Multi-scale habitat selection affects offspring survival in a precocial species

被引:17
作者
Bloom, P. M. [1 ,2 ]
Clark, R. G. [1 ,3 ]
Howerter, D. W. [2 ]
Armstrong, L. M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Saskatchewan, Dept Biol, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E2, Canada
[2] Ducks Unlimited Canada, Inst Wetland & Waterfowl Res, Stonewall, MB R0C 2Z0, Canada
[3] Environm Canada, Prairie & Northern Wildlife Res Ctr, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X4, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Conservation; Fitness; Landscape; Mallard; Reproductive success; NEST-SITE SELECTION; GOLDENEYE BUCEPHALA-CLANGULA; MALLARD DUCKLING SURVIVAL; RADIO TRANSMITTERS; WETLAND SELECTION; PREDATOR REMOVAL; FEMALE MALLARDS; BROODS; LANDSCAPE; SUCCESS;
D O I
10.1007/s00442-013-2698-4
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
In theory, habitat preferences should be adaptive. Accordingly, fitness is often assumed to be greater in preferred habitats; however, this assumption is rarely tested and, when it is, the results are often equivocal. Habitat preferences may not directly convey fitness advantages if animals are constrained by tradeoffs with other selective pressures like predation or food availability. We address unresolved questions about the survival consequences of habitat choices made during brood-rearing in a precocial species with exclusive maternal care (mallard Anas platyrhynchos, n = 582 radio-marked females on 27 sites over 8 years). We directly linked duckling survival with habitat selection patterns at two spatial scales using logistic regression and model selection techniques. At the landscape scale (55-80 km(2)), females that demonstrated stronger selection of areas with more cover type 4 wetlands and greater total cover type 3 wetland area (wetlands with large expanses of open water surrounded by either a narrow or wide peripheral band of vegetation, respectively) had lower duckling survival rates than did females that demonstrated weaker selection of these habitats. At finer scales (0.32-7.16 km(2)), females selected brood-rearing areas with a greater proportion of wetland habitat with no consequences for duckling survival. However, females that avoided woody perennial habitats composed of trees and shrubs fledged more ducklings. The relationship between habitat selection and survival depended on both spatial scale and habitats considered. Females did not consistently select brood-rearing habitats that conferred the greatest benefits, an unexpected finding, although one that has also been reported in other recent studies of breeding birds.
引用
收藏
页码:1249 / 1259
页数:11
相关论文
共 82 条
[1]   Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: Habitat-based approach for endangered Greater Sage-Grouse [J].
Aldridge, Cameron L. ;
Boyce, Mark S. .
ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2007, 17 (02) :508-526
[2]   ACCOUNTING FOR FITNESS: COMBINING SURVIVAL AND SELECTION WHEN ASSESSING WILDLIFE-HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS [J].
Aldridge, Cameron L. ;
Boyce, Mark S. .
ISRAEL JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2008, 54 (3-4) :389-419
[3]   The Role of Predator Removal, Density-Dependence, and Environmental Factors on Mallard Duckling Survival in North Dakota [J].
Amundson, Courtney L. ;
Arnold, Todd W. .
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 2011, 75 (06) :1330-1339
[4]   Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods [J].
Anderson, DR ;
Burnham, KP .
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 2002, 66 (03) :912-918
[5]   Suggestions for presenting the results of data analyses [J].
Anderson, DR ;
Link, WA ;
Johnson, DH ;
Burnham, KP .
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 2001, 65 (03) :373-378
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical informationtheoretic approach
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1979, CLASSIFICATION WETLA
[8]  
[Anonymous], 1971, RESOURCE PUBLICATION
[9]   Selection Indicates Preference in Diverse Habitats: A Ground-Nesting Bird (Charadrius melodus) Using Reservoir Shoreline [J].
Anteau, Michael J. ;
Sherfy, Mark H. ;
Wiltermuth, Mark T. .
PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (01)
[10]   Uninformative Parameters and Model Selection Using Akaike's Information Criterion [J].
Arnold, Todd W. .
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 2010, 74 (06) :1175-1178