Abstract
Nest attendance behavior is a critical component of avian ecology that influences nest survival and population productivity. Birds that provide uniparental care during incubation and brood-rearing must balance the benefit of reproductive success with the costs of physiological needs and predation risk. We used miniature nest cameras to record 5904 h of video footage at 33 nests of Greater Prairie-Chickens (Tympanuchus cupido) during 2010 and 2011 in northcentral Kansas. We quantified the timing and duration of incubation bouts to address alternative hypotheses about physiological requirements and predation risk as drivers of incubation behavior. We also identified nest predators and determined timing of predation events, and tested for effects of nest attendance and monitoring technique on nest survival (video vs. telemetry). Female prairie chickens exhibited high incubation constancy per day (~95 %) and typically took two ~40-min recesses per day: one after sunrise and one before sunset. Mesocarnivores were responsible for 75 % (18 of 24) of nest losses, and most nest predation events occurred during crepuscular or overnight hours. Controlled comparisons provided no evidence that video surveillance attracted predators to nests. Variation in nest attendance had a minimal effect on nest survival compared to height of vegetative cover at the nest site. Timing of recesses did not indicate avoidance of predator activity in our study system. The bimodal pattern of incubation breaks observed in most grouse species is likely driven by physiological requirements of the female rather than predation pressure. Female Greater Prairie-Chickens appear to prioritize their metabolic needs and future reproductive potential over current nest survival.
Zusammenfassung
Muster der Nestbewachung bei Präriehuhn-Weibchen Tympanuchus cupido in Nordzentral-Kansas Nestbewachungsverhalten ist ein entscheidender Bestandteil der Ökologie von Vögeln, welcher Einfluss auf Nesterfolg und die Produktivität einer Population hat. Vogelarten, bei denen sich nur ein Elternteil um Bebrütung und Jungenaufzucht kümmert, müssen den Gewinn durch reproduktiven Erfolg gegen die Kosten physiologischer Ansprüche und des Prädationsrisikos abwägen. Mithilfe von Miniatur-Nestkameras filmten wir in den Jahren 2010 und 2011 5.904 Stunden Videomaterial an 33 Nestern von Präriehühnern (Tympanuchus cupido) in Nordzentral-Kansas. Wir bestimmten Zeitpunkt und Dauer der Bebrütungsphasen, um alternative Hypothesen zu physiologischen Bedürfnissen und Prädationsrisiko als den treibenden Faktoren für das Brutverhalten anzusprechen. Außerdem ermittelten wir die Nesträuber sowie den Zeitpunkt der Prädationsereignisse und überprüften den Einfluss von Nestbewachung und Überwachungstechnik (Video beziehungsweise Telemetrie) auf die Erfolgsraten der Nester. Präriehuhn-Weibchen wiesen eine hohe Brutkonstanz am Tag auf (etwa 95 %), und machten typischerweise zwei etwa 40-minütige Brutpausen: eine nach Sonnenaufgang und eine vor Sonnenuntergang. Mesocarnivoren waren für 75 % (18 von 24) der Nestverluste verantwortlich, und die meisten Prädationsereignisse fanden zur Dämmerung oder während der Nachstunden statt. Kontrollvergleiche ergaben keine Hinweise darauf, dass durch die Videoüberwachung Prädatoren zu den Nestern gelockt wurden. Die Variation bei der Nestbewachung hatte, verglichen mit der Vegetationshöhe am Neststandort, nur einen minimalen Effekt auf den Nesterfolg. Der Zeitpunkt der Brutpausen deutete in unserem Untersuchungssystem nicht auf Vermeidung von Prädatorenaktivität. Das bimodale Muster der Brutpausen, wie man es bei den meisten Raufußhühnern beobachten kann, wird vermutlich eher von physiologischen Bedürfnissen des Weibchens bestimmt als durch den Prädationsdruck. Präriehuhn-Weibchen scheinen somit ihrem Stoffwechselbedarf und zukünftigem Fortpflanzungspotenzial mehr Bedeutung einzuräumen als dem gegenwärtigen Nesterfolg.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Afton AD, Paulus SL (1992) Incubation and brood care. In: Batt BDJ, Afton AD, Anderson MG, Ankney CD, Johnson DH, Kadlec JA, Krapu GL (eds) Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 62–108
Arnold TW (2010) Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s Information Criterion. J Wildl Manag 74:1175–1178
Ashby KR (1972) Patterns of daily activity in mammals. Mamm Rev 1:171–185
Benson TJ, Brown JD, Bednarz JC (2010) Identifying predators clarifies predictors of nest success in a temperate passerine. J Anim Ecol 79:225–234
Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools
BirdLife International (2014) Species factsheet: Tympanuchus cupido. IUCN Red List for Birds. http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed 20 Sep 2014
Burnam JS, Turner G, Ellis-Felege SN, Palmer WE, Sisson DC, Carroll JP (2012) Patterns of incubation behavior in Northern Bobwhites. Stud Avian Biol 43:77–88
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York, pp 1–488
Cartar RV, Montgomerie RD (1985) The influence of weather on incubation scheduling of the White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis): a uniparental incubator in a cold environment. Behavior 95:261–289
Cartar RV, Montgomerie RD (1987) Day-to-day variation in nest attentiveness of White-rumped Sandpipers. Condor 89:252–260
Carter AW, Hopkins WA, Moore IT, DuRant SE (2014) Influence of incubation recess patterns on incubation period and hatchling traits in Wood Ducks Aix sponsa. J Avian Biol 45:273–279
Caudill D, Guttery MR, Bibles B, Messmer TA, Caudill G, Leone E, Dahlgren DK, Chi R (2014) Effects of climatic variation and reproductive trade-offs vary by measure of reproductive effort in Greater Sage-Grouse. Ecosphere 5:art154
Coates PS, Delehanty DJ (2008) Effects of environmental factors on incubation patterns of Greater Sage-Grouse. Condor 110:627–638
Conway CJ, Martin TE (2000) Evolution of passerine incubation behavior: influence of food, temperature, and nest predation. Evolution 54:670–685
Davis SK, Holmes TG (2012) Sprague’s Pipit incubation behavior. Stud Avian Biol 43:67–76
Deeming DC (2002) Behaviour patterns during incubation. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian incubation: behaviour, environment, and evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 63–87
Dinsmore SJ, White GC, Knopf FL (2002) Advanced techniques for modeling avian nest survival. Ecology 83:3476–3488
Drent R (1975) Incubation. In: Farner DS, King JR (eds) Avian biology, vol 5., Academic PressNew York, New York, pp 333–420
Ellis-Felege SN, Carroll JP (2012) Gamebirds and nest cameras: present and future. Stud Avian Biol 43:35–46
Erikstad KE (1986) Relationship between weather, body condition and incubation rhythm in Willow Grouse. Cinclus 9:7–12
Fields TL, White GC, Gilbert WC, Rodgers RD (2006) Nest and brood survival of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in west central Kansas. J Wildl Manag 70:931–938
Flanders-Wanner BL, White GC, McDaniel LL (2004) Weather and prairie grouse: dealing with effects beyond our control. Wildl Soc Bull 32:22–34
Ghalambor CK, Martin TE (2000) Parental investment strategies in two species of nuthatch vary with stage-specific predation risk and reproductive effort. Anim Behav 60:263–267
Ghalambor CK, Martin TE (2002) Comparative manipulation of predation risk in incubating birds reveals variability in the plasticity of responses. Behav Ecol 13:101–108
Gibson D, Blomberg EJ, Atamian MT, Sedinger JD (2015) Observer effects strongly influence estimates of daily nest survival probability but do not substantially increase rates of nest failure in Greater Sage-Grouse. Auk Ornithol Adv 132:397–407
Giesen KM, Braun CE (1979) Nesting behavior of female White-tailed Ptarmigan in Colorado. Condor 81:215–217
Gowaty PA, Hubbell SP (2009) Reproductive decisions under ecological constraints: it’s about time. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10017–10024
Hamerstrom FN Jr., Hamerstrom F (1973) The prairie chicken in Wisconsin—highlights of a 22-year study of counts, behavior, movements, turnover, and habitat. Technical Bulletin 64. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Henderson FR, Brooks FW, Wood RE, Dahlgren RB (1967) Sexing of prairie grouse by crown feather patterning. J Wildl Manag 31:764–769
Hepp GR, Kennamer RA, Johnson MH (2006) Maternal effects in Wood Ducks: incubation temperature influences incubation period and neonate phenotype. Funct Ecol 20:308–314
Hovick TJ, Elmore RD, Allred BW, Fuhlendorf SD, Dahlgren DK (2014) Landscapes as a moderator of thermal extremes: a case study from an imperiled grouse. Ecosphere 5:art35
Johnson JA, Schroeder MA, Robb LA (2011) Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca
Keppie DM, Herzog PW (1978) Nest site characteristics and nest success of Spruce Grouse. J Wildl Manag 42:628–632
Laake J, Rexstad E (2008) RMark—an alternative approach to building linear models in MARK. In: Cooch E, White GC (eds) Program MARK: a gentle introduction, pp C1–C113
MacCluskie MC, Sedinger JS (1999) Incubation behavior of Northern Shovelers in the subarctic: a contrast to the prairies. Condor 101:417–421
Martin TE (2002) A new view of avian life-history evolution tested on an incubation paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:309–316
Matthews TW, Tyre AJ, Taylor JS, Lusk JJ, Powell LA (2013) Greater Prairie-Chicken nest success and habitat selection in southeastern Nebraska. J Wildl Manag 77:1202–1212
Maxson SJ (1977) Activity patterns of female Ruffed Grouse during the breeding season. Wilson Bulletin 89:439–455
McCourt KH, Boag DA, Keppie DM (1973) Female Spruce Grouse activities during laying and incubation. Auk 90:619–623
McNew LB, Gregory AJ, Wisely SM, Sandercock BK (2009) Estimating the stage of incubation for nests of Greater Prairie-Chickens using egg flotation: a float curve for grousers. Grouse News 38:12–14
McNew LB, Gregory AJ, Wisely SM, Sandercock BK (2011a) Human-mediated selection of life-history traits of Greater Prairie-Chickens. Stud Avian Biol 39:255–266
McNew LB, Gregory AJ, Wisely SM, Sandercock BK (2011b) Reproductive biology of a southern population of Greater Prairie-Chickens. Stud Avian Biol 39:209–221
McNew LB, Gregory AJ, Wisely SM, Sandercock BK (2012) Demography of Greater Prairie-Chickens: regional variation in vital rates, sensitivity values, and population dynamics. J Wildl Manag 76:987–1000
McNew LB, Hunt LM, Gregory AJ, Wisely SM, Sandercock BK (2014) Effects of wind energy development on nesting ecology of Greater Prairie-Chickens in fragmented grasslands. Conserv Biol 28:1089–1099
McNew LB, Winder VL, Pitman JC, Sandercock BK (2015) Alternative rangeland management strategies and the nesting ecology of Greater Prairie-Chickens. Rangel Ecol Manag 68:298–304
Nooker JK, Sandercock BK (2008) Phenotypic correlates and survival consequences of male mating success in lek-mating Greater Prairie-Chickens (Tympanuchus cupido). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1377–1388
Pietz PJ, Granfors DA, Ribic CA (2012) Knowledge gained from video-monitoring grassland passerine nests. Stud Avian Biol 43:3–22
Poiani KA, Merrill MD, Chapman KA (2001) Identifying conservation-priority areas in a fragmented Minnesota landscape based on the umbrella species concept and selection of large patches of natural vegetation. Conserv Biol 15:513–522
Powell LA (2007) Approximating variance of demographic parameters using the delta method: a reference for avian biologists. Condor 109:949–954
Powell LA, Giovanni MD, Groepper S, Reineke ML, Schacht WH (2012) Attendance patterns and survival of Western Meadowlark nests. Stud Avian Biol 43:61–66
Pulliainen E (1971) Behaviour of a nesting Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in northeastern Lapland. Annales Zoologica Fennica 8:456–462
Reed A, Hughes RJ, Gauthier G (1995) Incubation behavior and body mass of female Greater Snow Geese. Condor 97:993–1001
Reidy JL, Thompson FR III (2012) Predator identity can explain nest predation patterns. Stud Avian Biol 43:135–148
Richardson TW, Gardali T, Jenkins SH (2009) Review and meta-analysis of camera effects on avian nest success. J Wildl Manag 73:287–293
Robel RJ, Briggs JN, Dayton AD, Hulbert LC (1970) Relationship between visual obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. J Rangel Manag 23:295–297
Samelius G, Alisauskas RT (2001) Deterring arctic fox predation: the role of parental nest attendance by Lesser Snow Geese. Can J Zool 79:861–866
Sandercock BK, Martin K, Hannon SJ (2005) Demographic consequences of age-structure in extreme environments: population models for arctic and alpine ptarmigan. Oecologia 146:13–24
Sandercock BK, Alfaro-Barrios M, Casey AE, Johnson TN, Mong TW, Odom KJ, Strum KM, Winder VL (2015) Effects of grazing and prescribed fire on resource selection and nest survival of Upland Sandpipers in an experimental landscape. Lands Ecol 30:325–337
Schmidt JH, Taylor EJ, Rexstad EA (2005) Incubation behaviors and patterns of nest attendance in Common Goldeneyes in interior Alaska. Condor 107:167–172
Smith PA, Tulp IT, Schekkerman H, Gilchrist HG, Forbes MR (2012a) Shorebird incubation behavior and its influence on the risk of nest predation. Anim Behav 84:835–842
Smith PA, Dauncey SA, Gilchrist HG, Forbes MR (2012b) The influence of weather on shorebird incubation. Stud Avian Biol 43:89–104
Steen JB, Pedersen HC, Erikstad KE, Hansen KB, Høydal K, Størdal A (1985) The significance of cock territories in Willow Ptarmigan. Ornis Scand 16:277–282
Summers RW, Willi J, Selvidge J (2009) Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus nest loss and attendance at Abernethy Forest, Scotland. Wildl Biol 15:237–319
Thompson SD, Raveling DG (1987) Incubation behavior of Emperor Geese compared with other geese: interactions of predation, body size, and energetics. Auk 104:707–716
Thompson FR III, Ribic CA (2012) Conservation implications when the nest predators are known. Stud Avian Biol 43:23–34
Tombre IM, Erikstad KE (1996) An experimental study of incubation effort in high-arctic Barnacle Geese. J Anim Ecol 65:325–331
Tulp I, Schekkerman H (2006) Time allocation between feeding and incubation in uniparental arctic-breeding shorebirds: energy reserves provide leeway in a tight schedule. J Avian Biol 37:207–218
Walsburg GE (1983) Avian ecological energetics. In: Farer DS, King JR, Parkes KC (eds) Avian Biology, Vol VII. Academic Press, New York, pp 161–220
