| Literature DB >> 31616597 |
Jocelyn Champagnon1, Hugo Carré1, Lisa Gili1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term research is crucial for the conservation and development of knowledge in ecology; however, it is essential to quantify and minimize any negative effects associated with research to gather reliable and representative long-term monitoring data. In colonial bird species, chicks are often marked with coded bands in order to assess demographic parameters of the population. Banding chicks in multi-species colonies is challenging because it involves disturbances to species that are at different stages of progress in their reproduction.Entities:
Keywords: Daily Survival Rate; Multi-species colony; Nest Survival; Research disturbance; Waterbirds
Year: 2019 PMID: 31616597 PMCID: PMC6791343 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Capturing and marking Glossy Ibis chicks in a mixed heron colony.
(A) Flushing adults when entering the colony. Cattle Egrets, Little Egrets, Squacco Herons and Glossy Ibis are identifiable. Photo credit: Tour du Valat. (B) Example of a capture of a Glossy Ibis chick in his nest. Photo credit: Jean-Emmanuel Roché. (C) Glossy Ibis chicks of approximately three weeks old, at the top of the trees. Note that two individuals fit a PVC and metal bands. Photo credit: Jean-Pierre Trouillas. (D) The floating blind used to monitor breeding success. Photo credit: Clément Pappalardo.
Figure 2Number of nests monitored each year for each day of observation since the first incursion in the colony with a floating hide.
The fate “1” corresponds to a nest seen active and “0” to an abandoned nest. The two annual banding operations are presented by vertical black lines and the seven days following a banding operation by the dark grey font.
Model selection table showing the ten best supported models to explain daily survival rate of Cattle Egrets, Little Egrets and Glossy Ibis nests in mixed-species heronry disturbed by banding operations in 2015 and 2016.
A total of 144 candidate models were tested, including the fixed effects of species, day since the first day of the survey, the position of the nest in a tree (height), zone in the colony (control vs. disturbed zone), the period of seven days following a disturbance (banding week), and second order interactions of interest. Year of survey and identification of the tree were considered as random variables for all candidate models. K is the number of parameters in the model, Log(L) is the value of the maximized log-likelihood function, AIC is Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small samples, ΔAIC is the scaled value of AICc, and weight is the Akaike weight.
| Model | K | Loge(L) | AICc | delta | weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day+Height*Species+Species*Zone | 15 | −437.7 | 905.6 | 0.0 | 0.14 |
| Day+Height*Species | 12 | −441.1 | 906.2 | 0.6 | 0.10 |
| Day+Height+Species | 8 | −445.3 | 906.6 | 0.9 | 0.09 |
| Day+Height*Species+Species*Zone+BandingWeek | 16 | −437.4 | 907.1 | 1.4 | 0.07 |
| Day+Height+Species*Zone | 11 | −442.5 | 907.1 | 1.4 | 0.07 |
| Day+Height+Species+BandingWeek | 9 | −444.5 | 907.1 | 1.5 | 0.06 |
| Day+Height*Species+BandingWeek | 13 | −440.5 | 907.2 | 1.6 | 0.06 |
| Day+Height*Species+Zone | 13 | −440.9 | 908.0 | 2.3 | 0.04 |
| Day+Height+Species*Zone+BandingWeek | 12 | −442.0 | 908.1 | 2.5 | 0.04 |
| Day+Height*Species+Species*Zone+Zone*Banding Week | 17 | −437.1 | 908.4 | 2.8 | 0.03 |
Figure 3Effect of the height in tree on daily survival rate of nests of three species of tree-nesting waterbirds in a mixed-species heronry.
“low” denotes for nests located between the water level and 1 m, “med” for nests between 1 m and 2 m, and “high” for nests above 2 m. Estimates plotted in this figure are the predictions derived from the first model in Table 1. Sample sizes for each category are indicated at the top of the figure.
Figure 4Effect of banding disturbance on daily survival rate of nests of three species of tree-nesting waterbirds in a mixed-species heronry.
Estimates plotted in this figure are the predictions derived from the first model in Table 1.