Corvid response to human settlements and campgrounds: Causes, consequences, and challenges for conservation

Species-dependent effects of bird feeders on nest predators and nest survival of urban American Robins and Northern Cardinals

“…Bird feeders attract cowbirds from great distances and support populations to the extent that reducing bird feeding during the breeding season is one management recommendation for decreasing the risk of brood parasitism and nest predation by cowbirds (Coker andCapen 1995, Chace et al 2003). Crows are also known to heavily exploit supplementary foods associated with human habitation, and such foods are thought to promote both high densities and reproductive success of crows in suburbs (Marzluff et al 2001, McGowan 2001, Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006. Although crows are not strongly associated with bird feeders in some regions, they are common visitors to feeders in Ohio, where they are reported at 16-30% of bird feeders included in the FeederWatch citizen science project (feederwatch.org).…”

“…Collectively, these 6 predator species accounted for the majority of predation events on both robin and cardinal nests in our system (74% and 66%, respectively ;Malpass 2015). The diets of Brown-headed Cowbirds, American Crows, Common Grackles, Blue Jays, and eastern gray squirrels incorporate anthropogenic foods, including birdseed from feeders in suburban neighborhoods (Lowther 1993, Bowers and Breland 1996, Peer and Bollinger 1997, Marzluff et al 2001, Verbeek and Caffrey 2002, Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006, Parker and Nilon 2008, Smith et al 2013.…”

Proposed research on home ranges and resource use of the water monitor lizard, Varanus salvator

“…As human development continues and areas of human and animal activity increasingly overlap, anthropogenic effects on animal behavior, human-animal conflict mitigation, and preservation of animal populations at the humanwildlife interface have emerged as a global focus (Whittaker and Knight 1998, Treves and Karanth 2003, George and Crooks 2006, Dar et al 2009). Anthropogenic effects on animal behavior may have ecological consequences (Chapin III et al 2000, Marzluff andNeatherlin 2006) in addition to increasing the potential for human-animal conflict (Whittaker andKnight 1998, Beckman andBerger 2003). For example, the presence of humans may result in sensitive species choosing suboptimal conditions to avoid encountering human activity (Gaulke 1991, Colescott andGillingham 1998).…”

“…Habituated wildlife and those attracted to anthropogenic food sources may no longer perform the same ecological functions as their wildland counterparts (Whittaker and Knight 1998). For example, animals taking advantage of anthropogenic food resources have been shown to have smaller ranges than naturally foraging counterparts (Traeholt 1997c, Beckman and Berger 2003, Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006. The prospect of human development overlapping with large predatory species' ranges creates additional concerns regarding loss of livestock or human safety (Treves andKaranth 2003, Dar et al 2009).…”

Grouse Hunting Regulations and Hunter Typologies in Norway

“…Key-words: bag limit, game, harvest, willingness-to-pay, ptarmigan Declining grouse populations is a pressing management issue worldwide (Storch, 2007). The underlying causes are complex, and while no study has yet identified one single factor that explains the declines at larger spatial scales, the most prominent threat seems to be habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation (e.g., Webb, Boarman, & Rotenberry, 2004;Marzluff & Neatherlin, 2006): changes that are long-lasting and not easily reversed.Additionally, we see growing evidence that game-bird hunting may be more additive to other causes of mortality than previously thought (Smith & Willebrand, 1999;Pedersen et al, 2004;Pöysä et al, 2004;Sandercock, Nilsen, Brøseth, & Pedersen, 2011;Connelly, Hagen, & Schroeder, 2011; but see also Sedinger, White, Espinosa, Partee, & Braun, 2010).It thus seems clear that harvest regulations are inevitable for mitigating grouse population declines. Management agencies then face a partly conflicting quest; they must achieve the ecological goal without overly restricting hunting opportunities and thereby jeopardize hunter satisfaction.…”