| Citation: |
Daniel F. Perrella, Paulo V. Q. Zima, Mercival R. Francisco. 2021: Nest site selection and reproductive parameters of the threatened Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus swainsoni) and their significance for conservation. Avian Research, 12(1): 2. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00237-2
|
Patterns of rarity can be explained by reproductive rates, levels of endemism, and habitat specificity, and knowledge on these parameters is important to understand the levels of vulnerability of each species and to formulate conservation strategies. Here, we studied nest-site selection and breeding biology of the Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus swainsoni), a poorly known vulnerable bird endemic to the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
We addressed nest site selection in three different levels: first, we searched for nests near and far from water to investigate whether birds could select water proximities to construct nests; second, we examined if they could select certain streams in detriment of others, and we analyzed the characteristics of used and non-used streams, and third, in streams in which nests were found, we addressed nest site selectivity by comparing a number of parameters between nest sites and random sites. Further, we provide information on breeding biology parameters related to annual fecundity.
During five breeding seasons, we found 23 nests in a well-preserved forest continuum. All of the nests were constructed above water, and they were found in streams that were about 4 m in width, instead of smaller streams with about 1.5 m in width. Modeling analyses revealed that within the used streams, nests were constructed in sites with lower vegetation density in relation to random points, while stream width, water speed, and canopy cover presented no significant correlation. Atlantic Royal Flycatchers in our study had a 22-day incubation period and 24 to 27-day nestling period. Overall nest survival was comparatively high (62%), but clutch size was small (N = 2 eggs) and double-brooding was unlikely, which resulted in a low annual fecundity (1.4 ± 0.9 fledglings per reproductive female). Along the nesting streams, we found an average of 1.62 ± 0.07 breeding pairs/km.
These data suggest that nesting habitat specificity and low annual fecundity are among the factors contributing to the rarity of the Atlantic Royal Flycatcher in large forest continuums and to its absence in fragmented environments. It reinforces the importance of large well-preserved forest continuums for the conservation of habitat specialist Atlantic Forest bird species.
Nest-site selection, i.e., where to make a nest, is an important behavioral reproductive decision for birds (Cody, 1985; Traylor et al., 2004). Environmental factors, such as suitable territories (Hunter, 1987), appropriate habitat structure (Murkin et al., 1997), resources for breeding (Nudds and Ankney, 1982) and protection against predators (Craig, 1980; Martin, 1993), are involved in determining nest-site selection (Cody, 1985; Good, 2002). Of these factors, nest predation is considered the primary source of nest mortality (reproductive loss) and a strong selective pressure (Schieck and Hannon, 1993). The selection of suitable nest sites is critical for the success of a species since it affects the risk of nest-predation (Martin, 1993; Badyaev, 1995; Lee et al., 2006). The concealment of nest is subsequently considered to be important for nest success (Martin, 1995; Clark and Shutler, 1999).
The Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio) is a tropical and sub-tropical species with a large range and is found in the Mediterranean region, Africa, Asia and in a large number of islands of the Australian sub-continent (del Hoyo et al., 1996). It builds nests in shallow water, concealed in thick emergent vegetation, or on platforms of beaten-down vegetation (del Hoyo et al., 1996; Hu et al., 2006). Although some quantitative analyses on breeding habitat and nest-site of the Purple Swamphen were carried out (Helm et al., 1987; Sánchez-Lafuente et al., 1998), little information is available in China (Hu et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2006). Given the small and fragmented local populations (Gao and Jiang, 1999; Hu et al., 2007, 2008) and the need for guiding the protection of "preferred" habitats and vegetation and conducting a basis of conservation measures, it is necessary to study the breeding habitat and understand the nest-site selection of the Purple Swamphen. Therefore, we studied habitat characteristics of nest/non-nest sites of this species. Specifically, we took into account the following questions: what are the differences between nest and non-nest sites? What factors are critical for nest-site selection of the Purple Swamphen?
