School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2.
School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
3.
Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
4.
Department of Biological and Environmental Science, College of Agricultural, Life and Natural Sciences, Alabama A & M University, Normal, AL 35762, USA
5.
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Funds:
the National Natural Science Foundation of China31970421
the National Natural Science Foundation of China31472011
the National Natural Science Foundation of China31101644
Research activities have often been thought to potentially influence avian nesting success by increasing nest predation rates. Although recent studies of species building open nests and cavity nests suggest that research disturbance does not generally induce nest predation, whether it is also the case in species building domednests remains unknown. In birds, domed-nest species exist in about half of the passerine families, and research disturbance to the domed nests may differ from that to the nests of other types for their different nest structures.
Methods
We investigated if research activities affected nest predation rate by analyzing the relationships of the daily nest survival rate with the research activities at the egg and nestling stages of a domed-nest species, the Silverthroated Tit (Aegithalos glaucogularis).
Results
Our results showed that nest daily survival rate was significantly affected by the laying date and nest age during the egg stage, and by the hatching date only during the nestling stage. By contrast, there were no significant effects of research activities, in terms of visiting nests and filming nests, on the nest survival of the Silver-throated Tit at both the egg and nestling stages.
Conclusions
Our results coincide with the findings in species building other types of nests that research activities do not always have negative effects on avian nesting success.
During migration birds face many challenges, including unfamiliar foraging and refuge habitats, resulting in a much higher rate of mortality during migration than during other seasons of the year. Weather may significantly affect a bird's decision to initiate migration, the course and pace of migration, and its survival during migration (Miller et al. 2016). Favourable weather conditions for migration enhance the orientation of birds, reduce the use of energy for flying and increase the speed of migration (Emlen 1975; Bloch and Bruderer 1982; Gauthreaux 1982; Akesson 1993; Liechti 2006; Shamoun-Baranes et al. 2017). According to the majority of the studies, most migrations take place in windless, clear, anticyclonic weather conditions without precipitation, or with support of tail winds (Alerstam 1990; Gyurácz et al. 1997, 2003; Bruderer and Boldt 2001; Erni et al. 2002). Favourable conditions can occur in different macrosynoptic weather situations (Kerlinger et al. 1989). Atmospheric conditions are the primary extrinsic factors influencing decisions regarding migratory flights, particularly over water bodies with limited opportunities to land (Richardson 1990). Wind plays a critical role, affecting departure date and migratory directions, routes, speeds, flight durations, energy consumption and the crossing of ecological barriers (Cochran and Kjos 1985; Weber and Hedenström 2000; Pennycuick and Battley 2003; Cochran and Wikeski 2005; Bowlin and Wikelski 2008; Shamoun-Baranes and van Gasteren 2011; Bulte et al. 2014; Gill et al. 2014). Decisions to depart stopover sites and initiate flight over large water bodies are also influenced by barometric pressure, temperature, relative humidity, and short-term trends in these variables, which are indicative of synoptic weather patterns and may provide information about future weather conditions (Able 1972; Newton 2008). In case of tail winds, birds are capable of flying longer distances while exerting less energy (Emlen 1975; Bloch and Bruderer 1982; Gauthreaux 1982, 1991; Alerstam 1990; Richardson 1990; Bruderer and Boldt 2001). Weather conditions that delay migration include cloudy skies, poor visibility, strong winds (head winds and cross winds), and warm or occluded fronts (Akesson 1993; Pyle et al. 1993).
This study aims to describe the effects of various weather elements on the numbers of migrating Siberian breeding Phylloscopus warbler species at a stopover site in Far East Russia.
Methods
The study was carried out within the Amur Bird Project during spring(2013, 2015, 2016, 2017) and autumn (2011‒2014) migration at Muraviovka Park along the middle stream of the Amur River in the Russian Far East (Heim et al. 2012). The study site is located 60 km southeast of the city of Blagoveshchensk (49°55ʹ08.27ʺN, 127°40ʹ19.93ʺE).
The study periods were the following: in 2011, from 7 September to 15 October; in 2012, from 29 August to 15 October; in 2013, from 25 April to 08 June and from 27 July to 17 October; in 2014, from 25 July to 15 October; in 2015, from 25 April to 10 June; in 2016, from 25 April to 07 June, while in 2017, from 28 April to 08 June. During this period, in total 52 mist-nets were used for the work. Netting sites were not changed within season, however, the sampling effort varied among years (Table 1). The nets were set up in a variety of habitats: homogeneous reed-beds, sedges and grassy swamps interspersed with willows and raspberries, rich shrub-layered mixed forest, very dense scrub and stubble. The work was carried out daily from sunrise to sunset and the nets were checked every hour. In case of storm, heavy wind and rain, nets were closed.
Table
1.
Sampling effort between 2011‒2017 at the study site (total number of nets × daily mist-netting hours)
Data analysis was carried out based on 6191 individuals of four species: Yellow-browed Warbler (Phylloscopus inornatus), Dusky Warbler (P. fuscatus), Radde's Warbler (P. schwarzi) and Pallas's Leaf Warbler (P. proregulus) (Table 2). All birds were marked with rings of the Moscow Ringing Centre. Species identifications were based on Svensson (1992) and Brazil (2009). We only included data of first captures and excluded all recaptures.
Table
2.
Number of ringed birds for all study species and their migration periods at Muraviovka Park
To analyse the effects of weather for bird migration, we collected the following weather data for every day: minimum and maximum temperature (℃), precipitation (mm), average air pressure (mb), average wind speed (Beaufort scale 0‒12), average wind direction (cross winds: E and W winds in spring and autumn; tail winds: N, NE and NW in autumn and S, SE and SW in spring; head winds: N, NE and NW in spring and S, SE and SW in autumn). Air pressure and precipitation data were gathered from the webpage of World Weather Online (World Weather Online 2017) for the area of Blagoveshchensk, while the remaining data were collected by the ringing teams at Muraviovka Park.
The migration periods are species-specific, therefore it was necessary to determine migration periods for each species. On the basis of the daily numbers caught, migration periods were determined for all studied species (Fig. 1). Only days within the migration period were considered in the following models.
Figure
1.
Spring (left) and autumn (right) migration periods of the four leaf warbler species
General Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were used to evaluate the weather impact on the number of trapped birds per day. Models were built for each species for both spring and autumn season. Year and Julian day were included as random factors. Minimum temperature was excluded from the models, as it was highly correlated with maximum temperature (R = 0.77, t = 30.2, df = 722, p < 0.001). The full models were of the following structure:
the number of birds trapped per day
~ temperature + precipitation + air pressure
+ wind speed + wind direction + 1|year + 1|day.
Furthermore, we built a model for all four species together, and included species as additional random factor as well. We checked for overdispersion using the dispersion-glmer function of the R package blmeco. For analysis, R version 3.4.2 (R Core Team 2017) and packages lme4 (Bates et al. 2014) and piecewiseSEM (Lefcheck 2016) were used.
Results
The migration periods of the four study species are shown in Table 2.
The GLMM for single species explained only a small part of the variability, with higher values during autumn migration (Rmarg2 : 0.07‒0.18) compared to spring migration (Rmarg2 : 0.03‒0.10). This was also true for the overall model, including all four species—see Table 3. Much more of the variance was explained by the random factors (Rcond2) (Table 3).
Table
3.
Outputs of general linear mixed models
Species
Spring migration
Autumn migration
Estimate
χ2
p
Estimate
χ2
p
ALL
Temperature
0.42
133.3
***
Temperature
0.22
18.4
***
Precipitation
0.09
8.7
0.003
Precipitation
- 0.53
121.4
***
Air pressure
‒0.10
9.4
0.002
Air pressure
- 0.25
39.3
***
Wind speed
0.09
9.3
0.002
Wind speed
- 0.29
65.6
***
Wind direction
65.8
***
Wind direction
54.6
***
Headwind
- 0.30
Headwind
- 0.39
Crosswind
- 0.05
Crosswind
- 0.17
Tailwind
- 0.72
Tailwind
0.08
Rmarg2
0.03
Rmarg2
0.12
Rcond2
0.82
Rcond2
0.84
Dusky Warbler
Temperature
0.41
17.0
***
Temperature
0.35
16.9
***
Precipitation
0.09
1.0
0.321
Precipitation
- 0.50
37.7
***
Air pressure
- 0.01
0.0
0.861
Air pressure
- 0.13
4.3
0.039
Wind speed
0.08
1.0
0.310
Wind speed
- 0.09
2.4
0.121
Wind direction
17.0
***
Wind direction
18.8
***
Headwind
0.42
Headwind
0.29
Crosswind
1.12
Crosswind
0.53
Tailwind
0.08
Tailwind
0.76
Rmarg2
0.09
Rmarg2
0.18
Rcond2
0.75
Rcond2
0.84
Pallas's Leaf Warbler
Temperature
0.40
5.2
0.022
Temperature
- 0.27
2.3
0.126
Precipitation
0.01
0.0
0.946
Precipitation
- 0.24
2.2
0.137
Air pressure
- 0.03
0.0
0.870
Air pressure
0.10
0.7
0.417
Wind speed
0.02
0.0
0.900
Wind speed
- 0.43
13.1
***
Wind direction
4.7
0.096
Wind direction
6.3
0.043
Headwind
- 1.11
Headwind
- 2.05
Crosswind
- 0.34
Crosswind
- 1.74
Tailwind
- 1.35
Tailwind
- 1.51
Rmarg2
0.09
Rmarg2
0.07
Rcond2
0.34
Rcond2
0.71
Radde's Warbler
Temperature
0.56
8.9
0.003
Temperature
0.38
5.9
0.016
Precipitation
0.00
0.0
0.993
Precipitation
- 0.45
8.5
0.004
Air pressure
0.01
0.0
0.932
Air pressure
- 0.54
16.2
***
Wind speed
0.13
0.7
0.399
Wind speed
- 0.27
16.2
0.022
Wind direction
2.5
0.292
Wind direction
6.3
0.043
Headwind
- 1.12
Headwind
- 2.07
Crosswind
- 1.17
Crosswind
- 1.41
Tailwind
- 1.67
Tailwind
- 1.77
Rmarg2
0.10
Rmarg2
0.13
Rcond2
0.44
Rcond2
0.70
Yellow-browed Warbler
Temperature
0.44
118.6
***
Temperature
0.21
7.5
0.006
Precipitation
0.09
7.1
0.008
Precipitation
- 0.57
68.7
***
Air pressure
- 0.14
16.4
***
Air pressure
- 0.32
24.6
***
Wind speed
0.08
6.6
0.010
Wind speed
- 0.45
71.3
***
Wind direction
46.1
***
Wind direction
27.6
***
Headwind
0.98
Headwind
0.39
Crosswind
1.12
Crosswind
0.59
Tailwind
0.57
Tailwind
0.89
Rmarg2
0.03
Rmarg2
0.18
Rcond2
0.94
Rcond2
0.92
Estimates refer to the slope related to the variables, but represent the mean for categorical variables (wind direction, in italics). Shown are test statistics, Rmarg2 (fixed factors alone) and Rcond2 (fixed + random factor). p values below 0.001 are marked as ***
During spring, the most important factor for all species is temperature, with significantly more birds trapped during warmer days. Furthermore, wind direction is a significant predictor in the overall model and in two out of four species models, with the highest number of birds trapped during cross winds.
In autumn, the number of trapped warblers is negatively affected by precipitation and wind speed, while maximum temperature is positively related with the number of trapped individuals in the overall model and in three out of four species. Wind direction is an important factor in all models, with most birds trapped during tail wind, and least birds during head winds. Air pressure was found to have minor impact on the numbers, but a negative relation was found in three out of four species.
Discussion
During our work, the effects of air pressure, rainfall, temperature, wind strength and wind direction were investigated for four species. We found strong impacts of weather variables on the number of trapped warblers during spring and autumn migration. Overall, preferred or avoided weather conditions were similar among the studied species, but some slight differences were found.
All species seem to migrate preferably during warm, calm days without precipitation in spring and autumn too. It is important to note that in case of intense rainy weather, mist-nets were closed for the safety of the birds, but there would certainly not have been a significant amount of bird in these days. The fact, that the maximum temperature is positively related with the number of trapped individuals in the overall model and in three out of four species is certainly associated with the timing of migration.
Previous studies have shown that the migration peak of most species coincides with days of high air pressure (Alerstam 1990; Gyurácz et al. 1997). On such days, there is constant sunshine and low temperatures. In Siberia, a high anti-cyclone reigns from September to April, with its centre near Lake Baikal. This Siberian cycle is often characterized by high air pressures above 1040 mb and extremely low temperatures (Oliver 2005). In spring, however, the effects of cyclones are characterized by high precipitation and high temperature values. In contrast, air pressure was found to have minor impact on the numbers of trapped warblers both during spring and autumn migration, but a slight negative relation was found in three out of four species in autumn. This suggests that the studied species seem to migrate independently from the air pressure.
Both the strength and the direction of the wind can be decisive in the timing of migration (Elkins 1988). In stormy winds, mist-netting is not possible, but as during heavy rains, few birds are expected to fly during such conditions. Accordingly, the number of birds of all species and the strength of wind were negatively correlated in spring and autumn migration.
In autumn, in cases of a northerly wind (tail wind), birds are known to fly longer distances while exerting less energy (Emlen 1975; Bloch and Bruderer 1982; Gauthreaux 1982, 1991; Alerstam 1990; Richardson 1990). Accordingly, we would expect the highest numbers of migrating birds in autumn during northern tail winds and in spring during southern tail winds. However, a positive effect of tail winds was only confirmed in autumn. Tail winds were a good predictor in case of Dusky and Yellow-browed Warblers in autumn, which may support the weather hypothesis, according to which some authors explain the westward vagrancy of Siberian leaf warblers species by the effect of the weather (Baker 1977; Howey and Bell 1985; Baker and Catley 1987). It is interesting to note that in spring, most birds were trapped during cross winds (eastern or western winds). It seems likely, that the studied warbler species exhibit a loop migration, with their spring migration routes closer to the East Asian coasts, leading to a more longitudinal migration pattern (from east to west) in our study area during spring (Fig. 2). The Wood Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix) and Willow Warbler (Ph. trochilus), well-studied European breeding species, show also loop migration (Gyurácz and Csörgő 2009; Jónás et al. in press), and a similar pattern was found for geolocator-tracked Siberian Rubythroats (Calliope calliope) along the East Asian flyway (Heim et al. 2018a).
Figure
2.
Breeding and wintering grounds, and the supposed migration route of the study species. The study site (Muravovka Park) is also marked on the map. Distribution maps for each species based on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2018)
Despite the significant impacts of the weather variables, most of the variation was explained by interannual differences and preferred migration timing. The studied species are likely mainly following their innate migration schedule. Consistent migration timing between years was also found for Emberiza buntings at our study site (Heim et al. 2018b). This might especially be true for spring migration, when competition is high to arrive early at the breeding grounds (Nilsson et al. 2013), which could force individuals to continue migration under sub-optimal weather conditions.
Global change is expected to significantly alter weather conditions in Far East Russia (Mokhov and Semenov 2016) and a better understanding of how these factors could influence migratory birds is urgently required.
Conclusion
During our work we found strong impacts of weather variables (air pressure, rainfall, temperature, wind strength and wind direction) on the number of trapped warblers during spring and autumn migration. Birds seem to migrate preferably during warm, calm days without precipitation, however, relationships between weather variables and the number of migrating individuals were much stronger during autumn. Air pressure was found to have minor impact on the numbers of trapped warblers, while the strength and the direction of wind were important variables. Tail winds play an important role in autumn, but in spring migration was determined by cross winds, which indicates that the studied species might exhibit a loop migration.
Authors' contributions
LB and WH collected field data. TCS provided new ideas for this manuscript. LB and WH performed data analyses. LB collected the weather data from the online dataset. LB wrote an early version of the manuscript. WH and TCS revised and improved the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Sergei M. Smirenski and the staff of Muraviovka Park as well as the Amur Bird Project field teams for enabling these studies in Far East Russia. We kindly acknowledge the provision of rings by the Moscow Bird Ringing Centre, and thank Ramona J. Heim and Johannes Kamp for helpful comments on the statistical analysis.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The authors confirm that all experiments were carried out under the current law for scientific bird ringing in Russia, and all necessary permissions were obtained.
Bartoń K. Package MuMIn. R package version 1.43.6. 2019. . Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.
Batáry P, Báldi A. Evidence of an edge effect on avian nest success. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:389–400.
Blackmer AL, Ackerman JT, Nevitt GA. Effects of investigator disturbance on hatching success and nest-site fidelity in a long-lived seabird, Leach's storm-petrel. Biol Conserv. 2004;116:141–8.
Bocz R, Szép D, Witz D, Ronczyk L, Kurucz K, Purger JJ. Human disturbances and predation on artificial ground nests across an urban gradient. Anim Biodivers Conserv. 2017;40:153–7.
Briskie JV, Martin PR, Martin TE. Nest predation and the evolution of nestling begging calls. Proc R Soc Lond B-Biol Sci. 1999;266:2153–9.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65:23–35.
Carey MJ. The effects of investigator disturbance on procellariiform seabirds: a review. N Z J Zool. 2009;36:367–77.
Carey MJ. Investigator disturbance reduces reproductive success in Shorttailed Shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris. Ibis. 2011;153:363–72.
Chalfoun AD, Ratnaswamy MJ, Thompson FR. Songbird nest predators in forest-pasture edge and forest interior in a fragmented landscape. Ecol Appl. 2002;12:858–67.
Collias NE. On the origin and evolution of nest building by passerine birds. Condor. 1997;99:253–70.
Dinsmore SJ, Dinsmore JJ. Modeling avian nest survival in program MARK. Stud Avian Biol. 2007;34:73–83.
Ellenberg U, Setiawan AN, Cree A, Houston DM, Seddon PJ. Elevated hormonal stress response and reduced reproductive output in Yellow-eyed penguins exposed to unregulated tourism. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2007;152:54–63.
Emery RB, Howerter DW, Armstrong LM, Anderson MG, Devries JH, Joynt BL. Seasonal variation in waterfowl nesting success and its relation to cover management in the Canadian prairies. J Wildl Manage. 2005;69:1181–93.
Gibson D, Blomberg EJ, Atamian MT, Sedinger JS. Observer effects strongly influence estimates of daily nest survival probability but do not substantially increase rates of nest failure in Greater Sage-Grouse. Auk. 2015;132:397–407.
Götmark F. The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. In: Power DM, editor. Current Ornithology. Boston: Springer; 1992. p. 63–104.
Grant TA, Shaffer TL, Madden EM, Pietz PJ. Time-specific variation in passerine nest survival: new insights into old questions. Auk. 2005;122:661–72.
Guan H, Wen Y, Wang P, Lv L, Xu J, Li J. Seasonal increase of nest height of the Silver-throated Tit (Aegithalos glaucogularis): can it reduce predation risk? Avian Res. 2018;9:42.
Gutzwiller KJ, Riffell SK, Anderson SH. Repeated human intrusion and the potential for nest predation by gray jays. J Wildl Manage. 2002;66:372.
Herranz J, Yanes M, Suárez F. Does photo-monitoring affect nest predation? J Field Ornithol. 2002;73:97–101.
Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Sanllorente O, Soler M. The impact of researcher disturbance on nest predation rates: a meta-analysis. Ibis. 2012;154:5–14.
Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Soler M. Investigator activities reduce nest predation in blackbirds Turdus merula. J Avian Biol. 2010;41:208–12.
Jacobson MD, Tsakiris ET, Long AM, Jensen WE. No evidence for observer effects on Lark Sparrow nest survival. J Field Ornithol. 2011;82:184–92.
Jehle G, Adams AA, Savidge JA, Skagen SK. Nest survival estimation: a review of alternatives to the Mayfield estimator. Condor. 2004;106:472–84.
Klett AT, Johnson DH. Variability in nest survival rates and implications to nesting studies. Auk. 1982;99:77–87.
Laake JL. RMark: An R interface for analysis of Capture-Recapture data with MARK. Seattle: National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center; 2013.
Laake JL, Rexstad E. R code for MARK analysis. R package version 2.2.6. 2019. . Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.
Ledwoń M, Betleja J, Neubauer G. Different trapping schemes and variable disturbance intensity do not affect hatching success of Whiskered Terns Chlidonias hybrida. Bird Study. 2016;63:136–40.
Leech SM, Leonard ML. Begging and the risk of predation in nestling birds. Behav Ecol. 1997;8:644–6.
Li J, Lv L, Wang Y, Xi B, Zhang Z. Breeding biology of two sympatric Aegithalos tits with helpers at the nest. J Ornithol. 2012;153:273–83.
Li J, Wang Y, Lv L, Wang P, Hatchwell BJ, Zhang Z. Context-dependent strategies of food allocation among offspring in a facultative cooperative breeder. Behav Ecol. 2019;30:975–85.
Lloyd P, Plagányi ÉE. Correcting observer effect bias in estimates of nesting success of a coastal bird, the White-fronted Plover Charadrius marginatus. Bird Study. 2002;49:124–30.
MaCivor LH, Melvin SM, Griffin CR. Effects of research activity on piping plover nest predation. J Wildl Manage. 1990;54:443.
Mainwaring MC, Reynolds SJ, Weidinger K. The influence of predation on the location and design of nests. In: Deeming DC, Reynolds SJ, editors. Nests, eggs, and incubation: new ideas about avian reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 50–64.
