Video Surveillance of Nesting Birds

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE of NESTING BIRDS

STUDIES IN AVIAN BIOLOGY

A Publication of the Cooper Ornithological Society

WWW.UCPRESS.EDU/GO/SAB

Studies in Avian Biology is a series of works published by the Cooper Ornithological Society since 1978. Volumes in the series address current topics in ornithology and can be organized as monographs or multi-authored collections of chapters. Authors are invited to contact the series editor to discuss project proposals and guidelines for preparation of manuscripts.

Series Editor

Brett K. Sandercock, Kansas State University

Editorial Board

Frank R. Moore, University of Southern Mississippi

John T. Rotenberry, University of California at Riverside

Steven R. Beissinger, University of California at Berkeley

Katie M. Dugger, Oregon State University

Amanda D. Rodewald, Ohio State University

Jeffrey F. Kelly, University of Oklahoma

Science Publisher

Charles R. Crumly, University of California Press

See complete series list on page 223.

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE of NESTING BIRDS

Christine A. Ribic, Frank R. Thompson III,

and Pamela J. Pietz, Editors

Studies in Avian Biology No. 43

A PUBLICATION OF THE COOPER ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY

University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu.

Studies in Avian Biology No. 43

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

University of California Press, Ltd.

London, England

© 2012 by the Cooper Ornithological Society

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ribic, Christine A.

Video surveillance of nesting birds / Christine A. Ribic, Frank R. Thompson III, and Pamela J. Pietz.

p. cm. — (Studies in avian biology ; No. 43)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-520-27313-9 (cloth : alk. paper)

1. Bird populations. 2. Birds—Monitoring—Methodology. 3. Birds—Nests. 4. Birds—Behavior. 5. Ornithology—Methodology. 6. Ornithology—Technique. I. Thompson, Frank R. (Frank Richard) II. Pietz, Pamela J. III. Title.

QL677.4.R53 2012   598.072’32—dc23

2011044824

19  18  17  16  15  14  13  12

10  9  8  7  6  5  4   3   2   1

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R 2002) (Permanence of Paper).

Cover photograph: Field Sparrow chicks, three days old. Photo by Carolyn M. Schmitz.

PERMISSION TO COPY

The Cooper Ornithological Society hereby grants permission to copy chapters (in whole or in part) appearing in Studies in Avian Biology for personal use, or educational use within one’s home institution, without payment, provided that the copied material bears the statement © 2012 The Cooper Ornithological Society

and the full citation, including names of all authors. Authors may post copies of their chapters on their personal or institutional website, except that whole issues of Studies in Avian Biology may not be posted on websites. Any use not specifically granted here, and any use of Studies in Avian Biology articles or portions thereof for advertising, republication, or commercial uses, requires prior consent from the series editor.

CONTENTS

Contributors

Preface

Foreword

Part I • Synthesis/Overview

1 • KNOWLEDGE GAINED FROM VIDEO-MONITORING GRASSLAND PASSERINE NESTS

Pamela J. Pietz, Diane A. Granfors, and Christine A. Ribic

2 • CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS WHEN THE NEST PREDATORS ARE KNOWN

Frank R. Thompson III, and Christine A. Ribic

3 • GAMEBIRDS AND NEST CAMERAS: PRESENT AND FUTURE

Susan N. Ellis-Felege and John P. Carroll

Part II • Breeding Behavior

4 • HATCHING AND FLEDGING TIMES FROM GRASSLAND PASSERINE NESTS

Pamela J. Pietz, Diane A. Granfors, and Todd A. Grant

5 • ATTENDANCE PATTERNS AND SURVIVAL OF WESTERN MEADOWLARK NESTS

Larkin A. Powell, Matthew D. Giovanni, Scott Groepper, Mitchell L. Reineke, and Walter H. Schacht

6 • SPRAGUE’S PIPIT INCUBATION BEHAVIOR

Stephen K. Davis and Teslin G. Holmes

7 • PATTERNS OF INCUBATION BEHAVIOR IN NORTHERN BOBWHITES

Jonathan S. Burnam, Gretchen Turner, Susan N. Ellis-Felege, William E. Palmer, D. Clay Sisson, and John P. Carroll

8 • THE INFLUENCE OF WEATHER ON SHOREBIRD INCUBATION

Paul A. Smith, Sarah A. Dauncey, H. Grant Gilchrist, and Mark R. Forbes

9 • NOCTURNAL ACTIVITY OF NESTING SHRUBLAND AND GRASSLAND PASSERINES

Christy M. Slay, Kevin S. Ellison, Christine A. Ribic, Kimberly G. Smith, and Carolyn M. Schmitz

Part III • Behavioral Responses to Predation/Predator Identification

10 • BIRD PRODUCTIVITY AND NEST PREDATION IN AGRICULTURAL GRASSLANDS

Christine A. Ribic, Michael J. Guzy, Travis J. Anderson, David W. Sample, and Jamie L. Nack

11 • PREDATORY IDENTITY CAN EXPLAIN NEST PREDATION PATTERNS

Jennifer L. Reidy and Frank R. Thompson III

12 • NEST DEFENSE: GRASSLAND BIRD RESPONSES TO SNAKES

Kevin S. Ellison and Christine A. Ribic

13 • PARTIAL DEPREDATIONS ON NORTHERN BOBWHITE NESTS

Susan N. Ellis-Felege, Anne Miller, Jonathan S. Burnam, Shane D. Wellendorf, D. Clay Sisson, William E. Palmer, and John P. Carroll

14 • IDENTIFICATION OF SPRAGUE’S PIPIT NEST PREDATORS

Stephen K. Davis, Stephanie L. Jones, Kimberly M. Dohms, and Teslin G. Holmes

Part IV • Technology

15 • DEVELOPMENT OF CAMERA TECHNOLOGY FOR MONITORING NESTS

W. Andrew Cox, M. Shane Pruett, Thomas J. Benson, Scott J. Chiavacci, and Frank R. Thompson III

Appendix

Index

Complete Series List

CONTRIBUTORS

TRAVIS J. ANDERSON

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology

University of Wisconsin

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706, USA

(Current address:

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wildlife Management

Dodgeville, WI 53533, USA,

travis.anderson@wisconsin.gov)

THOMAS J. BENSON

Illinois Natural History Survey

Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability

University of Illinois

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, IL 61820, USA

tjbenson@illinois.edu

JONATHAN S. BURNAM

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources

University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602, USA

gobblerman@gmail.com

JOHN P. CARROLL

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources

The University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602, USA

carrollj@uga.edu

SCOTT J. CHIAVACCI

Department of Biological Sciences

P.O. Box 599

Arkansas State University

State University, AR 72467, USA

schiavacci@gmail.com

W. ANDREW COX

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences

302 ABNR

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211, USA

wac253@mail.missouri.edu

SARAH A. DAUNCEY

Golder Associates Ltd.

32 Steacie Drive

Kanata, ON, K2K 2A9, Canada

(Current Address:

Smith and Associates Ecological Research Ltd.

772–7th Concession South

Pakenham, ON, K0A 2X0, Canada,

sarah_smith@smitheco.ca)

STEPHEN K. DAVIS

Department of Biology

University of Regina

3737 Wascana Parkway

Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

and

Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service

300 – 2365 Albert Street

Regina, SK, S4P 2K1, Canada

stephen.davis@ec.gc.ca

KIMBERLY M. DOHMS

Department of Biology

University of Regina

3737 Wascana Parkway

Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

(Current address:

Biological Sciences

University of Lethbridge

4401 University Way

Lethbridge, AB, T1K 3M4, Canada,

kim.dohms@uleth.ca)

SUSAN N. ELLIS-FELEGE

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources

The University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602, USA

(Current address:

Department of Biology

University of North Dakota

10 Cornell Street, Stop 9019

Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA,

susan.felege@email.und.edu)

KEVIN S. ELLISON

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology

University of Wisconsin

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706, USA

(Current address:

Wildlife Conservation Society

301 N. Willson Avenue

Bozeman, MT 59715, USA,

kellison@wcs.org)

JOHN FAABORG

University of Missouri

Columbia, Missouri

Division of Biological Sciences

224 Tucker Hall

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211, USA

faaborgj@missouri.edu

MARK R. FORBES

Department of Biology

Carleton University

1125 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

mforbes6@gmail.com

H. GRANT GILCHRIST

Environment Canada Science and

Technology Branch

1125 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H3, Canada

grant.gilchrist@ec.gc.ca

MATTHEW D. GIOVANNI

School of Natural Resources

3310 Holdrege Street

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 68583-0974, USA

and

Department of Agronomy and Horticulture

279 Plant Science Hall

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 68503-0915, USA

(Current address:

The Peregrine Fund

5668 West Flying Hawk Lane

Boise, ID 83709, USA,

matthewgiovanni@gmail.com)

DIANE A. GRANFORS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

18965 County Highway 82

Fergus Fall, MN 56537, USA

(Current address:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 East Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503, USA,

diane_granfors@fws.gov)

TODD A. GRANT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Souris River Basin National Wildlife Refuge

Complex

Upham, ND 58789, USA

todd_grant@fws.gov

SCOTT GROEPER

School of Natural Resources

3310 Holdrege Street

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 68583-0974, USA

scott.groepper@yahoo.com

MICHAEL J. GUZY

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology

University of Wisconsin

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706, USA

mjguzy@charter.net

TESLIN G. HOLMES

Department of Biology

University of Regina

3737 Wascana Parkway

Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

(Current address:

Department of Biological Sciences

University of Alberta

Biological Sciences Building

CW 405, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E9, Canada,

teslin@ualberta.ca)

STEPHANIE L. JONES

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225, USA

stephanie_jones@fws.gov

ANNE MILLER

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources

University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602, USA

millera@warnell.uga.edu

JAMIE L. NACK

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology

University of Wisconsin

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706, USA

jlnack@wisc.edu

WILLIAM E. PALMER

Tall Timbers Research Station and Land

Conservancy, Inc.

13093 Henry Beadel Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32312, USA

bill@ttrs.org

PAMELA J. PIETZ

U.S. Geological Survey

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

8711 37th Street Southeast

Jamestown, ND 58401, USA

ppietz@usgs.gov

LARKIN A. POWELL

School of Natural Resources

3310 Holdrege Street

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 68583-0974, USA

lpowell3@unl.edu

M. SHANE PRUETT

Avian Ecology Lab

Archbold Biological Station

123 Main Drive

Venus, FL 33960, USA

spruett@archbold-station.org

JENNIFER L. REIDY

302 Natural Resources Building

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211, USA

jennifer.reidy@gmail.com

MITCHELL L. REINEKE

School of Natural Resources

3310 Holdrege Street

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 68583-0974, USA

mitch.reineke@gmail.com

CHRISTINE A. RIBIC

U.S. Geological Survey

Wisconsin Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology

204 Russell Labs

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706, USA

caribic@wisc.edu

DAVID W. SAMPLE

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

2801 Progress Road

Madison, WI 53716, USA

david.sample@wisconsin.gov

WALTER H. SCHACHT

Department of Agronomy and Horticulture

279 Plant Science Hall

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 68503-0915, USA

wschacht1@unl.edu

CAROLYN M. SCHMITZ

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology

University of Wisconsin

1630 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706, USA

cmschmitz2@wisc.edu

D. CLAY SISSON

Tall Timbers Research Station and Land

Conservancy, Inc.

13093 Henry Beadel Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32312, USA

clay@pinelandplantation.com

CHRISTY M. SLAY

Department of Biological Sciences

University of Arkansas

Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

(Current address:

The Sustainability Consortium

534 W. Research Boulevard

University of Arkansas

Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA,

cslay@walton.uark.edu)

KIMBERLY G. SMITH

Department of Biological Sciences

University of Arkansas

Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

kgsmith@uark.edu

PAUL A. SMITH

Department of Biology

Carleton University

1125 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

(Current Address:

Smith and Associates Ecological Research Ltd.

772–7th Concession South

Pakenham, ON, K0A 2X0, Canada,

paul_smtih@smitheco.ca)

FRANK R. THOMPSON III

USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station

202 Natural Resources Building

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211, USA

frthompson@fs.fed.us

GRETCHEN TURNER

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources

University of Georgia

Athens, GA 30602, USA

turner_gretchen@yahoo.com

SHANE D. WELLENDORF

Tall Timbers Research Station and Land

Conservancy, Inc.

13093 Henry Beadel Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32312, USA

shane@ttrs.org

PREFACE

Concern about declining populations of bird species that breed in North America’s grasslands and other habitats has spurred extensive research on factors that may affect their reproductive success. Critical to this endeavor is an understanding of factors that affect nest survival and productivity. To address this need, in the mid-1990s, researchers began adapting miniature video cameras and recording equipment to create surveillance systems suitable for monitoring activities at cryptic bird nests. Since then, the range of applications for these camera systems has grown dramatically, and these systems have been used widely to study a variety of avian taxa in many different ecosystems. These camera studies have vastly expanded our knowledge of nest predation (typically the leading proximate cause of nest failure) and nesting biology for many bird species.

To highlight the accumulated and growing information from video surveillance of bird nests, we convened a Coordinated General Session at the 2008 joint meeting of the American Ornithologists’ Union, the Cooper Ornithological Society, and the Society of Canadian Ornithologists (4–9 August; Portland, Oregon). This volume is an outgrowth of that session. Most papers in this volume are based on presentations given in the general session, but others were specially invited for this volume to illustrate additional types of information that can be obtained using video surveillance at nests.

This collection of papers provides (1) useful information on the applications and limitations of nest cameras in research; (2) examples of analyses, interpretation, and application of camera data to address a variety of research and management questions; and (3) a source of information obtained thus far on numerous species and subjects. These papers also illustrate how knowledge about activities at nests has furthered our understanding of avian ecology. This progress reflects, in part, the use of video data to corroborate or refute assumptions in the literature that have long been accepted but have been poorly or inadequately tested. As Margaret Morse Nice advised more than half a century ago (Wilson Bulletin 65:81–93), we must demand the evidence and not accept published accounts without scrutiny.

We thank Carl D. Marti (now deceased, former Series Editor of Studies in Avian Biology) for inviting us to develop this volume, and Brett K. Sandercock (current Series Editor) for guiding us through the publication process. We thank all the volume contributors for their diligence and enthusiastic involvement in this effort and for their patience and perseverance during the lengthy period required to bring this volume to press. We also appreciate the time and expertise of the many reviewers who substantially improved each chapter of this volume. Finally, we thank Lawrence D. Igl, who recognized the value of this volume’s subject years ago, and suggested that we organize the Coordinated General Session on which this volume was based. He also provided information on potential contributors, supplied an abundance of pertinent literature, and provided insightful editing at every stage of this project—from the proposal for the 2008 general session to several drafts of papers in this volume.

CHRISTINE A. RIBIC

USGS Wisconsin Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit

Madison, Wisconsin

FRANK R. THOMPSON III

USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station

Columbia, Missouri

PAMELA J. PIETZ

USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

Jamestown, North Dakota

4 April 2011

FOREWORD

It is amazing the extent to which technological advances have changed our everyday lives. Just 20 years ago, we were cool walking around the house using a cordless telephone. As almost any old Seinfeld rerun on TV shows, those early cordless phones were huge, often with a retractable antenna; seeing them today is worth a laugh that was not written into the script. Most of us now use pocket-sized cellular phones, which also can function as cameras and message boards, and the current rage is smallish phones that virtually double as computers, so that one can get e-mail, send messages, search the web, or do virtually anything one can do on a computer with a hand-held device. There is even a TV commercial that plays on the question of whether a small electronic device is a phone or a computer, which tells us a great deal about miniaturization of computers too.

Technological discoveries have also been important to the advancement of many historically non-technological areas of science such as fieldwork. This symposium volume deals with the use of video cameras in studies of nesting birds. Technological advances in the miniaturization of video cameras allow us to use hidden cameras at sites such as nests to see what is really happening. Although moving pictures of birds at nests have been around for a hundred years, these usually involved ponderous pieces of equipment that could only be run for short periods of time. New advances allow us to hide tiny video cameras near nests or other sites, to have cameras that take pictures slowly enough that they can watch a site for long periods of time, to use infrared cameras so that they work through the night, and to use cameras that can be built cheaply enough that a graduate student can have adequate sample sizes to conduct good scientific experiments. We have even developed lightweight batteries and digital recorders, so the days where technicians had to haul 50-pound car batteries and videocassette recorders up and down mountain slopes may be over (if the budget can deal with the cost).

Before we review briefly the details of what is included in this book, we need to remind ourselves how little we knew about avian ecology just 20 years ago, and how technological advances such as tiny video cameras have helped us advance our knowledge of the demography and behavior of birds. I consider 1989 an important turning point in modern avian ecology and conservation; perhaps it was even the beginning of modern bird conservation. Several papers had been written suggesting that birds were declining rapidly, and the birds suffering the most were those that traveled long distances between their temperate breeding grounds and their tropical or subtropical wintering sites. Short-distance migrants or permanent residents did not seem to be showing similar declines. An international meeting run by Manomet Bird Observatory got a large number of people who study these species together to understand what was going on, recognizing the fact that these long-distance migrants were distinctive because they spent several months on a breeding site, several months on a wintering site, and several months in transit between these two locations. Loss or degradation of habitat in any of these locations could prove to limit populations and cause declines.

It quickly became apparent that we needed good data on nesting success of temperate breeding birds to explain the declines that were suggested by monitoring data. There were relatively few studies looking at migratory songbird nesting success, and most of those were what we called fragmentation studies. The development of the field of landscape ecology in the 1990s changed how we talked about these relationships between habitat area and bird distribution, but they did not change the general patterns. By the mid-1990s we knew that in most of the world highly fragmented landscapes (large areas where the only native vegetation occurs in small pieces) were horrible places for a bird to try and raise a family, while landscapes with little disturbance and mostly native habitat had higher nesting success. In general, we argued that landscapes with lots of edge and plenty of matrix supported nasty creatures such as crows, jays, and raccoons that entered the edge of the habitat remnants and destroyed most of the nests of the migratory birds. With enough fragmentation across a landscape, one could easily understand region-wide declines in migratory bird populations. Similar studies with gamebirds, especially waterfowl, suggested similar relationships among nest predation, predators, and landscapes.

While most of these patterns are real and probably will remain part of conservation knowledge into the future, what we were doing in those early days was still pretty primitive. Yes, we could find and monitor nests in an attempt to figure out what nest success rates really were. Good guidelines for doing this were developed, such that most researchers were approaching nest monitoring in the same manner. Once given a data set for a nest, modelers developed better means of analysis, because it is not as easy as just finding a nest one day and seeing if it is empty somewhere down the line. Instead, it was important to figure out how old the nest was, when the young should fledge, and, ideally, to try and find the fledged family to verify success. But that was hard to do, and even hard to model.

When a nest was lost to predation—and even in the best circumstances usually about half of the nests are lost—the researchers wanted to know which predator caused the loss. Some leave no clues, while others might. Researchers developed criteria on how to evaluate a depredated nest to predict the predator, although these criteria were rather vague and did not always work. A whole science that used artificial nests to try to track predation rates was developed, and many of these studies would use both a real egg and a plasticine egg in an attempt to get clues as to the nest predator from bill or teeth marks left in the plastic egg. While these artificial nest studies were attractive because of the sample sizes possible and the information from the plasticine egg, they soon were shown to be unrealistic measures of what was really going on, and many researchers suggested such artificial nest studies had no value, even with regard to the predator involved, which might not be a predator that would attack a real nest. Our concern was heightened when the first studies using video cameras showed that the actual nest predators were often not what we expected, and that predators could often remove young without damaging the nest. Camera studies made us totally rethink our assumptions about nest predation and nest predators.

This volume presents a state-of-the-art look at the use of video camera technology in the study of bird nesting behavior. It begins with some synthesis/overview chapters, followed by a section on general breeding behavior and a section that focuses on nest predation. It ends with a chapter that describes the development of the technology of these video cameras and how one can put them together rather inexpensively. Chapters tend to be regionally focused, but these regions range from Florida to the Canadian Arctic, so the results of these studies are probably relevant to anyone doing temperate studies of nesting birds.

The synthesis section begins with a look at all of the knowledge that can be gained from cameras when studying grassland birds (chapter 1). It is quite obvious why cameras are valuable in grasslands, because in most cases these nests just cannot be seen from any distance. Cameras fix that, and allow us a tremendous look at a variety of nesting behaviors within this group of birds. chapter 2 focuses on what we do with the sort of data that cameras allow us to gather. What are the implications for managers when we know the actual predators at work? This section ends with a look at the role of cameras in studies of gamebirds (chapter 3).

Although much of the impetus for using cameras at nests was driven by the desire for knowledge about predation, the truth is that this technology allows tremendous insights into other aspects of avian nesting behavior. Cameras allow us to observe the timing of hatch and fledging in grassland birds of the upper Midwest (chapter 4) and the nest attendance patterns of meadowlarks in Nebraska (chapter 5). We learn about the details of incubation behavior in Sprague’s Pipits on the Canadian prairies (chapter 6), Northern Bobwhite in Georgia and Florida (chapter 7), and shorebirds nesting in the Arctic (chapter 8). We end with a look at nocturnal activity in shrub and grassland birds, where we see patterns in the role of sleep and activity through the night (chapter 9). Our understanding of many of the details of these aspects of nesting behavior are sketchy at best, and these chapters are valuable in showing us how much more we can learn using camera technology.

The last major section focuses on the use of cameras to measure predation rates and identify predators. We begin with a focus on more classical predation studies, starting with a look at daily survival rates of grassland nests in Wisconsin (chapter 10), a study of predation rates and predator identification from Texas (chapter 11), and then identification of Sprague’s Pipit nest predators from Canada (chapter 14). Cameras have shown how important snakes are as nest predators in many habitats, so chapter 12 is very interesting as it shows how the parents attempt to defend nests from snake predation. This section also includes a chapter on partial predation of Northern Bobwhite nests and how losses result in nest abandonment (chapter 13).

All of these chapters provide data that would be difficult if not impossible to gather in any other way. It seems that anyone doing field work would profit by using video cameras, and the last chapter (chapter 15) shows you how to do this, with instructions on how to make cameras that are relatively inexpensive and very high quality. This volume does an excellent job of showing us the potential for expanded use of video cameras in ornithological studies; I expect that studies such as these will be both common and invaluable in the future.

JOHN FAABORG

University of Missouri

Columbia, Missouri

9 May 2011

PART ONE

Synthesis/Overview

CHAPTER ONE

Knowledge Gained from Video-Monitoring Grassland Passerine Nests

Pamela J. Pietz, Diane A. Granfors, and Christine A. Ribic

Abstract. In the mid-1990s, researchers began to adapt miniature cameras to video-record activities at cryptic passerine nests in grasslands. In the subsequent decade, use of these video surveillance systems spread dramatically, leading to major strides in our knowledge of nest predation and nesting ecology of many species. Studies using video nest surveillance have helped overturn or substantiate many long-standing assumptions and provided insights on a wide range of topics. For example, researchers using video data have (1) identified an extensive and highly dynamic predator community in grasslands that varies both temporally (e.g., by time of day, nest age, season, year) and spatially (e.g., by habitat, edge, latitude); (2) shown that sign at nests is unreliable for assigning predator types and sometimes nest fates; (3) contributed to the understanding of the risks and rewards of nest defense; and (4) provided information on basic breeding biology (e.g., fledging ages, patterns of incubation and brooding, and male/female roles in parental care). Using examples from grasslands, we highlight accumulated knowledge about activities at the nest documented with video surveillance; we also discuss the implications of this knowledge for our understanding of avian ecology. Like all tools, video nest surveillance has potential limitations, and users must take precautions to minimize possible sources of bias in data collection and interpretation.

Key Words: avian behavior, breeding ecology, camera, grassland, nest monitor, nest predators, passerine, video surveillance.

In the 1990s, the plight of grassland birds received increased attention (Johnson and Schwartz 1993, Knopf 1994, Johnson and Igl 1995), as researchers began to recognize that grassland species were showing steeper, more consistent, and more geographically wide-spread declines than any other behavioral or ecological guild of North American birds (Knopf 1994:251). Many grassland passerine populations had been declining for decades (Peterjohn and Sauer 1993, Herkert 1995, Igl and Johnson 1997), and it was thought that high rates of nest predation could be contributing to these declines (Basore et al. 1986, Martin 1993). At that time, there were few data on the identity of nest predators of grassland passerines. Predator sign at grassland duck nests had been studied intensively (Sargeant et al. 1993, 1998); however, at passerine nests, assignment of nest fates and identity of predators were usually based on assumptions (Best 1978, Wray et al. 1982, Vickery et al. 1992). Often, when a passerine nest was revisited, only an empty bowl remained, with few or no clues as to what had happened (Hussell 1974, Major and Gowing 1994).

