Environmental heterogeneity and biotic interactions as potential drivers of spatial patterning of shorebird nests
- 417 Downloads
Species distributions are driven by a wide variety of abiotic and biotic factors, including nest placement for breeding individuals. As such, the spatial distribution of nests within a landscape can reflect environmental heterogeneity, habitat preferences, or even interactions with predators and other species.
We determined the extent to which environmental heterogeneity and predation risk accounted for the observed spatial distribution of nests.
We assessed the spatial distribution of 112 nests of a migratory shorebird, the Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica), at Beluga River, Alaska, from 2009 to 2012, and explicitly tested for the relative influence of habitat characteristics and predation risk on nest locations. We also evaluated the effect of nest location, distance to conspecific nests, and proximity to roads on nest fate using 64 nests that were monitored through completion.
Hudsonian Godwit nests were clustered across the landscape despite a lack of significant spatial autocorrelation (i.e., patchiness) in vegetation characteristics at either the micro- or landscape scale. Nest fate also was not predicted by either the distance to the nearest conspecific neighbor or proximity to roads. Thus, neither habitat characteristics nor predation risk explained the clustering of godwit nests.
These results suggest that godwits may select nest locations based more on social cues than underlying heterogeneity in vegetation or predation risk. As such, intra- and inter-specific interactions should be considered when developing management plans for species of conservation concern.
KeywordsHabitat selection Limosa haemastica Predation risk Spatial aggregation Ripley’s K
J. Fitzpatrick, W. Koenig, and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Many thanks also to numerous field assistants that assisted in data collection. Funding was provided by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Faucett Family Foundation, National Science Foundation (#1110444), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, the Athena Fund at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, American Ornithologists’ Union, and Arctic Audubon Society. All procedures performed in this study involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of Cornell University. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Amico G, Garcia D, Rodriguez-Cabal MA (2008) Spatial structure and scale-dependent microhabitat use of endemic “tapaculos” (Rhinocryptidae) in a temperate forest of southern South America. Ecol Austral 18:169–180Google Scholar
- Besag J (1977) Contribution to the discussion of Dr. Ripley’s paper. J R Stat Soc B 39:193–195Google Scholar
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cliff A, Ord J (1981) Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Diggle PJ (1979) Statistical methods for spatial point patterns in ecology. International Cooperative Publishing House, FairlandGoogle Scholar
- Diggle PJ (2003) Statistical Analysis of spatial point patterns, 2nd edn. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
- ESRI (2015) ArcView® 10.3.1 GIS. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc., RedlandsGoogle Scholar
- Fortin MJ, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Klein ML (1993) Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl Soc Bull 21:31–39Google Scholar
- Knight RL, Fitzner RE (1985) Human disturbance and nest site placement in Black-billed Magpies. J Field Ornithol 56:153–157Google Scholar
- Moran PAP (1948) The interpretation of statistical maps. J R Stat Soc B 10:243–251Google Scholar
- Morrison RIG (2006) Body transformations, condition, and survival in Red Knots Calidris canutus travelling to breed at Alert, Ellesmere Island, Canada. Ardea 94:607–618Google Scholar
- Nelson ZJ (2007) Conspecific attraction in the breeding distribution of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus). M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State UniversityGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.R-project.org
- Reynolds JD (1985) Sandhill Crane use of nest markers as cues for predation. The Wilson Bull 97:106–108Google Scholar
- Ricklefs RE (1969) An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Senner NR (2010) Conservation plan for the Hudsonian Godwit. Version 1.1. Manomet Center for Conservation Science, ManometGoogle Scholar
- Stoyan D, Stoyan H (1994) Fractals, random shapes and point fields: methods of geometrical statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Swift RJ (2016) Nest site selection in Hudsonian Godwits: effects of habitat and predation risk. MS Thesis, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Walker BM, Senner NR, Elphick CS, Klima J (2011) Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/629