Nest-site selection and reproductive success of Common Yellowthroats in managed Iowa grasslands

Murray, Les D.; Best, Louis B.

doi:10.1650/condor-13-047-r1.1

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Breeding habitats include grasslands with lush vegetation, emergent wetland vegetation, sedge meadows, shrublands, and woodland edges (Stewart, 1975;Kahl and others, 1985;Sample, 1989;Patterson and Best, 1996;Johnson, 1997). The selection of areas with taller, denser vegetation (that is, higher vertical obstruction) in this study is consistent with information reported in the literature for this species (Madden, 1996;Murray and Best, 2014). Madden (1996), for example, determined a similar preference for higher vertical height-density in mixed-grass prairies in northwestern North Dakota.…”

Section: Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis Trichas)supporting

confidence: 86%

Adaptive management in native grasslands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Implications for grassland birds

Igl¹,

Newton²,

Grant³

et al. 2018

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis Trichas)supporting

confidence: 86%

Adaptive management in native grasslands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Implications for grassland birds

Igl¹,

Newton²,

Grant³

et al. 2018

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We did not find a treatment effect on nest survival, similar to Conover et al (2011). However, vegetation species composition and, to a lesser extent, harvest frequency can be important factors driving avian habitat choices and resulting productivity (Perlut et al, 2006;Murray and Best, 2014). Thus, promoting the use of second generation perennial biofuels such as switchgrass improves biodiversity and ecosystem function over monoculture annual plants such as corn, but the actual benefit to avian populations may be limited if monocultures function as poor breeding habitat for grassland birds, one of the most imperiled group of birds in North America (Peterjohn and Sauer, 1999;Askins et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Effects of crop type and harvest on nest survival and productivity of dickcissels in semi-natural grasslands

Conkling

Belant

DeVault

et al. 2017

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent focus on climate change and global energy production has increased interest in developing biofuels including perennial native grasses (e.g. switchgrass [Panicum virgatum]) as viable energy commodities while simultaneously maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity. However, there is limited research examining the effects of biofuel-focused grasslands on grassland bird reproductive success and conservation. In 2011-2013 we studied the effects of vegetation composition and harvest regimens of switchgrass monocultures and native warm-season grass (NWSG) mixtures on nest success, nest density, and productivity for Dickcissels (Spiza americana) in Clay Co. MS, USA. There was no effect of vegetation metrics, harvest frequency, or biofuel treatment on nest survival. However, both vegetation composition and harvest frequencies influenced nest density and productivity. Native warm season grasses contained 54-64 times more nests relative to switchgrass treatments, and nest density and productivity was 10% greater in single harvest plots. Our results suggest semi-natural grasslands can balance biofuel production, ecosystem functionality, and conservation so that biofuels offer an opportunity for wildlife conservation rather than a continued threat to grassland birds.

show abstract

“…As a result, a proper investigation of adaptiveness of habitat-selection strategies requires framing analyses at the multiple spatial scales relevant for the study organism. However, the vast majority of studies have focused on the adaptive value of habitat preferences at a single spatial scale (Martin, 1998; Misenhelter & Rotenberry, 2000; Davis, 2005; Arlt & Pärt, 2007; Brambilla & Ficetola, 2012; Murray & Best, 2014; but see Chalfoun & Martin, 2007). When habitat selection is a multi-scale process, the lack of congruence or even mismatches between habitat preferences and fitness outcome may result from key habitat features that act at other scales and have been overlooked rather than from maladaptive choice or other ecological-evolutionary reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The adaptive value of habitat preferences from a multi-scale spatial perspective: insights from marsh-nesting avian species

Jedlikowski

Brambilla

2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHabitat selection and its adaptive outcomes are crucial features for animal life-history strategies. Nevertheless, congruence between habitat preferences and breeding success has been rarely demonstrated, which may result from the single-scale evaluation of animal choices. As habitat selection is a complex multi-scale process in many groups of animal species, investigating adaptiveness of habitat selection in a multi-scale framework is crucial. In this study, we explore whether habitat preferences acting at different spatial scales enhance the fitness of bird species, and check the appropriateness of single vs. multi-scale models. We expected that variables found to be more important for habitat selection at individual scale(s), would coherently play a major role in affecting nest survival at the same scale(s).MethodsWe considered habitat preferences of two Rallidae species, little crake (Zapornia parva) and water rail (Rallus aquaticus), at three spatial scales (landscape, territory, and nest-site) and related them to nest survival. Single-scale versus multi-scale models (GLS and glmmPQL) were compared to check which model better described adaptiveness of habitat preferences. Consistency between the effect of variables on habitat selection and on nest survival was checked to investigate their adaptive value.ResultsIn both species, multi-scale models for nest survival were more supported than single-scale ones. In little crake, the multi-scale model indicated vegetation density and water depth at the territory scale, as well as vegetation height at nest-site scale, as the most important variables. The first two variables were among the most important for nest survival and habitat selection, and the coherent effects suggested the adaptive value of habitat preferences. In water rail, the multi-scale model of nest survival showed vegetation density at territory scale and extent of emergent vegetation within landscape scale as the most important ones, although we found a consistent effect with the habitat selection model (and hence evidence for adaptiveness) only for the former.DiscussionOur work suggests caution when interpreting adaptiveness of habitat preferences at a single spatial scale because such an approach may under- or over-estimate the importance of habitat factors. As an example, we found evidence only for a weak effect of water depth at territory scale on little crake nest survival; however, according to the multi-scale analysis, such effect turned out to be important and appeared highly adaptive. Therefore, multi-scale approaches to the study of adaptive explanations for habitat selection mechanisms should be promoted.

show abstract

Nest-site selection and reproductive success of Common Yellowthroats in managed Iowa grasslands

Cited by 17 publications

References 68 publications

Adaptive management in native grasslands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Implications for grassland birds

Adaptive management in native grasslands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Implications for grassland birds

Effects of crop type and harvest on nest survival and productivity of dickcissels in semi-natural grasslands

The adaptive value of habitat preferences from a multi-scale spatial perspective: insights from marsh-nesting avian species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About