Suchergebnisse

Marking wild birds is an integral part of many field studies. However, if marks affect the vital rates or behavior of marked individuals, any conclusions reached by a study might be biased relative to the general population. Leg bands have rarely been found to have negative effects on birds and are frequently used to mark individuals. Leg flags, which are larger, heavier, and might produce more drag than bands, are commonly used on shorebirds and can help improve resighting rates. However, no one to date has assessed the possible effects of leg flags on the demographic performance of shorebirds. At seven sites in Arctic Alaska and western Canada, we marked individuals and monitored nest survival of four species of Arctic-breeding shorebirds, including Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla), Western Sandpipers (C. mauri), Red-necked Phalaropes (Phalarope lobatus), and Red Phalaropes (P. fielicarius). We used a daily nest survival model in a Bayesian framework to test for effects of leg flags, relative to birds with only bands, on daily survival rates of 1952 nests. We found no evidence of a difference in nest survival between birds with flags and those with only bands. Our results suggest, therefore, that leg flags have little effect on the nest success of Arctic-breeding sandpipers and phalaropes. Additional studies are needed, however, to evaluate the possible effects of flags on shorebirds that use other habitats and on survival rates of adults and chicks. ; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation [2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731, 0801.13.041129]; Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [F11AP01040, F12AP00734, F13APO535, 4073, 4102]; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; State Wildlife Grant [T-16]; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Bureau of Land Management; Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Kansas State University; Kresge Foundation; Liz Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation; Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences; National Park Service; Murie Science and Learning Center Research Fellowship Program; National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs)National Science Foundation (NSF) [ARC-1023396]; National Science Foundation (Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant)National Science Foundation (NSF) [1501479]; Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program); Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Strategic Grant - Discovery Grants) [357054]; Northern Scientific Training Program (Canadian Polar Commission); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programs); U.S. Geological Survey (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area); University of Colorado Denver; University of Alaska Fairbanks; University of Missouri Columbia ; Major support for the infrastructure of the Arctic Shorebird Demographics Network was provided by the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (grants 2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731, and 0801.13.041129), and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (grants F11AP01040, F12AP00734, F13APO535, 4073, and 4102). Additional funding for individual sites was provided by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (including State Wildlife Grant T-16), Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land Management, Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Kansas State University, Kresge Foundation, Liz Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, National Park Service (including Murie Science and Learning Center Research Fellowship Program), National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs grant ARC-1023396 and Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant 1501479), Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Strategic Grant - 357054, Discovery Grants), Northern Scientific Training Program (Canadian Polar Commission), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program, and Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programs), U.S. Geological Survey (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area), University of Colorado Denver, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and University of Missouri Columbia. We thank local communities and landowners, including the people of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, North Slope Borough, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, and Sitnasuak Native Corporation for permitting us to conduct research on their lands. Logistical support was provided by Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, Cape Krusenstern National Monument (National Park Service), ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Sisualik National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and Umiaq, LLC. We thank the many field assistants who helped on this project throughout the years, including S. Carvey, T. Donnelly, A. Gottesman, D. Pavlik, and B. Wilkinson for their key roles in field work at the Colville River Delta, and D. Payer for his key role in implementing and overseeing field work at Canning River Delta. J. Lamb, L. Rosen, and B. Ross provided comments on an early draft of the manuscript. Animal handling, marking, and monitoring procedures were approved by animal care and use committees and permitting agencies at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Kansas State University, National Park Service, University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey - Alaska Science Center. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ; Public domain authored by a U.S. government employee

The Arctic is experiencing rapidly warming conditions, increasing predator abundance, and diminishing population cycles of keystone species such as lemmings. However, it is still not known how many Arctic animals will respond to a changing climate with altered trophic interactions. We studied clutch size, incubation duration and nest survival of 17 taxa of Arctic-breeding shorebirds at 16 field sites over 7years. We predicted that physiological benefits of higher temperatures and earlier snowmelt would increase reproductive effort and nest survival, and we expected increasing predator abundance and decreasing abundance of alternative prey (arvicoline rodents) to have a negative effect on reproduction. Although we observed wide ranges of conditions during our study, we found no effects of covariates on reproductive traits in 12 of 17 taxa. In the remaining taxa, most relationships agreed with our predictions. Earlier snowmelt increased the probability of laying a full clutch from 0.61 to 0.91 for Western Sandpipers, and shortened incubation by 1.42days for arcticola Dunlin and 0.77days for Red Phalaropes. Higher temperatures increased the probability of a full clutch from 0.60 to 0.93 for Western Sandpipers and from 0.76 to 0.97 for Red-necked Phalaropes, and increased daily nest survival rates from 0.9634 to 0.9890 for Semipalmated Sandpipers and 0.9546 to 0.9880 for Western Sandpipers. Higher abundance of predators (foxes) reduced daily nest survival rates only in Western Sandpipers (0.9821-0.9031). In contrast to our predictions, the probability of a full clutch was lowest (0.83) for Semipalmated Sandpipers at moderate abundance of alternative prey, rather than low abundance (0.90). Our findings suggest that in the short-term, climate warming may have neutral or positive effects on the nesting cycle of most Arctic-breeding shorebirds. ; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation [2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731, 0801.13.041129]; Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act [F11AP01040, F12AP00734, F13APO535, 4073]; Arctic Goose Joint Venture; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; Bureau of Land Management; Canada Fund for InnovationCanada Foundation for Innovation; Canada Research ChairsCanada Research Chairs; Cape Krusenstern National Monument grant; Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University; Churchill Northern Studies Centre; Cornell University Graduate School Mellon Grant; Ducks Unlimited Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; FQRNT (Quebec)FQRNT; Government of Nunavut; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Kansas State University; Kresge Foundation; Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation; Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences; Mississippi Flyway Council; Murie Science and Learning Center grants; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; National Park Service; National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs Grant) [ARC-1023396]; National Science Foundation (Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant)National Science Foundation (NSF) [1110444]; Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program); Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Northern Studies Training Program; Selawik National Wildlife Refuge; Trust for Mutual Understanding; Universite du Quebec a Rimouski; University of Alaska Fairbanks; University of Colorado Denver; University of Missouri Columbia; University of Moncton; US Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program); US Fish and Wildlife Service (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program); US Fish and Wildlife Service (Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programmes); US Geological Survey (USGS) (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area); W. Garfield Weston Foundation; Alaska Department of Fish and Game ; E.L.W compiled the field data, designed and performed the statistical analyses and wrote the manuscript. B.K.S. assisted with design of analyses and preparation of the manuscript. R.B.L., S.C.B. and H.R.G. led development of standardized field protocols and coordinated field work. B.K.S., R.B.L., S.C.B., H.R.G. and all other authors, who are listed in alphabetical order, designed and conducted the field studies, contributed to interpreting the results and assisted with editing the manuscript. Major support for the ASDN was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (grants 2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731 and 0801.13.041129), the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (grants F11AP01040, F12AP00734 and F13APO535) and the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Additional funding for participating field sites was provided by: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Arctic Goose Joint Venture, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Bureau of Land Management, Canada Fund for Innovation, Canada Research Chairs, Cape Krusenstern National Monument grant, Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University, Churchill Northern Studies Centre, Cornell University Graduate School Mellon Grant, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, FQRNT (Quebec), Government of Nunavut, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Kansas State University, Kresge Foundation, Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Mississippi Flyway Council, Murie Science and Learning Center grants, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Park Service, National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs Grant ARC-1023396 and Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant 1110444), Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant and Northern Supplement), Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (grant 4073), Northern Studies Training Program, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge, Trust for Mutual Understanding, Universite du Quebec a Rimouski, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Colorado Denver, University of Missouri Columbia, University of Moncton, US Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program and Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programmes), US Geological Survey (USGS) (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area), and the W. Garfield Weston Foundation. Logistical support was provided by Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Kinross Gold Corporation, Umiaq LLC, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Cape Krusenstern National Monument (National Park Service) and Sirmilik National Park (Parks Canada). We thank local communities and landowners, including the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, the people of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Sitnasuak Native Corporation, the Kuukpik Corporation and the North Slope Borough for permitting us to conduct research on their lands.; Animal handling, marking and monitoring procedures were approved by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Government of Nunavut, Kansas State University, National Park Service, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Moncton, US Fish & Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey. All applicable international, national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. We thank A. Tygart for assistance in compiling JAGS for use on the Beocat supercomputer at Kansas State University, D. Payer and S. Freeman for their work at Canning River, and H. Meltofte, P. Battley, B. Ross, J. Sutton, L. Martin and the Sandercock lab for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. We thank the many field assistants who were involved in data collection, especially field crew leaders K. Bennet, M. Burrell, J. Cunningham, E. D'Astous, S. Carvey, A. Doll, L. Pirie Dominix, K. Gold, A. Gottesman, K. Grond, P. Herzog, B. Hill, D. Hodgkinson, A. J. Johnson, D. Pavlik, M. Peck, L. Pollock, S. Sapora, B. Schwarz, F. Smith, H. M. Specht, M. VanderHeyden, B. M. Walker and B. Wilkinson. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. ; Public domain authored by a U.S. government employee