Forest fragment size affects edge effect in nest predation . experiment with artificial nests

• Autorzy: Mazgajski T. , Rejt Ł.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Many species react negatively to forest fragmentation. If this process also decreases the abundance of forest predators we expect that birds. broods in small forest patches would be preyed upon only by predators that penetrate from the matrix while broods in larger patches would be also attacked by predators specifically associated with forests. We tested the hypothesis that an increase in forest patch size leads to an increase in predator pressure on nests. Studies were conducted in Central Poland, in an agriculturally dominant area with 6% forest cover and highly fragmented woodlot. Three patch sizes were chosen for the experiment: small (< 20 ha), medium (30 - 50 ha) and large (> 120 ha). One quail egg was placed in each nest. All transects were checked after 13 - 14 days. The highest predation level was found in medium-sized patches, the lowest . in the largest patches. We found a reverse edge effect on nest predation in the largest patches, i.e. a decreased predation risk closer to the forest/matrix border. When comparing our results with other studies, it seems that the manner of classifying forest size significantly affects the results obtained. This may explain the differences in the results of many authors studying this phenomenon.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

artificial nest; edge effect; forest fragmentation; nest predation; Patch size effect

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2005
• Tom: Vol. 53, nr 2
• Strony: 233--242
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 33 poz., tab., wykr.,

Twórcy

autor

Mazgajski T.

• Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Rejt Ł.

• Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Andrén H., Angelstam P. 1988 – Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental evidence – Ecology, 69: 544–547.
• 2. Angelstam P. 1986 – Predation on groundnesting birds’ nests in relation to predator densities and habitat edge – Oikos, 47: 365–373.
• 3. Cieślak M. 1991 – Awifauna lęgowa rozdrobnionych lasów wschodniej Polski [Fauna of breeding birds in the small woods of Eastern Poland] – Notatki Ornitol., 32: 77–88. (in Polish, English summary).
• 4. Cramp S., (Ed). 1988 – The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. V – Oxford University Press.
• 5. Fenske-Crawford T. J., Niemi G. J. 1997 - Predation of artificial ground nests at two types of edges in a forest-dominated landscape - Condor, 99: 14–24.
• 6. Fowler J., C ohen L. 1995 – Statistics for ornithologists. - BTO Guide 22.
• 7. G ering J. C., Blair R. B. 1999 – Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? - Ecography, 22: 532–541.
• 8. Gates J. E., Gysel L. W. 1978 – Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones – Ecology, 59: 871–883.
• 9. Hannon S. J., Cotterill S. E. 1998 – Nest predation in aspen woodlots in an agricultural area in Alberta: the enemy from within - Auk, 115: 16–25.
• 10. Hartle y M. J., Hunter M. L. Jr. 1998 – A meta – analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial nest predation rates – Conserv. Biol., 12: 465–469.
• 11. Haskell D. G. 1995 – Forest fragmentation and nest predation: Are experiments with Japanise Quail eggs misleading? – Auk, 112: 767–770.
• 12. Heske E. J., Robinson S. K., Brawn J. D. 1999 – Predator activity and predation on songbird nests on forest-field edges in east-central Illinois – Landscape Ecol., 14: 345–354.
• 13. Huhta E., Mappes T., Jokimäki J. 1996 - Predation on artificial ground nests in relation to forest fragmentation, agricultural land and habitat structure – Ecography, 19: 85–91.
• 14. Huhta E., Jokimäki J., Helle P. 1998 – Predation on artificial nests in a forest dominated landscape – the effects of nest type, patchsize and edge structure – Ecography, 21: 464–471.
• 15. 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.
• 16. Lariviere S. 1999 – Reasons why predators cannot be inferred from nest remains – Condor, 101: 718–721.
• 17. Maier T. J., DeGraaf R. M. 2000 – Predation on Japanise Quail vs. House sparrow eggs in artificial nests: small eggs reveal small predators – Condor, 102: 325–332.
• 18. Marzluff J. M, Restani M. 1999 – The effects of forest fragmentation on avian nest predation (In: Forest fragmentation. Wildlife and Management implications, Eds: Rochelle J. A., Lehmann L. A., Wisniewski J.) – Brill, Leiden. pp. 155–169.
• 19. Marini M. A., Robinson S. K., Heske E. J. 1995 – Edge effects on nest predation in the Shawnee National Forest, Southern Illinois - Biol. Conserv., 74: 203–213.
• 20. Martin J-L., Joron M. 2003 – Nest predation in forest birds: influence of predator type and predator’s habitat quality – Oikos, 102: 641–653.
• 21. Matthews A., Dickman C. R., Major R. E. 1999 – The influence of fragment size and edge on nest predation in urban bushland - Ecography, 22: 349–356.
• 22. Nour N., Matthysen E., Dhondt A. A. 1993 – Artificial nest predation and habitat fragmentation: different trends in bird and mammal predators – Ecography, 16: 111–116.
• 23. Paton P. W. C. 1994 – The effect of edge on avian nest success: How strong is the evidence? - Conserv. Biol., 8: 17–26.
• 24. Pärt T., Wretenberg J. 2002 – Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? – J. Avian Biol., 33: 39–46.
• 25. Purger J. J., Meszaros L. A., Purger D. 2004 – Ground nesting in recultivated forest habitats – a study with artificial nests – Acta Ornithol., 39: 141–145.
• 26. Robinson S. K., Thompson III F. R., Donovan T. M., Whitehead D. R., Faaborg J. 1995 – Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds – Science, 267: 1987–1990.
• 27. Rochelle J. A., Lehman L. A., Wisniewski J. (Eds) 1999. – Forest fragmentation. Wildlife and Management implications - Brill, Leiden.
• 28. Roper J. J., 1992 – Nest predation experiments with quail eggs: too much to swallow? – Oikos, 65: 528–530.
• 29. Söderström B., Pärt T., Rydén 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.
• 30. 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.
• 31. Verbeylen G., De Bruyn L., Matthyssen E. 2003 – Patch occupancy, population density and dynamics in a fragmented red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris population – Ecography, 26: 118–128.
• 32. Willebrand T., Marcström V. 1988 – On the danger of using dummy nests to study predation – Auk, 105: 378–379.
• 33. Wilson G. R., Brittingham M. C., Goodrich L. J. 1998 – How well do artificial nests estimate success of real nests – Condor, 100: 357–364.