Video Evidence of Piping Plover Nest Predation

White, Corie L.; Strauss, Lowell R.; Davis, Stephen K.

doi:10.1898/nwn09-09.1

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, White et al . ). Accordingly, we were able to verify many of the reasons originally proposed by Larivière () and Pietz and Granfors () why predators cannot be determined accurately from nest remains.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In addition, Plover parents returned to the nests after depredation events and further obscured fate evidence by scraping the empty nest bowl and removing pebbles (White et al . ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…White et al . (), relying on field evidence, misclassified two Piping Plover Charadrius melodus (hereafter Plover) nests as destroyed by Cattle Bos taurus , when Coyote Canis latrans predation was the actual cause. In addition, Plover parents returned to the nests after depredation events and further obscured fate evidence by scraping the empty nest bowl and removing pebbles (White et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of nest fate classification and predator identification from evidence at nests of Least Terns and Piping Plovers

Andes

Shaffer

Sherfy

et al. 2018

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For federally listed species such as Least Tern Sternula antillarum and Piping Plover Charadrius melodus, correct determination of nest fates and causes of nest failure is crucial for understanding population dynamics and improving monitoring programmes. We used video cameras to evaluate nest fate misclassification rate and to identify factors that may cause researchers monitoring nests at different intervals to classify Least Tern and Piping Plover nest fates incorrectly. During the 2013-2015 breeding seasons, we installed miniature surveillance cameras at 65 of 294 Least Tern and 89 of 551 Piping Plover nests under observation on the Missouri River in North Dakota. Nest fates were assigned in the field from remains found at the nest-site and then again by an independent researcher who reviewed camera footage. We used ordinal logistic regressions to examine whether monitoring interval, clutch age or temporal factors influenced a correct, partially misclassified (probable successful in the field vs. successful by camera) or misclassified nest fate classification. During a 7-day monitoring interval between visits, 45% of nests were partially and 27.5% were fully misclassified. The percentage of partially (20%) and fully (8.0%) misclassified nests decreased with a more intensive (3-day) monitoring schedule. Researchers were also less likely to correctly classify nest fates for Least Terns than for Piping Plovers, and as clutch age and monitoring interval increased for both species. Furthermore, causes of failure (e.g. predators, weather) as determined from field evidence vs. video disagreed for 53.5% of nests. The ability to identify accurately nest fate and cause of nest failure will facilitate a better understanding of factors that limit productivity and will lead to better informed management decisions for improving nest survival.Nest survival is a crucial demographic parameter used to understand the underlying factors that influence population size and viability over time.Additionally, in many circumstances nest survival is more straightforward to measure than most other significant traits of life history; therefore, it is often more feasible for research and management than many of the other vital rates that are important to productivity (Johnson 2007). It is no surprise that the issue of estimating nest survival has received considerable attention in the past and at present, suggesting that there are still unresolved † Present address: Bureau of Land Management,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In addition, Plover parents returned to the nests after depredation events and further obscured fate evidence by scraping the empty nest bowl and removing pebbles (White et al . ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of nest fate classification and predator identification from evidence at nests of Least Terns and Piping Plovers

Andes

Shaffer

Sherfy

et al. 2018

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, even when sign appears obvious, it may lead to the wrong conclusion. Many other camera studies, in several habitats and ecosystems, have shown that sign is unreliable for assigning predator types at passerine nests (e.g., Thompson et al 1999, McCallum and Hannon 2001, Williams and Bohall Wood 2002, Liebezeit and George 2003, Thompson and Burhans 2003 and non-passerine nests (Ratz et al 1999, MacDonald and Bolton 2005, Coates et al 2008, White et al 2010.…”

Section: Evaluating Standard Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Gained from Video-Monitoring Grassland Passerine Nests

Pietz¹,

Granfors²,

Ribic³

2012

Video Surveillance of Nesting Birds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the mid-1990s, researchers began to adapt miniature cameras to video-record activities :rt cryptic passerine nests in grasslands. In the subsequent decade, use of these video surveillance systems spread dramatically, leading to major strides in our knowledge of nest predation and nesting ecology of many species. Studies using video nest surveillance have helped overturn or substantiate many long-standing assumptions and provided insights on a wide range of topics. For example, researchers using video data have (1) identified an extensive and highly dynamic predator community in grasslands that varies both temporally (e.g., by time of day, nest age, season, year) and spatially (e.g., by habitat, edge, latitude); (2) shown that sign at nests is unreliable for assigning predator types and sometimes nest fates; (3) contributed to the 4

show abstract

“…1999, McCallum and Hannon 2001, Williams and Bohall Wood 2002, Liebezeit and George 2003, Thompson and Burhans 2003 and non-passerine nests (Ratz et a!. 1999, MacDonald and Bolton 2005, Coates et al 2008, White et a!. 2010.…”

Section: Video-monitoring Grassland Bird Nestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

1. Knowledge Gained from Video-Monitoring Grassland Passerine Nests

2019

Video Surveillance of Nesting Birds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Video Evidence of Piping Plover Nest Predation

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

Accuracy of nest fate classification and predator identification from evidence at nests of Least Terns and Piping Plovers

Accuracy of nest fate classification and predator identification from evidence at nests of Least Terns and Piping Plovers

Knowledge Gained from Video-Monitoring Grassland Passerine Nests

1. Knowledge Gained from Video-Monitoring Grassland Passerine Nests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About