Watson A (1972) The behavior of the ptarmigan. Br Birds 65:6–26
Webb SL, Olson CV, Dzialak MR, Harju SM, Winstead JB, Lockman D (2012) Landscape features and weather influence nest survival of a ground-nesting bird of conservation concern, the Greater Sage-Grouse, in human-altered environments. Ecol Process 1:art4
White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:S120–S139
Wiebe KL, Martin K (1997) Effects of predation, body condition and temperature on incubation of White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucura. Wildl Biol 3:219–227
Wiebe KL, Martin K (2000) The use of incubation behavior to adjust avian reproductive costs after egg laying. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:463–470
Winder VL, McNew LB, Gregory AJ, Hunt LM, Wisely SM, Sandercock BK (2014) Effects of wind energy development on survival of female Greater Prairie-Chickens. J Appl Ecol 51:395–405
Wisdom MJ, Mills LS (1997) Sensitivity analysis to guide population recovery: prairie-chickens as an example. J Wildl Manag 61:302–312
Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc (B) 73:3–36
US Naval Observatory (2016) Astronomical Applications Department, Washington DC. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/
Acknowledgments
We thank the many field technicians who helped with data collection for our project and A. Ricketts for assistance with predator identification. We especially thank S. Richards, D. Weaver, L. Perry, and other landowners in Kansas for allowing us access to private property. All capture, marking, and tracking activities were performed under institutional animal care and use protocols approved by Kansas State University (IACUC protocol 2781) and state wildlife research permits (SC-082-2010, SC-011-2011). Research funding and equipment were provided by a consortium of federal and state wildlife agencies, conservation groups, and wind energy partners under the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) including the Department of Energy, National Renewable Energies Laboratory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism, Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Kansas and Oklahoma chapters of The Nature Conservancy, BP Alternative Energy, FPL Energy, Horizon Wind Energy, and Iberdrola Renewables.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.
Additional information
Communicated by C. G. Guglielmo.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Equipment used to video-monitor nests of Greater Prairie Chickens in northcentral Kansas, 2010 and 2011. AC alternating current, BNC Bayonet Neill-Concelman, DC direct current, DVR digital video recorder, LED light-emitting diode, RCA Radio Corporation of America, TRS tip, ring, sleeve.
Appendix 2
Predation attempts at Greater Prairie-Chicken nests monitored by video cameras in north central Kansas, 2010 and 2011.
Year | Time (24 h) | Nest age (days)a | Predatorb | Outcomec |
---|---|---|---|---|
2011 | 00:05 | 17 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 00:21 | 2 | Skunk | Total clutch loss |
2010 | 01:02 | 21 | coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 01:22 | 0 | Skunk | Total clutch loss |
2010 | 01:41 | 23 | Skunk | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 02:39 | 14 | Badger | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 4:14 | 1 | Opossum | Partial clutch loss |
2011 | 04:48 | 14 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 05:23 | 10 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 05:33 | 4 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 9:51 | 14 | Ground squirrel | Unsuccessful attempt |
2011 | 10:26 | 3 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 12:47 | 17 | Bullsnake | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 15:29 | 7 | Rattlesnake | Unsuccessful attempt |
2011 | 18:41 | 9 | Bullsnake | Total clutch loss |
2010 | 18:49 | 13 | Bullsnake | Total clutch loss |
2010 | 20:02 | 18 | Unknown mammal | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 21:08 | 1 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 21:48 | 14 | Bullsnake | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 21:55 | 22 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2010 | 21:56 | 9 | Bullsnake | Partial clutch loss |
2010 | 22:02 | 19 | Badger | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 22:10 | 14 | Coyote | Total clutch loss |
2011 | 22:58 | 22 | Skunk | Total clutch loss |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winder, V.L., Herse, M.R., Hunt, L.M. et al. Patterns of nest attendance by female Greater Prairie-Chickens (Tympanuchus cupido) in northcentral Kansas. J Ornithol 157, 733–745 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1330-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1330-x