Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp 1689–1703 | Cite as

Environmental heterogeneity and biotic interactions as potential drivers of spatial patterning of shorebird nests

  • Rose J. SwiftEmail author
  • Amanda D. Rodewald
  • Nathan R. Senner
Research Article



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.


Habitat 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.

Supplementary material

10980_2017_536_MOESM1_ESM.docx (540 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 540 kb)


  1. Ahlering MA, Faaborg J (2006) Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: if you build it, will they come? Auk 123:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Andrén H, Anglestam P (1988) Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental evidence. Ecology 69:544–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley A, Turner R (2005) SPATSTAT: an R package for analyzing spatial point patterns. J Stat Softw 12:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayard TS, Elphick CS (2010) Spatial point-pattern assessment to understand the social and environmental mechanisms that drive avian habitat selection. Auk 127:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besag J (1977) Contribution to the discussion of Dr. Ripley’s paper. J R Stat Soc B 39:193–195Google Scholar
  7. Both C, Visser ME (2001) Adjustment to climate change is constrained by arrival date in a long-distance migrant bird. Nature 411:296–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourque J, Desrochers A (2006) Spatial aggregation of forest songbird territories and possible implications for area sensitivity. Avian Conserv Ecol 1:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown CR, Brown MB (2000) Nest spacing in relation to settlement time in colonial Cliff Swallows. Anim Behav 59:47–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger J (1984) Grebes nesting in gull colonies: protective associations and early warning. Am Nat 123:327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cliff A, Ord J (1981) Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Condit R, Ashton PS, Baker P, Bunyavejchewin S, Gunatilleke S, Gunatilleke N, Hubbell SP, Foster RB, Itoh A, LaFrankie JV, Lee HS, Losos E, Manokaran N, Sukumar R, Yamakura T (2000) Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288:1414–1418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornell KL, Donovan TM (2010) Scale-dependent mechanisms of habitat selection for a migratory passerine: an experimental approach. Auk 127:899–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Diggle PJ (1979) Statistical methods for spatial point patterns in ecology. International Cooperative Publishing House, FairlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Diggle PJ (2003) Statistical Analysis of spatial point patterns, 2nd edn. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J (2002) Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 297:1168–1170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. ESRI (2015) ArcView® 10.3.1 GIS. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc., RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. Etterson MA (2003) Conspecific attraction in loggerhead shrikes: implications for habitat conservation and reintroduction. Biol Conserv 114:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falk KJ, Nol E, Burke DM (2011) Weak effect of edges on avian nesting success in fragmented and forested landscapes in Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecol 26:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsman JT, Thomson RL, Seppänen JT (2007) Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds. Behav Ecol 18:888–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forstmeier W, Weiss I (2004) Adaptive plasticity in nest-site selection in response to changing predation risk. Oikos 104:487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fortin MJ, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Gascoigne JC, Lipcius RN (2004) Allee effects driven by predation. J Appl Ecol 41:801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodale E, Beauchamp G, Magrath RD, Nieh JC, Ruxton GD (2010) Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol Evol 25:354–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Götmark F, Andersson M (1984) Colonial breeding reduces nest predation in the common gull (Larus canus). Anim Behav 32:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haase P (1995) Spatial pattern analysis in ecology based on Ripley’s K-function: introduction and methods of edge correction. J Veg Sci 6:575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kharitonov SP, Volkov AE, Willems F, Van Kleef H, Klaassen RHG, Nowak DJ, Nowak AI, Bublichenko AG (2008) Brent goose colonies near snowy owls: internest distances in relation to abundance of lemmings and arctic foxes. Biol Bull 35:270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kiester AR, Slatkin M (1974) A strategy of movement and resource utilization. Theor Popul Biol 6:1–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Klaver RW, Backlund D, Bartelt PE, Erickson MG, Knowles CJ, Knowles PR, Wimberly MC (2012) Spatial analysis of Northern Goshawk territories in the Black Hills, South Dakota. The Condor 114:532–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klein ML (1993) Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildl Soc Bull 21:31–39Google Scholar
  35. Kleindorfer S, Sulloway FJ, O’Connor J (2009) Mixed species nesting associations in Darwin’s tree finches: nesting pattern predicts predation outcome. Biol J Linn Soc 98:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight RL, Fitzner RE (1985) Human disturbance and nest site placement in Black-billed Magpies. J Field Ornithol 56:153–157Google Scholar
  37. Liebezeit JR, Kendall SJ, Brown S, Johnson CB, Martin P, McDonald TL, Payer DC, Rea CL, Streever B, Wildman AM, Zack S (2009) Influence of human development and predators on nest survival of tundra birds, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. Ecol Appl 19:1628–1644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin TE (1988) Processes organizing open-nesting bird assemblages: competition or nest predation? Evol Ecol 2:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin TE (1993) Nest predation and nest sites. Bioscience 43:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Melles SJ, Badzinski D, Fortin MJ, Csillag F, Lindsay K (2009) Disentangling habitat and social drivers of nesting patterns in songbirds. Landscape Ecol 24:519–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Møller AP (1987) Advantages and disadvantages of coloniality in the swallow, Hirundo rustica. Anim Behav 35:819–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mönkkönen M, Forsman JT (2002) Heterospecific attraction among forest birds: a review. Ornithol Sci 1:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moran PAP (1948) The interpretation of statistical maps. J R Stat Soc B 10:243–251Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Morrison RIG, Davidson NC, Wilson JR (2007) Survival of the fattest: body stores on migration and survival in Red Knots Calidris canutus islandica. J Avian Biol 38:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson ZJ (2007) Conspecific attraction in the breeding distribution of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus). M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. Nguyen LP, Abraham KF, Nol E (2006) Influence of Arctic Terns on survival of artificial and natural Semipalmated Plover nests. Waterbirds 29:100–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niemuth ND, Boyce MS (1995) Spatial and temporal patterns of predation of simulated sage grouse nests at high and low nest densities: an experimental study. Can J Zool 73:819–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nocera JJ, Forbes GJ, Giraldeau L (2006) Inadvertent social information in breeding site selection of natal dispersing birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perry EF, Andersen DE (2003) Advantages of clustered nesting for least flycatchers in north-central Minnesota. The Condor 105:756–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perry GLW, Miller BP, Enright NJ (2006) A comparison of methods for the statistical analysis of spatial point patterns in plant ecology. Plant Ecol 187:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pitman JC, Hagen CA, Robel RJ, Loughin TM, Applegate RD (2005) Location and success of lesser prairie-chicken nests in relation to vegetation and human disturbance. J Wildl Manag 69:1259–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Quinn JL, Ueta M (2008) Protective nesting associations in birds. Ibis 150:146–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ramsay SM, Otter K, Ratcliffe LM (1999) Nest-site selection by female black-capped chickadees: settlement based on conspecific attraction? Auk 116:604–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  56. Rangel TF, Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini LM (2010) SAM: a comprehensive application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography 33:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ratti JT, Reese KP (1988) Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis. J Wildl Manag 52:484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Restani M, Marzluff JM, Yates RE (2001) Effects of anthropogenic food sources on movements, survivorship, and sociality of Common Ravens in the Arctic. The Condor 103:399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reynolds JD (1985) Sandhill Crane use of nest markers as cues for predation. The Wilson Bull 97:106–108Google Scholar
  60. Ricklefs RE (1969) An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ripley BD (1976) 2nd-order analysis of stationary point processes. J Appl Probab 13:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ripley BD (1981) Spatial statistics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ripley BD (1988) Statistical inference for spatial processes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Saalfeld ST, Conway WC, Haukos DA, Johnson WP (2012) Snowy Plover nest site selection, spatial patterning, and temperatures in the Southern High Plains of Texas. J Wildl Manag 76:1703–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schurr FM, Bossdorf O, Milton SJ, Schumacher J (2004) Spatial pattern formation in semi-arid shrubland: a priori predicted versus observed pattern characteristics. Plant Ecol 173:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Senner NR (2010) Conservation plan for the Hudsonian Godwit. Version 1.1. Manomet Center for Conservation Science, ManometGoogle Scholar
  68. Senner NR, Stager M, Sandercock BK (2017) Ecological mismatches are moderated by local conditions for two populations of a long-distance migratory bird. Oikos 126:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and territorial aggregation: a field experiment. Am Nat 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stoyan D, Stoyan H (1994) Fractals, random shapes and point fields: methods of geometrical statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Swift RJ (2016) Nest site selection in Hudsonian Godwits: effects of habitat and predation risk. MS Thesis, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  73. Swift RJ, Rodewald AD, Senner NR (2017) Breeding habitat of a declining shorebird in a changing environment. Polar Biol. doi: 10.1007/s00300-017-2101-8 Google Scholar
  74. Szymkowiak J, Thomson RL, Kuczyński L (2016) Wood warblers copy settlement decisions of poor quality conspecifics: support for the trade-off between the benefit of social information use and competition avoidance. Oikos. doi: 10.1111/oik.03052 Google Scholar
  75. Tarof SA, Ratcliffe LM (2004) Habitat characteristics and nest predation do not explain clustered breeding in least flycatchers (Empidonax minimus). Auk 121:877–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Visser ME, van Noordwijk AJ, Tinbergen JM, Lessells CM (1998) Warmer springs lead to mistimed reproduction in great tits (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 265:1867–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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:
  78. Ward MP, Schlossberg S (2004) Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv Biol 18:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiegand T, Gunatilleke S, Gunatilleke N (2007) Species associations in a heterogeneous Sri Lankan dipterocarp forest. Am Nat 170:77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wood SN (2000) Modelling and smoothing parameter estimation with multiple quadratic penalties. J R Stat Soc (B) 62:413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rose J. Swift
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amanda D. Rodewald
    • 1
  • Nathan R. Senner
    • 2
  1. 1.Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Department of Natural ResourcesIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations