Wetlands

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 521–529 | Cite as

Testing for conspecific attraction in an obligate saltmarsh bird: Can behavior be used to aid marsh restoration?

Article

Abstract

Understanding mechanisms that promote colonization by target species is critical to advancing the success of coastal wetland restoration. Recent work in avian behavioral ecology suggests that social cues might influence settlement decisions in a range of species, however little is known about the extent to which social mechanisms might influence settlement decisions for those inhabiting coastal wetlands. In this study, we tested whether or not the saltmarsh sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus), an obligate saltmarsh species of conservation concern, uses conspecific attraction to make habitat selection decisions. Despite previous research suggesting a potential role for auditory conspecific cues in sparrow settlement decisions, we found no evidence that saltmarsh sparrows respond to them in two distinct experiments. Playing saltmarsh sparrow vocalizations at 11 sites with very low saltmarsh sparrow densities did not change numbers from those observed in prior years. In a controlled experiment at marshes with high saltmarsh sparrow densities, numbers of adults, nests, and fledglings were similar at control and experimental plots. The results of this study suggest that auditory conspecific cues are not an important component of habitat settlement decisions for this species and are unlikely to facilitate the colonization of unoccupied habitat.

Keywords

Salt marsh Restoration Avian habitat selection Conspecific attraction Audio broadcast Ammodramus caudacutus 

References

  1. Ahlering MA, Faarborg J (2006) Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: if you build it, will they come? Auk 123:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlering MA, Johnson DH, Faaborg F (2006) Conspecific attraction in a grassland bird, the Baird’s Sparrow. Journal of Field Ornithology 77:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alatalo RV (1982) Can the song of male birds attract other males? An experiment with the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Bird Behavior 4:42–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Bird Conservancy (2007) American Bird Conservancy Red List. Available at http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/science/watchlist/watchlist.html. Accessed 17 September 2009.
  5. Athearn ND, Takekawa JY, Shinn JM (2009) Response to early tidal salt marsh restoration at former commercial salt evaporation ponds in San Francisco Bay, California, USA. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 15:77–86Google Scholar
  6. Bayard TS (2010) Testing the role of social cues in saltmarsh sparrow habitat selection decisions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, StorrsGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayard TS, Elphick CS (2010) Using spatial point pattern assessment to understand the social and environmental mechanisms driving avian habitat selection. Auk 127:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bayard TS, Elphick CS (2011) Planning for sea level rise: quantifying patterns of saltmarsh sparrow nest flooding under current sea level conditions. Auk 128:393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benoit LK, Askins RA (2002) Relationship between habitat area and the distribution of tidal marsh birds. Wilson Bulletin 114:314–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Betts MG, Hadley AS, Rodenhouse N, Nocera JJ (2008) Social information trumps vegetation structure in breeding site selection by a migrant songbird. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences 275:2257–2263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. BirdLife International (2009) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed 01 June 2009
  12. Boulinier T, Danchin E, Monnat J-Y, Doutrelant C, Cadiouu B (1996) Timing of prospecting and the value of information in a colonial breeding bird. Journal of Avian Biology 27:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brewer R, Harrison KG (1975) The time of habitat selection in birds. Ibis 117:521–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campomizzi AJ, Butcher JA, Farrell SL, Snelgrove AG, Collier BA, Gutzwiller KJ, Morrison ML, Wilkins RN (2008) Conspecific attraction is a missing component in wildlife habitat modeling. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dettmers R, Rosenberg KV (2000) Partners in Flight bird conservation plan for southern New England (physiographic area 9). Version 1.0. American Bird ConservancyGoogle Scholar
  16. Elphick CS, Bayard T, Meiman S, Hill JM, Rubega MA (2009) A comprehensive assessment of the distribution of saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrows in Connecticut. Final report to the Long Island Sound License Plate Program, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  17. EPA (2000) Principles for the ecological restoration of aquatic resources. EPA841-F-00-003. Office of Water (4501F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  18. Fletcher RJ (2007) Species interactions and population density mediate the use of social cues for habitat selection. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:598–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forbush EH (1929) Land birds from sparrows to thrushes. In: Birds of Massachusetts and other New England states, Part 3. Massachusetts Department of Agriculture Norwood Press, MA, pp 61–64.Google Scholar
  20. Gilroy JJ, Sutherland WJ (2007) Beyond ecological traps: perceptual errors and undervalued resources. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gjerdrum C, Elphick CS, Rubega M (2005) Nest site selection and nesting success in saltmarsh breeding sparrows: the importance of nest habitat, timing, and study site differences. Condor 107:849–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gjerdrum C, Elphick CS, Rubega MA (2008) How well can we model numbers and productivity of Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus) using habitat features. Auk 125:608–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenlaw JS, Rising JD (1994) Sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 112. Philadelphia (PA): Academy of Natural Sciences, Washington D.C.: American Ornithologists’ Union.Google Scholar
  24. Hahn BA, Silverman ED (2006) Social cues facilitate habitat selection: American redstarts establish breeding territories in response to song. Biology Letters 2:337–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hahn BA, Silverman ED (2007) Managing breeding forest songbirds with conspecific song playbacks. Animal Conservation 10:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison ML, Green DJ, Krannitz PG (2009) Conspecifics influence the settlement decisions of male Brewer’s Sparrows at the northern edge of their range. Condor 111:722–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill CE, Gjerdrum C, Elphick C (2010) Extreme levels of multiple mating characterize the mating system of the Saltmarsh Sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus). Auk 127:300–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hunter ML (2007) Climate change and moving species: furthering the debate on assisted colonization. Conservation Biology 21:1356–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konisky RA, Burdick DM, Dionne M, Neckles HA (2006) A regional assessment of salt marsh restoration and monitoring in the Gulf of Maine. Restoration Ecology 14:516–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kress SW (1983) The use of decoys, sound recording, and gull control for reestablishing a tern colony in Maine. Colonial Waterbirds 6:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McLachlan JS, Hellman JJ, Schwartz MW (2007) A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology 21:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meiman S (2011) Modeling saltmarsh sparrow distribution in Connecticut. Master’s thesis, University of Connecticut, StorrsGoogle Scholar
  33. Mills AM, Rising JD, Jackson DA (2006) Conspecific attraction during establishment of Least Flycatcher clusters. Journal of Field Ornithology 77:34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murray BG Jr (1969) A comparative study of the Le Conte’s and Sharp-tailed Sparrows. Auk 86:199–231Google Scholar
  35. Nocera JJ, Forbes GJ, Giraldeau LA (2006) Inadvertent social information in breeding site selection of natal dispersing birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences 273:349–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker MW, Kress SW, Golightly RT, Carter HR, Parsons EB, Schubel SE, Boyce JA, McChesney GJ, Wisely SM (2007) Assessment of social attraction techniques used to restore a Common Murre colony in central California. Waterbirds 30:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reed JM (2004) Recognition behavior based problems in species conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41:859–877Google Scholar
  38. Reinert SE, Mello MJ (1995) Avian community structure and habitat use in a southern New England estuary. Wetlands 15:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rich TD, Beardmore CJ, Berlanga H, Blancher PJ, Bradstreet MSW, Butcher GS, Demarest DW, Dunn EH, Hunter WC, Iñigo-Elias EE, Kennedy JA, Martell AM, Panjabi AO, Pashley DN, Rosenberg KV, Rustay CM, Wendt JS, Will, TC (2004) Partners in flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available at www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/
  40. Seigel A, Hatfield C, Hartman JM (2005) Avian response to restoration of urban tidal marshes in the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey. Urban Habitats 3:87–116Google Scholar
  41. Shriver WG, Hodgman TP, Gibbs JP, Vickery PD (2004) Landscape context influences salt marsh bird diversity and area requirements in New England. Biological Conservation 119:545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shriver WG, Vickery PD, Hodgman TP (2007) Flood tides affect breeding ecology of two sympatric sharp-tailed sparrows. Auk 124:552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Reid ML (2005) Search costs and habitat selection by dispersers. Ecology 86:510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stralberg D, Brennan M, Callaway JC, Wood JK, Schile LM et al (2011) Evaluating tidal marsh sustainability in the face of sea-level rise: a hybrid modeling approach applied to San Francisco Bay. PLoS One 6(11):e27388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner RH, Danchin E (2003) Conspecific copying: a general mechanism of social aggregation. Animal Behavior 65:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ward MP, Schlossberg S (2004) Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conservation Biology 18:519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ward MP, Benson TJ, Semel B, Herkert JR (2010) The use of social cues in habitat selection by wetland birds. Condor 112:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warren RS, Fell PE, Rozsa R, Brawley AH, Orsted AC, Olson ET, Swamy V, Niering WA (2002) Salt marsh restoration in Connecticut: 20 years of science and management. Restoration Ecology 10:497–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Center for Conservation and BiodiversityUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations