Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 11–20 | Cite as

Natural History Traits Associated with Detecting Mortality Within Residential Bird Communities: Can Citizen Science Provide Insights?

  • Caren Beth CooperEmail author
  • Kerrie Anne Therese Loyd
  • Tessa Murante
  • Matthew Savoca
  • Janis Dickinson
Article

Abstract

Cat predation of birds in residential landscapes is ephemeral, unpredictable, and spatially dispersed, and thus requires many person-hours to observe. We sought to identify whether specific behaviors, traits, or feeding ecologies of birds contribute to their probability of cat-caused mortality around residences across temperate North America. In addressing this question, we evaluated citizen science data with respect to peer-reviewed species accounts (Birds of North America, BNA). Using information on cat predation from the BNA, we found that species that glean their prey from the ground or breed in nest boxes were three times more likely to be depredated by cats, while birds that hawk were over two times less likely to become cat prey than would be predicted by random chance. Data from citizen science sources also showed that birds using nest boxes had increased susceptibility to cat predation, as did those that use feeders and that glean from foliage. We caution that observations of predation by citizen science volunteers may be biased towards detection at feeders. Future research should focus on developing volunteer survey techniques for improving estimates of bird mortality rates and sources.

Keywords

Domestic cat Predator-prey interactions Urbanization Birdfeeders “My Yard Counts” “PredatorWatch” 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to all those who took part in My Yard Counts and PredatorWatch. We appreciate input from Chris Wood on the natural history Table. Staff in Bird Population Studies and Citizen Science at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology gave valuable input throughout the course of this research. Tessa Murante reported these findings as part of her Honors Thesis at Cornell University.

References

  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. American Bird Conservancy (1997) Human attitudes and behaviors regarding cats. In: Cats Indoors: the campaign for safer birds and cats. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. American Bird Conservancy (2007) Domesticated cat predation on birds and other wildlife. Available from http://www.abcbirds.org/cats. Accessed 26 April 2012
  4. Baker PJ, Bentleys AJ, Ansell RJ, Harris S (2005) Impact on predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area. Mammal Review 35:302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balogh AP, Ryder TB, Marra PP (2011) Population demography of Gray Catbirds in the suburban matrix: sources, sinks and domestic cats. Journal of OrnithologyGoogle Scholar
  6. Barratt DG (1997) Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. I. Prey composition and preference. Wildlife Research 24:263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckerman AP, Boots M, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban bird declines and the fear of cats. Animal Conservation 10:320–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonney R, Dhondt AA (1997) FeederWatch: an example of a Student-Scientist Partnership. Chapter 3. In: KC Cohen (ed) Internet links for science education: Student-Science Partnerships. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg K, Shirk J (2009) Citizen Science: a new paradigm for increasing science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59:977–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brieman L, Spector P (1992) Submodel selection and evaluation in regression. The X-random case. International Statistical Review 60:291–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brossard D, Lewenstein B, Bonney R (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education 27:1099–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL (1993) Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Chapman and Hall, London, p 446Google Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and inference: an information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Calver MC, Grayson J, Lilith M, Dickman CR (2011) Applying the precautionary principle to the issue of impacts by pet cats on urban wildlife. Biological Conservation 144:1895–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman JS, Temple SA, Craven SR (1997) Cats and wildlife: a conservation dilemma. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  16. Coman BJ, Brunner H (1972) Food habits of the feral house cat in Victoria. J Wildl Manag 36:848–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12(2):11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/. Accessed 26 April 2012Google Scholar
  18. Cooper CB, Hochachka WM, Dhondt AA (2012) The opportunities and challenges of Citizen Science as a tool for ecological research. In: Dickinson JL, Bonney R (eds) Citizen science: public collaboration in environmental research. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. Cresswell W, Lind J, Kaby U, Quinn JL, Jakobsson S (2003) Does an opportunistic predator preferentially attack nonvigilant prey? Anim Behav 66:643–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crooks KR, Soule ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dauphine N, Cooper RJ (2009) Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Proceedings of the 4th international partners in flight conference: tundra to tropics, 205–219Google Scholar
  22. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 41:149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunn EH, Tessaglia DL (1994) Predation of birds at freeders in winter. Journal of Ornithology 65:8–16Google Scholar
  24. Dunning JB (1984) Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. West. Bird Banding Assoc. Monogr. No. I. Eldon Publishing, CaveCreek, AZGoogle Scholar
  25. Efron B (1983) Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on cross-validation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78:316–331Google Scholar
  26. Ehrlich PR, Dobkin DS, Where D (1988) The birder’s handbook. Simon & Schuster Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans C, Abrams E, Reitsma R, Roux K, Salmonsen L, Marra P (2005) The Neighborhood Nestwatch program: participant outcomes of a Citizen-Science ecological research project. Conservation Biology 19:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fitzgerald BM (1990) Is cat control needed to protect urban wildlife? Environmental Conservation 17:168–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fitzgerald BM, Turner DC (2000) Hunting behavior of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations. In: Turner DC, Bateson P (eds) The domestic cat: the biology of its behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 152–175Google Scholar
  30. Fukunaga K, Kessell D (1971) Estimation of classification error. IEEE Transaction on Computers C-20:1521–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galloway AWE, Tudor MT, Haegen WMV (2006) The reliability of citizen science: a case study of Oregon White Oak Stand Surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1425–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gering JC, Blair RB (1999) Predation on artificial bird nests along an urban gradient: predatory risk or relaxation in urban environments? Ecography 22:532–541Google Scholar
  33. Hawkins CC, Grant WE, Longnecker MT (2004) Effect of house cats, being fed in parks, on California birds and rodents. In: Shaw et al (eds) Proceedings 4th international urban wildlife symposium, pp 164–170Google Scholar
  34. Hosmer DH, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Jansson C, Ekman J, von Bromssen A (1981) Winter mortality and food supply in tits Parus spp. Oikos 37:313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jarvis PJ (1990) Urban cats as pests and pets. Environmental Conservation 17:169–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jokima¨ ki J, Huhta E (2000) Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient. Condor 102:838–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. King WB (1985) Island birds: will the future repeat the past? In: Moors PJ (ed) Conservation of Island Birds. International Council of Bird Preservation, Cambridge, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  39. Kress S (2006) The Audubon society guide to attracting birds: creating natural habitats for properties large and small. Cornell University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  40. Lepczyk CA, Mertig AG, Liu J (2004) Assessing landowner activities related to birds across rural-to-urban landscapes. Environmental Management 33:110–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lerman SB, Warren PS (2011) The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liberg O, Sandell M, Pontier D, Natoli E (2000) Density, spatial organization and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other felids. In: Turner DC, Bateson P (eds) The domestic cat: the biology of its behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 120–147Google Scholar
  43. Osborn RG, Higgins KF, Usgaard RE, Dieter CD, Neiger RD (2000) Bird mortality associated with wind turbines as the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota. Am Midl Nat 143:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pearre S, Maass R (1998) Trends in the prey size-based trophic niches of feral and House Cats Felis catus L. Mamm Rev 28:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peck DR, Faulquier L, Pinet P, Jaquemet S, Le Corre M (2008) Feral cat diet and impact on sooty terns at Juan de Nova Island, Mozambique Channel. Animal Conservation 11:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poole A (ed) (2005) The birds of North America. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY
  47. Popp JW (1988) Scanning behavior of finches in mixed-species groups. Condor 90:510–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R (2009) The R project for statistical computing. The R Foundation. University of Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodewald AD, Kearns LJ, Shustack DP (2011) Antropogenic resource subsidies decouple predator-prey relationships. Ecol Appl 21:936–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenzweig M (2003) Win-win ecology, how the earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryder TB, Reitsma R, Evans B, Marra PP (2010) Quantifying avian nest survival along an urbanization gradient using citizen- and scientist-generated data. Ecological Applications 20:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shochat E (2004) Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city-slicker birds. Oikos 106:622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shochat E, Lerman SB, Anderies JM, Warren PS, Faeth SH, Nilon CH (2010) Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. BioScience 60:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for Citizen Science. Trends Ecol Evol 24:467–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stracey C (2011) Resolving the urban nest predator paradox: the role of alternative foods for nest predators. Biological Conservation 144:1545–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tallamy D (2009) Bringing nature home: how you can sustain wildlife with native plants. Timber Press, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson S, Bonney R (2007) Evaluating the impacts of participation in an online citizen science project: a mixed-methods approach. In: Trant J, Bearman D (eds) Museums and the web. Archives and Museum Informatics, Toronto, pp 187–199Google Scholar
  58. Thorington KK, Bowman R (2003) Predation rates on artificial nests increase with human housing density in suburban habitats. Ecography 26:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trumbull DJ, Bonney R, Bascom D, Cabral A (2000) Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Science Education 84:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Heezik Y, Smyth A, Adams A, Gordon J (2010) Do domestic cats impose an unsustainable harvest on urban bird populations? Biological Conservation 143:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Waite TA (1987) Vigilance in the White-breasted Nuthatch: effects of dominance and sociality. Auk 104:429–434Google Scholar
  62. Woods M, McDonald RA, Harris S (2003) Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Review 33:174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zanette LY, White AF, Allen MC, Clinchy M (2011) Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produce per year. Science 334:1398–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caren Beth Cooper
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kerrie Anne Therese Loyd
    • 2
  • Tessa Murante
    • 3
  • Matthew Savoca
    • 4
  • Janis Dickinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of OrnithologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.New York College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York Institute of TechnologyOld Westbury, New YorkUSA
  4. 4.Graduate Group in EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations