1998
DOI: 10.2307/4089515
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Colony-Site Dynamics: A Case Study of Gull-Billed Terns (Sterna nilotica) in Coastal Virginia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
56
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The change in occupancy rates over years could then be modeled as functions of site colonization and extinction rates, analogous with the birth and death rates in an open-population mark-recapture study. Such Markov models of patch occupancy dynamics will permit timespecific estimation and modeling of patch extinction and colonization rates that do not require the assumptions of p ϭ 1 or process stationarity invoked in previous modeling efforts (e.g., Erwin et al [1998] required p ϭ 1; Hanski [1992Hanski [ , 1994 and Clark and Rosenzweig [1994] required both assumptions).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The change in occupancy rates over years could then be modeled as functions of site colonization and extinction rates, analogous with the birth and death rates in an open-population mark-recapture study. Such Markov models of patch occupancy dynamics will permit timespecific estimation and modeling of patch extinction and colonization rates that do not require the assumptions of p ϭ 1 or process stationarity invoked in previous modeling efforts (e.g., Erwin et al [1998] required p ϭ 1; Hanski [1992Hanski [ , 1994 and Clark and Rosenzweig [1994] required both assumptions).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although terns and other seabirds are often assumed to be highly philopatric, the degree of site fidelity varies substantially both between species (McNicholl, 1975;Møller, 1982;Burger, 1984;Erwin et al, 1998;Renken and Smith, 1995;Ward et al, 2011;Ledwón et al, 2013;Zarza et al, 2013) and between colony sites within species (Austin, 1949;Haymes and Blokpoel, 1978;Tims et al, 2004;Spendelow et al, 1995;Feare and Lesperance, 2002;Lebreton et al, 2003;Sánchez et al, 2004;Shealer et al, 2005;Devlin et al, 2008;Ratcliffe et al, 2008;Draheim et al, 2010). Most measures of philopatry are probably biased toward high values because it is difficult to detect individuals who disperse (Coulson and Coulson, 2008).…”
Section: Philopatry and Dispersalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regardless of typical colony size, which varies enormously among species (Gochfeld and Burger, 1996;Cabot and Nisbet, 2013), it is best to have multiple protected sites so that loss of one or a few sites does not lead to loss of the population (Erwin et al, 1995;Matthiopoulos et al, 2005). If site fidelity is low (see Philopatry and Dispersal, below) it may also be important to protect currently unoccupied but suitable sites (Erwin et al, 1998). If site fidelity is high, then protecting existing sites takes on added urgency because the terns may be unlikely to colonize new locations (Burger and Lesser, 1978;Heinänen et al, 2008).…”
Section: Habitat Selection and Conspecific Attractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Esler (2000) showed that when birds exhibit spatial structure and site fidelity, important insights into avian population dynamics can be determined using a spatially explicit approach. Avian colony dynamics have been recently explored and have led to insights into where bird colonies are formed and how they persist in time and space (Erwin et al 1998, Oro and Ruxton 2001, Barbraud et al 2003, Chaulk et al 2006. How local colony size and recent colony trends influence the ability of colonies to persist and the importance of rescue effects from nearby occupied colonies have all been considered (Barbraud et al 2003, Martínez-Abraín et al 2003, Chaulk et al 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%