Nest survival, predators and breeding performance of Booted Warblers Iduna caligata in the abandoned fields of the North of European Russia

• Autorzy: Shitikov D.A. , Fedotova S. E. , Gagieva V. A.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Biologia lęgowa, przeżywalność lęgów oraz zagrożenie drapieżnictwem gniazdowym lęgów zaganiacza małego na opuszczonych terenach uprawnych w Rosji

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We examined breeding performance and the nest survival of Booted Warbler Iduna caligata on abandoned fields in Vologda region, Russia. We modelled daily survival rates (DSR) using data on 250 nests found in 2002-2011. We compared relative effects of year, nest age, date, weather conditions and nest placement characteristics. Clutch size did not vary over the study period and was on average 5.69 ± 0.04 eggs. Inter-seasonal variability was the most important component of DSR variation. The top model included a year effect, a quadratic nest age term and an interaction between year and quadratic age. Overall nest success varied greatly from 0.03 in 2008 to 0.7 in 2007. Nest height was an important nest placement covariate, nest remoteness from villages and roads were not influential. We detected the species composition of predators by watching nests of Booted Warblers and other grassland passerines as well as by observing the artificial nests. The main predators were carnivorous mammals, Common Viper Vipera berus, Harriers and corvids. Predator pressure was the main factor that determined nest success of Booted Warblers. Intra- and inter-annual fluctuations in the activity of predators may cause corresponding changes in nest success of Booted Warbler.

PL

Celem pracy było zbadanie biologii lęgowej, przeżywalności lęgów oraz zagrożenia drapieżnictwem gniazdowym i składu zespołu drapieżników lęgów zaganiacza małego gniazdującego na opuszczonych terenach uprawnych na północy europejskiej części Rosji. Badania prowadzono w latach 2002-2011. Zebrano dane o 250 lęgach, dla których przeanalizowano wpływ sezonu (rok), stopnia zaawansowania lęgu (określanego jako „wiek gniazda”), daty, warunków pogodowych (średnia dzienna temperatura, dzienne opady) oraz położenia gniazda (wysokość nad powierzchnią ziemi, odległość od dróg i wiosek) na dzienne prawdopodobieństwo przeżycia lęgu (DSR daily survival rate). Wielkość zniesienia była podobna w całym badanym okresie i wynosiła 5.96 ± 0.04 jaj. Najlepszy model wyjaśniający dzienne prawdopodobieństwo przeżycia lęgu zawierał sezon, wiek gniazda oraz wysokość gniazda and powierzchnią ziemi (Tab. 1). Sukces lęgowy były bardzo zmienny pomiędzy sezonami (Tab. 2) i wahał się od 0.03 w 2008 r. do 0.7 w 2007 r. Wysokość gniazda nad powierzchnią ziemi była ważną, szczególnie w niektórych sezonach (Tab. 3), zmienną towarzyszącą natomiast odległość gniazda od dróg, czy zabudowań nie wpływała na prawdopodobieństwo przeżycia lęgu. Stopień zaawansowania lęgu także wpływał na dzienne prawdopodobieństwo przeżycia lęgu, jednak wzorzec strat w zależności od wieku gniazda różnił się pomiędzy sezonami (Fig. 1). Główną przyczyną strat lęgowych było drapieżnictwo. Na podstawie obserwacji autorów, nagrań z kamer oraz obserwacji gniazd innych ptaków wróblowych na badanym terenie, a także losów sztucznych gniazd z jajami przepiórczymi, określono skład zespołu drapieżników odpowiedzialnych za straty lęgowe zaganiacza małego. Były to głównie drapieżne ssaki, żmija zygzakowata, błotniaki oraz krukowate (Tab. 5, 6). Autorzy sugerują, że zmiany w zespole drapieżników pomiędzy latami powodują obserwowane duże różnice w sukcesie lęgowym zaganiacza pomiędzy sezonami.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ornithologica
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 47
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.137-146,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Shitikov D.A.

• The Research Group of Avian Population Ecology, Zoology and Ecology Department, Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow, 129278, Russia

autor

Fedotova S. E.

• The Research Group of Avian Population Ecology, Zoology and Ecology Department, Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow, 129278, Russia

autor

Gagieva V. A.

• The Research Group of Avian Population Ecology, Zoology and Ecology Department, Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow, 129278, Russia

Bibliografia

• Andren H. 1992. Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective. Ecology 73: 794-804.
• Angelstam B. P. 1986. Predation on ground-nesting birds' nests in relation to predator densities and habitat edge. Oikos 47: 365-273.
• Belova Z. V. 1978. [Distribution and change in the number of Common Viper (Vipera berus L.) in the Darwin Reserve]. [Conservation and sustainable use of reptiles]. M.: 13-25.
• Björklund M. 1990. Nest failures in the Scarlet Rosefinch
• Carpodacus erythrinus. Ibis 132: 613-617.
• Brzeziński M., Zmihorski M., Barkowska M. 2010. Spatio-temporal variation in predation on artificial ground nests: a 12- year experiment. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 47: 173-183.
• Buler J. J., Hamilton R. B. 2000. Predation of natural and artificial nests in a southern pine forest. Auk 117: 739-747.
• Burhans D. E., Dearborn D., Thompson F. R., Faaborg J. 2002. Factors affecting predation at songbird nests in old fields. J. Wildl. Manage. 66: 240-249.
• Burnham K. P., Anderson D. R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York.
• Butyev V. T. 1978. [To the avifauna of the Vologda region].
• [Fauna and ecology of vertebrates]. M.: 3-19.
• Butyev V. T., Red kin Y. A., Shitikov D. A. 1997. [New data on the distribution of some species of birds in the European North of Russia]. In: Konstantinov V. M. (ed.). [Ornithological research in Russia]. Moscow - Ulan-Ude, pp. 44-49.
• Butyev V. T., Shitikov D. A., Fedotova S. E. 2007. [Nesting biology of the Booted Warbler (Hippolais caligata, Passeriformes) at the northern boundary of its range]. Zool. Zh. 86: 81-89.
• Collister D. M., Wilson S. 2007. Contributions of weather and predation to reduced breeding success in a threatened Northern Loggerhead Shrike population. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 2: 11.
• Davis S. K., Brigham R. M., Shaffer T. L., James P. C., Stouffer P. C. 2006. Mixed-grass prairie passerines exhibit weak and variable responses to patch size. Auk 123: 807-821.
• Dinsmore S. J., Dinsmore J. J. 2007. Modeling avian nest survival in program MARK. Stud. Avian Biol. 34: 73-83.
• Dinsmore S. J., White G. C., Knopf F. L. 2002. Advanced techniques for modeling avian nest survival. Ecology 83: 3476-3488.
• Evans K. L. 2004. The potential for interactions between predation and habitat change to cause population declines of farmland birds. Ibis 146: 1-13.
• Galushin V. M., Belik V. P., Zubakin V. A. 2001. [Bird responses to recent social-economic transformations in Nothern Eurasia]. In: Kurochkin E. N., Rakhimov I. I. (eds). [Achievements and problems of ornithology of northern Eurasia on a boundary of centuries]. Magarif Publishing, Kazan, pp. 429-449.
• Grant T. A., Shaffer T. L. 2012. Time-specific patterns of nest survival for ducks and passerines breeding in North Dakota. Auk 129: 319-328.
• Grant T. A., Shaffer T. L., Madden E. M., Pietz P. J. 2005. Time- specific variation in passerine nest survival: new insights into old questions. Auk 122: 661-672.
• Hartley I. R., Shepherd M. 1994. Nesting success in relation to timing of breeding in the Corn Bunting on North Uist. Ardea 82: 173-183.
• Howard M. N., Susan K. S., Patricia L. K. 2001. Does habitat fragmentation influence nest predation in the shortgrass prairie? Condor 103: 530-536.
• Iovchenko N. P. 2004. [The present status of the Booted Warbler (Hippolais caligata Licht.) in north-west Russia and possible reasons of its expansion]. In: Iljinsky I. V. (ed). [Birds and Mammals of the North-West of Russia]. Proceedings of Biological Research Institute of St. Petersburg State University, pp. 84-98.
• Kleindorfer S., Fessl B., Hoi H. 2005. Avian nest defence behaviour: assessment in relation to predator distance and type, and nest height. Anim. Behav. 69: 307-313.
• Korosov V. A. 2010. [Ecology of Common Viper in the north]. PetrSU Publishing House, Petrodzavodsk.
• Korovin V. A. 2004. [Birds in agricultural landscapes of Ural]. Urals State University Publishing House, Yekaterinburg.
• Lilleleht V., Leibak E. 1992. [Rarities in Estonia till 1989: report of the Estonian Rarities Committee (3)]. Hirundo 10: 3-20.
• Lindblom K. 2008. Booted Warbler and Lanceolated Warbler in Finland. Alula 14: 84-90.
• Martin T. E. 1992. Interaction of nest predation and food limitation in reproductive strategies. Curr. Ornithol. 9: 163- 197.
• Martin T. E., Scott J., Menges C. 2000. Nest predation increases with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. B. 267: 2287-2293.
• Mayfield H. F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull. 87: 456-466.
• Mazgajski T. D., Rejt L. 2005. Forest fragment size affects edge effect in nest predation — experiment with artificial nests. Pol. J. Ecol. 53: 233-242.
• Melnikov V. N., Khruleva O. B. 2006. [Population dynamics of birds during the colonization of farmland in the Upper Volga East]. [The development of modern ornithology in Northern Eurasia. Proceedings of the XII International Ornithological Conference of Northern Eurasia]. Stavropol, pp. 416-424.
• Morrison S., Bolger D. 2002. Variation in a sparrow's reproductive success with rainfall: food and predator-mediated processes. Oecologia 133: 315-324.
• Part T., Wretenberg J. 2002. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? J. Avian Biol. 33: 39-46.
• Peluc S. I., Sillett T. S., Rotenberry J. T., Ghalambor C. K. 2008. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in an island songbird exposed to a novel predation risk. Behav. Ecol. 19: 830-835.
• Pitney Bowes MapInfo Corporate 2010. Mapinfo Professional, version 10.5 http://www.pb.com
• Post van der Burg M., Powell L. A., Tyre A. J. 2010. Finding the smoothest path to success: model complexity and the consideration of nonlinear patterns in nest-survival data. Condor 112: 421-31.
• Ptushenko E. S. 1954. [Booted Warbler Hippolais caligata Licht.]. In: Dementiev G. P., Gladkov N. A. [Birds of Soviet Union]. V. 6. Sovetskaya Nauka Publ. Moscow, pp. 319-327.
• Ricklefs R. E. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Sm. C. Zool. 9: 1-48.
• Rogers C. M., Taitt M. J., Smith J. N. M., Jongejan G. 1997. Nest predation and cowbird parasitism create a demographic sink in wetland-breeding Song Sparrows. Condor 99: 622-63.
• Roos S. 2002. Functional response, seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia 133: 608-615.
• Schmidt K. A. 1999. Foraging theory as a conceptual framework for studying nest predation. Oikos 85: 151-160.
• Schmidt K. A., Ostfeld R. S. 2003. Songbird populations in fluctuating environments: predator responses to pulsed resources. Ecology 84: 406-415.
• Shaffer T. L., Thompson F. R. 2007. Making meaningful estimates of nest survival with model-based methods. Stud. Avian Biol. 34: 84-95.
• 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.
• Suvorov P., Svobodová J., Koubová M., Dohnalová L. 2012. Ground nest depredation by European Black-Billed Magpies Pica pica: an experimental study with artificial nests. Acta Ornithol. 47: 55-61.
• Svobodová J., Koubová M., Mrštný L., Albrecht T., Kreisinger L. 2012. Temporal variation in nest predation risk along habitat edges between grassland and secondary forest in Central Europe. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 58: 315-323.
• Thompson F. R. 2007. Factors affecting nest predation on forest songbirds in North America. Ibis 149: 98-109.
• Vengerov P. D. 2005. [Birds and underutilized agricultural lands of the Voronezh region (the prospects for recovery of meadow-steppe avifauna)]. "Krivichi", Voronezh.
• Weidinger K. 2002. Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 424-437.
• Weidinger K. 2007. Handling of uncertain nest fates and variation in nest survival estimates. J. Ornithol. 148: 207-213.
• Weidinger K. 2009. Nest predators of woodland open-nesting songbirds in Central Europe. Ibis 151: 352-60.
• Wilson R. R., Cooper R. J. 1998. Acadian Flycatcher nest placement: does placement influence reproductive success? Condor 100: 673-679.
• White G. C., Burnham K. P. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46: 120-139.
• Zanette L., Bert J. 2000. Nesting success and nest predators in forest fragments: a study using real and artificial nests. Auk 117: 445-54.