Our study was conducted in the Guangdong Haifeng Avian Natural Reserve (22°3′N, 115°23′E), 11590 ha in size and located in Haifeng County, Guangdong Province, China. The reserve is an Important Birds Area (IBA; BirdLife International, 2008a) and is listed as a wetland of "International Importance" by the Ramsar Convention (2010). It is a typical representative of south China's subtropical offshore and coastal wetlands and also an important part of the South China Sea ecosystem (Ramsar Convention, 2010). The area has a humid and sub-tropical maritime climate with distinct seasonal variation. The mean annual temperature is 21.9℃, the annual rainfall 2383 mm, the area has sunlight for 2032 h and the relative humidity is 80%. The reserve is composed of three distinct sections: the Gongping, Dongguan Lian'anwei and Dahu districts. This study was conducted at the core region of the Dongguan Lian'anwei district, approximately 4500 ha in size. Wetlands, including inter-tidal mudflats, shallow water areas, mangroves, man-made shrimp ponds and paddy fields, cover more than 70% of this district. However, large-scale, recent land reclamations have destroyed much of the natural vegetation with only scattered groups of mangrove species and reeds.
The Purple Swamphen is classified as globally "non-threatened" (Least Concern; BirdLife International, 2008b). However, it is indeed a rare species with few field records and an extremely small range in China (Wang et al., 2006). Although specimens/individuals have been successively reported by Swinhoe and Mell in Guangzhou and Xiamen, Cheng (1987) doubted that these individuals might be cage birds. The single individual, registered in Hong Kong in 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994, was considered the same bird, a straggler or an escaper (Chalmers et al., 1990; Leven et al., 1994; Carey et al., 1995; Viney et al., 2005). As well, there was no reliable record of the Purple Swamphen in Guangdong Province over one century until the discovery by Gao and Jiang (1999) and Hu et al. (2006). Despite an estimate of local populations, the status of the Purple Swamphen in China is unknown (Wang et al., 2006; Hu et al., 2007). Because of its confined distribution range, cryptic status and deficient common concern, this species is not listed as a national protected wildlife species in China, although it is provincially protected in Guangdong Province (Hu et al., 2006).
We conducted our field work from March to June in 2005 and 2006. We surveyed the distribution of the Purple Swamphen systematically according to the records of individuals and/or traces in 2005 (e.g. Hu et al., 2006, 2007) and then searched for nests within the areas where records were registered in 2006. We recorded the location of each nest with a Global Positioning System (GPS) and marked the nests with natural "flags" about 10 m away from each nest for further investigation.
Due to the small population with 40 individual records during the breeding season (Hu et al., 2007), only 15 nest sites and 15 control sites were surveyed in 2006. Control places were non-nest sites with vegetation (some areas are water bodies without vegetation), picked at random (within 100 m away from the relevant nest site) when each nest site (centered on the nest) was ascertained. For each nest, we used a rectilinear scale to measure the following variables: outer diameter, inner diameter, nest height (from the top edge of the nest to its outer bottom), nest depth (from the top edge of the nest to its inner bottom), height between nest bottom and water surface. Additionally, we documented habitat and vegetation variables in a 1.0 m × 1.0 m quadrat at each nest site and non-nest site. We estimated nine variables for each sample plot: water level, distance to road, distance to the nearest side road, distance to the nearest settlement, distance to vegetation edge, distance to the nearest water edge, herbage density, herbage height and herbage cover.
We analyzed our survey data using SPSS 13.0 (SPSS, Chicago, USA). We used Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to check normality of data. Non-parametric analyses were used to compare the differences between data sets that could not be normalized. We performed a Mann-Whitney U test and a stepwise discriminant analysis (DA) to identify the differences between nest sites and the random sample plots. Data were presented as mean ± SD and p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
All nests were built above water with a distance of 17.73 ± 2.86 cm between the nest bottom and water. Nests were bowl-shaped or shallow cups, with 11 of them on the hydrophyte cluster of the soft stem bulrush (Scirpus tabernaemontani; Fig. 1a, b) and four on common reeds (Phragmites communis). The outer diameter of nests was 38.57 ± 3.05 cm, the inner diameter 18.57 ± 0.92 cm, the height of nests 18.17 ± 1.99 cm and the depth 4.49 ± 0.49 cm.
Distance to road for nest sites (75.67 ± 7.42 m) was significantly larger than that for non-nest sites (48.67 ± 7.63 m; Z = 6.43, p < 0.05). Again, distances to water edge for nest sites (12.33 ± 1.67 m) were significantly larger than those for non-nest sites (2.32 ± 0.99 m; Z = 26.61, p < 0.01), while there were no significant differences for the other seven variables (Table 1). Concurrently, based on the results of the stepwise DA, distance to water edge and distance to road were found to be the main variables for distinguishing nest sites and non-nest sites. The result of Fisher's linear discriminant function revealed that the accuracy of these two variables was near 88%.
| Variables | Nest site (n = 15) | Non-nest site (n = 15) | Mann-Whitney U-test Z | p | |||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
| Water level (cm) | 29.30 | 7.44 | 40.20 | 8.05 | 0.982 | 0.330 | |
| Distance to road (m) | 75.67 | 7.42 | 48.67 | 7.63 | 6.433 | 0.017* | |
| Distance to side road (m) | 30.53 | 5.01 | 36.00 | 5.68 | 0.521 | 0.476 | |
| Distance to settlement (m) | 88.87 | 23.60 | 88.47 | 13.61 | 0.000 | 0.990 | |
| Distance to vegetation edge (m) | 4.53 | 3.18 | 3.93 | 2.34 | –0.652 | 0.515 | |
| Distance to water edge (m) | 12.33 | 1.67 | 2.32 | 0.99 | 26.610 | 0.000** | |
| Herbage density (ind·m–2) | 682.00 | 44.10 | 492.27 | 82.34 | 4.130 | 0.050 | |
| Herbage height (cm) | 127.20 | 7.32 | 117.00 | 8.66 | 0.810 | 0.380 | |
| Herbage coverage (%) | 75.87 | 4.57 | 71.40 | 5.72 | 0.370 | 0.550 | |
| * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Nest concealment, or visibility, is a common adaptation for reducing the risk of nest predation (Gotmark et al., 1995). Tall, dense vegetation may confer protection by creating visual barriers, as does increasing the number of available nesting sites and hindering the movement of avian (Jones and Hungerford, 1972; Dijak et al., 1990) and mammalian predators (Martin, 1993). Many species appear to select nest sites providing better concealment than nearby (randomly selected) sites (Collias and Collias, 1984; Gotmark et al., 1995). However, herbage coverage, herbage density and herbage height, which represent aspects of nest concealment, were not significantly different between nest and non-nest sites in this study. These three habitat characteristics may not determine the suitability of a particular location for Purple Swamphen nests, even when well concealed (Fig. 1a, b).
Nest success could increase with distance from habitat edge (Filliater et al., 1994) and water (Crabtree et al., 1989), since predators actively search for prey near such edges (Gates and Gysel, 1978; Traylor et al., 2004). Both distance to water edge and distance to road in this area reflect human disturbance to habitat and are important for determining nest-site selection by the Purple Swamphen. Although nesting adults would be expected to select nest-sites that would maximize their fitness, this was not always the case in human-altered environments (Lusk et al., 2006). It also suggests that human disturbance could decouple habitat suitability (Misenhelter and Rotenberry, 2000; Remeš, 2003). In our study, the Purple Swamphen was under pressure of a prosperous aquaculture industry. Wide ranges of wetland are divided into man-made shrimp ponds for aquaculture. Human activities may have an important impact on nest-site selection of the Purple Swamphen. This may explain the difference between our results and those of Sánchez-Lafuente et al. (1998), which showed nest sites closer to open areas, less concealed and more accessible than non-nest sites. Consequently, the question: "how do Purple Swamphen respond to human disturbances?" deserves further research.
Water levels may also lead to nesting failure via the effect of predation, mainly from small mammals (Craig, 1980; Hoover, 2006). Sánchez-Lafuente et al. (1998) indicate that if small mammalian predators follow some olfactory cues, the water could obscure these chemical signals and, at relatively high water levels, a soft, muddy ground may discourage them. However, water levels of nest sites in this study were lower than those of non-nest sites. Some more indirect variables related to nest-site predation (e.g. the level of human influence) should be considered in the future.
Like many rare bird species, the sustainability of the Purple Swamphen in China depends on the conservation of wetlands and maintenance of suitable nesting and foraging habitat and the assurance of food availability. Given existing threats and limiting factors, we suggest that researchers should cooperate with the local reserve and villagers and pay more attention to suitable habitats of the Purple Swamphen.
