Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 326–332 | Cite as

Nest concealment and parental behaviour interact in affecting nest survival in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla): an experimental evaluation of the parental compensation hypothesis

Original Article

Abstract

Nest concealment varies strongly within populations of many species. Although some studies have revealed the beneficial effects of concealment in mitigating predation pressure on nests, other studies were unable to find similar effects. One potential reason for the mixed results is that parental behaviour may compensate for the effects of nest cover, and specifically designed experimental studies are needed to reveal this compensation. I studied the effects of concealment on the probability of nest survival in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla), by experimentally manipulating the degree of nest-foliage cover. There was a significant effect of the treatment depending on nest type and the phase of nesting. Whereas there was no effect of concealment on nest survival in natural nests, there was a positive effect in real nests baited with plasticine clutches (i.e. without parental activity). Parents probably behaviourally compensated for poor concealment in natural nests (nest guarding, defence). In line with this, there was no effect of concealment on nest survival during incubation, whereas there was probably a positive effect in the nestling phase. Parents spent more time on the nest during incubation (80%) than during the care of nestlings (40%) and, consequently, had more opportunities to compensate for poor cover. In general, we cannot use single measures of behaviours or states (nest concealment) as an indication of predation risk because of the capacity for compensation in other behaviours.

Keywords

Predation Nest-site selection Nest defence Nest concealment 

References

  1. Aebischer NJ (1999) Multi-way comparisons and generalized linear models of nest success: extensions of the Mayfield method. Bird Study 46:22–31Google Scholar
  2. Bisson IA, Stutchbury BJM (2000) Nesting success and nest-site selection by a neotropical migrant in a fragmented landscape. Can J Zool 78:858–863Google Scholar
  3. Braden GT (1999) Does nest placement affect the fate or productivity of california gnatcatcher nests? Auk 116:984–993Google Scholar
  4. Bures S, Pavel V (2003) Do birds behave in order to avoid disclosing their nest site? Bird Study 50:73–77Google Scholar
  5. Burhans DE (2000) Avoiding the nest: responses of field sparrows to the threat of nest predation. Auk 117:803–806Google Scholar
  6. Burhans DE, Thompson FR (2001) Relationship of songbird nest concealment to nest fate and flushing behavior of adults. Auk 118:237–242Google Scholar
  7. Burke DM, Elliott 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 18:381–388Google Scholar
  8. Clark RG, Nudds TD (1991) Habitat patch size and duck nesting success—the crucial experiments have not been performed. Wildl Soc Bull 19:534–543Google Scholar
  9. Cotton PA, Rundle SD, Smith KE (2004) Trait compensation in marine gastropods: shell shape, avoidance behavior, and susceptibility to predation. Ecology 85:1581–1584Google Scholar
  10. Cramp S (1992) The birds of the western Palearctic, vol VI. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Cresswell W (1997a) Nest predation: the relative effects of nest characteristics, clutch size and parental behaviour. Anim Behav 53:93–103Google Scholar
  12. Cresswell W (1997b) Nest predation rates and nest detectability in different stages of breeding in Blackbirds Turdus merula. J Avian Biol 28:296–302Google Scholar
  13. Davison WB, Bollinger E (2000) Predation rates on real and artificial nests of grassland birds. Auk 117:147–153Google Scholar
  14. Filliater TS, Breitwisch R, Nealen PM (1994) Predation on northern cardinal nests—does choice of nest site matter. Condor 96:761–768Google Scholar
  15. Flaspohler DJ, Temple SA, Rosenfield RN (2000) Relationship between nest success and concealment in two ground-nesting passerines. J Field Ornithol 71:736–747Google Scholar
  16. Ghalambor CK, Martin TE (2001) Fecundity-survival trade-offs and parental risk taking in birds. Science 292:494–497Google Scholar
  17. Gill SA, Grieef PM, Staib LM, Sealy SG (1997) Does nest defence deter or facilitate cowbird parasitism? A test of the nesting-cue hypothesis. Ethology 103:56–71Google Scholar
  18. Götmark F, Blomqvist D, Johansson OC, Bergkvist J (1995) Nest site selection: a trade-off between concealment and view of the surroundings? J Avian Biol 26:305–312Google Scholar
  19. Grim T (2005) Host recognition of brood parasites: implications for methodology in studies of enemy recognition. Auk (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Howlett JS, Stutchbury BJ (1996) Nest concealment and predation in hooded warblers: experimental removal of nest cover. Auk 113:1–9Google Scholar
  21. Jakober H, Stauber W (2002) Why do red-backed shrikes not build better concealed nests? J Ornithol 143:397–404Google Scholar
  22. Kleindorfer S, Fessl B, Hoi H (2003) The role of nest site cover for parental nest defence and fledging success in two Acrocephalus warblers. Avian Sci 3:21–29Google Scholar