Major RE. The effect of human observers on the intensity of nest predation. Ibis. 1990;132:608–12.
Martin TE, Geupel GR. Nest-monitoring plots methods for locating nests and monitoring success. J Field Ornithol. 1993;64:507–19.
Martin TE, Scott J, Menge C. Nest predation increases with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2000;267:2287–93.
McDonald PG, Wilson DR, Evans CS. Nestling begging increases predation risk, regardless of spectral characteristics or avian mobbing. Behav Ecol. 2009;20:821–9.
Meixell BW, Flint PL. Effects of industrial and investigator disturbance on arcticnesting geese. J Wildl Manage. 2017;81:1372–85.
Monroe AP, Martin JA, Riffell SK, Burger LW. Effects of measuring nestling condition on nest success in the dickcissel (Spiza americana). Wildl Soc Bull. 2014;38:401–6.
Mouton JC, Martin TE. Nest structure affects auditory and visual detectability, but not predation risk, in a tropical songbird community. Funct Ecol. 2019;33:1973–81.
Moynahan BJ, Lindberg MS, Rotella JJ, Thomas JW. Factors affecting nest survival of greater sage-grouse in northcentral Montana. J Wildl Manage. 2007;71:1773–83.
Orzechowski SCM, Shipley JR, Pegan TM, Winkler DW. Negligible effects of blood sampling on reproductive performance and return rates of Tree Swallows. J Field Ornithol. 2019;90:21–38.
R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing version 3.1.6. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019. .
Richardson TW, Gardali T, Jenkins SH. Review and meta-analysis of camera effects on avian nest success. J Wildl Manage. 2009;73:287–93.
Rodway MS, Montevecchi WA, Chardine JW. Effects of investigator disturbance on breeding success of Atlantic puffins Fratercula arctica. Biol Conserv. 1996;76:311–9.
Ropert-Coudert Y, Knott N, Chiaradia A, Kato A. How do different data logger sizes and attachment positions affect the diving behaviour of little penguins? Deep Res Part Ⅱ-Top Stud Oceanogr. 2007;54:415–23.
Rosenberg KV, Dokter AM, Blancher PJ, Sauer JR, Smith AC, Smith PA, et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science. 2019;366:120–4.
Segura LN, Reboreda JC. Nest survival rates of Red-crested Cardinals increase with nest age in south-temperate forests of Argentina. J Field Ornithol. 2012;83:343–50.
Stein A, Young MJ, Seddon PJ, Darby JT, van Heezik Y. Investigator disturbance does not reduce annual breeding success or lifetime reproductive success in a vulnerable long-lived species, the yellow-eyed penguin. Biol Conserv. 2017;207:80–9.
Steven R, Pickering C, Guy Castley J. A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds. J Environ Manage. 2011;92:2287–94.
Stien J, Ims RA. Absence from the nest due to human disturbance induces higher nest predation risk than natural recesses in Common Eiders Somateria mollissima. Ibis. 2016;158:249–60.
Sutherland WJ, Newton I, Green R. Bird ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 62–4.
Touihri M, Charfi F, Villard MA. Effects of landscape composition and native oak forest configuration on cavity-nesting birds of North Africa. For Ecol Manage. 2017;385:198–205.
Walker J, Lindberg MS, Maccluskie MC, Petrula MJ, Sedinger JS. Nest survival of scaup and other ducks in the boreal forest of Alaska. J Wildl Manage. 2005;69:582–91.
Weidinger K. Nest monitoring does not increase nest predation in opennesting songbirds: inference from continuous nest-survival data. Auk. 2008;125:859–68.
White GC, Burnham KP. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study. 1999;46:S120–39.
Yu J, Wang PC, Lü L, Zhang ZW, Wang Y, Xu JL, et al. Diurnal brooding behavior of long-tailed tits (Aegithalos caudatus glaucogularis). Zool Res. 2016;37:84–9.
Zhao JM, Yang C, Lou YQ, Shi M, Fang Y, Sun YH. Nesting season, nest age, and disturbance, but not habitat characteristics, affect nest survival of Chinese grouse. Curr Zool. 2020;66:29–37.
Estimates refer to the slope related to the variables, but represent the mean for categorical variables (wind direction, in italics). Shown are test statistics, Rmarg2 (fixed factors alone) and Rcond2 (fixed + random factor). p values below 0.001 are marked as ***
DownLoad:
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds