Predation survival of ground nesting birds in grass and wheat fields: experiment with plasticine eggs and artificial nests

• Autorzy: Purger J. , Csuka S. , Kurucz K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

There are no agricultural activities in Hungarian energy grass plantations (Elymus elongatus (Host) Runemark before harvesting in August, so the breeding success of the ground-nesting Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.) and Common quail (Coturnix coturnix (L.)) is probably higher than in the neighbouring intensively managed grain fields. The dominant nest predators of these bird species (e.g. Red fox Vulpes vulpes L.) prey mostly on small mammals, thus the abundance of small mammals can influence the survival rates of ground-nesting birds. These assumptions were tested using artificial ground-nests and small mammal live traps in late May 2005. Of the nests, 25 were placed in the energy grass field which covered 60 ha and another 25 in the wheat field which area was 20 ha. Each of the nests contained one chicken egg, one quail egg and one plasticine dummy-egg. Real eggs were placed for the evaluation of nest predation rates and artificial plasticine eggs for predator identification from tooth and bill imprints. Following the placement of artificial nests, they were checked repeatedly between 16.00 and 18.00 every day. In both plots, 25 traps were set up, baited for 4 nights with quail egg and for another 4 nights with plasticine egg. Artificial nests lasted for 3 days in the wheat field and for 4 days in the energy grass field. The major predators in wheat were birds (16%) and mammals (84%), whereas in energy grass all predation (100%) was caused by mammals. There was no significant difference between types of predators in the two habitats. On-spot observations, traces and marks left on plasticine eggs, several droppings and the patterns of nest predation all suggested that the majority of nests were destroyed by Red fox. A significantly higher proportion of plasticine eggs were damaged in wheat (80%) than in energy grass (48%). Based on marks left on plasticine eggs, small mammal abundance was higher in wheat (80%) than in energy grass (33%), the latter habitat not yielding any small mammal captures at all. Traps in the wheat field caught significantly more small mammals with plasticine eggs (14) than with quail eggs (5). Plasticine eggs had greater attraction effect on small mammals, thus could negatively influence experiments with artificial ground nests.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Coturnix coturnix; Hungary; nesting success; Phasianus colchicus; small mammals; tall wheatgrass

PL

bażant; coturnix coturnix; małe ssaki; młode trawy; Phasianus colchicus; powodzenie; przepiórka; Węgry; zagnieżdżanie

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: Vol. 56, nr 3
• Strony: 481--486
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz.,

Twórcy

autor

Purger J.

autor

Csuka S.

autor

Kurucz K.

• Department of Animal Ecology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Pecs, Ifjusag utja 6, H-7624 Pecs, Hungary,

Bibliografia

• Ackerman J.T. 2002 – Of mice and mallards: positive indirect effects of coexisting prey on waterfowl nest success – Oikos, 99: 469–480.
• Báldi A. 1999 – Spatial variations of nest predation rate in the Kis-Balaton reservoir – Természetvédelmi Közlemények, 8: 81–88. (in Hungarian with English summary)
• Batáry P., Báldi A. 2004 – Evidence of an Edge Effect on Avian Nest Success – Conserv. Biol. 18: 389–400.
• Batár y P., Báldi A. 2005 – Factors affecting the survival of real and artificial Great Reed Warbler’s nests – Biologia, 60: 215–219.
• Bayne E.M., Hobson K.A. 1999 – Do clay eggs attract predators to artificial nests? – J. Field Ornithol. 70: 1–7.
• Bayne E.M., Hobson K.A., Fargey P. 1997 - Predation on artificial nests in relation to forest type: contrasting the use of quail and plasticine eggs – Ecography, 20: 233–239.
• Cramp S., Simmons K.E.L. (eds) 1980 – Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, Vol. 2. – Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Dell’Arte G.L., Laaksonen T., Norrdahl K., Korpimäki E. 2007 – Variation in the diet composition of a generalist predator, the red fox, in relation to season and density of main prey – Acta Oecol. 31: 276–281.
• Fenske-Crawford T.J., Niemi G.J. 1997 - Predation of artificial ground nest at two types of edges in a forest-dominated landscape - Condor, 99: 14–24.
• Horváth Gy. 2006 – Population dynamics and spatial distribution of small mammals in energy grass fields – 7th Congress of Hungarian Ecologists, Budapest, Hungary, Book of Abstracts, pp. 88. (in Hungarian)
• Jędrzejewski W., Jędrzejewska B. 1992 - Foraging and diet of the red fox Vulpes vulpes in relation to variable food resources in Białowieża National Park, Poland – Ecography, 15: 212–220.
• Johnson D.H. 1979 – Estimating nest success: the Mayfield method and an alternative - Auk, 96: 651–661.
• Kálmán Z., Soós N., Csete S., Pál R., Horváh Gy. 2006 – Tall wheatgrass field as source habitat or ecological corridor? – 1st European Congress of Conservation Biology, Eger, Hungary, Book of Abstracts, pp. 519.
• Lanszki J., Körmendi S., Hancz C., Zalewski 1999 – Feeding habits and trophic niche overlap in a Carnivora community of Hungary – Acta theriol. 44: 429–442.
• Larivière S. 1999 – Reasons why predators cannot be inferred from nest remains – Condor, 101: 718–721.
• Larivière S., Messier F. 1998 – Effect of density and nearest neighbours on simulated waterfowl nests, can predators recognise highdensity nesting patches? – Oikos, 83: 12–20.
• Lindell C. 2000 – Egg type influences predation rates in artificial nest experiment – J. Field Ornithol. 71: 16–21.
• 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.
• Maier T.J., DeGraaf R.M. 2001 – Differences in depredation by small predators limit the use of plasticine and zebra finch eggs in artificial-nests studies – Condor, 103: 180–183.
• Major R.E. 1991 – Identification of nest predators by photography, dummy eggs, and adhesive tape – Auk, 108: 190–195.
• Major R.E., 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.
• Marini M.A., Robinson S.K., Heske E. 1995 – Edge effects on nest predation in the Shawnee national forest, southern Illinois - Biol. Conserv. 74: 203–213.
• Maxson S.J., Oring L.W. 1978 – Mice as Source of Egg Loss Among Ground-nesting Birds – Auk, 95: 582–584.
• Mayfield H.F. 1975 – Suggestions for calculating nest success – Wilson Bull. 87: 456–466.
• Niehaus A.C., Heard S.B., Hendrix S.D., Hillis S.L. 2003 – Measuring Edge Effects on Nest Predation in Forest Fragments: Do Finch and Quail Eggs Tell Different Stories? - Am. Midl. Nat. 149: 335–343.
• Opermanis O. 2001 – Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus predation on artificial duck nests: a field experiment – Ornis Fenn. 78: 198–203.
• Purger J.J., Mészáros L.A., Purger D. 2004a – Predation on artificial nests in postmining recultivated area and forest edge: contrasting the use of plasticine and quail eggs - Ecol. Eng. 22: 209–212.
• Purger J.J., Mészáros L.A., Purger D. 2004b – Ground nesting in recultivated forest habitats – a study with artificial nests – Acta Ornithol. 39: 140–145.
• Rangen S.A., Clark R.G., Hobson K. A. 2000 – Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests – Auk, 117: 136–146.
• Sage R., Cunningham M., Boatman N. 2006 – Bird in willow short-rotation coppice compared to other arable crops in central England and a review of bird census data from energy crops in the UK – Ibis, 148: 184–197.
• Šálek M., Svobodová J., Bejček V., Albrecht T. 2004 – Predation on artificial nests in relation to the numbers of small mammals in the Krušná hry Mts, the Czech Republic – Folia Zool. 53: 312–318.
• Semere T., Slater F. 2004 – The effects of energy grass plantations on biodiversity – 2nd Annual Report. B/CR/00782/00/00 URN 04/823. Cardiff University.
• Semere T., Slater F. 2007 – Ground flora, small mammal and bird species diversity in miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields - Biomass & Bioenergy, 31: 20–29.
• Seymour A.S., Harris S., White P.C.L. 2004 – Potential effects of reserve size on incidental nest predation by red foxes Vulpes vulpes – Ecol. Modell. 175: 101–114.
• Svagelj W.S., Mermoz M.E., Fernández G.J. 2003 – Effect of egg type on the estimation of nest predation in passerines – J. Field Ornithol. 74: 243–249.
• Zar J.H. 1999 – Biostatistical analysis. 4th, Prentice Hall, London.