Nest Monitoring and Predator Visitation at Nests of Banded Dotterels

Keedwell, Rachel J.; Sanders, Mark

doi:10.1650/0010-5422(2002)104[0899:nmapva]2.0.co;2

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ouchley et al, 1994;Franzreb and Hanula, 1995;Delaney and Grubb, 1999;Keedwell and Sanders, 2002;Stake and Cimprich, 2003), behaviour of badgers (Meles meles) at middens (Stewart et al, 1997), activity of overwintering bats in caves (Sedgeley, 2001), predation of reef sponges (Dunlap and Pawlik, 1996) and the use of fauna passages (Mathiasen and Madsen, 2000). Video cameras have even been mounted on the back of seals to study their hunting behaviour (Davis et al, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing seed removal: remote video monitoring of seed selection, predation and dispersal.

Jansen¹,

Ouden²

2004

Seed Fate: Predation, Dispersal and Seedling Establishment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was conducted during 1996-2000 in an undisturbed tropical lowland rain forest site with an intact fauna at the Nouragues Biological Station, French Guiana, to demonstrate the potential of automated remote video monitoring for studying seed removal and seed fate. In addition, data in 1998 at Speulderbos, a mixed oak-beech forest in the Netherlands, were used. In Nouragues, a suite of different animals, including most of the ungulate and terrestrial rodent species occurring in the study area, and many other terrestrial animals. Acouchies (Myoprocta acouchy) were the first to discover seed plots in 96% of the cases and were always earlier than agoutis (Dasyprocta leporina). An important determinant of the ability of species to obtain seeds was their activity rhythm. Acouchies showed a strong apparent response to food abundance. Peccaries, in contrast, were only recorded around noon and only in low seed years, but this pattern may have been an artefact of the low number of encounters. Peccaries and squirrels removed few of the seeds (peccaries removed 5% of Carapa procera, squirrels 2% of Licania alba), yet they accounted for an important part of seed mortality. Acouchies accounted for majority of recorded removal in both Carapa (62%) and Licania (60%). Agoutis, finally, were less important seed removers than acouchies. Agoutis were two to six times heaviers than acouchies. No significant difference in dispersal distance between agoutis and acouchies was found at least not for the first 25 m. Both rapid removal and greater dispersal distance indicate a higher motivation of rodents to carefully store the seeds. If this pattern holds for other species and habitats, rapid seed removal could be a sign of higher-quality seed dispersal rather than higher predation. Agoutis and acouchies in French Guiana and wood mice in the Netherlands remove and disperse only seed at a time. The interval time between visits was proportional to the investment of rodents in scatterhoarding and their performance as seed dispersers, and can be used as a potential estimate of dispersal under incomplete seed retrieval.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing seed removal: remote video monitoring of seed selection, predation and dispersal.

Jansen¹,

Ouden²

2004

Seed Fate: Predation, Dispersal and Seedling Establishment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we were concerned primarily with the effects of introduced mammalian predators, nests that were depredated by cuckoos were excluded from any further analyses. Visits to the nests by researchers occurred with the same frequency in both study sites to control for any effect of human visitation affecting predation rates (Keedwell and Sanders 2002;Mayer-Gross et al 1997;Verboven et al 2001). The potential for pseudo-replication is a possible problem when data are collected in the same sites over several years.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential effects of exotic predator-control on nest success of native and introduced birds in New Zealand

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recently, many investigators have monitored nests with cameras to identify predators and limit the number of nest visits (McQuillen and Brewer 2000, Keedwell and Sanders 2002, Sanders and Maloney 2002, Stake and Cimprich 2003, Richardson et al 2009). Monitoring nests with cameras can decrease the number of visits to nests, while simultaneously recording otherwise unobtainable information on feeding ecology, nesting behavior, and nest predation (Cutler and Swann 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of camera monitoring on survival rates of High-Arctic shorebird nests

McKinnon¹,

Bêty²

2009

Journal of Field Ornithology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring bird nests with cameras provides an opportunity to identify the cause of nest failure and record the behavior of individuals. However, leaving an object continuously within sight of a nest could have potential negative effects on nesting success. We compared daily survival rates of nests monitored using cameras and human visitation to nests tracked via human visitation only to test for potential additional effects of camera monitoring on predation rates. From 2006 to 2008, experiments were conducted on Bylot Island (Nunavut) using 80 artificial nests and 53 real nests of Baird's Sandpipers (Calidris bairdii) and White‐rumped Sandpipers (Calidris fuscicollis). Rates of predation on real and artificial nests varied considerably among years. However, survival rates of camera‐monitored nests did not differ from those of nests monitored without cameras. Predators of artificial nests included Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus), Glaucous Gulls (Larus hyperboreus), and Long‐tailed Jaegers (Stercorarius longicaudus), whereas Arctic foxes were responsible for all camera‐recorded predation events at real nests. Camera monitoring should be promoted as a viable method for monitoring nests of Arctic shorebirds because our results indicate that placing cameras at nests does not bias estimates of nest survival obtained via nest visits.

show abstract

Nest Monitoring and Predator Visitation at Nests of Banded Dotterels

Cited by 16 publications

References 11 publications

Observing seed removal: remote video monitoring of seed selection, predation and dispersal.

Observing seed removal: remote video monitoring of seed selection, predation and dispersal.

Differential effects of exotic predator-control on nest success of native and introduced birds in New Zealand

Effect of camera monitoring on survival rates of High-Arctic shorebird nests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About