Advertisement

European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 221–232 | Cite as

Prevalence of nest predators in a sub-Arctic ecosystem

  • Kristin B. Klausen
  • Åshild Ø. PedersenEmail author
  • N. G. Yoccoz
  • Rolf A. Ims
Original Paper

Abstract

High nest loss is an important driver of gallinaceous bird population dynamics. Identifying factors determining the spatial distribution of potential nest predators and thereby indirectly risk of nest losses is therefore essential. The aim of this 1-year study was to estimate relative predation rates on artificial ground nests in willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) habitats, along replicate altitudinal gradients (transects, n = 60) spanning from sub-Arctic birch forest to the low-alpine tundra in three locations in northern Norway. In each transect, one artificial nest (track board) was placed in three different habitats: (1) birch forest, (2) edge between birch forest and low-alpine tundra and (3) low-alpine tundra. Total predation rates over all habitats within locations ranged from 47.4% to 77.5% and did not vary systematically in space and time. The average predation rate by avian predators was consistently high (58%), and mammalian predation rate was consistently low (5.6%). The consistently high level of predation inflicted by birds was mainly due to omnipresent corvids, especially the hooded crow (Corvus cornix). Analysis of species-specific predation rates showed that habitat and location effects were insignificant for all species, except for raven (Corvus corax) that showed clearly higher predation in one of the locations. The results indicate that from the perspective of the spatial distribution of potential nest predators in sub-Arctic birch forest, ground nesting birds like willow ptarmigan should not be expected to be selective with respect to nesting habitat in the ecotone between birch forest and the low-alpine tundra.

Keywords

Artificial nest Corvids Habitat Predation Willow ptarmigan 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for the study was provided by the Roald Amundsen centre for Arctic research at University of Tromsø, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research and the University of Tromsø. We are grateful to all field assistants and to Rolf Rødven, Raoul Primicerio, Jon Aars and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. The study complies with the current laws concerning wildlife research in Norway.