We are grateful to the Guangdong Haifeng Avian Natural Reserve for allowing us to conduct this study in the reserve. We thank Jieming Deng and the staff of the reserve for their help in the field work. We thank all our colleagues, especially Xiaoge Ping, Zhenhua Luo, Peng Luo, Zhongqiu Li, Philippe Chouteau and Chunwang Li for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Our work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (30770311), the Field Front Project of the Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (2010) and the Field Station Foundation of the Guangdong Academy of Sciences (2005, 2006, 2008, 2009).
|
Alves RRN, Lima JRF, Araújo HFP. The live bird trade in Brazil and its conservation implications: an overview. Bird Conserv Int. 2012;23: 53-65.
|
|
Ayres ACM. O Ciclo da Caapora: A RMSP e o Parque da Cantareira. São Paulo: Annablume; 2008.
|
|
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67: 1-48.
|
|
Bencke GA, Maurício GN, Develey PF, Goerck JM. Áreas importantes para a conservação das aves no Brasil: parte 1-estados do domínio da Mata Atlântica. São Paulo: SAVE Brasil; 2006.
|
|
Chalfoun AD, Schmidt KA. Adaptive breeding-habitat selection: is it for the birds? Auk. 2012a;129: 589-99.
|
|
Chalfoun AD, Schmidt KA. Adaptive breeding-habitat selection: is it for the birds. Auk. 2012b;129: 589-99.
|
|
Collias NE, Collias EC. Nest building and bird behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1984.
|
|
Descourtilz JT. História natural das aves do Brasil (ornitologia brasileira): notáveis por sua plumagem, canto e hábitos. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia; 1983.
|
|
Ferraz LPM, Varjabedian R. Evolução histórica da implantação e síntese das informações disponíveis sobre o Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho. São Paulo: Instituto Florestal; 1999.
|
|
Gilpin ME, Soulé ME. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Soulé ME, editor. Conservation Biology, the science of scarcity and diversity. Suderland: Sinauer Associates; 1986. p. 125-39.
|
|
Jamieson IG, Allendorf FW. How does the 50/500 rule apply to MVPs? Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27: 578-84.
|
|
Johnson EI, Stouffer PC, Vargas CF. Diversity, biomass, and trophic structure of a Central Amazonian Rainforest bird community. Rev Bras Ornitol. 2011;9: 1-16.
|
|
Londoño GA. Parque Nacional del Manu, Cusco, Perú Anidación de Aves en un Gradiente Altitudinal. Chicago: Science and Education; 2014.
|
|
Lu X. Hot genome leaves natural histories cold. Adv Sci Lett. 2015;349: 1064.
|
|
Martin TE, Geupel GR. Nest-monitoring plots: methods for locating nests and monitoring success. J Field Ornithol. 1993;64: 507-19.
|
|
Mattoso AQ, Pisciotta K, Barros MIA, Maia JLC, Lorejan SF. Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho, Plano de Manejo. São Miguel Arcanjo: Instituto Ekos Brasil; 2008.
|
|
Oniki Y. Is nesting success of birds low in the tropics? Biotropica. 1979;11: 60-9.
|
|
Parker TA Ⅲ, Stotz DF, Fitzpatrick JW. Ecological and distributional databases. In: Stotz DF, Fitzpatrick JW, Parker TA, Moskovits DK, editors. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. p. 113-436.
|
|
Pinto O. Sobre a coleção Carlos Estevão de peles, ninhos e ovos das aves de Belém (Pará). Pap Avulsos Zool. 1953;11: 111-222.
|
|
Primack RB. Essentials of conservation Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates; 2006.
|
|
Ribeiro-Silva L, Perrella DF, Biagolini-Jr CH, Zima PVQ, Piratelli AJ, Schlindwein MN, et al. Testing camera traps as a potential tool for detecting nest predation of birds in a tropical rainforest environment. Zoologia. 2018;35: e14678.
|
|
Robinson SK, Terborgh J. Bird community dynamics along primary successional gradients of an Amazonian whitewater river. Ornithol Monogr. 1997;48: 641-72.
|
|
Schunck F, Melo MA, Sanches LA, Godoy FI, Martins GG, Mix P. Avifauna do Parque Ecológico do Guarapiranga e sua importância para a conservação das aves da Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Ornithologia. 2016;9: 35-57.
|
|
Sick H. Ornitologia brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira; 1997.
|
|
Skutch AF. Life histories of Central American birds II: Families Vireonidae, Sylviidae, Turdidae, Troglodytidae, Paridae, Corvidae, Hirundinidae and Tyrannidae. Berkeley: Cooper Ornithological Society; 1960.
|
|
Tashian RE. Some birds from the palenque region of Northeastern Chiapas. México Auk. 1952;69: 60-6.
|
|
Tellkamp MP, Martin TH. Noteworthy bird records from southern Yucatán state. México Cotinga. 2015;37: 18-21.
|
|
Von Ihering H. Novas contribuições para a ornitologia do Brasil. Rev Mus Paul. 1914;9: 411-88.
|
|
Wetmore A. The birds of the Republic of Panamá, part 3, Passeriformes: Dendrocolaptidae (Woodcreepers) to Oxyruncidae (Sharpbills). Smithson Misc Collect. 1972;150: 1-631.
|
|
Winkler DW. Nests, eggs, and young: the breeding biology of birds. In: Podulka S, Rohrbaugh, RW, Bonney R, Handbook of bird biology. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 2004. p. 8.1-8.152.
|
|
Xiao H, Hu Y, Lang Z, Fang B, Guo W, Zhang Q, et al. How much do we know about the breeding biology of bird species in the world? J Avian Biol. 2016;47: 1-6.
|
| 1. | Min Zhao, J. Gordon Burleigh, Urban Olsson, et al. A near-complete and time-calibrated phylogeny of the Old World flycatchers, robins and chats (Aves, Muscicapidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2023, 178: 107646. DOI:10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107646 |
| 2. | Chentao Wei, George Sangster, Urban Olsson, et al. Cryptic species in a colorful genus: Integrative taxonomy of the bush robins (Aves, Muscicapidae, Tarsiger) suggests two overlooked species. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2022, 175: 107580. DOI:10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107580 |
| 3. | Per Alström, Pamela C Rasmussen, Canwei Xia, et al. Morphology, vocalizations, and mitochondrial DNA suggest that the Graceful Prinia is two species. Ornithology, 2021, 138(2) DOI:10.1093/ornithology/ukab014 |
| 4. | Joseph A Tobias, Paul F Donald, Rob W Martin, et al. Performance of a points-based scoring system for assessing species limits in birds. Ornithology, 2021, 138(2) DOI:10.1093/ornithology/ukab016 |
| 5. | Benjamin G. Freeman, Matthew W. Pennell. The latitudinal taxonomy gradient. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2021, 36(9): 778. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2021.05.003 |
| 6. | Arya Y. Yue, Elize Y. X. Ng, James A. Eaton, et al. Species limits in the Elegant Pitta (Pitta elegans) complex from Wallacea based on bioacoustic and morphometric analysis. Avian Research, 2020, 11(1) DOI:10.1186/s40657-020-00227-4 |
| 7. | Subir B. Shakya, M. Irham, Matthew L. Brady, et al. Observations on the relationships of some Sundaic passerine taxa (Aves: Passeriformes) previously unavailable for molecular phylogenetic study. Journal of Ornithology, 2020, 161(3): 651. DOI:10.1007/s10336-020-01766-9 |
| 8. | Alexey Opaev, Yulia Kolesnikova. Lack of habitat segregation and no interspecific territoriality in three syntopic cryptic species of the golden‐spectacled warblers Phylloscopus ( Seicercus ) burkii complex. Journal of Avian Biology, 2019, 50(11) DOI:10.1111/jav.02307 |
| 9. | Chyi Yin Gwee, James A Eaton, Kritika M Garg, et al. Cryptic diversity in Cyornis (Aves: Muscicapidae) jungle-flycatchers flagged by simple bioacoustic approaches. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2019, 186(3): 725. DOI:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz003 |
Figures(4) / Tables(2)
| Variables | Nest site (n = 15) | Non-nest site (n = 15) | Mann-Whitney U-test Z | p | |||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
| Water level (cm) | 29.30 | 7.44 | 40.20 | 8.05 | 0.982 | 0.330 | |
| Distance to road (m) | 75.67 | 7.42 | 48.67 | 7.63 | 6.433 | 0.017* | |
| Distance to side road (m) | 30.53 | 5.01 | 36.00 | 5.68 | 0.521 | 0.476 | |
| Distance to settlement (m) | 88.87 | 23.60 | 88.47 | 13.61 | 0.000 | 0.990 | |
| Distance to vegetation edge (m) | 4.53 | 3.18 | 3.93 | 2.34 | –0.652 | 0.515 | |
| Distance to water edge (m) | 12.33 | 1.67 | 2.32 | 0.99 | 26.610 | 0.000** | |
| Herbage density (ind·m–2) | 682.00 | 44.10 | 492.27 | 82.34 | 4.130 | 0.050 | |
| Herbage height (cm) | 127.20 | 7.32 | 117.00 | 8.66 | 0.810 | 0.380 | |
| Herbage coverage (%) | 75.87 | 4.57 | 71.40 | 5.72 | 0.370 | 0.550 | |
| * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Email Alerts
RSS Feeds