4.2 Article

Breeding habitat preference and nest success of Red-necked Phalaropes on Niglintgak Island, Northwest Territories

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
Volume 86, Issue 12, Pages 1346-1357

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/Z08-119

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Wildlife Service (Yellowknife)
  2. Polar Continental Shelf Project
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  4. Northern Scientific Training Program
  5. Ontario Graduate Scholarship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Red-necked Phalaropes (Phalaropus lobatus (L., 1758)) breed throughout arctic and subarctic wetlands. These wetlands provide Red-necked Phalaropes dense graminoid habitat that shelters and conceals nests, and freshwater ponds where phalaropes engage in social interactions and feed on small aquatic invertebrates. We studied breeding habitat preference of Red-necked Phalaropes at multiple scales and determined which, if any, nest-site characteristics influenced hatching success. Red-necked Phalaropes avoided habitat at the meso (home range) scale containing large areas of mud and shrub cover, and selected sites with greater cover of graminoids, aquatic emergents, and open water than that available in the environment. At the micro (nest) scale, phalaropes chose sites dominated by graminoids and water. In 2005, concealed nests experienced higher daily nest survival than exposed nests. In 2006, 40% of nests were destroyed during a summer storm surge and we detected no differences in habitat characteristics between the remaining successful and unsuccessful nests. We suggest that annual differences in the adaptive value of nest-site selection depend on the relative abundance of mammalian and avian predators. A habitat model using data at the meso scale correctly identified phalarope habitat and has the potential to be used broadly across the western Arctic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available