Ground nesting in recultivated forest habitats - a study with artificial nests

• Autorzy: Purger J.J. , Meszaros L. A. , Purger D.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Presja drapieżników na lęgi ptaków gniazdujących na ziemi na terenach objętych rekultywacją - badania przy użyciu sztucznych gniazd

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The study was carried out in the outskirts of the town of Pécs (southern Hungary) in a recultivated former coal mine. Bordered by Turkey Oak forests, this open area forms a wedge-shaped clearing in that woodland. Since trees and taller shrubs are rare in the area, it is mainly ground nesting bird species that occur in the clearing. In order to discover whether it is more advantageous to nest in the recultivated area (clearing) than in the nearby forest or at its edges, 150 artificial ground nests were constructed. On 7 May 2002, one quail egg and a plasticine egg of similar size were placed in each of the artificial nests. After a week it was found that 24% of nests in the clearing, 30% of those in the forest edge, and 44% of the ones inside the forest had suffered depredation. The proportions of damaged plasticine and quail eggs inside the forest and at the forest edge were similar, whereas the quail eggs in the clearings were significantly less damaged than plasticine eggs. Of all the experimental eggs, significantly more plasticine eggs (29%) were damaged than quail eggs (17%), which suggests that small-bodied predators are unable to break the quail eggs. 18% of the plasticine eggs attacked, and 72% of the quail eggs attacked were removed from the nest by the predator. Among the predators, small mammals were dominant in the clearing and inside the forest, and birds at the forest edge. Based on the predation of quail eggs, the survival chances of ground nests in the clearing are greater than at the forest edge or inside the forest.

PL

Badania prowadzono na części terenu kopalni węgla objętym rekultywacją. Teren ten otoczony jest drzewostanem liściastym, z dominacją dębów, porośnięty jest roślinnością zielną. Badania miały na celu ocenę czy gniazdowanie na terenie poddanym rekultywacji jest bezpieczniejsze niż w otaczającym lesie lub na jego skraju. W każdym z wyróżnionych środowisk: wnętrzu lasu, skraju lasu i na terenie otwartym wyłożono po 50 sztucznych gniazd. Gniazda w każdym transekcie oddalone były od siebie o ok. 20 m, do każdego wyłożono do nich po jednym jaju przepiórczym i jednym wykonanym z plasteliny. Po tygodniu od wyłożenia jaj stwierdzono, że udział gniazd znalezionych przez drapieżniki był podobny w każdym z transektów (Fig. 1). Jednakże rozpatrując wyłącznie drapieżnictwo na wyłożonych jajach przepiórczych, stwierdzono istotnie mniejsze drapieżnictwo na terenie otwartym niż w lesie i na jego skraju (Fig. 1). Ślady pozostawiane na jajach wykonanych z plasteliny sugerują, że głównymi drapieżnikami skraju lasu były ptaki, natomiast na terenie otwartym i w głębi lasu — ssaki (Fig. 2). Analizując wyniki z wszystkich gniazd znacząco więcej jaj plastelinowych nosiło ślady drapieżników (29%), niż zostało zniszczonych jaj przepiórczych (17%), co wskazuje, że drobne ssaki nie są zdolne do przebicia skorupy jaj tej wielkości. Uzyskane wyniki wskazują, że w przypadku większych ptaków (bażant, lelek), presja drapieżników na lęgi może być mniejsza na terenach otwartych, niż w otaczającym tereny rekultywowane lesie.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ground nesting; recultivated area; forest habitat; artificial nest; ground nest; nest predation; egg; quail; bird; survival chance

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ornithologica
• Rocznik: 2004
• Tom: 39
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.141-145,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Purger J.J.

• Department of Zootaxonomy and Synzoology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Pecs, Ifjusag utja 6. H-7624 Pecs, Hungary

autor

Meszaros L. A.

autor

Purger D.

Bibliografia

• Báldi A. 1999. The use of artificial nests for estimating rates of nest survival. Ornis Hung. 8-9: 39-55.
• Bayne E. M., Hobson K. A. 1999. Do clay eggs attract predators to artificial nest? J. Field Ornithol. 70: 1-7.
• Davison W. B., Bollinger E. 2000. Predation rates on real and artificial nests of grassland birds. Auk 117: 147-153.
• 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.
• Gibbs J. P. 1991. Avian nest predation in tropical wet forest: An experimental study. Oikos 60: 155-161.
• Lewis K. P., Montewecchi W. A. 1999. Predation on different-sized quail eggs in an artificial nest study in western Newfoundland. Can. J. Zool. 77: 1170-1173.
• Lindell C. 2000. Egg type influences predation rates in artificial nest experiments. J. Field Ornithol. 71: 16-21.
• MacIvor L. H., Melvin S. M., Griffin C. R. 1990. Effects of research activity on piping plover nest predation. J. Wildl. Manage. 54: 443-447.
• Maier T. J., DeGraaf R. M. 2000. Predation of 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-nest studies. Condor 103: 180-183.
• Major R. E., Kendal С. 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. J. 1995. Edge effects on nest predation in the Shawnee national forest, southern Illinois. Biol. Conserv. 74: 203-213.
• Martin T. E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest site, nest predation, and food. Ecol. Monogr. 65: 101-127.
• 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.
• Melampy M. N., Kershner E. L., Jones M. A. 1999. Nest predation in suburban and rural woodlots of Northern Ohio. Am. Midl. Nat. 141: 284-292.
• Møller A. P. 1987. Egg predation as a selective factor for nest design: An experiment. Oikos 50: 91-94.
• Moore R. P., Robinson W. D. 2004. Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85: 1562-1567.
• 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.
• Ortega С. P., Ortega J. C., Rapp C. A., Backensto S. A. 1998. Validating the use of artificial nests in predation experiments. J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 925-932.
• Paton P. W. C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conserv. Biol. 8:17-26.
• Pärt T., Wretenberg J. 2002. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? J. Avian. Biol. 33: 39-46.
• Pescador M., Peris S. 2001. Effects of land use on nest predation: an experimental study in Spanish croplands. Folia Zool. 50:127-136.
• Purger J. J., Mészáros L. A., Purger D. 2004. Predation on artificial nests in post-mining recultivated area and forest edge: contrasting the use of plasticine and quail eggs. Ecol. Eng. 22: 209-212.
• Rangen S. A., Clare R. G., Hobson K. A. 2000. Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117:136-146.
• Ricklefs R. E. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9: 1-48.
• Saether B. E. 1996. Evolution of avian life histories — does nest predation explain it all? Trend Ecol. Evol. 11: 311-312.
• Santos T., Telleria J. L. 1992. Edge effect on nest predation in Mediterranean fragmented forests. Biol. Conserv. 60: 1-5.
• Sasvári L., Csörgö T., Hahn I. 1995. Bird nest predation and breeding density in primordial and man-made habitats. Folia Zool. 44: 305-314.
• Seitz L. C., Zegers D. A. 1993. An experimental study of nest predation in adjacent deciduous, coniferous and successional habitats. Condor 95: 294-304.
• Skutch A. F. 1949. Do tropical birds rear as many young as they can nourish? Ibis 91: 430-455.
• 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.
• Szegi J., Oláh J., Fekete G., Halász T., Várallyay G., Bartha S. 1988. Recultivation of the spoil banks created by open-cut mining activities in Hungary. AMBIO 17:137-143.
• Weidinger K. 2002. Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 424-437.
• Yanes M., Suárez F. 1997. Nest predation and reproduction traits in small passerines: a comparative approach. Acta Oecol. 18:413-426.
• Zar J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th, Prentice Hall, London.
• Zegers D. A., May S., Goodrich L. J. 2000. Identification of nest predators at farm/forest edge and forest interior sites. J. Field Ornithol. 71: 207-216.