Reproductive Success of House Wrens in Suburban and Rural Landscapes

Newhouse, Michael; Marra, Peter P.; Johnson, L. Scott

doi:10.1676/06-156.1

Cited by 34 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we did not find evidence that differences in laying dates or breeding performance between types of nests could be attributed to younger or better-quality pairs being attracted to any type of nest box. Other studies that have reported higher breeding success of birds in humanized areas have interpreted such results as a consequence of increased food abundance or reduced predation pressure [43–46]. These effects may have played a role in creating differences between disturbed and quiet nests in our study as well.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Human Disturbance during Early Life Impairs Nestling Growth in Birds Inhabiting a Nature Recreation Area

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature recreation conflicts with conservation, but its impacts on wildlife are not fully understood. Where recreation is not regulated, visitors to natural areas may gather in large numbers on weekends and holidays. This may increase variance in fitness in wild populations, if individuals whose critical life cycle stages coincide with periods of high human disturbance are at a disadvantage. We studied nestling development of blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) in a natural area where recreation activities intensify during weekends and other public holidays at picnic and leisure facilities, but not in the surrounding woods. In nests located near recreation facilities, blue tit nestlings that hatched during holidays developed slowly, and fledged with low body mass and poor body condition. However, nestlings that hatched outside of holidays and weekends in these nest boxes developed normally, eventually attaining similar phenotypes as those hatching in the surrounding woods. Within-brood variance in body mass was also higher in broods that began growing during holidays in disturbed areas. Our results show that early disturbance events may have negative consequences for wild birds if they overlap with critical stages of development, unveiling otherwise cryptic impacts of human activities. These new findings may help managers better regulate nature recreation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Human Disturbance during Early Life Impairs Nestling Growth in Birds Inhabiting a Nature Recreation Area

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although cities generally have greater numbers of generalist and opportunistic predators that prey upon bird nests (Sorace 2002;Prange and Geh-rt 2004;Fischer et al 2012), there is paradox in that links between urbanization and nest predation are surprisingly weak with mixed empirical support (Chamberlain et al 2009;Fischer et al 2012). Rural nest survival has been similar (Reidy et al 2009;Burhans and Thompson 2006;Rodewald et al 2013), greater (Newhouse et al 2008;Ryder et al 2010;Stracey and Robinson 2012), and Table 8.1 Cause-specific mortality for terrestrial vertebrates derived from radiotelemetry. Number of mortalities ( n) and the percentage of mortalities by three types of mortality.…”

Section: Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their review of the avian literature, Chamberlain et al (2009) reported that annual productivity was greater in urban than nonurban habitats for seven of eight urban adapting species though nestling weight was lower in urban than rural areas for nine of ten urban adapters. Brood size of northern goshawks ( Accipeter gentilis; Solonen and Ursin 2008) as well as number of young fledged by northern mockingbirds (Stracey and Robinson 2012) and house wrens ( Troglodytes aedon; Newhouse et al 2008) was greater in urban than rural sites. Urban adapting mammalian species that are able to exploit anthropogenic resources also tend to have elevated reproductive rates compared to rural populations.…”

Section: Reproductive Outputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildlife Population Dynamics in Urban Landscapes

Rodewald

Gehrt

2014

Urban Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To say that urban wildlife populations differ from those in other landscapes is, in some ways, to state the obvious, as many studies have well demonstrated how urbanization influences pattern of occurrence and relative abundance of wildlife (e.g., Blair 1996;Marzluff et al. 2001;Sinclair et al. 2005;Chace and Walsh 2006). Identifying the specific ways in which urban and nonurban wildlife populations differ and the drivers of those differences is less understood and requires a more careful examination. The response of a species to urbanization may be the consequence of life history, and behavioral and physiological attributes that promote avoidance, tolerance, or preference for urban systems. For example, urban avoiders, or species that respond negatively to development, tend to be habitat specialists, migratory, and/or sensitive to a wide range of human activities and disturbance (Croci et al. 2008). Species that respond positively to urban development (e.g., synanthropic species, urban exploiters) are often generalists, omnivorous, multi-brooded, and behaviorally flexible. Because these suites of species differ widely in population ecology even in the absence of urbanization, we forgo a direct comparison of these groups of species and, rather, examine how urbanization affects population structure and demography of species occupying both urban and nonurban landscapes (i.e., urban adapters).As we synthesize the literature, we recognize the inherent difficulty of clearly defining a "population." What distinguishes a subpopulation from a population? For some species, this may be quite clear because of limited vagility and strong segregation among habitat types; for others, it may be unclear, particularly those with more generalist habitat requirements and extensive mobility across urban

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, urban environments also contain a host of negative factors that could impair total productivity. For example, birds in urban environments may face reduced post-fledging survival (A. Balogh and P. P. Marra, unpublished manuscript; but see Whittaker and Marzluff 2009), increased nest parasitism, fewer breeding attempts and fledged young (Rodewald and Shustack 2008), or reduced physical condition of young (Newhouse et al 2008). Moreover, species living within the urban/ suburban matrix are also subject to an array of other factors that could negatively affect various aspects of their life histories including increased noise pollution (Slabbekorn and Peet 2003), exposure to contaminants (Roux and Marra 2007), and exposure to novel predation pressures (e.g., cats; Baker et al 2005).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying avian nest survival along an urbanization gradient using citizen‐ and scientist‐generated data

Ryder

Reitsma

Evans

et al. 2010

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Despite the increasing pace of urbanization little is known about the factors that limit bird populations (i.e., population-level processes) within the urban/suburban land-use matrix. Here, we report rates of nest survival within the matrix of an urban land-use gradient in the greater Washington, D.C., USA, area for five common songbirds using data collected by scientists and citizens as part of a project called Neighborhood Nestwatch. Using program MARK, we modeled the effects of species, urbanization at multiple spatial scales (canopy cover and impervious surface), and observer (citizen vs. scientist) on nest survival of four open-cup and one cavity-nesting species. In addition, artificial nests were used to determine the relative impacts of specific predators along the land-use gradient. Our results suggest that predation on nests within the land-use matrix declines with urbanization but that there are species-specific differences. Moreover, variation in nest survival among species was best explained by urbanization metrics measured at larger ''neighborhood'' spatial scales (e.g., 1000 m). Trends were supported by data from artificial nests and suggest that variable predator communities (avian vs. mammalian) are one possible mechanism to explain differential nest survival. In addition, we assessed the quality of citizen science data and show that citizens had no negative effect on nest survival and provided estimates of nest survival comparable to Smithsonian biologists. Although birds nesting within the urban matrix experienced higher nest survival, individuals also faced a multitude of other challenges such as contaminants and invasive species, all of which could reduce adult survival.

show abstract

Reproductive Success of House Wrens in Suburban and Rural Landscapes

Cited by 34 publications

References 28 publications

Human Disturbance during Early Life Impairs Nestling Growth in Birds Inhabiting a Nature Recreation Area

Human Disturbance during Early Life Impairs Nestling Growth in Birds Inhabiting a Nature Recreation Area

Wildlife Population Dynamics in Urban Landscapes

Quantifying avian nest survival along an urbanization gradient using citizen‐ and scientist‐generated data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About