Does photo-monitoring affect nest predation?

Herranz, Jesús; Yanes, María del Carmen Machado; Suárez, Francisco

doi:10.1648/0273-8570-73.1.97

Cited by 40 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The final fates of duck nests monitored by video surveillance cameras were similar to the fates of duck nests that were monitored using the traditional method of weekly nest visits. This congruence between methods suggests that the presence of the camera and associated apparatus did not introduce significant bias into depredation rates, either by revealing nest locations to predators or by decreasing the likelihood of nest depredation because of predator neophobia (Thompson et al , Pietz and Gransfors , Herranz et al , Richardson et al ). Despite our efforts to limit the effect of our weekly nest visits (to camera‐monitored and non‐camera‐monitored nests) on visual and olfactory cues surrounding nests, it remains possible that our visits affected the rate of duck nest depredation overall, or the rate of depredation by specific predators differentially.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Duck nest depredation, predator behavior, and female response using video

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depredation plays an important role in determining duck nest success and predator and female duck behavior during nest depredation can influence nest fate. We examined depredation of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and gadwall (A. strepera) nests in Suisun Marsh, California, USA, in 2015–2016 with continuous infrared video monitoring to identify nest predators and characterize predator and female duck behavior during depredation events. We recorded predators at 44% of 147 nests monitored. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) were the most frequent predator observed at nests (40% of nests visited and 53% of depredated eggs) followed by striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis; 27% and 27%), coyotes (Canis latrans; 4% and 9%), common ravens (Corvus corax; 4% and 9%), gopher snakes (Pituophis catenifer catenifer; 19% and 0%), and western yellow‐bellied racers (Coluber constrictor mormon; 1% and 0%). The number of eggs depredated per depredation bout varied among predators (raccoons: 7.3 eggs; skunks: 2.5; coyotes: 7.4; ravens: 7.7; and snakes: 0.0). Mammal depredation occurred between 1600 and 0400, whereas snakes and ravens were observed at nests during the day (snakes: 1000–2100; ravens: 1700). Females flushed from nests immediately before predator arrival (x¯ = 29.0 ± 16.6 [SD] sec), and this timing did not vary among predators. However, the length of nest depredation bouts varied among predators. Nest visits by gopher snakes were longer (18.6 ± 19.4 min) than depredation bouts by other predators (12.3 ± 10.7 min), but snakes did not successfully consume any eggs. Females took more time to return to nests when nests were depredated by raccoons (239 ± 137 min), whereas females returned more quickly when nests were visited by skunks (81 ± 163 min) or gopher snakes (15 ± 128 min). Partial clutch depredation occurred at 15% of depredated nests, but only 23% of partially depredated nests successfully hatched ≥1 egg. Our results indicate that predator type and behavior can influence female behavior and nest fate, and that management actions that reduce the effectiveness of raccoons and skunks encountering waterfowl nests may benefit these nesting populations. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Duck nest depredation, predator behavior, and female response using video

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Benson et al 2010, Bolton et al 2007, Brown et al 1998, Buler and Hamilton 2000, Carter et al 2007, Coates et al 2010, Conner et al 2010, Farnsworth and Simons 2000, Franca et al 2009, Franzreb 2007, Granfors et al 2001, Grant et al 2006, Herranz et al 2002, King and DeGraaf 2006, Liebezeit and George 2003, Lusk et al 2006, Major and Gowing 1994. Marzluff et al 2007, McKinnon and Bety 2009, Moore and Reid 2009, Morgan et al 2006, Morrison and Bolger 2002, Perkins et al 2005, Peterson et al 2004, Pietz and Granfors 2000.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifts in Dominant Nest Predators along a Rural-to-Urban Landscape Gradient

Rodewald

Kearns

2011

The Condor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In urban landscapes, predators are often more abundant or diverse than in rural areas, but few studies have examined how the identity of actual nest predators varies with urbanization. From 2007 to 2010, we used time-lapsed video to record activity at nests of the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens). Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and Wood Thrush (Hylocichla tnitstelina) in riparian forests in urban and rural landscapes of Ohio, and we examined the extent to which predator identity was predicted by landscape composition. In 99 records of depredation, we identified 21 species of nest predators (17 in rural, 15 in urban). No single species dominated, though the Brown-headed Cowbird {Molothrus ater; 18% of recorded depredations) and northern raccoon {Procyon lotor; 11%) were the most commonly recorded predators. Birds were responsible for 62% of depredations, followed by mammals (36%) and snakes (2%). By category of predator, mesopredators were the most likely to remove all nest contents, depredate nests at night, and concentrate on the nestling stage. Mesopredators also were most important in urban landscapes, accounting for 35% of urban but only 13% of rural depredations. Small birds (46%), including the cowbird. Common Grackle (^Í/MCÍZ/ÍW quiscula), and House Wren {Troglodytes aedon), plus raptors (21%), were responsible for most rural depredations. The relative proportion of nests depredated by mesopredators increased as the landscape surrounding a forest urbanized. These data indicate that the composition of the actual predator community may not mirror patterns of abundance or diversity along the rural-to-urban gradient. Cambio de Depredadores de Nido Dominantes a lo largo de un Gradiente Rural-UrbanoResumen. En paisajes urbanos, los depredadores son generalmente más abundantes o más diversos que en áreas rurales, pero pocos estudios han examinado como varia la identidad de los depredadores con la urbanización. Desde 2007 a 2010, utilizamos grabaciones de video para registrar la actividad en nidos de Cardinalis cardinalis, Empidonax virescens, Dumetella carolinensis y Hylocichla mustelina en bosques ribereños en paisajes rurales y urbanos de Ohio. También examinamos el grado ai cual era posible predecir la identidad de los depredadores con base en la composición del paisaje. En 99 registros de depredación, identificamos 21 especies de depredadores de nidos (17 en la localidad rural y 15 en la urbana). Ninguna especie fue dominante, aunque Molothrus ater (18% de las depredaciones registradas) y Procyon lotor (11% de las depredaciones registradas) fueron los depredadores más comunes. Las aves fueron responsables del 62% de las depredaciones, seguidas por los mamiferos (36%) y las serpientes (2%). Por categoria de depredador, los de mediano porte fueron los que tuvieron mayor probabilidad de remover todo el contenido del nido, de depredar los nidos en la noche y de concentrar su actividad durante el periodo de pichones. Los depredadores de mediano porte tambi...

show abstract

“…Herranz et al (2002) reported that artificial Common Wood Pigeon ( Columba palumbus ) nests monitored with noncamouflaged cameras had higher nest survival estimates than nests monitored with either camouflaged cameras or no cameras. These authors suggested that Black‐billed Magpies ( Pica pica ), the main predator in their study, were regularly trapped and hunted by humans and thus may avoid conspicuous artificial objects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of camera monitoring on survival rates of High-Arctic shorebird nests

McKinnon¹,

Bêty²

2009

Journal of Field Ornithology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring bird nests with cameras provides an opportunity to identify the cause of nest failure and record the behavior of individuals. However, leaving an object continuously within sight of a nest could have potential negative effects on nesting success. We compared daily survival rates of nests monitored using cameras and human visitation to nests tracked via human visitation only to test for potential additional effects of camera monitoring on predation rates. From 2006 to 2008, experiments were conducted on Bylot Island (Nunavut) using 80 artificial nests and 53 real nests of Baird's Sandpipers (Calidris bairdii) and White‐rumped Sandpipers (Calidris fuscicollis). Rates of predation on real and artificial nests varied considerably among years. However, survival rates of camera‐monitored nests did not differ from those of nests monitored without cameras. Predators of artificial nests included Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus), Glaucous Gulls (Larus hyperboreus), and Long‐tailed Jaegers (Stercorarius longicaudus), whereas Arctic foxes were responsible for all camera‐recorded predation events at real nests. Camera monitoring should be promoted as a viable method for monitoring nests of Arctic shorebirds because our results indicate that placing cameras at nests does not bias estimates of nest survival obtained via nest visits.

show abstract

Does photo-monitoring affect nest predation?

Cited by 40 publications

References 13 publications

Duck nest depredation, predator behavior, and female response using video

Duck nest depredation, predator behavior, and female response using video

Shifts in Dominant Nest Predators along a Rural-to-Urban Landscape Gradient

Effect of camera monitoring on survival rates of High-Arctic shorebird nests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About