References

  1. Andersen J-E (1986) Habitat selection by willow grouse Lagopus l. lagopus in central Norway. Fauna Nor Ser C Cinclus 9:82–94Google Scholar
  2. Anderson DR, Burnham KR (2002) Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. J Wildl Manage 66:912–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DR, Link WA, Johnson DH, Burnham KP (2001) Suggestions for presenting the results of data analyses. J Wildl Manage 65:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrén H (1989) Predation processes in fragmented boreal forest landscapes. Acta Univ. Ups. Comprehensive summaries of Uppsala dissertations from the Faculty of Science 201, pp 34Google Scholar
  5. Andrén H (1992) Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation a landscape perspective. Ecology 73:794–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrén H, Angelstam P (1988) Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands experimental evidence. Ecology 69:544–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andrén H, Angelstam P, Lindström E, Widén P (1985) Differences in predation pressure in relation to habitat fragmentation an experiment. Oikos 45:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Angelstam P (1986) Predation on ground-nesting birds nests in relation to predator densities and habitat edge. Oikos 47:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Angelstam P, Lindström E, Widèn P (1984) Role of predation in short-term population fluctuations of some birds and mammals in Fennoscandia. Oecologia 62:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (In Norwegian)Google Scholar
  11. Baines D, Moss R, Dugan D (2004) Capercaillie breeding success in relation to forest habitat and predator abundance. J Appl Ecol 41:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bang P, Dahlstrøm P, Østbye E (2000) Sportegn fra pattedyr og fugler. Aschehoug, Oslo, p 264 In NorwegianGoogle Scholar
  13. Batàry P, Bàldi A (2004) Evidence of an edge effect on avian nest success. Conserv Biol 18:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Børset O (1962) Skogskjøtsel. volume 2. Skogforlaget, Oslo, p 454 (In Norwegian)Google Scholar
  15. Brittas R, Willebrand T (1991) Nesting habitats and egg predation in Swedish black grouse. Ornis Scand 22:261–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burke DM, Eliliott K, Moore L, Dunford W, Nol E, Phillips J, Holmes S, Freemark K (2004) Patterns of nest predation on artificial and natural nests in forests. Conserv Biol 18:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference—understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chessel D, Dufour AB, Thioulouse J (2004) The ade4 package—l: one-table methods. R News 4:5–10Google Scholar
  19. Chevenet F, Dolèdec S, Chessel D (1994) A fuzzy coding approach for the analysis of long-term ecological data. Freshw Biol 31:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Einarsen G, Hausner VH, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2008) Predation on artificial ground nests in birch forest fragmented by spruce plantations. Ecoscience 15(2):141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erikstad KE, Blom R, Myrberget S (1982) Territorial hooded crows as predators on willow ptarmigan nests. J Wildl Manage 46:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faaborg J (2004) Truly artificial nest studies. Conserv Biol 18(2):369–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frafjord K (2004) Winter range of a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) group in a northern birch forest. Mamm Biol 69:42–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gates JE, Gysel LW (1978) Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hellstedt P, Sundell J, Helle P, Henttonen H (2006) Large-scale spatial and temporal patterns in population dynamics of the stoat, Mustela erminea, and the least weasel, M. nivalis, in Finland. Oikos 115:286–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henden JA, Ims RA, Yoccoz NG (2009) Nonstationary spatio-temporal small rodent dynamics evidence from long-term Norwegian fox bounty data. J Anim Ecol 78:636–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hewitt DG, Keppie DM, Stauffer DF (2001) Predation effects on forest grouse recruitment. Wildl Soc B 29:16–23Google Scholar
  28. Hogstad O (1991a) Norges Dyr. Fuglene 1. Cappelens, OsloGoogle Scholar
  29. Hogstad O (1991b) Norges Dyr. Fuglene 2. Cappelens, OsloGoogle Scholar
  30. Jongman RH, Braak CFT, Van Tongeren OFR (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kauhala K, Helle P (2000) The interactions of predator and hare populations in Finland—a study based on wildlife monitoring counts. Ann Zool Fenn 37:151–160Google Scholar
  32. King DI, Degraaf RM, Griffin C, Maier TJ (1999) Do predation rates on artficial nets accurately reflect predation rates on natural bird nests? J F Ornithol 70:257–262Google Scholar
  33. Korpimäki E, Norrdahl K, Rintajaskari T (1991) Responses of stoats and least weasels to fluctuating food abundances is the low phase of the vole cycle due to mustelid predation? Oecologia 88:552–561Google Scholar
  34. Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Lindèn H (1998) Abundances of red fox and pine marten in relation to the composition of boreal forest landscapes. J Anim Ecol 67:874–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Lindèn H (2000) Landscape fragmentation and forest composition effects on grouse breeding success in boreal forests. Ecology 81:1985–1997Google Scholar
  36. Lahti DC (2001) The “edge effect on nest predation” hypothesis after twenty years. Biol Conserv 99:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis KP (2004) How important is the statistical approach for analyzing categorical data? A critique using artificial nests. Oikos 104:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindèn H, Helle E, Helle P, Wikman M (1996) Wildlife triangle scheme in Finland methods and aims for monitoring wildlife populations. Finn Game Res 49:4–11Google Scholar
  39. Lindström ER, Hörnfeldt B (1994) Vole cycles snow depth and fox predation. Oikos 70(1):156–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Linnell JDC, Fiske P, Herfindal I, Odden J, Brøseth H, Andersen R (2007) An evaluation of structured snow-track surveys to monitor Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx populations. Wildl Biol 13:456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manzer DL, Hannon SJ (2005) Relating grouse nest success and corvid density to habitat: a multi-scale approach. J Wildl Manage 69:110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marcström V, Kenward RE, Engren E (1988) The impact of predation on boreal tetranoids during vole cycles—an experimental study. J Anim Ecol 57:859–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moen A (1998) Nasjonalatlas for Norge. Vegetasjon. Bokbinderiet Johnsen, Skien, p 199 (In Norwegian)Google Scholar
