Effects of Forest Management on Postfledging Survival of Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus)

Many studies have examined the effects of forest fragmentation and management on songbird nesting success, but few have quantified postfledging survival, which is a critical component of population productivity. In 2005–2006, we estimated daily postfledging survival of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheuc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Auk 2010-01, Vol.127 (1), p.185-194
Hauptverfasser: Moore, Levi C, Stutchbury, Bridget J. M, Burke, Dawn M, Elliott, Ken A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 194
container_issue 1
container_start_page 185
container_title The Auk
container_volume 127
creator Moore, Levi C
Stutchbury, Bridget J. M
Burke, Dawn M
Elliott, Ken A
description Many studies have examined the effects of forest fragmentation and management on songbird nesting success, but few have quantified postfledging survival, which is a critical component of population productivity. In 2005–2006, we estimated daily postfledging survival of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus) by radiotracking 42 fledglings in forest fragments that had been managed by single-tree selection, by diameter-limit harvest, or as reference (not harvested for at least 25 years). Survival probability over the 3-week fledgling period was 0.62, and 86% of total fledgling mortality occurred during the first week out of the nest. Despite large differences in forest structure between forest management treatments, there was no effect of forest treatment on fledgling survival. Date of fledging, shrub cover, and patch size also had limited influence on fledgling survival. For all sites combined, females produced an estimated 0.23–0.37 recruiting daughters per year for the worst- and best-case scenarios of female fecundity and annual juvenile survival, which is lower than the expected annual mortality rate of breeding females (0.40–0.55). Even reference sites did not produce enough offspring to offset annual female mortality, which suggests that forest fragments in this region are population sinks.
doi_str_mv 10.1525/auk.2009.09134
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_923193209</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1525/auk.2009.09134</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1525/auk.2009.09134</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b443t-6c8994e2f662ae84d44f689aca0c92831f1199e03bb9ea76411ada9ec852f693</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0cFPwyAUBnBiNHFOr56JFzXaCZRWOOri1ESj0d0JpY_Z2RWFssT_XuY8eZknQvL7CO99CB1SMqIFKy50fB8xQuSISJrzLTSgMhcZZwXfRgNCCM8EycUu2gthnq4FEXKA5jfWgukDdhZPnIfQ40fd6RksoOux6_CzC71toZ413Qy_Rr9slrpd6RcXILv2oEMPNb71LlSg3wM-eX6DaPrGxIDbWLtlYxrdxXC6j3asbgMc_J5DNJ3cTMd32cPT7f346iGrOM_7rDRCSg7MliXTIHjNuS2F1EYTI5nIqaVUSiB5VUnQlyWnVNdaghFFysh8iI7Xz3549xnTQGrRBANtqztwMSjJ8rQYRv4hySXlgokyyaM_cu6i79IUisqSF-mrJKHRGpm0i-DBqg_fLLT_UpSoVUMqNaRWDamfhlLgbB2Yh975zfp8ravGuQ428W9qmZ_e</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>196456620</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of Forest Management on Postfledging Survival of Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus)</title><source>BioOne Complete</source><source>JSTOR</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Moore, Levi C ; Stutchbury, Bridget J. M ; Burke, Dawn M ; Elliott, Ken A</creator><creatorcontrib>Moore, Levi C ; Stutchbury, Bridget J. M ; Burke, Dawn M ; Elliott, Ken A</creatorcontrib><description>Many studies have examined the effects of forest fragmentation and management on songbird nesting success, but few have quantified postfledging survival, which is a critical component of population productivity. In 2005–2006, we estimated daily postfledging survival of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus) by radiotracking 42 fledglings in forest fragments that had been managed by single-tree selection, by diameter-limit harvest, or as reference (not harvested for at least 25 years). Survival probability over the 3-week fledgling period was 0.62, and 86% of total fledgling mortality occurred during the first week out of the nest. Despite large differences in forest structure between forest management treatments, there was no effect of forest treatment on fledgling survival. Date of fledging, shrub cover, and patch size also had limited influence on fledgling survival. For all sites combined, females produced an estimated 0.23–0.37 recruiting daughters per year for the worst- and best-case scenarios of female fecundity and annual juvenile survival, which is lower than the expected annual mortality rate of breeding females (0.40–0.55). Even reference sites did not produce enough offspring to offset annual female mortality, which suggests that forest fragments in this region are population sinks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0004-8038</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-4254</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2732-4613</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1525/auk.2009.09134</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Waco: University of California Press</publisher><subject>Animal nesting ; Bird nesting ; Birds ; Deciduous forests ; Estimates ; Fecundity ; Female animals ; Females ; fledgling survival ; Forest cover ; forest fragmentation ; Forest habitats ; Forest management ; Habitats ; Mortality ; Nesting ; Nesting sites ; Offspring ; Pheucticus ludovicianus ; Population and Conservation Biology ; Population density ; population sink ; Rose-breasted Grosbeak ; Shrubs ; Songbirds ; Survival</subject><ispartof>The Auk, 2010-01, Vol.127 (1), p.185-194</ispartof><rights>2010 by The American Ornithologists' Union. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.</rights><rights>2009 by The American Ornithologists' Union</rights><rights>Copyright (c)2010 by The American Ornithologists' Union</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b443t-6c8994e2f662ae84d44f689aca0c92831f1199e03bb9ea76411ada9ec852f693</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/auk.2009.09134$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbioone$$H</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,805,26985,27931,27932,52370</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moore, Levi C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stutchbury, Bridget J. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burke, Dawn M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliott, Ken A</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of Forest Management on Postfledging Survival of Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus)</title><title>The Auk</title><description>Many studies have examined the effects of forest fragmentation and management on songbird nesting success, but few have quantified postfledging survival, which is a critical component of population productivity. In 2005–2006, we estimated daily postfledging survival of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus) by radiotracking 42 fledglings in forest fragments that had been managed by single-tree selection, by diameter-limit harvest, or as reference (not harvested for at least 25 years). Survival probability over the 3-week fledgling period was 0.62, and 86% of total fledgling mortality occurred during the first week out of the nest. Despite large differences in forest structure between forest management treatments, there was no effect of forest treatment on fledgling survival. Date of fledging, shrub cover, and patch size also had limited influence on fledgling survival. For all sites combined, females produced an estimated 0.23–0.37 recruiting daughters per year for the worst- and best-case scenarios of female fecundity and annual juvenile survival, which is lower than the expected annual mortality rate of breeding females (0.40–0.55). Even reference sites did not produce enough offspring to offset annual female mortality, which suggests that forest fragments in this region are population sinks.</description><subject>Animal nesting</subject><subject>Bird nesting</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Deciduous forests</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Fecundity</subject><subject>Female animals</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>fledgling survival</subject><subject>Forest cover</subject><subject>forest fragmentation</subject><subject>Forest habitats</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Nesting</subject><subject>Nesting sites</subject><subject>Offspring</subject><subject>Pheucticus ludovicianus</subject><subject>Population and Conservation Biology</subject><subject>Population density</subject><subject>population sink</subject><subject>Rose-breasted Grosbeak</subject><subject>Shrubs</subject><subject>Songbirds</subject><subject>Survival</subject><issn>0004-8038</issn><issn>1938-4254</issn><issn>2732-4613</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0cFPwyAUBnBiNHFOr56JFzXaCZRWOOri1ESj0d0JpY_Z2RWFssT_XuY8eZknQvL7CO99CB1SMqIFKy50fB8xQuSISJrzLTSgMhcZZwXfRgNCCM8EycUu2gthnq4FEXKA5jfWgukDdhZPnIfQ40fd6RksoOux6_CzC71toZ413Qy_Rr9slrpd6RcXILv2oEMPNb71LlSg3wM-eX6DaPrGxIDbWLtlYxrdxXC6j3asbgMc_J5DNJ3cTMd32cPT7f346iGrOM_7rDRCSg7MliXTIHjNuS2F1EYTI5nIqaVUSiB5VUnQlyWnVNdaghFFysh8iI7Xz3549xnTQGrRBANtqztwMSjJ8rQYRv4hySXlgokyyaM_cu6i79IUisqSF-mrJKHRGpm0i-DBqg_fLLT_UpSoVUMqNaRWDamfhlLgbB2Yh975zfp8ravGuQ428W9qmZ_e</recordid><startdate>201001</startdate><enddate>201001</enddate><creator>Moore, Levi C</creator><creator>Stutchbury, Bridget J. M</creator><creator>Burke, Dawn M</creator><creator>Elliott, Ken A</creator><general>University of California Press</general><general>The American Ornithologists' Union</general><general>American Ornithological Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201001</creationdate><title>Effects of Forest Management on Postfledging Survival of Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus)</title><author>Moore, Levi C ; Stutchbury, Bridget J. M ; Burke, Dawn M ; Elliott, Ken A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b443t-6c8994e2f662ae84d44f689aca0c92831f1199e03bb9ea76411ada9ec852f693</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Animal nesting</topic><topic>Bird nesting</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Deciduous forests</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Fecundity</topic><topic>Female animals</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>fledgling survival</topic><topic>Forest cover</topic><topic>forest fragmentation</topic><topic>Forest habitats</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Nesting</topic><topic>Nesting sites</topic><topic>Offspring</topic><topic>Pheucticus ludovicianus</topic><topic>Population and Conservation Biology</topic><topic>Population density</topic><topic>population sink</topic><topic>Rose-breasted Grosbeak</topic><topic>Shrubs</topic><topic>Songbirds</topic><topic>Survival</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moore, Levi C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stutchbury, Bridget J. M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burke, Dawn M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliott, Ken A</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Auk</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moore, Levi C</au><au>Stutchbury, Bridget J. M</au><au>Burke, Dawn M</au><au>Elliott, Ken A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of Forest Management on Postfledging Survival of Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus)</atitle><jtitle>The Auk</jtitle><date>2010-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>127</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>185</spage><epage>194</epage><pages>185-194</pages><issn>0004-8038</issn><eissn>1938-4254</eissn><eissn>2732-4613</eissn><abstract>Many studies have examined the effects of forest fragmentation and management on songbird nesting success, but few have quantified postfledging survival, which is a critical component of population productivity. In 2005–2006, we estimated daily postfledging survival of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus) by radiotracking 42 fledglings in forest fragments that had been managed by single-tree selection, by diameter-limit harvest, or as reference (not harvested for at least 25 years). Survival probability over the 3-week fledgling period was 0.62, and 86% of total fledgling mortality occurred during the first week out of the nest. Despite large differences in forest structure between forest management treatments, there was no effect of forest treatment on fledgling survival. Date of fledging, shrub cover, and patch size also had limited influence on fledgling survival. For all sites combined, females produced an estimated 0.23–0.37 recruiting daughters per year for the worst- and best-case scenarios of female fecundity and annual juvenile survival, which is lower than the expected annual mortality rate of breeding females (0.40–0.55). Even reference sites did not produce enough offspring to offset annual female mortality, which suggests that forest fragments in this region are population sinks.</abstract><cop>Waco</cop><pub>University of California Press</pub><doi>10.1525/auk.2009.09134</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0004-8038
ispartof The Auk, 2010-01, Vol.127 (1), p.185-194
issn 0004-8038
1938-4254
2732-4613
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_923193209
source BioOne Complete; JSTOR; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Animal nesting
Bird nesting
Birds
Deciduous forests
Estimates
Fecundity
Female animals
Females
fledgling survival
Forest cover
forest fragmentation
Forest habitats
Forest management
Habitats
Mortality
Nesting
Nesting sites
Offspring
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Population and Conservation Biology
Population density
population sink
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Shrubs
Songbirds
Survival
title Effects of Forest Management on Postfledging Survival of Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-06T12%3A44%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20Forest%20Management%20on%20Postfledging%20Survival%20of%20Rose-Breasted%20Grosbeaks%20(Pheucticus%20ludovicianus)&rft.jtitle=The%20Auk&rft.au=Moore,%20Levi%20C&rft.date=2010-01&rft.volume=127&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=185&rft.epage=194&rft.pages=185-194&rft.issn=0004-8038&rft.eissn=1938-4254&rft_id=info:doi/10.1525/auk.2009.09134&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E10.1525/auk.2009.09134%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=196456620&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=10.1525/auk.2009.09134&rfr_iscdi=true