Ground nest depredation by European Black-billed Magpies Pica pica: an experimental study with artificial nests

• Autorzy: Suvorov P. , Svobodova J. , Koubova M. , Dohnalova L.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Drapieżnictwo sroki na sztucznych gniazdach zawierających jaja kurze i przepiórcze

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Nest characteristics can significantly affect specific behaviour of predators during nest depredation, such as relating to nest searching, manipulating and eating eggs. However, the effect of egg size and coloration on behaviour of avian predators rarely has been quantified. Since the European Black-billed Magpie Pica pica is regarded as an important nest predator in suburban areas, we studied the effect of different types of artificial ground nests — baited with chicken and quail eggs — on predation probability by magpie. In addition, to compare temporal changes in magpie predation, experimental clutches were installed at 39 active magpie nests in two breeding stages: incubation stage and stage of nestling feeding. In our experiment, magpies detected almost all artificial nests at both breeding stages. However in contrast to our prediction, nests were preferentially depredated at the first stage. This probably was due to the change of magpie foraging preference to invertebrates as a main food of nestlings. Furthermore, we found that predation rate did not differ between real and wax eggs, suggesting that magpies are not able to discriminate between them. Whereas quail eggs were carried away, chicken eggs were consumed in the nest where remnants of egg shell and egg content were left. Obviously, the possibility to immediately carry the egg away increases food attractiveness for magpies. Therefore, we conclude that chicken eggs are more suitable for identification of middle-sized avian predators than quail eggs.

PL

Charakterystyka gniazd ptaków może w istotny sposób wpływać na zachowanie drapieżników rabujących gniazda — na wyszukiwanie przez nie gniazd i sposób ich rabowania. Natomiast jak dotąd związek wielkości i kolorystyki jaj znajdujących się w gnieździe z drapieżnictwem jest słabo poznany. W pracy badano wpływ dwóch rodzajów sztucznych gniazd — z jajami kurzymi i przepiórczymi — na prawdopodobieństwo drapieżnictwa ze strony sroki. Sroka jest uznawana za ważnego drapieżnika gniazd ptasich, szczególnie na terenach podmiejskich. Sztuczne gniazda były umieszczone w parach: gniazdo z czterema jajami przepiórki oraz gniazdo z dwoma jajami kurzymi, w pobliżu 39 gniazd zajętych przez sroki w czasie dwóch okresów sezonu lęgowego tego drapieżnika — wysiadywania jaj i karmienia piskląt. Autorzy wykorzystali m.in. bezpośrednie obserwacje zachowań drapieżników w pobliżu sztucznych gniazd. Połowa jaj w sztucznych gniazdach była wypełniona woskiem i przymocowana na stałe do gniazda, celem ułatwienia późniejszej identyfikacji drapieżnika. W czasie eksperymentu sroki odnalazły prawie wszystkie sztuczne gniazda, choć szybciej odnajdywały gniazda z jajami przepiórczymi (Tab. 1). Gniazda penetrowane były zarówno w okresie kiedy sroki wysiadywały jaja, jak i gdy karmiły pisklęta, niemniej jednak — w przeciwieństwie do założeń autorów — sroki rabowały sztuczne gniazda częściej w pierwszym z tych okresów (Tab. 1). Wynikało to prawdopodobnie z faktu zmiany diety sroki w okresie karmienia młodych, polegającej na wzroście udziału bezkręgowców. Ponadto stwierdzono, że drapieżnictwo na jajach prawdziwych i jajach wypełnionych woskiem było podobne, co sugeruje, że ptaki nie potrafiły odróżniać tych dwóch typów jaj. Jaja przepiórcze były przez sroki wynoszone z gniazda i konsumowane z dala od niego, podczas gdy jaja kurze były częściej zjadane na miejscu (Tab. 1). Z tego względu wydaje się, że jaja kurze są lepsze do badań drapieżnictwa z wykorzystaniem sztucznych gniazd, ponieważ — ze względu na swoją wielkość — są konsumowane w gnieździe, co daje możliwość identyfikacji drapieżnika w oparciu o resztki jaj i ślady jego obecności.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ornithologica
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 47
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.55-61,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Suvorov P.

• Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Science, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague 6, Czech Republic

autor

Svobodova J.

• Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Science, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague 6, Czech Republic

autor

Koubova M.

• Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Science, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague 6, Czech Republic

autor

Dohnalova L.

• Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Science, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague 6, Czech Republic

Bibliografia

• Ahrné K. 2008. Local management and landscape effects on diversity of bees, wasps and birds in urban green areas. Doctoral Thesis. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae. Sweedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
• Albrecht T. 2004. Edge effect in wetland — arable land boundary determines nesting success of Scarlet Rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus) in the Czech republic. Auk 121: 361-371.
• Andrén H. 1992. Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective. Ecology 73: 794-804.
• Andrén H., Angelstam P. 1988. Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental evidence. Ecology 60: 544-547.
• Angelstam P. 1986. Predation on ground-nesting birds' nests in relation to predator densities and habitat edge. Oikos 47: 365-373.
• Antonov A., Atanasova D. 2002. Nest-site selection in the Magpie Pica pica in a high-density urban population of Sofia (Bulgaria). Acta Ornithol. 37: 55-66.
• Batáry P., Winkler H., Báldi A. 2004. Experiments with artificial nests on predation in reed habitats. J. Ornithol. 145: 59-63.
• Beauchamp W. D., Koford R. R., Nudds T. D., Clark R. G., Johnson D. H. 1996. Long-term declines in nest success of prairie ducks. J. Wild. Manage. 60: 247-257.
• Burke D. M., Elliott K., Moore L., Dunford W., Nol E., Phillips J., Holmes S., Freemark K. 2004. Patterns of nest predation on artificial and natural nests in forests. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2): 381-388.
• Castilla A. M., Dhondt A. A., Uriarte R. D., Westmoreland D. 2007. Predation in ground-nesting birds: An experimental study using natural egg — color variation. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 2: 2, http://www.ace-eco.org/vol2/issl/art2
• Chace J. F., Walsh J. J. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: A review. Landscape Urban Plan. 74: 46-69.
• Chiron F., Julliard R. 2007. Responses of songbirds to magpie reduction in an urban habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 71: 2624-2631.
• Crawley M. J. 2007. The R Book. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
• Danielson W. R., DeGraaf R. M., Fuller T. K. 1997. Rural and suburban forest edges: Effect on egg predators and nest predation rates. Landscape Urban Plan. 38: 25-36.
• Davison W. B., Bollinger E. 2000. Predation rates on real and artificial nests of grassland birds. Auk 117: 147-153.
• DeGraaf R. M., Maier T. J. 1996. Effect of egg size on predation by White-footed Mice. Wilson Bull. 108: 535-539.
• DeGraaf R. M., Maier T. J., Fuller T. K. 1999. Predation of small eggs in artificial nests: effects of nest position, edge and potential predator abundance in extensive forest. Wilson Bull. 111: 236-242.
• Fjeld P. E., Sonerud G. A. 1984. [Identification of predators of tetraonid nests — the experiment with artificial nests]. Nord. Viltforskerkongress: 32-35. Kalo, Denmark.
• Fjeld P. E., Sonerud G. A. 1988. Food caching, cache recovery, and the use of an egg shell dump in Hooded Crows Corvus corone cornix. Ornis Scand. 19: 268-274.
• Gooch S., Baillie S. R., Birkhead T. R. 1991. Magpie Pica pica and songbird populations. Retrospective investigations of trends in population density and breeding success. J. Appl. Ecol. 28: 1068-1086.
• Grégoire A., Garnier S., Dréano N., Faivre B. 2003. Nest predation in Blackbirds (Turdus merula) and the influence of nest characteristics. Ornis Fennica 80: 1-10.
• Groom D. W. 1993. Magpie Pica pica predation on Blackbird Turdus merula nests in urban areas. Bird Study 40: 55-62.
• Gustafson T. 2005. Nest predation in birds — important concepts and methodological problems. Introductory Research Essay 22. Department of Conservation Biology SLU Uppsala.
• Hudec K. (ed.). 1983. [Fauna ČSSR vol. 24, Ptáci — Aves, III/2]. Akademia, Praha.
• Huhta E., Mappes T., Jokimaki J. 1996. Predation on artificial ground nests in relation to forest fragmentation, agricultural land and habitat structure. Ecography 19: 85-91.
• Jerzak L. 2001. Synurbanization of the Magpie in the Palearctic. In: Marzluff J. M., Bowman R., Donnelly R. (eds.). Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 403-425.
• Jobin B., Picman J. 2002. Predation on artificial nests in upland habitats adjacent to freshwater marshes. Am. Midi. Nat. 147: 305-314.
• Jokimäki J., Huhta E. 2000. Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient. Condor 102: 838-847.
• King D. I., DeGraaf R. M. 2006. Predators at bird nests in a northern hardwood forest in New Hampshire. J. Field Ornithol. 77: 239-243.
• Larivière S. 1999. Reasons why predators cannot be inferred from nest remains. Condor 101: 718-721.
• 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.
• Marini M. A., Melo C. 1998. Predators of quail eggs, and the evidence of the remains: Implications for nest predation studies. Condor 100: 395-399.
• Martin T. E., Scott J., Menge C. 2000. Nest predation increases with parental activity: Separating nest site and parental activity effects. Procceedings: Biol. Sci. 267: 2287-2293.
• Martínez J. G., Soler M., Soler J. J., Paracuellos M., Sánchez J. 1992. [Alimentation of the nestlings of Black-billed Magpie (Pica pica) in relation to the age and availability of the prey]. Ardeola 39: 35-48.
• Marzluff J. M., Neatherlin E. 2006. Corvid response to human settlements and campgrounds: Causes, consequences and challenges for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 130: 301- 314.
• Mazgajski T. D., Rejt Ł. 2005. Forest fragment size affects edge effect in nest predation — experiment with artificial nests. Pol. J. Ecol. 53: 233-242.
• Moksnes A., Røskaft E., Braa T. A. 1991. Rejection behavior by Common Cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. Auk 108: 348-354.
• Møller A. P. 1988. Nest predation and nest site choice in passerine birds in habitat patches of different size: a study of Magpies and Blackbirds. Oikos 53: 215-221.
• Montevecchi W. A. 1976. Egg size and the egg predatory behaviour of crows. Behaviour 57: 307-320.
• Newson S. E., Rexstad E. A., Baillie S. R., Buckland S. T., Aebischer N. J. 2010: Population change of avian predators and grey squirrels in England: Is there evidence for an impact on avian prey populations? J. Appl. Ecol. 47: 244-252.
• Nisbet I. C. T. 1975. Selective effects of predation in a tern colony. Condor 77: 221-226.
• Olsen H., Schmidt N. M. 2004. Response of Hooded Crow Corvus corone cornix and Magpie Pica pica to exposure to artificial nest. Bird Study 51: 87-90.
• Ottvall R., Larsson K., Smith H. G. 2005. Nesting success in Redshank Tringa totanus breeding on coastal meadows and the importance of habitat features used as perches by avian predators. Bird Study 52: 289-296.
• Pärt T., Wretenberg J. 2002. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest predation risk for real nests? J. Avian Biol. 33: 39- 46.
• Pasitschniak-Arts M., Messier F. 1995. Risk of predation on waterfowl nests in the Canadian prairies: Effects of habitat edges and agricultural practices. Oikos 73: 347-355.
• Ponz A., Gil-Delgado J. A., Barba E. 1999. Factors affecting prey preparation by adult magpies feeding nestlings. Condor 101: 818-823.
• Prokop P. 2004. The effect of nest usurpation on breeding success of the Black-billed Magpie Pica pica. Biologia (Bratislava) 59: 213-217.
• Purger J. J., Csuka S., Kurucz K. 2008. Predation survival of ground nesting birds in grass and wheat fields: Experiment with plasticine eggs and artificial nests. Pol. J. Ecol. 56: 481-186.
• Purger J. J., Mészáros L. A., Purger D. 2004a. 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.
• Purger J. J., Mészáros L. A., Purger D. 2004b. Ground-nesting in recultivated forest habitats — a study with artificial nests. Acta Ornithol. 39: 141-145.
• R Development Core Team 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/
• Rangen S. A., Clark R. G., Hobson K. A. 2000. Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117: 136-146.
• Robinson W. H. 2005. Urban insects and arachnids. A handbook of urban entomology. Cambridge University Press.
• Roos S. 2002. Functional response, seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia 133: 608-615.
• Roos S. 2004. Nest predation processes and farmland birds. Habitat selection and population dynamics of predators and prey. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
• Schaefer T. 2004. Video monitoring of shrub-nests reveals nest predators. Bird Study 51: 170-177.
• Sieving K. E., Willson M. F. 1999. A temporal shift in Steller's Jay predation on bird eggs. Can. J. Zool. 77: 1829- 1834.
• Söderström B., Pärt T., Ryden J. 1998. Different predator faunas and nest predation risk on ground and shrub nests at forest ecotones: an experiment and a review. Oecologia 117: 108-118.
• Sonerud G. A., Fjeld P. E. 1987. Long-term memory in egg predators: an experiment with a Hooded Crow. Ornis Scand. 18: 323-325.
• Svobodová J., Koubová M., Mrštný L., Albrecht T., Kreisinger J. 2012. Temporal variation in nest predation risk along habitat edges between grassland and secondary forest in Central Europe. Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 58: 315-323.
• Šálek M. 2004. The spatial pattern of the Black-billed Magpie, Pica pica to predation risk on dummy nests. Folia Zool. 53: 57-64.
• Tatner P. 1983. The diet of urban Magpies Pica pica. Ibis 125: 90-107.
• Thompson F. R., Burhans D. E. 2004. Differences in predators of artificial and real songbird nests: evidence of bias in artificial nest studies. Conserv. Biol. 18: 373-380.
• Weidinger K. 2010. Foraging behaviour of nest predators at open-cup nests of woodland passerines. J. Ornithol. 151: 729-735.
• Weidinger K., Kočvara R. 2010. Repeatability of nest predation in passerines depends on predator species and time scale. Oikos 119: 138-146.
• Willebrand T., Marcström V. 1988. On the danger of using dummy nests to study predation. Auk 105: 378-379.
• Yahner R. H., Cypher B. L. 1987. Effects of nest location on depredation of artificial arboreal nests. J. Wildl. Manage. 51: 178-181.
• Yahner R. H., Mahan C. G. 1996. Effects of egg type on depredation of artificial ground nests. Wilson Bull. 108: 129-136.