  44. Møller AP (1982) Characteristics of magpie Pica-pica territories of varying duration. Ornis Scand 13:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore RP, Robinson WD (2004) Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85:1562–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moss R, Watson A (2001) Population cycles in birds of the grouse family (Tetraonidae). Adv Ecol Res 32:53–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Munkebye E, Pedersen HC, Steen JB, Brøseth H (2003) Predation of eggs and incubating females in willow ptarmigan Lagopus l. lagopus. Fauna norvegicus 23:1–8Google Scholar
  48. Myrberget S (1974) Variations in the production of the willow grouse Lagopus lagopus (L.) in Norway, 1963–1972. Ornis Scand 5:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Myrberget S (1984) Population dynamics of willow grouse Lagopus lagopus on an island in north Norway. Fauna Nor Ser C Cinclus 7:95–105Google Scholar
  50. Myrberget S (1985) Egg predation in an island population of Willow Grouse Lagopus lagopus. Fauna Nor Ser C Cinclus 8:82–87Google Scholar
  51. Parker H (1984) Effect of corvid removal on reproduction of willow ptarmigan and black grouse. J Wildl Manage 48:1197–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pedersen HC, Karlsen DH (2007) Alt om rypa biologi, jakt, forvaltning. Tun, Oslo, p 259 (In Norwegian)Google Scholar
  53. Pedersen ÅØ, Yoccoz NG, Ims RA (2009) Spatial and temporal patterns of artificial nest predation in mountain birch forests fragmented by spruce plantations. Eur J Wildl Res. doi: 10.1007/s10344-009-0253-8
  54. Picozzi N (1975) Crow predation on marked nests. J Wildl Manage 39:151–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pinheiro JC, Bates BM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and computing. Springer, New York, p 528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. R Development Core Team (2008) R—A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing. http//www.r-project.org/
  57. Rangen SA, Clark RG, Hobson KA (2000) Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rao CR (1964) The use and interpretation of principal component analysis in applied research. Sankhya 26:329–358Google Scholar
  59. Ries L, Robert J, Fletcher J, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Systemat 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roos S (2002) Functional response seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia 133:608–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryall KL, Fahrig L (2006) Response of predators to loss and fragmentation of prey habitat: a review of theory. Ecology 87:1086–1093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Šàlek M, Svobodovà J, Bejček V, Albrecht T (2004) Predation on artificial nests in relation to the numbers of small mammals in the Krusne hory Mts, the Czech Republic. Folia Zool 53:312–318Google Scholar
  63. Sandercock BK, Martin K, Hannon SJ (2005) Life history strategies in extreme environments comparative demography of Arctic and alpine ptarmigan. Ecology 86:2176–2186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sandvik J (1998) Kråkefuglene—en del av naturens mangfold. Norsk Ornitologisk Forening, Klæbu, p 64 In NorwegianGoogle Scholar
  65. Schieck JO, Hannon SJ (1993) Clutch predation, cover, and the overdispersion of nests of the willow ptarmigan. Ecology 74:743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smedshaug CA, Lund SE, Brekke A, Sonerud GA, Rafoss T (2002) The importance of the farmland-forest edge for area use of breeding hooded crows as revealed by radio telemetry. Ornis Fenn 79:1–13Google Scholar
  67. Sonerud GA, Fjeld PE (1984) Searching and caching behaviour in hooded crows—an experiment with artificial nests. Fauna Nor Ser C Cinclus 8:18–23Google Scholar
  68. Sonerud GA, Fjeld PE (1987) Long-term memory in egg predators: an experiment with a hooded crow. Ornis Scand 18:323–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Storch I (1991) Habitat fragmentation, nest site selection, and nest predation risk in capercaillie. Ornis Scand 22:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Storch I, Willebrand T (1991) Management implications of nest and brood predation in grouse. Ornis Scand 22:271–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Storch I, Woitke E, Krieger S (2005) Landscape-scale edge effect in predation risk in forest-farmland mosaics of central Europe. Landsc Ecol 20:927–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Storaas T (1988) A comparison of losses in artificial and naturally occurring capercaillie nests. J Wildl Manage 52:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Storaas T, Wegge P (1987) Nesting habitats and nest predation in sympatric populations of capercaillie and black grouse. J Wildl Manage 51:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Storaas T, Kastdalen L, Wegge P (1999) Detection of forest grouse by mammalian predators. A possible explanation for high brood losses in fragmented landscapes. Wildl Biol 5:187–192Google Scholar
  75. Thompson FR, Burhans DE (2004) Differences in predators of artificial and real songbird nests evidence of bias in artificial nest studies. Conserv Biol 18:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thompson FR, Dijak W, Burhans DE (1999) Video identification of predators at songbird nests in old fields. Auk 116:259–264Google Scholar
  77. Thompson ID, Davidson IJ, Odonnell S, Brazeau F (1989) Use of track transects to measure the relative occurrence of some boreal mammals in uncut forest and regeneration stands. Can J Zool 67:1816–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thompson RG, Warkentin IG, Flemming SP (2008) Responses to logging by a limited but variable nest predator guild in the boreal forest. Can J For Res 38:1974–1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Villard MC, Pärt T (2004) Don’t put all your eggs in real nests: a sequel to Faaborg. Conserv Biol 18(2):371–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wegge P, Storaas T (1990) Nest loss in capercaillie and black grouse in relation to the small rodent cycle in southeast Norway. Oecologia 82:527–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Whelan CJ, Dilger ML, Robso M, Hallyn N, Dilger S (1994) Effects of olfactory cues on artificial—nest experiments. Auk 111:945–952Google Scholar
  82. Wiebe KL, Martin K (1998) Costs and benefits of nest cover for ptarmigan changes within and between years. Anim Behav 56:1137–1144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Willebrand T, Marcström V (1988) On the danger of using dummy nests to study predation. Auk 105:378–379Google Scholar
  84. Wilson S, Martin K, Hannon SJ (2007) Nest survival patterns in willow ptarmigan Influence of time, nesting stage, and female characteristics. Condor 109:377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin B. Klausen
    • 1
  • Åshild Ø. Pedersen
    • 2
    Email author
  • N. G. Yoccoz
    • 2
  • Rolf A. Ims
    • 2
  1. 1.Fylkesmannen i NordlandBodøNorway
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations