1998
DOI: 10.2307/1369747
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Time and Nest-Site Characteristics on Concealment of Songbird Nests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
49
0
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
3
49
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Low nest concealment may facilitate adult escape from potential predators (Götmark et al 1995), and as these are long-lived birds, they may opt to escape and re-nest rather than risk than their own survival. The importance of nest concealment to predation is related to predator type and nest conspicuousness (Burhans and Frank 1998). Increased concealment has been shown to reduce nest predation in some species (Collias and Collias 1984;Martin and Roper 1988); however, concealment may only be effective against predator types that use visual cues such as birds, in contrast to olfactory predators such as small mammals (Skutch 1985;Colombelli-Négrel and Kleindorfer 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low nest concealment may facilitate adult escape from potential predators (Götmark et al 1995), and as these are long-lived birds, they may opt to escape and re-nest rather than risk than their own survival. The importance of nest concealment to predation is related to predator type and nest conspicuousness (Burhans and Frank 1998). Increased concealment has been shown to reduce nest predation in some species (Collias and Collias 1984;Martin and Roper 1988); however, concealment may only be effective against predator types that use visual cues such as birds, in contrast to olfactory predators such as small mammals (Skutch 1985;Colombelli-Négrel and Kleindorfer 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the mesohabitat scale, habitat variables were quantified as estimates of ground cover and vegetation cover, in addition to the combined mean height of the tree and shrub layer (Al-Hmoud et al 2007). At the microhabitat scale, the following set of variables was measured within 1 week of fledging or failure to minimize time effects on variables (Burhans and Thompson 1998): plant species, plant height, canopy diameter, height of nest above the ground, nest position index (calculated as the ratio of trunk/centre of shrub/tree to nest distance divided by the canopy radius at nest height; Mezquida 2004), and foliage density immediately surrounding the nest as a measure of nest concealment. Foliage density (nest concealment) was measured by a thin wooden rod with five marks (at 10-cm intervals) horizontally from the nest through the foliage in the four cardinal directions and also vertically over and under the nest (Mezquida 2004), and counting the number of intervals with contacts (''hits'') by leaves and branches.…”
Section: Field Methods and Data Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To reduce nest predation rates, many bird species have evolved nests that are well camouflagedin the habitats in which they are placed or concealed (Collias & Collias 1984). Nest predation rates are generally lower for more-concealed nests because of reduced visibility or auditory cues to predators (Martin & Roper 1988, Martin 1992, 1993, but see Burhans & Thompson 1998) Nest morphology is known to vary markedly among even closely-related species. Martin (1998) showed that seven species of coexisting ground or shrub-nesting birds living in high elevation forests in Arizona had di#erent microhabitat preferences, and that the nest success of each species was higher in preferred than in non-preferred microhabitats, indicating that preferences were adaptive.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%