4.3 Article

Spatial differences in breeding success in the pied avocet Recurvirostra avosetta:: effects of habitat on hatching success and chick survival

期刊

JOURNAL OF AVIAN BIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 381-395

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2006.03501.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

I studied the breeding biology of pied avocets Recurvirostra avosetta in natural habitats (alkaline lakes), and in semi-natural sites (dry fishpond, reconstructed wetlands) in Hungary to relate habitat selection patterns to spatial and temporal variation in breeding success. Colonies were initiated earlier in semi-natural sites than in natural habitats, and earlier on islands than on the mainland. Hatching success was higher on islands than on the mainland, in semi-natural sites than in natural habitats, in colonies of at least 15 pairs than in smaller colonies, and for nests initiated earlier than later within a colony. Fledging success was higher in the wet years (1999-2000) than in the dry year (1998), decreased strongly by season in both habitats and increased with average daily temperature in the first week post-hatch in 1999-2000. Most pairs hatching young in semi-natural sites attempted to lead their chicks to feeding areas in natural habitats, whereas no such movement occurred in the opposite direction. Chick mortality due to predation was high during brood movements and only 23% of the pairs moving their young produced fledglings, compared to 43% for pairs remaining in semi-natural sites and 68% for pairs hatching and rearing young in natural habitats (total n=192 broods). These results suggest that semi-natural sites were more suitable for nesting, whereas natural habitats were more suitable for chick-rearing. The opposing trends in habitat-related breeding success between nesting and chick-rearing suggest sub-optimal habitat selection by Pied Avocets due to an incorrect assessment of the potential for successful reproduction of semi-natural sites, which may thus function as ecological traps.

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

4.3
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