Age-dependent survival rate of the colonial Little Tern (Sternula albifrons)
Autoři:
Inbal Schekler aff001; Yosef Kiat aff002; Roi Dor aff001
Působiště autorů:
School of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
aff001; Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
aff002; Israel Ornithological Center, Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Tel Aviv, Israel
aff003
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226819
Souhrn
Many ground-nesting bird species are suffering from habitat loss and population decline. Data on population ecology and demography in colonies of threatened species are thus essential for designing effective conservation protocols. Here, we used extensive ringing and observation data to estimate directly, for the first time, the survival rate of juvenile and adult Little Tern (Sternula albifrons), as well as testing for a possible effect of age on probability of survival. We estimated adult annual survival rate to be 0.77, and juvenile (first year) survival to be 0.49 with a possible linear decrease in the survival rate of the juveniles that ranged from 0.681 to 0.327. We found no evidence that survival was age-dependent among the early age classes after the first year. We discuss these findings in light of survival estimates for other species, and their implications for the Little Tern conservation.
Klíčová slova:
Animal sexual behavior – Birds – Conservation science – Islands – Ponds – Population dynamics – Seabirds – Binoculars
Zdroje
1. Senner SE, Howe MA. Conservation of nearctic shorebirds. Shorebirds. Springer; 1984. pp. 379–421.
2. Chamberlain DE, Fuller J R, Bunce GH R, Duckworth JC, Shrubb M. Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J Appl Ecol. Wiley Online Library; 2000;37: 771–788.
3. Cabot D, Nisbet I. Terns (Collins New Naturalist Library, Book 123). HarperCollins UK; 2013.
4. Palestis BG. The role of behavior in tern conservation. Curr Zool. Oxford University Press Oxford, UK; 2014;60: 500–514.
5. Sullivan B, Stattersfield AJ, Croxall JP, Symes A, Lascelles B, Butchart SHM, et al. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conserv Int. 2012;22: 1–34. doi: 10.1017/s0959270912000020
6. Tucker GM, Heath MF. Birds in Europe. Their conservation status. BirdLife International, Cambridge. BirdLife International, Cambridge; 1994.
7. Anders AD, Dearborn DC, Faaborg J, Thompson FR, Iiit FRT. Juvenile Survival in a Population of Neotropical Migrant Birds. Conserv Biol. 1996;11: 698–707.
8. Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2001;268: 25–29. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1325 12123294
9. Bradley JS, Wooller RD, Skira IJ, Serventy DL. Age-dependent survival of breeding Short-tailed Shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris. J Anim Ecol. 1989;58: 175–188.
10. Pugesek BH. Offspring growth in the California gull: reproductive effort and parental experience hypotheses. Anim Behav. 1995;49: 641–647. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80197-9
11. Tavecchia G, Pradel R, Boy V, Johnson AR, Cezilly F. Sex- and Age-Related Variation in Survival and Cost of First Reproduction in Greater Flamingos. Ecology. 2001;82: 165–174. doi: 10.2307/2680094
12. Piir Forslund, Pirt T. Age and reproduction in birds—hypotheses and tests. 1995;I.
13. Pyle P, Spear LB, Sydeman WJ, Ainley DG. The effects of experience and age on the breeding peformance of Western Gulls. Auk. Oxford University Press; 1991;108: 25–33.
14. International B. IUCN Red List for birds. 2016.
15. Catry T, Ramos JA, Catry I, Allen-Revez M, Grade N. Are salinas a suitable alternative breeding habitat for Little Terns Sterna albifrons? Ibis (Lond 1859). 2004;146: 247–257. doi: 10.1046/j.1474-919X.2004.00254.x
16. Fujita G, Totsu K, Shibata E, Matsuoka Y, Morita H, Kitamura W, et al. Habitat management of little terns in Japan’s highly developed landscape. Biol Conserv. Elsevier Ltd; 2009;142: 1891–1898. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.024
17. Seward A, Ratcliffe N, Newton S, Caldow R, Piec D, Morrison P, et al. Metapopulation dynamics of roseate terns: Sources, sinks and implications for conservation management decisions. 2018; 1–16. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12904 30353538
18. Breton AR, Nisbet ICT, Mostello CS, Hatch JJ. Age-dependent breeding dispersal and adult survival within a metapopulation of Common Terns Sterna hirundo. Ibis (Lond 1859). 2014;156: 534–547.
19. Meroz A, Lebinger Z, Steinitz O, Hatzofe O, Haviv E, Perelman Y, et al. The red book of birds in Israel. Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Israel Nature and Park Authority; 2017.
20. Alon D, Perlman Y. Endangered birds report. 2008.
21. Hatzofe O, Meroz A. Tern’s breeding in Isaral. 2009.
22. Shirihai H. The birds of Israel [Internet]. Dovrat E, Christie DA, editors. Academic Press London; 1996. Available: https://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?cluster=16746775162248032115&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
23. Lebreton JD, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR. Modeling Survival and Testing Biological Hypotheses Using Marked Animals: A Unified Approach with Case Studies Author (s): Jean-Dominique Lebreton, Burnham Kenneth P., Clobert Jean, Anderson David R. Published by: Ecological Society of America St. America (NY). 2010;62: 67–118. doi: 10.2307/2937171
24. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildl Monogr. JSTOR; 1990; 3–97.
25. White GC, Burnham KP. Program mark: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study. 1999;46: S120–S139. doi: 10.1080/00063659909477239
26. Kendall WL, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Ecology S, Mar N. Estimating Temporary Emigration Using Capture-Recapture Data with Pollock ‘ s Robust Design. Ecology. 1997;78: 563–578.
27. Choquet R, Lebreton JD, Gimenez O, Reboulet AM, Pradel R. U-CARE: Utilities for performing goodness of fit tests and manipulating CApture-REcapture data. Ecography (Cop). 2009;32: 1071–1074. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05968.x
28. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Practical use of the information-theoretic approach. Model Selection and Inference. Springer; 1998. pp. 75–117.
29. Aebischer NJ, Coulson JC. Survival of the kittiwake in relation to sex, year, breeding experience and position in the colony. J Anim Ecol. JSTOR; 1990; 1063–1071.
30. Tavecchia G, Baccetti N, Serra L. Colony specific variation in the use of a moulting site in the migratory little tern Sterna albifrons. J Avian Biol. 2005;36: 501–509. doi: 10.1111/j.0908-8857.2005.03440.x
31. Bridge ES, Jones AW, Baker AJ. A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: Implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2005;35: 459–469. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.12.010 15804415
32. Massey BW, Bradley DW, Atwood JL. Demography of a California Least Tern Colony including Effects of the 1982–1983 El Niño. Condor. 1992;94: 976–983. doi: 10.2307/1369293
33. Renken RB, Smith JW. Annual Adult Survival of Interior Least Terns (Superviviencia Anual de Sterna antillarum en Mississippi). J F Ornithol. 1995;66: 112–116. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4513989%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/stable/pdfplus/4513989.pdf?acceptTC=true
34. Thompson BC, Jackson JJ, Burger J, Hill LA, Kirsch EM, Atwood JL. Least tern (Sterna antillarum). Poole A, editor. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.; 1997.
35. Ferrer M, Donazar JA. Density‐dependent fecundity by habitat heterogeneity in an increasing population of Spanish imperial eagles. Ecology. 1996;77: 69–74.
36. Hartmann SA, Oppel S, Segelbacher G, Juiña ME, Schaefer HM. Decline in territory size and fecundity as a response to carrying capacity in an endangered songbird. Oecologia. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2016; doi: 10.1007/s00442-016-3763-6 27873065
37. Roodbergen M, Werf B Van Der. Revealing the contributions of reproduction and survival to the Europe-wide decline in meadow birds: review and meta-analysis. 2012; 53–74. doi: 10.1007/s10336-011-0733-y
38. Benton TG, Plaistow SJ, Coulson TN. Complex population dynamics and complex causation: Devils, details and demography. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006;273: 1173–1181. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3495 16720388
39. Dickey MH, Gauthier G, Cadieux MC. Climatic effects on the breeding phenology and reproductive success of an arctic-nesting goose species. Glob Chang Biol. 2008;14: 1973–1985. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01622.x
40. Arlettaz R, Schaad M, Reichlin TS, Schaub M. Impact of weather and climate variation on Hoopoe reproductive ecology and population growth. J Ornithol. 2010;151: 889–899. doi: 10.1007/s10336-010-0527-7
41. Le Galliard JF, Marquis O, Massot M. Cohort variation, climate effects and population dynamics in a short-lived lizard. J Anim Ecol. 2010;79: 1296–1307. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01732.x 20649911
42. Cam E, Aubry L. Early development, recruitment and life history trajectory in long-lived birds. J Ornithol. 2011;152. doi: 10.1007/s10336-011-0707-0
43. Roth O, Scharsack JP, Keller I, Reusch TBH. Bateman’s principle and immunity in a sex-role reversed pipefish. J Evol Biol. 2011;24: 1410–1420. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02273.x 21545418
44. Peter J. Petrels: Insights Into Dietary Overlap and Chick. October. 2000;
45. Fay R, Weimerskirch H, Delord K, Barbraud C. Population density and climate shape early-life survival and recruitment in a long-lived pelagic seabird. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84: 1423–1433. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12390 25976400
46. Akçakaya HR, Atwood JL, Breininger D, Collins CT, Duncan B. Metapopulation dynamics of the California least tern. J Wildl Manage. JSTOR; 2003; 829–842.
47. Nisbet ICT, Cam E. Test for age-specificity in survival of the common tern. J Appl Stat. 2002;29: 65–83. doi: 10.1080/02664760120108467
48. Frederiksen M, Bregnballe T. Evidence for density‐dependent survival in adult cormorants from a combined analysis of recoveries and resightings. J Anim Ecol. Wiley Online Library; 2000;69: 737–752. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00435.x 29313997
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 12
- Proč se v Česku šíří několik „vymýcených“ infekcí najednou? Ptáme se odborníků
- ADHD jako evoluční výhoda? Výzkum se zaměřil na lovce a sběrače
- Není migréna jako migréna: Co pociťují ženy a co muži?
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Není statin jako statin aneb praktický přehled rozdílů jednotlivých molekul
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Methylsulfonylmethane increases osteogenesis and regulates the mineralization of the matrix by transglutaminase 2 in SHED cells
- Oregano powder reduces Streptococcus and increases SCFA concentration in a mixed bacterial culture assay
- Parametric CAD modeling for open source scientific hardware: Comparing OpenSCAD and FreeCAD Python scripts
- The characteristic of patulous eustachian tube patients diagnosed by the JOS diagnostic criteria
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy