Artificial nest experiments have been used in an attempt to understand patterns of predation affecting natural nests. A growing body of literature suggests that neither relative rates nor patterns of predation are the same for artificial and natural nests. We studied nest predation and daily mortality rates and patterns at real and artificial ground and shrub nests to test the validity of artificial nest experiments. We monitored 1667 artificial and 344 natural nests, over seven trials, in three regions, across 58 sites in Ontario. We controlled for many of the factors thought to be responsible for previously reported differences between predation rates on natural and artificial nests. Although artificial nests in our study resembled natural nests, contained eggs of appropriate size, shape, and color of target bird species, and were placed in similar microhabitats as natural nests, the rates of predation on these nests did not parallel rates on natural nests for any region in terms of absolute rate or pattern. Predation rates on artificial nests did not vary between years, as they tended to for natural nests, and the magnitude of predation pressure on artificial ground nests compared with shrub nests did not show the same pattern as that on natural nests. In general, rates of predation on artificial nests were significantly higher than on natural nests. Our results suggest that conclusions derived from artificial nest studies may be unfounded. Given that many influential ideas in predation theory are based on results of artificial nest experiments, it may be time to redo these experiments with natural nests.Resumen: Se han utilizado experimentos con nidos artificiales con la intención de entender los patrones de depredación que afectan a los nidos naturales. La bibliografía sugiere que ni las tasas relativas ni los patrones de depredación son iguales para nidos artificiales y naturales. Estudiamos las tasas y patrones de depredación de nidos y de mortalidad diaria en nidos reales y artificiales sobre el suelo y en matorrales para probar la validez de los experimentos con nidos artificiales. Monitoreamos 1667 nidos artificiales y 344 nidos naturales, en siete pruebas, en tres regiones, en 58 sitios en Notario. Controlamos muchos de los factores que se piensa son responsables de diferencias entre tasas de depredación en nidos naturales y artificiales reportadas previamente. Aunque los nidos artificiales en nuestro estudio se asemejaron a nidos naturales, contenían huevos de tamaño, forma y color adecuados para la especie de ave y fueron colocados en microhábitats 382 Predation Patterns on Artificial and Real NestsBurke et al.similares a los de nidos naturales, las tasas de depredación en estos nidos no fueron similares a las tasas en nidos naturales en ninguna región en términos de tasa o patrón absoluto. Las tasas de depredación en nidos artificiales no variaron de un año a otro, como fue la tendencia en nidos naturales, y la magnitud de la presión de depredación en nidos sobre el suelo comparada con nidos en arbu...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A total of eight tadpole cell lines were established from green frogs (Lithobates clamitans) and wood frogs (Lithobates sylvatica). The five green frog cell lines were named GreenTad-HF1, GreenTad-HF2, GreenTad-HF3, GreenTad-HE4, and GreenTadgill. The three wood frog cell lines were named WoodTad-HE1, WoodTad-Bone, and WoodTad-rpe. DNA barcoding confirmed the cell lines to be from the correct species and the growth characteristics (optimal temperature and FBS requirement) were elucidated. In order to begin studying the innate immune capacity for each cell line, class A scavenger receptor expression and function were next explored. All cell lines expressed genes for at least 3 of the 5 class A scavenger receptor (SR-A) family members, but the gene expression patterns varied between cell lines. MARCO was only expressed in GreenTad-HE4 and WoodTad-Bone, while only GreenTad-HF3 did not express SCARA5 and only WoodTad-rpe did not express SR-AI. Acetylated low density lipoprotein (AcLDL) is a well-defined ligand for SR-As and WoodTad-rpe was the only cell line to which it was unable to bind. In the other seven tadpole cell lines, the SR-A competitive ligands (dextran sulfate, fucoidan, polyinosinic acid) blocked AcLDL binding whereas the SR-A non-competitive ligand counterparts (chondroitin sulfate, fetuin, polycytidylic acid, respectively) did not. Overall, these new eight cell lines can become important tools in the study of innate immunity in general and SR-A functions in particular in green frogs and wood frogs.