The influence of nest placement on breeding success of the Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla L.) in two different forest habitats

• Autorzy: Zieliński J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

One of the hypotheses to explain a lack of relationship between nest location and breeding success of passerine birds predicts that in an environment characterized by a high diversity of predators that use a variety of foraging strategies, clutches in different locations and degrees of concealment may be equally subject to destruction. In this study I assumed that the impact of nest location on breeding success of the Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla would differ in habitats characterized by significantly different species richness and, consequently, population density and species diversity of potential predators. Thus, I expected that the influence of the nest location and particularly its concealment on breeding success of the Blackcap would be more significant in a habitat characterized by the overall low biotic diversity and low vegetation density. The study was conducted in two forested areas located in central Poland - managed pine forest characterized by low biodiversity and vegetation density and floodplain forest consisting of much higher biodiversity and having higher stand density. I assessed the influence of Blackcap nest placement (concealment, height above the ground, nest plant height, distance from the nest to the closest edge of the nest plant) on breeding success. Among the analyzed parameters, only nest concealment had a significant impact on breeding success. This conclusion, however, pertains only to the pine forest, where successful nests were better concealed than nests with clutch losses. Similar relationships were found in the floodplain forest area, but they were not statistically significant.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Blackcap; breeding success; nest placement; nest predation; nest site

PL

drapieżnictwo; kapturka; sukces lęgowy; umieszczenie gniazd

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 59, nr 2
• Strony: 391--401
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 71 poz.,

Twórcy

autor

Zieliński J.

• Department of Zoology, University of Technology and Life Sciences, Kordeckiego 20, 85-225 Bydgoszcz, Poland,

Bibliografia

• 1. Bairlein F., B erthold P., Querner U., S chlenker R . 1980 – Die Brutbiologie der Grssmucken Sylvia atricapilla, borin, communis und curruca in Mittel- und N-Europa – J. Ornithol. 121: 325–369.
• 2. Batar y P., Baldi A. 2004 – Evidence of an Edge Effect on Avian Nest Success – Conserv. Biol. 18: 389–400.
• 3. B est L.B., Stauffer D.F. 1980 – Factors affecting nesting success in riparian bird communities – Condor, 82: 149–158.
• 4. Brickle N.W., Peach W.J. 2004 – The breeding ecology of Reed Buntings Emberiza schoeniclus in farmland and wetland habitats in lowland England – Ibis, 146: 69–77.
• 5. Braden G.T. 1999 – Does nest placement affect the fate or productivity of California Grantcatcher nests? – Auk, 116: 984–993.
• 6. Brand L.A., George T.L. 2000 – Predation risk for nesting birds in fragmented coast redwood forest – J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 42–51.
• 7. Bureš S., Pavel V. 2003 – Do birds behave in order to avoid disclosing their nest site?: Three similarly sized passerine species with various breeding strategies behaved differently in the presence of models of mammalian and avian predators – Bird Study, 50: 73–77.
• 8. Burhans D.E., Thompson F.R . 1998 – Effect of time and nest-site characteristic on concealment of songbird nests – Condor, 100: 663–672.
• 9. Burhans D.E., Thompson F.R . 2001 – Relationship of Songbird Nest Concealment to Nest Fate and Flushing Behavior of Adults – Auk, 118: 237–242.
• 10. Chalfoun A.D., Martin T.E. 2009 – Habitat structure mediates predation risk for sedentary prey: experimental tests of alternative hypotheses – J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 497–503.
• 11. Chalfoun A.D., R atnaswamy M.J., Thompson F.R . 2002a – Songbird nest predators in forest-pasture edge and forest interior in a fragmented landscape – Ecol Appl. 12: 858–867.
• 12. Chalfoun D., Thompson F.R ., R atnaswamy M.J. 2002b – Nest Predators and fragmentation: a Review and Meta-Analysis – Conserv. Biol.16: 306–318.
• 13. C onner R .N., Anderson M.E., Dickson J.G. 1986 – Relationships among territory size, habitat, song, and nesting success of Northern Cardinals – Auk, 103: 23–31.
• 14. Cramp S., Brooks D.J., Dunn E., Gillmor R ., Hall-Craggs J., Hollom P.A.D., Nicholson E.M., Ogilvie M.A., Roselaar C.S., S ellar P.J., Simmons K.E.L., Snow D.W., Vincent D., Voous K.H., Wallace D.I.M., Wilson M.G. 1992 – The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol 6 – Oxford University Press, Oxford, 736 pp.
• 15. Cresswell W. 1997 – Nest predation: the relative effects of nest characteristics, clutch size and parental behaviour – Anim. Behav. 53: 93–103.
• 16. Farnsworth G.L., Simons T.R . 1999 – Factor affecting nesting succes of Wood Thrushes in Great Smoky Mountains National Park – Auk, 116: 1075–1082.
• 17. Filliater T.S., Breitwisch R ., Nealen P.M. 1994 – Predation on Northern Cardinal nests: does choice of nest site matter? – Condor, 96: 761–768.
• 18. Flaspohler D.J., Temple S.A., Rosenfield R .N. 2000 – Relationship between nest success and concealment in two ground-nesting passerines – J. Field Ornithol. 71: 736–747.
• 19. Gates J.E., Gysel L.W. 1978 – Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in fieldforest ecotones – Ecology, 59: 871–883.
• 20. Gnielka R . 1987 – Daten zur Brutbiologie der Mönchsgrasmücke (Sylvia atricapilla) aus dem Bezirk Halle – Beitr. Vogelkde. 33: 103–113.
• 21. Götmark F., Blomqvist D., Johansson O.C., B ergkvist J. 1995 – Nest site selection: A trade-off between concealment and view of the surroundings? – J. Avian Biol. 26: 305–312.
• 22. Hannon S.J., C otterill S.E. 1998 – Nest predation in aspen woodlots in an agricultural area in Alberta: The enemy from within – Auk, 115: 16–24.
• 23. Hanski I.K., Fenske T.J., Niemi G.J. 1996 – Lack of edge effect in nesting success of breeding birds in managed forest landscapes – Auk, 113: 578–585.
• 24. Hatchwell B.J., Chamberlain D.E., Perrins C.M. 1996 – The reproductive success of Blackbirds Turdus merula in relation to habitat structure and choice of nest site – Ibis, 138: 256–262.
• 25. Hoi-Leitner M., Nechtelberger H., Hoi H. 1995 – Song rate as a signal for nest site quality in Blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) – Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37: 399–405.
• 26. Holway D.A. 1999 – Nest-site selection and the importance of nest concealment in the blackthroated blue warbler – NCASI Technical Bull. 781: 240–241.
• 27. Hoover J.P., Brittingham M.C. 1998 – Nest-site selection and nesting success of Wood Thrushes – Wilson Bull. 110: 375–383.
• 28. Howlett J.S., Stutchbur y B.J. 1996 – Nest concealment and predation in Hooded Warblers: Experimental removal of nest cover – Auk, 113: 1–9.
• 29. Isenmann P., Fradet G. 1998 – Nest site, laying period, and breeding success of the Woodchat Shrike (Lanius senator) in Mediterranean France – J. Ornithol. 139: 49–54.
• 30. Jakober H., Stauber W. 2002 – Warum verstecken Neuntoter (Lanius collurio) ihre Nester nicht besser? – J. Ornithol. 143: 397–404.
• 31. Korpimäki E., Koivunen V., Hakkarainen H. 1996 – Microhabitat use and behavior of voles under weasel and raptor predation risk: predator facilitation? – Behav. Ecol. 7: 30–34.
• 32. Kroodsma R .L. 1984 – Effect of edge on breeding forest bird species – Wilson Bull. 96: 426–436.
• 33. L ambertini M. 1981 – Censimento degli ucelli nidificanti in un bosco litoraneo della Tocsana – Avocetta, 5: 65–86.
• 34. 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.
• 35. Martin T.E. 1993 – Evolutionary determinants of clutch size in cavity-nesting birds: nest predation or limited breeding opportunities? – Amer. Nat. 142: 937–946.
• 36. Martin T.E. 1998 – Are microhabitat preferences of coexisting species under selection and adaptive? – Ecology, 79: 656–670.
• 37. Martin J.L., Joron M. 2003 – Nest predation in forest birds: influence of predator type and predator’s habitat quality – Oikos, 102: 641–653.
• 38. Martin T.E. Roper J.J. 1988 – Nest predation and nest-site selection of a western population of the Hermit Thrush – Condor, 90: 51–57.
• 39. Mason C.F. 1976 – Breedind biology of the Sylvia warblers – Bird Study, 23: 213–232.
• 40. Mezquida E.T. 2004 – Nest site selection and nesting success of five species of passerines in a South American open Prosopis woodland – J. Ornithol. 145: 16–22.
• 41. Montgomerie R .D., Weatherhead P.J. 1988 – Risks andrewards of nest defense by parent birds – Q. Rev. Biol. 63: 167–187.
• 42. Murphy M.T. 1983 – Nest success and nesting habits of Eastern Kingbirds and other flycatchers – Condor, 85: 208–219.
• 43. Nalwanga D.P., Lloyd M.P., Martin T.E. 2004 – The influence of nest-site characteristics on the nesting success of the Karoo Prinia (Prinia maculosa) – Ostrich, 75: 269–274.
• 44. Palomino J.J., Martin-Vivaldi M., S oler J.J. 1998 – Functional significance of nest-size variation in the Rufous Bush Robin Cercotrichas galactotes – Ardea, 86: 177–185.
• 45. Paton P.W. 1994 – The effect of edge on avian nest success: How strong is the evidance? –Conserv. Biol. 8: 17–26.
• 46. Pietz P.J., Granfor D.A. 2000 – Identifying predators and fates of grassland passerine nests using miniature video cameras – J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 71–87.
• 47. Remeš V. 2003a – Breeding biology of the Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) in the Czech Republic: an analysis of nest record cards – Sylvia, 39: 25–34.
• 48. Remeš V. 2003b – Effects of Exotic Habitat on Nesting Success, Territory Density, and Settlement Patterns in the Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) – Conserv. Biol. 17: 1127–1133.
• 49. Remeš V. 2005a - Nest concealment and parental behaviour interact in affecting nest survival in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla): an experimental evaluation of the parental compensation hypothesis – Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58: 326–333.
• 50. Remeš V. 2005b – Birds and rodents destroy different nests: a study of Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla using the removal of nest concealment – Ibis, 147: 213–216.
• 51. Ricklefs R .E. 1969 – An analysis of nesting mortality in birds – Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 9: 1–48.
• 52. Ricklefs R .E. 2000 – Lack, Skutch and Moreau: the early development of life-history thinking – Condor, 102: 3–8.
• 53. Santisteban L., Sieving K.E., Aver y M.L. 2002 – Use of sensory cues by fish crows Corvus ossifragus preying on artificial bird nests – J. Avian Biol. 33: 245–252.
• 54. Saracco J.E., C ollazo J.A. 1999 – Predation on artificial nests along three edge types in North Carolina bottomland hardwood forest – Wilson Bull. 11: 541–549.
• 55. S chaefer T. 2001 – Nest predation and renesting in the blackcap Sylvia atricapilla – Vogelkdl Ber. Niedersachs. 33: 205–208.
• 56. S chaefer T. 2002 – Adaption an Nestprädation bei der Mönchsgrasmücke – Msc. Max-Planck Forschungsstelle für Ornithologie Vogelwarte – Radolfzell, 139 pp.
• 57. S chaefer T. 2004 – Video monitoring of shrubnests reveals nest predators – Bird Study, 51: 170–177.
• 58. S chmidt K.A., Goheen J.R ., Naumann R . 2001 – Incidental nest predation in songbirds: behavioral indicators detect ecological scales and processes – Ecology, 82: 2937–2947.
• 59. Schulze-Hagen K. 1984 – Effects of nest-site selection on breeding success in the marsh warbler (Acrocephalus palustris) – J. Ornithol. 125: 201–208.
• 60. Stein H. 1974 – Ein Beitrag zur Brutbiologie von Singdrossel, Turdus philomelos, Amstel, Turdus merula, und Mönchsgrasmücke, Sylvia atricapilla, mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Brutverluste – Beitr. Vogelgkd.20: 467–477.
• 61. Tarvin K.A., Garvin M.C. 2002 – Habitat and nesting success of blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata): Importance of scale – Auk, 119:971–983.
• 62. Tomiałojć L. 1980 – Kombinowana odmiana metody kartograficznej do liczenia ptaków lęgowych [The combined version of the mapping method] – Not. Orn. 21: 33–53 (in Polish).
• 63. Tomiałojć L. 1993 – Breeding ecology of the Blackbird Turdus merula studied in the primaeval forest of Białowieża (Poland). Part I. Breeding numbers, distribution and nest sites – Acta Ornithol. 27: 131–157.
• 64. Warkentin I.G., Roberts S.E., Flemming S.P., Fisher A.L. 2004 – Nest-site characteristics of Northern Waterthrushes – J. Field Ornithol. 75: 79–88.
• 65. Weidinger K. 2000 – The breeding performance of Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla in two types of forest habitat – Ardea, 88: 225–233.
• 66. Weidinger K. 2001 – Does egg colour affect predation rate on open passerine nests? – Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49: 456–464.
• 67. Weidinger K. 2002 – Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests – J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 424–437.
• 68. Wesołowski T. 1987 – Riverine forests in Poland and the German Democratic Republic – their status and avifauna (In: Riverine forest in Europe - status and conservation, Ed: C. Imboden) – ICPB - Cambridge, pp. 48–54.
• 69. Wilson R.R., C ooper R.J. 1998 – Acadian Flycatcher nest placement: does placement influence reproductive success? – Condor, 100: 673–679.
• 70. Willson M.E., Gende S.M. 2000 – Nesting success of forest bird in southeast Alaska and adjacent Canada – Condor, 102: 314–325.
• 71. Zimmerman J.L. 1984 – Nest predation and relationship to habitat and nest density in dickcissels – Condor, 86: 68–72.