Predator exclosures increase nest success but reduce adult survival and increase dispersal distance of Piping Plovers, indicating exclosures should be used with caution
Data files
Sep 06, 2023 version files 405.39 KB
-
2012-2019_Between_Season_Dispersal.csv
6.76 KB
-
2012-2019_Capture_Histories.csv
63.93 KB
-
2012-2019_Nest_Checks.csv
319.72 KB
-
2012-2019_Within_Season_Dispersal.csv
6.65 KB
-
README.md
8.32 KB
Abstract
Diagnosing unsuccessful population outcomes for endangered species requires understanding relationships among vital rates, ecological conditions, and management variables, including unintended consequences of management actions. The federally-threatened Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) has remained below recovery goals, despite intensive management, including the use of nest exclosures to protect eggs from predation. We studied ecological factors and management actions affecting nest success, survival, site fidelity, and dispersal of the New Jersey, USA population of Piping Plovers over a seven-year period, focused on evaluating the impact of exclosures on demography. While exclosures increased nest success by 62% over a 34-day period, exclosed nests were 4.7 times more likely to be abandoned, which was likely a consequence of adult mortality. Abandoned nests were associated with lower adult survival, particularly for males, but there was evidence that site fidelity was greater for birds whose last nest was exclosed vs. unexclosed. Regardless of exclosure status, females who abandoned their first nesting attempt dispersed 10 times farther between attempts than those whose first nest attempts were lost to other causes. Moreover, females that abandoned their last nesting attempts dispersed farther than females that lost their last nest to predation or flooding. This difference was more substantial for males. Our results corroborate studies documenting adverse impacts of exclosures on survival, and, for the first time, demonstrate that surviving mates (particularly females) emigrate from the breeding site, resulting in a realized loss of a local breeding pair. Further, we used an online population project model (i.e., PiperEx) to demonstrate that exclosures are not expected to improve growth rates in New Jersey. We conclude that there is a tradeoff among increased nest survival, reduced adult survival and increased emigration rates, and we encourage managers to consider whether exclosures are worth the protection of eggs from predators using online decision support tools.
README: Project Title
output:pdf_document: defaulthtml_document: default
Predator exclosures increase nest success but reduce adult survival and increase dispersal distance of Piping Plovers, indicating exclosures should be used with caution
Description
The datasets below were used in the above named manuscript published in Ornithological Applications.
Nest Check Attributes
Each line represents an individual nest check
1. Year: year the nesting attempt occurred 2. Date: date of nest observation 3. ADStatus: status of the nest on this nest check (e.g.\, 1 = alive\, 2 = predated\, 3 = flooded/buried\, 4 = abandoned\, 5 = unknown status\, 6 = hatched\, 7 = lost to unknown causes\, 8 = unknown fate) 4. Exclosed: whether or not the nest was exclosed on a particular observation 5. DOY: day of the year (Jan 1st = 1) 6. Interval: number of days since the previous nest check 7. siteid: individual nest site identifier 8. year: year identifier 9. nestid: individual nest identifier
Within Season Dispersal Attributes
Each line represents an individual dispersal event
1. Year: year the nesting attempt occurred 2. Age: age of the nesting individual 3. Sex: sex of the nesting individual 4. Fate1: whether the previous nest attempt was abandoned 5. DistanceKM: distance in kilometers to the previous nest attempt 6. BandID: identifier for individual birds
Between Season Dispersal Attributes
Each line represents an individual dispersal event
1. Year: year the nesting attempt occurred 2. Age: age of the nesting individual 3. Sex: sex of the nesting individual 4. LastNestAbandoned: whether the last nest attempt was abandoned (1 = Y\, 2 = N) 5. DistanceKM: distance in kilometers to the previous nest attempt 6. BandID: identifier for individual birds
Capture History Attributes
Each line represents an individual bird
1. BandID: identifier for the individual bird 2. BandYear: year the individual bird was banded 3. BandSite: site identifier for where the site the bird was banded 4. BandAge: age at which the bird was banded 5. Sex: sex of the individual\, if determined 6. b2012: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 7. w2012-2013: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 8. b2013: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 9. w2013-2014: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 10. b2014: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 11. w2014-2015: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 12. b2015: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 13. w2015-2016: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 14. b2016: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 15. w2016-2017: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 16. b2017: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 17. w2017-2018: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 18. b2018: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 19. w2018-2019: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 20. b2019: breeding season (1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 21. w2019-2020: non-breeding season (1 = observed during the non-breeding season\, 0 = not observed) 22. e2012: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 23. e2013: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 24. e2014: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 25. e2016: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 26. e2017: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 27. e2018: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 28. e2019: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 29. a2012: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 30. a2013: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 31. a2014: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 32. a2015: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 33. a2016: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 34. a2017: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 35. a2018: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 36. a2019: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned (1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable) 37. cold2012: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 38. cold2013: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 39. cold2014: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 40. cold2015: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 41. cold2016: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 42. cold2017: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 43. cold2018: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 44. cold2019: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 45. h2012: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 46. h2013: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 47. h2014: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 49. h2015: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 50. h2016: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 51. h2017: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 52. h2018: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 53. h2019: number of named Atlantic hurricanes
Authors
MICHELLE L. STANTIAL^1^^†^, JONATHAN B. COHEN^1^, ABIGAIL J. DARRAH^2^, BROOKE MASLO^3^
^1^SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, New York 13210, USA
^2^Audubon Delta, Coastal Bird Stewardship Program, 5107 Arthur Street, Moss Point, Mississippi, 39563, USA
^3^Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08901, USA
^†^michelle.stantial@gmail.com
Acknowledgments
We thank Christina “Kashi” Davis, Emily Heiser, and Todd Pover for logistical and field support. We thank Rebeca Linhart, Tyler Tomassone, and our many technicians and interns for assistance in the field. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions. This study was funded by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and New Jersey Non-game and Endangered Species Program (NJENSP). All animal-handling protocols were approved by the SUNY-ESF IACUC (#190303). Trapping, banding, and research efforts were approved by the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL permit # 23736), USFWS (#TE35010D-0) and NJENSP (permit # SC 2019112). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. All authors helped conceive the ideas for the paper and designed the methodology. Michelle L. Stantial conducted the fieldwork, Michelle L. Stantial analyzed the data, Michelle L. Stantial and Jonathan B. Cohen led the writing of the paper. All authors gave final approval for publication. Data and code are available from the following figshare digital repository: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21818031.