  23. Koivula K, Rönkä A (1998) Habitat deterioration and efficiency of antipredator strategy in a meadow breeding wader, Temminck’s stint (Calidris temminckii). Oecologia 116:348–355Google Scholar
  24. Komdeur J, Kats RKH (1999) Predation risk affects trade-off between nest guarding and foraging in Seychelles warblers. Behav Ecol 10:648–658Google Scholar
  25. Maier TJ, DeGraaf RM (2001) Differences in depredation by small predators limit the use of plasticine and zebra finch eggs in artificial-nest studies. Condor 103:180–183Google Scholar
  26. Martin JL, Joron M (2003) Nest predation in forest birds: influence of predator type and predator’s habitat quality. Oikos 102:641–653Google Scholar
  27. Martin TE (1992a) Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features for management? In: Hagan JM, Johnston DW (eds) Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migratory landbirds. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp 455–473Google Scholar
  28. Martin TE (1992b) Interaction of nest predation and food limitation in reproductive strategies. Curr Ornithol 9:163–197Google Scholar
  29. Martin TE (1993) Nest predation and nest sites—new perspectives on old patterns. Bioscience 43:523–532Google Scholar
  30. Martin TE, Martin PR, Olson CR, Heidinger BJ, Fontaine JJ (2000a) Parental care and clutch sizes in North and South American birds. Science 287:1482–1485Google Scholar
  31. Martin TE, Scott J, Menge C (2000b) Nest predation increases with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2287–2293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayfield HF (1975) Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull 87:456–466Google Scholar
  33. McLean IG, Smith JM, Stewart KG (1986) Mobbing behavior, nest exposure, and breeding success in the american robin. Behaviour 96:171–185Google Scholar
  34. Montgomerie RD, Weatherhead PJ (1988) Risks and rewards of nest defence by parent birds. Q Rev Biol 63:167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore RP, Robinson WD (2004) Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85:1562–1567Google Scholar
  36. Murphy MT, Cummings CL, Palmer MS (1997) Comparative analysis of habitat selection, nest site and nest success by cedar waxwings (Bombycilla cedrorum) and eastern kingbirds (Tyrannus tyrannus). Am Midl Nat 138:344–356Google Scholar
  37. Peak RG (2003) An experimental test of the concealment hypothesis using american goldfinch nests. Wilson Bull 115:403–408Google Scholar
  38. Rangen SA, Clark RG, Hobson KA (2000) Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117:136–146Google Scholar
  39. Remeš V (2003a) Breeding biology of the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) in the Czech Republic: an analysis of nest record cards. Sylvia 39:25–34Google Scholar
  40. Remeš V (2003b) Effects of exotic habitat on nesting success, territory density, and settlement patterns in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla). Conserv Biol 17:1127–1133Google Scholar
  41. Remeš V (2005) Birds and rodents destroy different nests: a study of blackcap Sylvia atricapilla using the removal of nest concealment. Ibis 147:213–217Google Scholar
  42. Ricklefs RE (1969) An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithson Contrib Zool 9:1–48Google Scholar
  43. Røskaft E, Moksnes A, Stokke BG, Bicík V, Moskat C (2002) Aggression to dummy cuckoos by potential European cuckoo hosts. Behaviour 139:613–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. SAS Institute (2000) SAS Online Doc, version 8. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  45. Schaefer T (2002) Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) defends nest against Apodemus mouse. Vogelwarte 41:211–212Google Scholar
  46. Schaefer T (2004) Video monitoring of shrub-nests reveals nest predators. Bird Study 51:170–177Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt KA, Whelan CJ (1999) Nest placement and mortality: Is nest predation a random event in space and time? Condor 101:916–920Google Scholar
  48. Stokes DL, Boersma PD (1998) Nest-site characteristics and reproductive success in magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus). Auk 115:34–49Google Scholar
  49. Tewksbury JJ, Martin TE, Hejl SJ, Kuehn MJ, Jenkins JW (2002) Parental care of a cowbird host: caught between the costs of egg-removal and nest predation. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:423–429Google Scholar
  50. Thompson FR, Burhans DE (2004) Differences in predators of artificial and real songbird nests: evidence of bias in artificial nest studies. Conserv Biol 18:373–380Google Scholar
  51. Weidinger K (2000) The breeding performance of blackcap Sylvia atricapilla in two types of forest habitat. Ardea 88:225–233Google Scholar
  52. Weidinger K (2002) Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. J Anim Ecol 71:424–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiebe KL, Martin K (1998) Costs and benefits of nest cover for ptarmigan: changes within and between years. Anim Behav 56:1137–1144Google Scholar
  54. Willson MF, Gende SM (2000) Nesting success of forest birds in southeast Alaska and adjacent Canada. Condor 102:314–324Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of OrnithologyPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations