Oecologia

, Volume 170, Issue 4, pp 1167–1179 | Cite as

Nest survival of piping plovers at a dynamic reservoir indicates an ecological trap for a threatened population

  • Michael J. Anteau
  • Terry L. Shaffer
  • Mark H. Sherfy
  • Marsha A. Sovada
  • Jennifer H. Stucker
  • Mark T. Wiltermuth
Conservation Ecology - Original Research

Abstract

In the past 60 years, reservoirs have reshaped riverine ecosystems and transformed breeding habitats used by the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus; hereafter plover). Currently, 29 % of the Northern Great Plains plover population nests at reservoirs that might function as ecological traps because reservoirs have more diverse habitat features and greater dynamics in water levels than habitats historically used by breeding plovers. We examined factors influencing daily survival rates (DSR) of 346 plover nests at Lake Sakakawea (SAK; reservoir) during 2006–2009 by evaluating multiple a priori models, and we used our best model to hindcast nest success of plovers during 1985–2009. Our observed and hindcast estimates of nest success were low compared to published estimates. Previous findings indicate that plovers prefer nest sites that are low relative to water level. We found that elevation of nests above the water level had a strong positive correlation with DSR because water levels of SAK typically increased throughout the nesting period. Habitat characteristics on the reservoir differ from those that shaped nest-site selection for plovers. Accordingly, extraordinary nest loss occurs there in many years, largely due to inundation of nests, and based on low fledging rates those losses were not compensated by potential changes in chick survival. Therefore, our example supports the concept of ecological traps in birds because it addresses quantitative assessments of habitat preference and productivity over 25 years (since species listing) and affects a large portion of the population.

Keywords

Flooding Productivity Recruitment Shorebird Waterbird 

References

  1. Amat JA, Masero JA (2004) Predation risk on incubating adults constrains the choice of thermally favourable nest sites in a plover. Anim Behav 67:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anteau MJ (2012) Do interactions of land use and climate affect productivity of waterbirds and prairie-pothole wetlands? Wetlands 32:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anteau MJ, Sherfy MH (2010) Diurnal variation in invertebrate catch rates by sticky traps: potential for biased indices of piping plover forage. Wetlands 30:757–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anteau MJ, Sherfy MH, Wiltermuth MT (2012) Selection indicates preference in diverse habitats: a ground-nesting bird (Charadrius melodus) using reservoir shoreline. PLoS ONE 7:e30347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold TW (2010) Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s information criterion. J Wildl Manag 74:1175–1178Google Scholar
  6. Bayard TS, Elphick CS (2011) Planning for sea-level rise: quantifying patterns of saltmarsh sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus) nest flooding under current sea-level conditions. Auk 128:393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown BT, Johnson RR (1985) Glen Canyon Dam, fluctuating water levels, and riparian breeding birds: the need for management compromise on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. In: Johnson RR, Ziebell CD, Patten DR, Ffolliott PF, Hamre RH (eds) Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, pp 76–80Google Scholar
  8. Burger J (1987) Physical and social determinants of nest-site selection in piping plover in New Jersey. Condor 89:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Cairns WE (1982) Biology and behavior of breeding piping plovers. Wilson Bull 94:531–545Google Scholar
  11. Catlin DH, Fraser JD, Felio JO, Cohen JB (2011) Piping plover habitat selection and nest success on natural, managed, and engineered sandbars. J Wildl Manag 75:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark RG, Shutler D (1999) Avian habitat selection: pattern from process in nest-site use by ducks? Ecology 80:272–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen JB, Houghton LM, Fraser JD (2009) Nesting density and reproductive success of piping plover in response to storm- and human-created habitat changes. Wildl Monogr 173:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colwell MA et al (2011) Western snowy plovers Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus select nesting substrates that enhance egg crypsis and improve nest survival. Ibis 153:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daubenmire RF (1959) Canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Sci 33:43–64Google Scholar
  16. Elliott-Smith E, Haig SM (2004) Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott-Smith E, Haig SM, Powers BM (2009) Data from the 2006 international piping plover census. US Geological Survey Data Series 426Google Scholar
  18. Espie RHM, Brigham RM, James PC (1996) Habitat selection and clutch fate of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) breeding at Lake Diefenbaker, Saskatchewan. Can J Zool 74:1069–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foley JA et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goswami BN, Venugopal V, Sengupta D, Madhusoodanan MS, Xavier PK (2006) Increasing trend of extreme rain events over India in a warming environment. Science 314:1442–1445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gotmark F, Blomqvist D, Johansson OC, Bergkvist J (1995) Nest site selection: a trade-off between concealment and view of the surroundings? J Avian Biol 26:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haig SM, Oring LW (1988) Mate, site, and territory fidelity in piping plovers. Auk 105:268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris WC, Duncan DC, Franken RJ, McKinnon DT, Dundas HA (2005) Reproductive success of piping plovers at Big Quill Lake, Saskatchewan. Wilson Bull 117:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hays H, LeCroy M (1971) Field criteria for determining incubation stage in eggs of the common tern. Wilson Bull 83:425–429Google Scholar
  25. Hutto RL (1990) Measuring the availability of food resources. Stud Avian Biol 13:20–28Google Scholar
  26. Ivan JS, Murphy RK (2005) What preys on piping plover eggs and chicks? Wildl Soc Bull 33:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson DH, Shaffer TL (1990) Estimating nest success: when Mayfield wins. Auk 107:595–600Google Scholar
  28. Jones LK (1997) Piping plover: habitat selection, home range, and reproductive success at Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation. University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  29. Koivula K, Ronka A (1998) Habitat deterioration and efficiency of antipredator strategy in a meadow-breeding wader, Temminck’s stint (Calidris temminckii). Oecologia 116:348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kruse CD, Higgins KF, Vander Lee BA (2001) Influence of predation on piping plover, Charadrius melodus, and least tern, Sterna antillarum, productivity along the Missouri River in South Dakota. Can Field Nat 115:480–486Google Scholar
  31. Larson MA, Ryan MR, Murphy RK (2002) Population viability of piping plovers: effects of predator exclusion. J Wildl Manag 66:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mabee TJ (1997) Using eggshell evidence to determine nest fate of shorebirds. Wilson Bull 109:307–313Google Scholar
  33. Mabee TJ, Estelle VB (2000) Assessing the effectiveness of predator exclosures for plovers. Wilson Bull 112:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin TE (1998) Are microhabitat preferences of coexisting species under selection and adaptive? Ecology 79:656–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayer PM, Ryan MR (1991) Electric fences reduce mammalian predation on piping plover nests and chicks. Wildl Soc Bull 19:59–63Google Scholar
  36. Melvin SM, Macivor LH, Griffin CR (1992) Predator exclosures: a technique to reduce predation at piping plover nests. Wildl Soc Bull 20:143–148Google Scholar
  37. Part T, Arlt D, Villard MA (2007) Empirical evidence for ecological traps: a two-step model focusing on individual decisions. J Ornithol 148:S327–S332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patterson ME, Fraser JD, Roggenbuck JW (1991) Factors affecting piping plover productivity on Assateague Island. J Wildl Manag 55:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Powell AN, Cuthbert FJ (1992) Habitat and reproductive success of piping plovers nesting on Great Lakes islands. Wilson Bull 104:155–161Google Scholar
  40. Prindiville Gaines EM, Ryan MR (1988) Piping plover habitat use and reproductive success in North Dakota. J Wildl Manag 52:266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rimmer DW, Deblinger RD (1990) Use of predator exclosures to protect piping plover nests. J Field Ornithol 61:217–223Google Scholar
  42. Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rotella JJ, Dinsmore SJ, Shaffer TL (2004) Modeling nest-survival data: a comparison of recently developed methods that can be implemented in MARK and SAS. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:187–205Google Scholar
  44. Sargeant AB, Sovada MA, Greenwood RJ (1998) Interpreting evidence of depredation of duck nests in the Prairie Pothole Region. US Department of the Interior, US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  45. Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaffer TL (2004) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121:526–540Google Scholar
  47. Shaffer TL, Thompson FR III (2007) Making meaningful estimates of nest survival with model-based methods. Stud Avian Biol 34:84–95Google Scholar
  48. Sherfy MH, Stucker JH, Anteau MJ (2009) Missouri River emergent sandbar habitat monitoring plan—a conceptual framework for adaptive management. US Geological Survey, 2008–1223, p 51Google Scholar
  49. Sherfy MH, Stucker JH, Buhl DA (2012) Selection of nest-site habitat by interior least terns in relation to sandbar construction. J Wildl Manag 76:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sovada MA et al (2000) Relationships of habitat patch size to predator community and survival of duck nests. J Wildl Manag 64:820–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson WL, White GC, Gowan C (1998) Monitoring vertebrate populations. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  52. US Army Corps of Engineers (2010) Monthly reservoir summary (0168’s). US Army Corps of Engineers, OmahaGoogle Scholar
  53. Vorosmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289:284–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitehead PJ, Tschirner K (1990) Magpie goose, Anseranas semipalmata, nesting on the Mary River Floodplain, Northern-Territory, Australia: extent and frequency of flooding losses. Aust Wildl Res 17:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whittingham MJ, Percival SM, Brown AF (2002) Nest-site selection by golden plover: why do shorebirds avoid nesting on slopes? J Avian Biol 33:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiltermuth MT, Anteau MJ, Sherfy MH, Shaffer TL (2009) Nest movement by piping plovers in response to changing habitat conditions. Condor 111:550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Anteau
    • 1
  • Terry L. Shaffer
    • 1
  • Mark H. Sherfy
    • 1
  • Marsha A. Sovada
    • 1
  • Jennifer H. Stucker
    • 1
  • Mark T. Wiltermuth
    • 1
  1. 1.US Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research CenterJamestownUSA

Personalised recommendations