4.2 Article

Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) foraging responses to agricultural land use and abundance of insect prey

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 94, 期 9, 页码 637-642

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2015-0238

关键词

aerial insectivore; agricultural intensification; radio-frequency identification; RFID; Tree Swallow; Tachycineta bicolor

类别

资金

  1. University of Saskatchewan
  2. Environment and Climate Change Canada
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Throughout North America, many species of aerial insectivorous birds have exhibited steep declines. The timing of these declines coincides with changes in agriculture, perhaps signaling a causal link. Increased agrochemical use, wetland drainage, and cropping intensity may indirectly influence insectivores by reducing the abundance of insect prey. Our objective was to determine whether changes in insect abundance and biomass on agricultural landscapes in the Canadian Prairies influence the foraging behaviour of breeding Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808)). Swallows were studied at five sites with varying levels of agricultural intensity in Saskatchewan, where insect abundance and biomass were monitored daily with passive aerial samplers. Radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology was employed at Tree Swallow nest boxes to investigate adult foraging behaviour. Foraging rates (number of nest visits/h) were slightly higher on agricultural sites than at grassland sites, and were positively related to daily insect biomass and nestling age. Tree Swallows, especially males, breeding at agricultural sites spent more time away from the nest box, presumably foraging, resulting in reduced nest attentiveness. RFID technology provides an effective technique to measure behaviour in birds and these findings suggest mechanisms by which prey abundance and agricultural land use may affect declining aerial insectivorous bird populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据