. Larivière S. 1999 — Reasons why predators cannot be inferred from nest remains — Condor, 101: 718–721.
• 31. Lewis R.M., Armstrong D.P., Joy M.K., Richard Y., Ravine D., Berggren A., Boulton R.L. 2009 — Using artificial nests to predict nest survival at reintroduction sites — N. Z. J. Ecol. 33: 40–51.
• 32. Lindell C.A. 2000 — Egg type influences nest predation in artificial nest experiments — J. Field Ornithol. 71: 16–21.
• 33. Livezey B.C. 1980 — Effects of selected observer-related factors on fates of duck nests — Wildlife Soc. B. 8: 123–128.
• 34. MacIvor L.H., Melvin S.M., Griffin C.R. 1990 — Effects of research activity on piping plover nest predation — J. Wildlife Manage. 54: 443–447.
• 35. Major R.E., Kendal C.E. 1996 — The contribution of artificial nest experiments to understanding avian reproductive success: a review of methods and conclusion — Ibis, 138: 298–307.
• 36. Makatsch W. 1974 — Die Eier der Vögel Europas. Eine Darstellung der Brutbiologie aller in Europa brütenden Vogelarten 1 — Radebeul.
• 37. Marini M.A., Melo C. 1998 — Predators of quail eggs, and the evidence of the remains: Implications for nest predation studies — Condor, 100: 395–399.
• 38. Martin T.E. 1987 — Artificial nest experiments: effects of nest appearance and type of predator — Condor, 89: 925–928.
• 39. Moore R.P., Robinson W.D. 2004 — Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies — Ecology, 85: 1562–1567.
• 40. Møller A.P. 1990 — Nest predation selects for small nest size in the blackbird — Oikos, 57: 237–240.
• 41. Muchai M., du Plessis M.A. 2005 — Nest predation on grassland bird species increases with parental activity at the nest — J. Avian Biol. 36: 110–116.
• 42. Opermanis O. 2004 — Appearance and vulnerability of artificial duck nests to avian predators — J. Avian Biol. 35: 410–415.
• 43. Pärt T., Wretenberg J. 2002 — Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? — J. Avian Biol. 33: 39–46.
• 44. Picman J., Milks M. L., Leptich M. 1993 — Patterns of predation on passerine nests in marshes: effects of water depth and distance from edge — Auk, 110: 89–94.
• 45. Picozzi N. 1975 — Crow predation on marked nests — J. Wildlife Manage. 39: 151–155.
• 46. Purger J.J., Kurucz K., Tóth A., Batáry P. 2012 — Coating plasticine eggs can eliminate the over-estimation of predation on artificial ground nests — Bird Study, 59: 350–352.
• 47. Rangen S.A., Clark R.G., Hobson K.A. 2000 — Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests — Auk, 117: 136–146.
• 48. Rearden J.D. 1951 — Identification of waterfowl nest predators — J. Wildlife Manage. 15: 386–395.
• 49. Roper J.J. 1992 — Nest predation experiments with quail eggs: too much to swallow? — Oikos, 65: 528–530.
• 50. Salonen V., Penttinen A. 1988 — Factors affecting nest predation in the Great Crested Grebe: field observations, experiments and their statistical analysis — Ornis Fennica, 65: 13–20.
• 51. Stermin A.N., Pripon L.R., David A., Coroiu I. 2011 — Wetlands management for little crake (Porzana parva) Conserv. Biol. in a Natura 2000 site — 2011 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Development IPCBEE, vol.4.
• 52. Taylor B., van Perlo B. 1998 — Rails. A Guide to the Rails, Crakes, Gallinules and Coots of the World — Pica Press Sussex, pp. 293–299, 374–379.
• 53. Underhill-Day J.C. 1989 — The effect of predation by Marsh harriers Circus aeruginosus on the survival of ducklings and game bird chicks — Ardea, 77: 47–56.
• 54. Villard M., Pärt T. 2004 — Don't put all your eggs in a real nest: a sequel to Faaborg — Conserv. Biol. 18: 371–372.
• 55. Willebrand T., Marcstrom V. 1988 — On the danger of using dummy nests to study predation — Auk, 105: 378–379.
• 56. Wilson G.R., Brittingham M.C., Goodrich L.J. 1998 — How well do artificial nests estimate success of real nests? — Condor, 100: 357–364.
• 57. Witkowski J. 1989 — Breeding biology and ecology of the marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus in the Barycz Valley, Poland — Acta Ornithol. 25: 223–320.