john a. smallwood montclair state university · 2017. 5. 12. · richard j. melvin david h. mossop...
TRANSCRIPT
-
NEST BOX PROGRAMS FOR AMERICAN KETRELS AN INVALUABLE TOOL FOR RESEARCH AND
CONSERVATION
John A. Smallwood Montclair State University
-
Behavior and Ecology
Population Decline
Nest Boxes for Research and Conservation
Monitoring Populations
Chick Growth and Development
Operating Nest Box Programs
TALK OUTLINE
-
Birds of North America Smallwood & Bird 2002
-
T. Saunders
-
Behavior and Ecology
Population Decline
TALK OUTLINE
-
BREEDING BIRD SURVEY: 1966-2013
-
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Num
ber o
f Bird
s
Year
AUTUMN KESTREL COUNTS CAPE MAY: 1976-2016
Mean Count
5-Year RunningMean
-
WHY ARE KESTRELS DECLINING
IN NORTH AMERICA?
● West Nile Virus
-
www.msmosquito.com Data from CDC.
-
WHY ARE KESTRELS DECLINING
IN NORTH AMERICA?
● West Nile Virus
● Cooper’s Hawks
-
www.arlington.k12.va.us
-
USGS BREEDING BIRD SURVEY PHYSIOGRAPHIC STRATA
Kestrels
Cooper’s Hawks
-
r 2 = 0.379 P = 0.016
-
NAS CHRISTMAS BIRD COUNTS
-
r 2 = 0.269 P = 0.093
-
WHY ARE KESTRELS DECLINING
IN NORTH AMERICA?
● West Nile Virus
● Cooper’s Hawks
● Habitat Loss and Degradation
-
WHY ARE KESTRELS DECLINING
IN NORTH AMERICA?
● West Nile Virus
● Cooper’s Hawks
● Habitat Loss and Degradation
● Pesticides and Pollutants
-
Behavior and Ecology
Population Decline
Nest Boxes for Research and Conservation
TALK OUTLINE
-
Behavior and Ecology
Population Decline
Nest Boxes for Research and Conservation
Monitoring Populations
TALK OUTLINE
-
0
10
20
30
40
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Mea
n N
umbe
r of B
irds/
100
km2
Year
Experimental Control
P = 0.0004 P = 0.0245 P = 0.0274
P = 0.5438
P = 0.7072
-
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
Num
ber o
f Pai
rs
Year
Pairs
3-Year Running Mean
KESTRELS BREEDING IN NEST BOXES IN NORTHWESTERN NEW JERSEY
-
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Num
ber o
f Bird
s/R
oute
Year
KESTREL COUNTS IN NEW JERSEY BREEDING BIRD SURVEY: 1966-2015
Mean Count
5-Year Running Mean
-
NEST BOX PROGRAMS FOR AMERICAN KESTRELS
-
Behavior and Ecology
Population Decline
Nest Boxes for Research and Conservation
Monitoring Populations
Chick Growth and Development
TALK OUTLINE
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mea
n Bo
dy M
ass
(g)
Age (days)
GROWTH OF KESTREL CHICKS IN NEW JERSEY
Males
Females
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mea
n Bo
dy M
ass
(g)
Age (days)
GROWTH OF MALE KESTREL CHICKS
New Jersey
Florida
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mea
n Bo
dy M
ass
(g)
Age (days)
GROWTH OF FEMALE KESTREL CHICKS
New Jersey
Florida
-
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 s
5
10
15
20kHz
KLEE
-
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 s
5
10
15
20kHz
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 s
5
10
15
20kHz
WHINE
KLEE
-
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 s
5
10
15
20kHz
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 s
5
10
15
20kHz
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 s
5
10
15
20kHz
WHINE
KLEE
CHITTER
-
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
DAY 0
-
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
DAY 0
DAY 6
-
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
DAY 0
DAY 6
DAY 12
-
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 s
2
4
6
8
10kHz
DAY 0
DAY 6
DAY 12
DAY 22
-
NOTE LENGTH
-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
AGE (days)
75
90
105
120
135
150
DURA
TION
(mse
c).
NOTE LENGTH
-
FREQUENCY OF MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE
-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
AGE (days)
3
4
5
6
7FR
EQUE
NCY
(kHz
)
.FREQUENCEY OF MAXIMUM AMPLITUDE
-
HARMONIC FREQUENCIES
-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
AGE (days)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8NU
MBE
R
.NUMBER OF HARMONICS PER NOTE
-
Behavior and Ecology
Population Decline
Nest Boxes for Research and Conservation
Monitoring Populations
Chick Growth and Development
Operating Nest Box Programs
TALK OUTLINE
-
1 mile
-
1 mile
-
PATCH SIZE PATCH SIZE
>1000 ha
250-1000 ha
-
Title slide OPEN HABITAT WITH LOW GROUND COVER
PATCH SIZE (acres)
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
Neither (270) Male (19) Female (157) Both (20)
NES
TIN
G S
UCC
ESS
(%)
WHICH ADULTS WERE TAGGED
DOES WING TAGGING EFFECT NESTING SUCCESS IN KESTRELS?
χ2 = 11.6, df = 3, P = 0.009
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
Handled (29) Not (87) Handled (73) Not (285)ATTE
MPT
S TH
AT C
ON
TIN
UED
(%)
MALES FEMALES
DOES HANDLING ADULTS CAUSE ABANDONMENT IN KESTRELS?
Fisher’s Exact Test: P = 0.56 P = 0.52
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
Handled (29) Not (87) Handled (73) Not (285)
NES
TIN
G S
UCC
ESS
(%)
MALES FEMALES
DOES HANDLING ADULTS EFFECT NESTING SUCCESS IN KESTRELS?
χ2 = 0.28, df = 1, P = 0.60 χ2 = 0.01, df = 1, P = 0.92
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
Laying (10) Inc. (106) Laying (78) Inc. (280)ATTE
MPT
S TH
AT C
ON
TIN
UED
(%)
MALES FEMALES
IS THE TIMING OF HANDLING ADULTS RELATED TO ABANDONMENT IN KESTRELS?
χ2 (NA) χ2 = 2.47, df = 1, P = 0.12
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
Laying (10) Inc. (106) Laying (78) Inc. (280)
NES
TIN
G S
UCC
ESS
(%)
MALES FEMALES
IS THE TIMING OF HANDLING ADULTS RELATED TO NEST SUCCESS IN KESTRELS?
χ2 (NA) χ2 = 2.65, df = 1, P = 0.10
-
FUNDING The Ohio State University Archbold Biological Station University of Florida Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Montclair State University
-
COLLABORATORS David M. Bird Valerie Dudajek Gary R. Bortolotti Kenneth Boyd Timothy F. Breen Mark E. Causey Michael W. Collopy Melissa A. Craddock Russell D. Dawson Gretchen I. Fowles Sivajini Gilchrist Jeffrey M. Jonas James R. Klusarits Mark J. Lesko Joey Mason Michael J. Maurer Richard J. Melvin David H. Mossop Christopher Natale John W. Parrish, Jr. Bob and Sue Robertson Mary Anne Smallwood Peter Winkler
Slide Number 1Slide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Slide Number 29Slide Number 30Slide Number 31Slide Number 32Slide Number 33Slide Number 34Slide Number 35Slide Number 36Slide Number 37Slide Number 38Slide Number 39Slide Number 40Slide Number 41Slide Number 42Slide Number 43Slide Number 44Slide Number 45Slide Number 46Slide Number 47Slide Number 48Slide Number 49Slide Number 50Slide Number 51Slide Number 52Slide Number 53Slide Number 54Slide Number 55Slide Number 56NOTE LENGTHSlide Number 58FREQUENCY OF MAXIMUM AMPLITUDESlide Number 60HARMONIC FREQUENCIESSlide Number 62Slide Number 63Slide Number 64Slide Number 65Slide Number 66Slide Number 67Slide Number 68Slide Number 69Slide Number 70Slide Number 71Slide Number 72Slide Number 73Slide Number 74Slide Number 75Title slideSlide Number 77Slide Number 78Slide Number 79Slide Number 80Slide Number 81Slide Number 82Slide Number 83Slide Number 84Slide Number 85Slide Number 86Slide Number 87Slide Number 88