Hatch-year Piping Plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>) prospecting and habitat quality influence second-year nest site selection

Davis, Kayla L.; Schoenemann, Kelsey L; Catlin, Daniel H.; Hunt, Kelsi L.; Friedrich, Meryl J.; Ritter, Shannon; Fraser, James D.; Karpanty, Sarah M.

doi:10.1642/auk-16-80.1

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not only does the amount of habitat matter, but its proximity to existing sources of birds is also important. Piping Plovers on the Missouri River and elsewhere exhibit relatively high site fidelity between years, with young prospecting locally for their first nesting locations , Davis et al 2017, and exchange among local breeding populations is relatively low (Catlin et al 2016). These pieces of evidence indicate that the future construction of sandbar habitat should be in close proximity to the already existing postflood sandbars on the Gavins Point Reach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic response of Piping Plovers suggests that engineered habitat restoration is no match for natural riverine processes

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic response of Piping Plovers suggests that engineered habitat restoration is no match for natural riverine processes

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some results have been obtained using marked individuals and monitoring their location at different breeding patches across time, but incomplete information on their reproductive status and performance, limits conclusions (e.g. Duerr et al 2007 ; Henaux et al 2007 ; Davis et al 2017 ; Genovart et al 2020 ). The most suitable method for those species is telemetry tracking to monitor individual movement and behaviour with accuracy (Votier et al 2011 ; Ponchon et al 2013 , 2015a ; Casazza et al 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High frequency of prospecting for informed dispersal and colonisation in a social species at large spatial scale

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals explore and prospect space searching for resources and individuals may disperse, targeting suitable patches to increase fitness. Nevertheless, dispersal is costly because it implies leaving the patch where the individual has gathered information and reduced uncertainty. In social species, information gathered during the prospection process for deciding whether and where to disperse is not only personal but also public, i.e. conspecific density and breeding performance. In empty patches, public information is not available and dispersal for colonisation would be more challenging. Here we study the prospecting in a metapopulation of colonial Audouin’s gulls using PTT platform terminal transmitters tagging for up to 4 years and GPS tagging during the incubation period. A large percentage of birds (65%) prospected occupied patches; strikingly, 62% of prospectors also visited empty patches that were colonised in later years. Frequency and intensity of prospecting were higher for failed breeders, who dispersed more than successful breeders. Prospecting and dispersal also occurred mostly to neighbouring patches where population density was higher. GPSs revealed that many breeders (59%) prospected while actively incubating, which suggests that they gathered information before knowing the fate of their reproduction. Prospecting may be enhanced in species adapted to breed in ephemeral habitats, such as Audouin’s gulls. Interestingly, none of the tracked individuals colonised an empty patch despite having prospected over a period of up to three consecutive years. Lack of public information in empty patches may drive extended prospecting, long time delays in colonisation and non-linear transient phenomena in metapopulation dynamics and species range expansion.

show abstract

“…Because nearly all nesting adults and hatched chicks were individually marked in our site (Granger et al 2017), unbanded plovers likely came from other breeding sites and were observed on stopover during southward migration. During this period we also observed unbanded juvenile plovers foraging on the flood shoals, indicating that chicks that hatched elsewhere on the Atlantic coast used the New York barrier islands as staging grounds for migration, possibly prospecting for future breeding seasons (Davis et al 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Extensive Use of Intertidal Habitat by Shorebirds Outside Protected Nesting Areas

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation of shorebirds throughout their breeding and migratory ranges has become a priority as shorebird populations decline globally. Along the North Atlantic Coast, management efforts have particularly focused on preserving nesting habitat for piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), which are protected under the Endangered Species Act. It is unclear whether these conservation measures suffice to protect foraging habitat for piping plovers and other shorebirds on stopover during migration along the Atlantic Flyway. To evaluate the extent to which conservation of piping plover nesting areas extends to all habitats used by plovers, and to determine whether these protections also benefited non-breeding migratory shorebirds in the region, we conducted weekly shorebird surveys, recording the number and locations of piping plovers and other species, during northward and southward migration on Fire Island and Westhampton Island, New York, USA, from 2014-2016. We used canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) to assess the degree of spatiotemporal overlap between breeding plovers, foraging plovers, and other migratory shorebirds that temporarily stage at the site. The spatiotemporal distribution of migratory shorebirds matched more closely with piping plovers seen during foraging than piping plovers observed tending nests and engaging in other breeding activities. Migratory shorebirds and foraging piping plovers were more abundant and frequent in wet intertidal zones outside of fenced-off nesting areas, which were not protected under current management regimes. Therefore, additional protection of piping plover foraging habitat could benefit plovers and migratory shorebirds that use similar feeding grounds during stopover on northward and southward migration.

show abstract

Hatch-year Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) prospecting and habitat quality influence second-year nest site selection

Cited by 16 publications

References 36 publications

Demographic response of Piping Plovers suggests that engineered habitat restoration is no match for natural riverine processes

Demographic response of Piping Plovers suggests that engineered habitat restoration is no match for natural riverine processes

High frequency of prospecting for informed dispersal and colonisation in a social species at large spatial scale

Extensive Use of Intertidal Habitat by Shorebirds Outside Protected Nesting Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About