Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 147, Issue 4, pp 632–640 | Cite as

Combined food and predator effects on songbird nest survival and annual reproductive success: results from a bi-factorial experiment

  • Liana Zanette
  • Michael Clinchy
  • James N. M. Smith
Population Ecology

Abstract

Food and predators have traditionally been viewed as mutually exclusive alternatives when considering factors affecting animal populations. This has led to long controversies such as whether annual reproductive success in songbirds is primarily a function of food-restricted production or predator-induced loss. Recent studies on both birds and mammals suggest many of these controversies may be resolved by considering the combined effects of food and predators. We conducted a 2×2 manipulative food addition plus natural predator reduction experiment on song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) over three consecutive breeding seasons. Food and predators together affected partial clutch or brood loss, nest survival (total clutch or brood loss) and annual reproductive success. When combined, our two treatments reduced partial losses by more than expected if the effects of food and predators were independent and additive. Food and predators also interacted in their effects on nest survival since food addition significantly reduced the rate of nest predation. While annual reproductive success was highly correlated with nest predation (r 2=0.71) the strength of this relationship was reinforced by the indirect effects of food addition on nest predation. A stepwise multiple regression showed that the residual variation in annual reproductive success was explained by food effects on the total number of eggs laid over the season and the combined effects of food and predators on partial losses noted above. We conclude that annual reproductive success in song sparrows is a function of both food-restricted production and predator-induced loss and indirect food and predator effects on both clutch and brood loss. We highlight the parallels between our results and those from a comparable bi-factorial experiment on mammals because we suspect combined food and predator effects are likely the norm in both birds and mammals.

Keywords

Food supplementation Nest predation Predator pressure Song sparrows 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Harry van Oort, Anne Duncan-Rastogi, Jeannie Trudeau, Josh Malt, Chris de Ruyck, Andrew Davis, Lionel Leston and Nathalie Denis for assistance in the field; BC Parks, the Saanich Municipality and private landowners for access to the sites; Sharon Hartwell and the Rithet’s Bog Conservation Society and Beryl Clinchy for support; and the Chow Barn for accepting our feed deliveries. Tim Karels, Anne Duncan-Rastogi, Bethany Kempster and an anonymous reviewer provided many helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. All experiments complied with the laws of Canada.

References

  1. Bart J, Robson DS (1982) Estimating survivorship when the subjects are visited periodically. Ecology 63:1078–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boonstra R, Hik D, Singleton GR, Tinnikov A (1998) The impact of predator-induced stress on the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecol Monogr 68:371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boutin S (1990) Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: pattern, problems, and the future. Can J Zool 68:203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clinchy M, Zanette L, Boonstra R, Wingfield JC, Smith JNM (2004) Balancing food and predator pressure induces chronic stress in songbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2473–2479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grzybowski JA, Pease CM (2005) Renesting determines seasonal fecundity in songbirds: what do we know? What should we assume? Auk 122:280–291Google Scholar
  6. Hochachka WM, Martin K, Doyle F, Krebs CJ (2000) Monitoring vertebrate populations using observational data. Can J Zool 78:521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hodges KE, Krebs CJ, Hik DS, Stefan CI, Gillis EA, Doyle CE (2001) Snowshoe hare demography. In: Krebs CJ, Boutin S, Boonstra R (eds) Ecosystem dynamics of the boreal forest. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 141–178Google Scholar
  8. Högstedt G (1981) Effect of additional food on reproductive success in the magpie (Pica pica). J Anim Ecol 50:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karels TJ, Byrom AE, Boonstra R, Krebs CJ (2000) The interactive effects of food and predators on reproduction and overwinter survival of arctic ground squirrels. J Anim Ecol 69:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, Calif.Google Scholar
  11. Krebs CJ, Boutin S, Boonstra R, Sinclair ARE, Smith JNM, Dale MRT, Martin K, Turkington R (1995) Impact of food and predation on the snowshoe hare cycle. Science 269:1112–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lack D (1947) The significance of clutch size. Ibis 89:302–352Google Scholar
  13. Lack D (1954) The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Lima SL (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator–prey interactions. Bioscience 48:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin TE (1987) Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:453–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin TE (1995) Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation and food. Ecol Monogr 65:101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nagy LR, Holmes RT (2004) Factors influencing fecundity in migratory songbirds: is nest predation the most important? J Avian Biol 35:487–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newton I (1993) Predation and limitation of bird numbers. Curr Ornithol 11:143–198Google Scholar
  19. Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Palkovacs EP (2003) Explaining adaptive shifts in body size on islands: a life history approach. Oikos 103:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogers CM, Taitt MJ, Smith JNM, Jongeian G (1997) Nest predation and cowbird parasitism create a demographic sink in wetland-breeding song sparrows. Condor 99:622–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sauer JR, Williams BK (1989) Generalized procedures for testing hypotheses about survival or recovery rates. J Wildl Manage 53:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS (2003) Songbird populations in fluctuating environments: predator responses to pulsed resources. Ecology 84:406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skutch AF (1949) Do tropical birds raise as many young as they can nourish? Ibis 91:430–455Google Scholar
  25. Smith JNM, Taitt MJ, Rogers CM, Arcese P, Keller LF, Cassidy ALEV, Hochachka WM (1996) A metapopulation approach to the population biology of the song sparrow Melospiza melodia. Ibis 138:120–128Google Scholar
  26. Yom-Tov Y (1974) The effect of food and predation on breeding density and success, clutch size and laying date of the crow (Corvus corone L.). J Anim Ecol 43:479–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zanette L, Clinchy M, Smith JNM (2006) Food and predators affect egg production in song sparrows. Ecology (in press)Google Scholar
  28. Zanette L, Smith JNM, van Oort H, Clinchy M (2003) Synergistic effects of food and predators on annual reproductive success in song sparrows. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:799–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liana Zanette
    • 1
  • Michael Clinchy
    • 2
  • James N. M. Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations