| Literature DB >> 23593131 |
Volker Salewski1, Wesley M Hochachka, Wolfgang Fiedler.
Abstract
Weather affects the demography of animals and thus climate change will cause local changes in demographic rates. In birds numerous studies have correlated demographic factors with weather but few of those examined variation in the impacts of weather in different seasons and, in the case of migrants, in different regions. Using capture-recapture models we correlated weather with apparent survival of seven passerine bird species with different migration strategies to assess the importance of selected facets of weather throughout the year on apparent survival. Contrary to our expectations weather experienced during the breeding season did not affect apparent survival of the target species. However, measures for winter severity were associated with apparent survival of a resident species, two short-distance/partial migrants and a long-distance migrant. Apparent survival of two short distance migrants as well as two long-distance migrants was further correlated with conditions experienced during the non-breeding season in Spain. Conditions in Africa had statistically significant but relatively minor effects on the apparent survival of the two long-distance migrants but also of a presumably short-distance migrant and a short-distance/partial migrant. In general several weather effects independently explained similar amounts of variation in apparent survival for the majority of species and single factors explained only relatively low amounts of temporal variation of apparent survival. Although the directions of the effects on apparent survival mostly met our expectations and there are clear predictions for effects of future climate we caution against simple extrapolations of present conditions to predict future population dynamics. Not only did weather explains limited amounts of variation in apparent survival, but future demographics will likely be affected by changing interspecific interactions, opposing effects of weather in different seasons, and the potential for phenotypic and microevolutionary adaptations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23593131 PMCID: PMC3620169 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Target species.
| Species | n | % recaptured | Date after newly-captured considered to be non-local |
| Dunnock | 596 | 8.2 | 6 September |
| Blackbird | 1178 | 4.5 | 25 September |
| Reed Warbler | 1879 | 6.3 | 13 July |
| Blackcap | 4636 | 2.5 | 22 August |
| Chiffchaff | 9482 | 2.9 | 22 September |
| Willow Warbler | 1734 | 7.6 | 22 July |
| Reed Bunting | 4386 | 7.1 | 13 September |
Shown are the number of first year birds captured per species, percentage recaptures in a subsequent year and date after which an individual of the respective species was classified as a migrant and not considered in the analysis.
Probabilities from goodness-of-fit tests.
| Species | Statistic | Test | ||||
| Global | 3.SR | 3.SM | 2.CT | 2.CL | ||
| Dunnock | df | 37 | 20 | 7 | 8 | 2 |
| χ2 | 34.611 | 32.031 | 0.000 | 1.644 | 0.936 | |
| p | 0.582 | 0.043 | 1.000 | 0.990 | 0.626 | |
| Blackbird | df | 54 | 25 | 7 | 16 | 6 |
| χ2 | 54.848 | 42.870 | 0.096 | 7.537 | 3.516 | |
| p | 0.442 | 0.014 | 0.996 | 0.961 | 0.742 | |
| Reed Warbler | df | 55 | 26 | 8 | 15 | 6 |
| χ2 | 25.902 | 11.283 | 0.936 | 12.975 | 0.708 | |
| p | 1.000 | 0.995 | 0.999 | 0.604 | 0.994 | |
| Blackcap | df | 73 | 29 | 11 | 21 | 12 |
| χ2 | 57.163 | 44.114 | 3.490 | 5.917 | 3.641 | |
| p | 0.914 | 0.036 | 0.983 | 0.999 | 0.989 | |
| Chiffchaff | df | 63 | 27 | 12 | 18 | 6 |
| χ2 | 69.501 | 45.083 | 8.450 | 14.324 | 1.644 | |
| p | 0.268 | 0.016 | 0.749 | 0.708 | 0.949 | |
| Willow Warbler | df | 45 | 26 | 10 | 8 | 1 |
| χ2 | 62.644 | 51.743 | 3.540 | 6.425 | 0.936 | |
| p | 0.042 | 0.002 | 0.966 | 0.600 | 0.333 | |
| Reed Bunting | df | 97 | 30 | 21 | 27 | 19 |
| χ2 | 116.547 | 78.848 | 6.858 | 22.668 | 8.174 | |
| p | 0.086 | <0.001 | 0.998 | 0.703 | 0.985 | |
Shown are the degrees of freedom, χ2 and p-values for the global test as well as for the tests 3.SR, 3.SM, 2.CT and 2.CL.
Apparent survival in relation to climate variables, calculated using capture-mark-recapture analyses, for seven passerine bird species.
| Model | Species | |||||||||||||
| Dunnock | Blackbird | Reed warbler | Blackcap | Chiffchaff | Willow warbler | Reed bunting | ||||||||
| ΔAICC | AICCW | ΔAICC | AICCW | ΔAICC | AICCW | ΔAICC | AICCW | ΔAICC | AICCW | ΔAICC | AICCW | ΔAICC | AICCW | |
| Φ(a2) | 1.2 | 0.153 | 5.6 | 0.035 | 2.1 | 0.113 | 3.6 | 0.084 | 13.7 | 0.001 | 4.5 | 0.034 | 9.8 | 0.007 |
| Φ(a2*bsp) | 3.1 | 0.060 | 2.8 | 0.140 | 5.2 | 0.023 | 6.7 | 0.017 | 11.9 | 0.002 | 2.3 | 0.099 | 10.6 | 0.005 |
| Φ(a2*wt) | 0.1 | 0.260 | 0.01 | 0.5561 | 4.6 | 0.031 | 5.2 | 0.038 | 7.0 | 0.029 | 4.5 | 0.034 | 13.0 | 0.001 |
| Φ(a2*sn) | 4.8 | 0.025 | 2.0 | 0.204 | 3.2 | 0.062 | 4.5 | 0.052 | 0.01 | 0.9581 | 0.01 | 0.3191 | 11.5 | 0.003 |
| Φ(a2*pSp) | 3.7 | 0.045 | 9.5 | 0.005 | 0.6 | 0.239 | 2.0 | 0.187 | 16.3 | <0.001 | 1.4 | 0.159 | 0.01 | 0.9621 |
| Φ(a2*pSz) | 1.8 | 0.116 | 6.8 | 0.019 | 1.4 | 0.159 | 6.9 | 0.016 | 14.8 | 0.001 | 1.7 | 0.137 | 9.4 | 0.009 |
| Φ(a2*pGz) | 4.3 | 0.032 | 8.5 | 0.008 | 4.3 | 0.036 | 0.01 | 0.5061 | 9.6 | 0.008 | 4.9 | 0.028 | 9.3 | 0.009 |
| Φ(a2*NAO) | 0.01 | 0.2801 | 9.3 | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.3161 | 3.7 | 0.081 | 16.2 | 0.003 | 4.3 | 0.038 | 13.5 | 0.001 |
| Φ(a2*T) | 4.5 | 0.030 | 5.9 | 0.029 | 5.6 | 0.019 | 6.6 | 0.012 | 14.8 | 0.001 | 1.5 | 0.153 | 12.4 | 0.002 |
| Φ(a2*t) | 80.1 | <0.001 | 85.7 | 0.029 | 56.0 | <0.001 | 57.9 | <0.001 | 19.8 | <0.001 | 34.1 | <0.001 | 49.6 | <0.001 |
Shown are the parameters included in each of the models that we used to predict apparent survival Φ, the ΔAIC values for small sample sizes (ΔAICC) and the AIC weights (AICCW) for all models. Recapture probability was always held constant {p(.), see methods} except for the willow warbler where it was modelled to have a linear effect {p(T)}. See methods for abbreviations of climate variables. 1: the most parsimonious model for a species.
ß-values (± se) of the models that included a weather variable with the highest support from the data.
| Dunnock | Blackbird | Reed Warbler | Blackcap | Chiffchaff | Willow Warbler | Reed Bunting | |
| Model 1 | AgeNAO: −1.370±0.3931 | Age: −2.713±0.3431 | AgeNAO: −0.788±0.3831 | Age: −2.275±0.3121 | Age: −1.433±0.2161 | Age: −1.374±0.2251 | Age: −1.374±0.1691 |
| NAOfy: −0.171±0.085 | wtfy: 0.432±0.1681 | NAOfy: 0.137±0.0621 | pGzfy: −0.028±0.011 | snfy: −0.255±0.0701 | snfy: −0.154±0.0991 | pSpfy: −0.011±0.0031 | |
| NAOad: 0.163±0.1301 | wtad: 0.430±0.3181 | NAOad: 0.068±0.0911 | pGzad: −0.029±0.020 | snad: −0.247±0.1581 | snad: −0.413±0.1801 | pSpad: −0.007±0.0051 | |
| Model 2 | Age: −1.716±0.3531 | Age: −2.667±0.3451 | Age: −0.673±0.3741 | Age: −2.173±0.2971 | Age: −1.496±0.2261 | ||
| wtfy: −0.304±0.171 | snfy: −0.131±0.6721 | pSpfy: −0.009±0.0051 | pSpfy: −0.009±0.0041 | pSpfy: 0.011±0.004 | |||
| wtad: 0.355±0.2581 | snad: −0.839±0.3601 | pSpad: −0.013±0.0091 | pSpad: 0.014±0.010 | pSpad: 0.003±0.008 | |||
| Model 3 | Age: −2.537±0.5761 | Age: −0.493±0.4531 | Age: −1.610±0.4021 | ||||
| pSzfy: −0.002±0.005 | pSzfy: 0.002±0.0031 | Tfy: 0.037±<0.001 | |||||
| pSzad: 0.003±0.0021 | pSzad: 0.001±0.0011 | Tad: 0.017±0.016 | |||||
| Model 4 | Age: −1.942±0.3131 | ||||||
| pSzfy: −0.002±0.003 | |||||||
| pSzad: 0.002±0.0011 |
Shown are the ß-values for the factor age (negative values indicate a lower apparent survival probability of first year birds) and for the climate variable for both age classes (fy: first year birds, ad: adult birds) for the most parsimonious model (Model 1) of the species and for the models with a ΔAICC ≤2.0 (Models 2–4). The models are indicated by the variables that are used to estimate apparent survival. 1: regression coefficients whose signs are consistent with a priori expectations. Note that we had no a priori expectations for the sign of the coefficient for the model including a constant trend in survival probability for the willow warbler.
Proportions of the temporal variance that can be explained by each of the climate factors.
| Species | Φ(NAO) | Φ(wt) | Φ(sn) | Φ(bsp) | Φ(pSp) | Φ(pSz) | Φ(pGz) |
| Dunnock | 0.0851 | 0.0831 | 0.007 | 0.035 | 0.026 | 0.0561 | 0.015 |
| Blackbird | 0.006 | 0.1951 | 0.1551 | 0.139 | 0.001 | 0.057 | 0.021 |
| Reed Warbler | 0.0791 | 0.019 | 0.037 | 0.012 | 0.0721 | 0.0611 | 0.023 |
| Blackcap | 0.054 | 0.033 | 0.042 | 0.012 | 0.0761 | 0.010 | 0.1031 |
| Chiffchaff | 0.012 | 0.089 | 0.1471 | 0.048 | 0.012 | 0.024 | 0.067 |
| Willow Warbler | 0.041 | 0.039 | 0.0821 | 0.060 | 0.0691 | 0.0661 | 0.035 |
| Reed Bunting | 0.003 | 0.009 | 0.026 | 0.037 | 0.1571 | 0.050 | 0.051 |
Shown is the R2 dev for each factor for apparent survival Φ. 1: climate variables included in the most supported models (ΔAICC ≤2).