Impacts of Supplemental Feeding on Survival Rates of Black‐Capped Chickadees

Brittingham, Margaret C.; Temple, Stanley A.

doi:10.2307/1941007

Cited by 166 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, not all potential predators pose the same degree of threat to nuthatches. Because small birds like nuthatches may be severely food-limited in the winter as the result of low prey abundance and high energetic demands (22,(30)(31)(32), discriminating among different species of potential predators and mobbing dangerous predators most intensely may help conserve energy. Because they can differentiate among within-category variations of the chick-a-dee alarm calls that contain information about predator risk, nuthatches can selectively mob only the most dangerous predators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls

Templeton

Greene

2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

226

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many animals recognize the alarm calls produced by other species, but the amount of information they glean from these eavesdropped signals is unknown. We previously showed that blackcapped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) have a sophisticated alarm call system in which they encode complex information about the size and risk of potential predators in variations of a single type of mobbing alarm call. Here we show experimentally that redbreasted nuthatches (Sitta canadensis) respond appropriately to subtle variations of these heterospecific ''chick-a-dee'' alarm calls, thereby evidencing that they have gained important information about potential predators in their environment. This study demonstrates a previously unsuspected level of discrimination in intertaxon eavesdropping.eavesdropping ͉ heterospecific recognition ͉ interspecific communication

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls

Templeton

Greene

2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

226

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1988, Blonde! et al 1992 and with experimental manipulation of food (reviewed in Martin 1987, Brittingham andTemple 1988, but see Arcese and Smith 1988). Such relationships should cause food effects to be minor and expressed as deviations when an inverse survival-fecundity function exists (Fig.…”

Section: Food Effects and Nest Predation And Nest Sites)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Life History Evolution in Relation to Nest Sites, Nest Predation, and Food

Martin¹

1995

Ecological Monographs

1,332

1,093

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Food limitation is generally thought to underlie much of the variation in life history traits of birds. I examined variation and covariation of life history traits of 123 North American Passeriformes and Piciformes in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and foraging sites to examine the possible roles of these ecological factors in life history evolution of birds. Annual fecundity was strongly inversely related to adult survival, even when phylogenetic effects were controlled. Only a little of the variation in fecundity and survival was related to foraging sites, whereas these traits varied strongly among nest sites. Interspecific differences in nest predation were correlated with much of the variation in life history traits among nest sites, although energy trade-offs with covarying traits also may account for some variation. For example, increased nest predation is associated with a shortened nestling period and both are associated with more broods per year, but number of broods is inversely correlated with clutch size, possibly due to an energy trade-off. Number of broods was much more strongly correlated with annual fecundity and adult survival among species than was clutch size, suggesting that clutch size may not be the primary fecundity trait on which selection is acting. Ultimately, food limitation may cause trade-offs between annual fecundity and adult survival, but differences among species in fecundity and adult survival may not be explained by differences in food abundance and instead represent differing tactics for partitioning similar levels of food limitation. Variation in fecundity and adult survival is more clearly organized by nest sites and more closely correlated with nest predation; species that use nest sites with greater nest predation have shorter nestling periods and more broods, yielding higher fecundity, which in turn is associated with reduced adult survival.Fecundity also varied with migratory tendencies; short-distance migrants had more broods and greater fecundity than did neotropical migrants and residents using similar nest sites. However, migratory tendencies and habitat use were confounded, making separation of these two effects difficult. Nonetheless, the conventional view that neotropical migrants have fewer broods than residents was not supported when nest site effects were controlled.

show abstract

“…Supplemental food provided at feeding stations can affect distribution, abundance, habitat selection, annual survivorship, sociality, and foraging behavior of birds, especially during winter months (Brittingham and Temple 1988;Desrochers et al 1988;Wilson 2001;Doherty and Grubb 2002;Atchison and Rodewald 2006). Effects of winter resources also can carryover to other seasons and influence the distribution of breeding birds, even though the resource may not be used at that time.…”

Section: Alteration Of Resources and Processes In Urbanizing Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conserving Biodiversity in Urbanizing Areas: Nontraditional Views from a Bird's Perspective

Marzluff¹,

Rodewald²

2008

CATE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review common population and community-level responses of wildlife to urbanization, and discuss how: (1) the amount and configuration of land cover and land use, and (2) the alteration of resources (e.g., type of vegetation, presence of food and water) and processes (e.g., natural disturbance regimes, species interactions, intensity of human recreation) within built environments influence animals, with special emphasis on birds. Although each landscape presents unique opportunities and constraints, we suggest that all urban areas have the potential to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity. The ecological value of urban areas may be promoted if planners, managers, and homeowners consider ways to (1) encourage retention and protection of natural habitats within urbanizing landscapes, (2) plan explicitly for open spaces and natural habitats within new subdivisions, (3) use a variety of arrangements of built and open space within developments, (4) enhance and restore habitat within open spaces, (5) improve quality of developed lands (i.e., the urban matrix) rather than directing management efforts only towards parks, reserves, and open areas, and (6) celebrate urban biological diversity to foster connections between people and their natural heritage.

show abstract

Impacts of Supplemental Feeding on Survival Rates of Black‐Capped Chickadees

Cited by 166 publications

References 25 publications

Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls

Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls

Avian Life History Evolution in Relation to Nest Sites, Nest Predation, and Food

Conserving Biodiversity in Urbanizing Areas: Nontraditional Views from a Bird's Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About