Pietz, P. J., D. A. Granfors, and C. A. Ribic. 2012. Knowledge gained from video-monitoring grassland passerine nests. Pp. 3– 22 in C. A. Ribic, F. R. Thompson III, and P. J. Pietz (editors). Video surveillance of nesting birds. Studies in Avian Biology (no. 43), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Figure 1.1. Components of video surveillance system used during 1996–2001 to monitor grassland passerine nests in North Dakota and western Minnesota: (a) camera with LEDs around lens; housing and mounting bracket painted to blend with vegetation; (b) camera mounted on wooden dowel above a nest; (c) after placing a camera, R. J. Fletcher, Jr., checks the camera view with a handheld monitor at the nest site; (d) E. M. Madden remotely checks a nest with handheld monitor attached to VCR; VCR is inside weatherproof case with external connectors for battery and monitor; (e) weatherproof case open and VCR tilted up to change videotape.

Determining fates of grassland bird nests by direct observation generally is not feasible. Nests of many species of grassland birds are well hidden in vegetation, making it difficult or impossible to view nest contents from a distance, and are in open terrain, making unobtrusive observation a challenge. Predator communities often include both nocturnal and diurnal nest predators, which would require 24-hr surveillance. Identifying fates and predators of active grassland passerine nests could not be adequately addressed using artificial nests, still cameras, or conspicuous equipment (Pietz and Granfors 2000a). The need for a new tool was evident.

In 1996, Pietz and Granfors (2000a) began testing a video surveillance system (hereafter camera system) specifically designed to monitor grassland passerine nests. This first system used a black-and-white camera, about 4 × 4 cm on each side, with infrared (940–950 nm) light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to cryptically illuminate the nest area at night (Fig. 1.1a). Cameras had to be close to the nests (typically <30 cm) to record activity at the nests and the fate of nest contents without vegetation obstructing the view (Fig. 1.1b). Cameras, in waterproof housings, were made as small as possible to minimize disturbance to the nesting birds and to avoid attracting other animals. The camera angle and placement were adjusted at the nest with the aid of a handheld video monitor (Fig. 1.1c). The camera was connected by cable to a time-lapse videocassette recorder (VCR) and battery (Fig. 1.1d) about 40–50 m away. VCRs were set to record continuously and capture about 4 images/sec because early trials showed that some predation events took only a fraction of a second. At this recording speed, videotapes had to be changed (Fig. 1.1e) daily. The person changing the tape connected a handheld video monitor to the VCR (Fig. 1.1d) to determine (with reasonable certainty) if the nest was still active, thus eliminating the need to physically revisit the nest. The camera was left in place until the nest failed or succeeded (i.e., fledged young). Camera systems were deployed as far apart as possible within and among study sites to reduce the chance that individual predators with large home ranges [e.g., fox (Vulpes spp.), coyote (Canis latrans)] would encounter more than one nest with a camera.

From the mid-1990s through the early 2000s, these or similar camera systems were used in a variety of grassland bird studies (Winter et al. 2000, Renfrew and Ribic 2003, Klug 2005, Grant et al. 2006). The purpose of this paper is to use this body of work and the papers in this volume to provide an overview of the contributions these camera systems have made to the understanding of grassland bird ecology. We include updated test results for some of the questions explored with smaller data sets by Pietz and Granfors (2000a). With these sources of information, we address the following topics: fates of nests, eggs, and nestlings; predator identification and predator ecology; standard methods of data collection and analyses; predator behavior and predator–prey interactions; and parental and nestling behaviors. We close with caveats related to the use of cameras at nests and the interpretation of data collected with camera systems.

FATES OF NESTS AND NEST CONTENTS

Studies using video nest surveillance (hereafter camera studies) confirmed that predation was the leading cause of nest failure for grassland passerines (Pietz and Granfors 2000a, Klug 2005, Renfrew et al. 2005, Ribic et al., chapter 10, this volume). In addition, video data revealed that some successful nests (i.e., at least one young fledged) lost part of their contents to predators (i.e., partial predation) (Pietz and Granfors 2005). Results from studies in North Dakota and Minnesota showed that predation not only accounted for most nest losses (Table 1.1) but also was the leading cause of mortality among nestlings (Table 1.2).

Camera studies revealed that partial predation sometimes led to nest abandonment by the parents [e.g., in Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus); Ellis-Felege et al., chapter 13, this volume]. Abandonment also occurred at some passerine nests subjected to cowbird parasitism and removal of host eggs (Hill and Sealy 1994, Romig and Crawford 1995). Video data allow researchers to link proximate events (e.g., egg removal) with nest fates; however, classifying such nests may then become ambiguous using current terminology. For instance, in the examples above, should the cause of nest failure be considered predation or parental abandonment?

Parental abandonment also may be caused by deployment of cameras near nests, particularly during the egg stage (Pietz and Granfors 2000a). Nest abandonment that occurred <1 day after camera deployment was assumed to be induced by the nesting birds’ intolerance for the presence of the camera, the disturbance caused while setting up the camera system, or both. In a sample of passerine nests monitored during 1996–2001, 31 of 37 abandonments occurred within 1 day of camera deployment and, thus, were considered to be camera induced (Table 1.1). In the 1996–2001 sample, nearly 22% of 137 nests were abandoned within 1 day when the camera system was deployed during egg laying or incubation; only one such abandonment occurred (<2%) among 51 nests when the camera system was deployed during or after hatch. Nest failures attributed to cameras are discussed in the Caveats section.

In addition to predation, video surveillance revealed factors leading to nest failure or loss of eggs or nestlings that may have been misclassified as predation in the absence of video data (Pietz and Granfors 2000a). For example, two Clay-colored Sparrow (Spizella pallida) nests in small shrubs gradually tipped over as the nestlings grew, and the nestlings suddenly fell out. Unless the nestlings were still present (e.g., on the ground) when the observer returned to check the nest, the observer would have found only an empty, disheveled nest that appeared to have been torn from the shrub by a predator.

Video data also showed that some nestlings left the nest prematurely, seemingly on their own accord (here we define prematurely as earlier than expected based on fledging ages from undisturbed nests). For example, at a camera-monitored Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sand-wichensis) nest in Minnesota, a small plains gartersnake (Thamnophis radix) attempted to remove 7-d-old nestlings but failed. One nestling left the nest during the snake’s visit and the remaining four nestlings departed within the next 1.5 hr. Video data from undisturbed nests showed that Savannah Sparrow nestlings usually do not fledge until they are 9–10 days old (Pietz et al., chapter 4, this volume).

TABLE 1.1

Fates of 188 grassland passerine nests monitored with video surveillance systems in North Dakota and Minnesota during 1996–2001.

NOTES: Nest abandonment <1 d after camera deployment was assumed to be induced by the nesting birds’ intolerance for the camera’s presence and/or disturbance during camera-system setup. Thirty-one nest abandonments were classified as camera induced. In four abandonments that occurred later, nestlings may have been orphaned (two Clay-colored Sparrow nests, one Savannah Sparrow nest, one Bobolink nest). Two nest abandonments (one Clay-colored Sparrow, one Savannah Sparrow) occurred after Brown-headed Cowbirds punctured or removed host eggs and (in the latter case) laid a cowbird egg. Destroyed nests that were not depredated included one Clay-colored Sparrow nest from which a Brown-headed Cowbird tossed out the nestlings (see Notes to Table 1.2), one Clay-colored Sparrow nest from which the young fell out as the nest tipped over, and one Savannah Sparrow nest from which an adult Savannah Sparrow (presumed parent) tossed out the young. Other nest losses included nestling starvation (one Clay-colored Sparrow nest) and all eggs addled (one Le Conte’s Sparrow nest). Censored indicates that the nest fate was not captured on video, either because equipment failed (six nests) or because the camera was removed before the nest fate was determined (eight nests). Nests were classified as fledged if at least one nestling left the nest.

TABLE 1.2

Fates of eggs and nestlings at grassland passerine nests monitored with video surveillance systems in North Dakota and Minnesota during 1996–2001.

NOTES: Although Brown-headed Cowbird is listed as a predator in Tables 1.3 and 1.4, it is listed separately from predators as a cause of loss both here and in Table 1.1 for the benefit