Volume 12 Issue 1
Jul.  2021
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
Correspondence
Acknowledgements
Authors' contributions
Availability of data and materials
Declarations
References
Related Articles
Daniel F. Perrella, Paulo V. Q. Zima, Mercival R. Francisco. 2021: Nest site selection and reproductive parameters of the threatened Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus swainsoni) and their significance for conservation. Avian Research, 12(1): 2. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00237-2
Citation: Daniel F. Perrella, Paulo V. Q. Zima, Mercival R. Francisco. 2021: Nest site selection and reproductive parameters of the threatened Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus swainsoni) and their significance for conservation. Avian Research, 12(1): 2. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00237-2
shu

Nest site selection and reproductive parameters of the threatened Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus swainsoni) and their significance for conservation

  • 1.

    Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Washington Luiz km 235, São Carlos, 13565-905, Brazil

  • 2.

    Departamento de Ciências Ambientais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Rod. João Leme dos Santos km 110, Sorocaba, 18052-780, Brazil

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Daniel F. Perrella, dfperrella@gmail.com

  • Received Date: 29 Jul 2020
  • Accepted Date: 13 Dec 2020
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 04 Jan 2021
    Graphical Abstract
    • Abstract
  • Background 

    Patterns of rarity can be explained by reproductive rates, levels of endemism, and habitat specificity, and knowledge on these parameters is important to understand the levels of vulnerability of each species and to formulate conservation strategies. Here, we studied nest-site selection and breeding biology of the Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus swainsoni), a poorly known vulnerable bird endemic to the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.

    Methods 

    We addressed nest site selection in three different levels: first, we searched for nests near and far from water to investigate whether birds could select water proximities to construct nests; second, we examined if they could select certain streams in detriment of others, and we analyzed the characteristics of used and non-used streams, and third, in streams in which nests were found, we addressed nest site selectivity by comparing a number of parameters between nest sites and random sites. Further, we provide information on breeding biology parameters related to annual fecundity.

    Results 

    During five breeding seasons, we found 23 nests in a well-preserved forest continuum. All of the nests were constructed above water, and they were found in streams that were about 4 m in width, instead of smaller streams with about 1.5 m in width. Modeling analyses revealed that within the used streams, nests were constructed in sites with lower vegetation density in relation to random points, while stream width, water speed, and canopy cover presented no significant correlation. Atlantic Royal Flycatchers in our study had a 22-day incubation period and 24 to 27-day nestling period. Overall nest survival was comparatively high (62%), but clutch size was small (N = 2 eggs) and double-brooding was unlikely, which resulted in a low annual fecundity (1.4 ± 0.9 fledglings per reproductive female). Along the nesting streams, we found an average of 1.62 ± 0.07 breeding pairs/km.

    Conclusions 

    These data suggest that nesting habitat specificity and low annual fecundity are among the factors contributing to the rarity of the Atlantic Royal Flycatcher in large forest continuums and to its absence in fragmented environments. It reinforces the importance of large well-preserved forest continuums for the conservation of habitat specialist Atlantic Forest bird species.

    • FullText(HTML)

  • Occurrence and abundance of birds at typical feeders in gardens has been studied in detail for many decades. In this study, motion triggered infrared camera traps have been used to analyze discovery of a novel food source and circadian patterns of feeding. Camera traps are just at the rise of being used for bird studies (e.g., Randler and Kalb 2018; Hillemann et al. 2019). Two main lines of research have been addressed in this study. First, I analyzed at what time discovery of a novel food source occurs. Second, the more general questions are addressed, which species discover novel food sources first, and which species visit those food sources. Also, the duration until detection is analyzed.

    Turning to the first aspect, predation influences activities, such as feeding or maintenance behaviour (Randler 2006). Small songbirds, therefore, have to trade off starvation risk against predation. Depending on predation risk, individuals may reduce their fat storage against their escape or flight ability and hence, the trade-off is shifted away from foraging (Gosler et al. 1995; Gentle and Gosler 2001). Farine and Lang (2013) proposed the hypothesis that individuals should prioritize discovery and assessment of potential resources early in the day, before switching to exploitation as the day progresses. Bonter et al. (2013) found that birds generally started to feed before sunrise and continued to forage at an increasing rate throughout the day. Therefore, I hypothesize that discovery of novel food resources should occur during the morning hours.

    Food availability is an important environmental cue and adaptations that allow discovery and use of ephemeral food should be favored by natural selection (Ducatez et al. 2015; Tryjanowski et al. 2015a). As discovery of novel food is important for survival in urban and rural habitats (Tryjanowski et al. 2015a), it should also be important in natural environments. If food sources are clumped, the first individual arriving may be often the winner in terms of food quality and quantity (Tryjanowski et al. 2015a, 2017).

    This study differs in some respect from previous work, making a new contribution to the field. First, previous studies have been carried out during the winter months (Bonter et al. 2013; Farine and Land 2013; Tryjanowski et al. 2015a, b, 2016, 2017; Moiron et al. 2018). During the winter, birds are more time constrained than during summer, and colder temperatures lead to a higher energy demand. Second, the study was carried out in a natural environment outside from cities and villages where no artificial bird feeding has happened before (see e.g., Farine and Land2013). To the best of my knowledge, there are no tests of how fast birds recognize novel food sources in a natural environment.

    The study was conducted on a small mountain range, the Spitzberg, in SW Germany (Baden-Württemberg). The Spitzberg (48°30 N, 9°00 E) is located between the city of Tübingen in the east and Rottenburg-Wurmlingen in the west, extending in length about 6 km and with the widest N-S extension of about 2 km (Gottschalk and Randler 2019). The highest point is the Kapellenberg near Wurmlingen with a height of 475 m. On the southern slopes, the forest is almost completely cleared and terraces with dry stone walls were cultivated for winegrowing. The largest part, however, is covered by woods, including the heights and the northerly slopes. The forest is characterized mainly by the Scots Pine (Pinea sylvestris), different oak species (Quercus sp.) and Beech (Fagus sylvatica). The study was carried out in the wooden areas.

    Great Tits (Parus major) are among the most common species in the study area with about 370‒390 breeding pairs (Gottschalk and Randler 2019; see Table 1). Also, in urban and suburban areas, Great Tits usually frequent feeders regularly (Tryjanowski et al. 2015a, b). Predators in the area are diurnal and nocturnal mammalian and avian species. For example, 1‒2 breeding pairs of Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) nest in the area, as well as Common Buzzards (Buteo buteo; 7‒10 pairs), Red Kite (Milvus milvus; 2‒4 pairs), and Tawny Owls (Strix aluco; Gottschalk and Randler 2019).

    Table  1.  a Average time taken for a species to discover a novel food source (expressed in hours), b Average clock time taken when a species discovered a novel food source (expressed in clock times), c Population size of the species in the study area
    Parus major Sitta europaea Poecile palustris Erithacus rubecula Cyanistes caeruleus Turdus merula Turdus philomelos Troglodytes troglodytes Garrulus glandarius
    a
    Mean 97.7 161.8 196.8 130.3 139.5 144.0 274.5 122.0 109.8
    N 28 11 6 17 11 15 5 4 5
    SD 85.6 120.1 128.1 136.5 99.4 79.1 115.7 148.4 54.6
    Median 80.8 170.2 179.2 76.5 116.4 140.2 304.0 61.8 121.4
    b
    Mean 10:38 11:10 11:53 11:20 10:12 10:26 11:24 12:44 12:49
    N 28 11 6 17 11 15 5 4 5
    SD 2:58 3:20 2:49 4:42 3:00 5:13 7:16 6:54 2:50
    Median 10:55 10:48 11:52 10:25 9:11 7:58 6:23 12:53 11:23
    c
    Population size 370‒390 75‒85 52‒60 240‒260 270‒290 330‒370 150‒170 180‒200 35‒45
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The study took place between 29 June and 5 October, 2018. For this study, camera traps with a special macro lens have been deployed, allowing close-up photographs. We used six different Bushnell Natureview cameras simultaneously at different places, all with the same macro lens and of the same model (model 119740). The cameras were placed at a distance of 0.6 m near a feeding station and the field of view covered about 50 cm × 35 cm (0.175 m2) of the study location. Previous work has assessed this as a reliable distance between small birds and different camera traps including the model used here (see Randler and Kalb 2018).

    I set the trigger sensor level on the highest level, the number of images released to three in a row. I set up the cameras and immediately afterwards released the trigger to test functionality. Also, when returning back to check the SD cards and batteries, I approached the camera in a manner that should trigger photos. This was used as some kind of test to check if the cameras are still working.

    I applied a variety of food to attract birds: apples, apple juice, honey, peanut mousse, raisins, prunes, bird food, and sunflower seeds. All feeding places were baited with the same variety of food to avoid any influence of different foods on the results. Thus, a standardized food mix was applied. The food was replenished every second or third day to provide a continuous food supply. Food was presented in open, unsheltered feeding places allowing approaches from above, below and from all sides.

    There were 41 active camera locations with bait stations. Following Meek et al. (2012) an active camera set was defined as a bait station with non-toxic bait used to attract animals to within the detection zone of a camera trap. On six out of the camera trap places, no bird species occurred leaving 35 locations for analysis. Data were screened and date, time, taxon/species and number of individuals were transferred into an Excel sheet. A temporal buffer of 5 min was used to distinguish between consecutive events within species at a camera trapping station (Meek et al. 2012). This was based on Meek et al. (2012) who suggested using 1–5 min for small mammals. Total trap days in the current study were 457 days (mean 13.1 ± 5.4 nights per camera location), corresponding to a total observation time of 10, 968 h with 1951 total bird events.

    The species that first discovered a novel food source was labelled as explorer species, and species that did not discover the food source but used them after another species has discovered it were assigned visitors. The number of feeders with the discovery by a species and the number of feeders visited by a species were correlated with their population size using Kendall's tau. Sample sizes were number of species (N = 18) and basis for the assignment was number of feeders (N = 35). Therefore, a species can be an explorer in 35 cases and a visitor also in 35 cases.

    Eighteen species occurred at the feeders (Fig. 1). A total of nine species were explorers and discovered the novel food source first: Great Tit, Robin (Erithacus rubecula), Nuthatch (Sitta europaea), and Blackbird (Turdus merula) discovered novel food sources most often as first arriving species. Similarly, these species visited most of the food sources. There was a moderate correlation in these 18 species between population size and first discovery (Kendall-tau: 0.508, p = 0.007) and between population size and visitation of the feeders (Kendall-tau: 0.500, p = 0.006). Great Tits were among the most common visitors and the ones that discovered most of the 35 novel food sources first (Fig. 1). Considering all visitations, Great Tits occurred at 80% of the feeders (Fig. 1). Concerning the first visit, Table 1 shows mean, standard deviation and median of the first arrivals of a given bird species to a novel food source. The time to first discovery was rather long. Usually, it took some days until the feeders were discovered (about 3‒5 days in Great Tits). The shortest detection times were found in Great Tit, Robin, and Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes). The average clock time of a first discovery was before noon in most species (Table 1). In Great Tits, first discoveries were more common before noon (18 before, 10 after noon; Fig. 2).

    Figure  1.  Abundance and frequency of first bird visiting a novel food source according to species and total number of feeders visited. Maximum number of feeders was N = 35
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure  2.  First discoveries (N = 28) of Parus major at the feeding sites according to clock times
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Food was discovered more in the morning than in the afternoon, concerning all species as well as Great Tits separately (Farine and Lang2013). This supports the hypothesis that time available in the morning should be spent on exploration and exploitation/visitation should occur later during the day. In most cases the first species discovering the novel food was the Great Tit. This is similar to the results of Tryjanowski et al. (2015a, b, 2017), who carried out their study in human settlements. Thus, the present data expand this finding to Great Tits in a natural environment without any previous artificial bird feeding activities and allows characterizing Great Tits as an explorative species in general. Turdus philomelos and Poecile palustris were species that discovered no novel food patch but used/visited them after its has been discovered by other species. Interestingly, population size was a predictor how many feeders were discovered and used by a species; thus it is difficult to assess whether these two species were no discoverers just because of their population size or because they are somewhat parasitic in exploiting food resources found by other species.

    The mean latency time to discovery was about 3‒5 days for all species. This is strikingly different to the other studies. For example, in Tryjanowski et al. (2017), the mean latency was 24.8 min for all species and 21.5 min for Great Tits. Hillemann et al. (2019) reported that their feeders were usually discovered during the first hours of the day. Similarly, novel food patches were discovered quickly (Farine and Lang 2013). However, those studies placed a novel feeder only a few hundred meters away from previous ones and birds were habituated to regular feeding. In my study plot, no regular feeding occurs because it is in a natural environment without any feeders. Therefore, this study adds to the previous ones about the discovery of novel food in an unmanipulated environment.

    There are some limitations in this study. First, predation events were not directly or indirectly assessed and there were no experiments to simulate predation or predation risk and its effects on feeding habits. Sample sizes in this study are small, which is owed to the design of the study, but results should not be overstated. As the feeders were placed far away from another and given the size of the breeding population of the different species, pseudo-replication, i.e., discovery of different feeders by the same individual seems highly unlikely. Future studies should replicate the findings using a considerable higher amount of camera traps and feeders. This would allow more complex and rigorous statistical analysis going beyond these more descriptive analyses. Additionally, environmental variables could be included in further studies.

    I am grateful to Jochen Kalb, MSc, for checking all images and establishing the database.

    The author read and approved the final manuscript.

    The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available in the Harvard Dataverse repository, https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/FLZIHA.

    Ethics approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that he has no competing interest.

    • References (112)
  • Aguilar TM, Maldonado-Coelho M, Marini MA. Nesting biology of the Gray-hooded Flycatcher (Mionectes rufiventris). Ornitol Neotrop. 2000;11: 223-30.
    Alves RRN, Lima JRF, Araújo HFP. The live bird trade in Brazil and its conservation implications: an overview. Bird Conserv Int. 2012;23: 53-65.
    Anciães M, Aguilar TM, Leite LO, Andrade RD, Marini MA. Nesting biology of the Yellow-olive Flatbill (Tyrannidae, Elaninae) in Atlantic Forest fragments in Brazil. Wilson J Ornithol. 2012;124: 547-57.
    Anjos L, Boçon R. Bird communities in natural forest patches in southern Brazil. Wilson Bull. 1999;111: 397-414.
    Antunes AZ, Eston MR. Avifauna do Parque Estadual Alberto Löfgren-São Paulo: diagnóstico e propostas para a conservação. Rev Inst Flor. 2008;20: 195-211.
    Antunes AZ, Silva BG, Matsukuma CK, Eston MR, Santos AMR. Aves do Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho - SP. Biota Neotrop. 2013;13: 01-17.
    Armacost JW Jr. The nest, eggs and nestlings of the Castelnau's Antshrike (Thamnophilus cryptoleucus), with notes on its ecology and conservation. Wilson Bull. 2004;116: 262-6.
    Ayres ACM. O Ciclo da Caapora: A RMSP e o Parque da Cantareira. São Paulo: Annablume; 2008.
    Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67: 1-48.
    Beisiegel BM, Mantovani W. Habitat use, home range and foraging preferences of the coati Nasua nasua in a pluvial tropical Atlantic forest area. J Zool. 2006;269: 77-87.
    Bencke GA, Maurício GN, Develey PF, Goerck JM. Áreas importantes para a conservação das aves no Brasil: parte 1-estados do domínio da Mata Atlântica. São Paulo: SAVE Brasil; 2006.
    Beissinger SR. Ecological mechanisms of extinction. PNAS. 2000;97: 11688-9.
    BirdLife International. Onychorhynchus swainsoni. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019. (Accessed 1 Jan 2019). (Accessed 1 Jan 2019).
    Birskis-Barros I, Alencar LRV, Prado PI, Böhm M, Martins M. Ecological and conservation correlates of rarity in New World Pitvipers. Diversity. 2019;11: 147.
    Brocardo CR, Rodarte R, Bueno RS, Culot L, Galetti M. Mamíferos não voadores do Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho Continuum florestal do Paranapiacaba. Biota Neotrop. 2012;12: 01-11.
    Chalfoun AD, Schmidt KA. Adaptive breeding-habitat selection: is it for the birds? Auk. 2012a;129: 589-99.
    Cheng L, Zhou L, Wu L, Feng G. Nest site selection and its implications for conservation of the endangered Oriental Stork Ciconia boyciana in Yellow River Delta. China Bird Conserv Int. 2019;30: 323-34.
    Cockle KL, Brodati AA, Lammertink M, Bonaparte EB, Ferreyra CFS, Di Sallo FG. Predators of bird nests in the Atlantic forest of Argentina and Paraguay. Wilson J Ornithol. 2016;128: 120-31.
    Cornell KL, Donovan TM. Effects of spatial habitat heterogeneity on habitat selection and annual fecundity for a migratory forest songbird. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25: 109-22.
    Chalfoun AD, Schmidt KA. Adaptive breeding-habitat selection: is it for the birds. Auk. 2012b;129: 589-99.
    Collias NE, Collias EC. Nest building and bird behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1984.
    Cuthbert R, Sommer E, Ryan P, Cooper J, Hilton G. Demography and conservation of the Tristan Albatross Diomedea [exulans] dabbenena. Biol Conserv. 2004;117: 471-81.
    Dário FR, De Vincenzo MCV, Almeida AF. Avifauna em fragmentos da Mata Atlântica. Cienc Rural. 2002;32: 989-96.
    Davanço PV, Oliveira LS, Souza LMS, Francisco MR. Breeding life-history traits of the Pale-breasted Thrush (Turdus leucomelas) in southeastern Brazil. Ornitol Neotrop. 2013;24: 401-11.
    Delhey K, Carrizo M, Verniere LC, Mahler B, Peters A. Seazonal variation in reproductive output of a Neotropical temperate suboscine the Firewood-gatherer (Annumbius annumbi). Auk. 2010;127: 222-31.
    Del Hoyo J, Collar N, Kirwan GM. Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (Onychorhynchus swainsoni). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, editors. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 2019. . Accessed 1 Dec 2019.
    Descourtilz JT. História natural das aves do Brasil (ornitologia brasileira): notáveis por sua plumagem, canto e hábitos. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia; 1983.
    Dinsmore SJ, White GC, Knopf FL. Advanced techniques for modeling avian nest survival. Ecology. 2002;83: 3476-88.
    Donatelli RJ, Ferreira CD, Dalbetoand AC, Posso SR. Análise comparativa da assembleia de aves em dois remanescentes florestais no interior do Estado de São Paulo. Brasil Rev Bras Zool. 2007;24: 362-75.
    Ferraz LPM, Varjabedian R. Evolução histórica da implantação e síntese das informações disponíveis sobre o Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho. São Paulo: Instituto Florestal; 1999.
    Fitzpatrick JW. Foraging behavior of Neotropical Tyrant Flycatchers. Condor. 1980;82: 43-57.
    Fondell TF, Ball IJ. Density and success of bird nests relative to grazing on western Montana grasslands. Biol Conserv. 2004;117: 203-13.
    Gilpin ME, Soulé ME. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Soulé ME, editor. Conservation Biology, the science of scarcity and diversity. Suderland: Sinauer Associates; 1986. p. 125-39.
    Gjerdrum C, Elphick CS, Rubega M. Nest site selection and nesting success in salt marsh breeding Sparrows: the importance of nest habitat, timing, and study site differences. Condor. 2005;107: 849-62.
    Goerck JM. Patterns of rarity in the birds of the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Conserv Biol. 1997;11: 112-8.
    Greeney HF, Dingle C, Dobbs RC, Martin PR. Natural history of Streak-necked FlycatcherMionectes striaticollis in north-east Ecuador. Cotinga. 2006;25: 59-64.
    Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, Redford KH, Shaffer ML, Scott JM, et al. Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. Bioscience. 2002;52: 499-512.
    Harnik PG, Simpson C, Payne JL. Long-term differences in extinction risk among the seven forms of rarity. Proc R Soc B. 2012;279: 4969-76.
    Harrell FEJr. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.2-0. 2019. . Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
    Hasui E, Metzger JP, Pimentel RG, Silveira LF, Bovo AAB, Martensen AC, et al. Atlantic birds: a data set of bird species from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ecology. 2018;99: 497.
    Horton RE. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol Soc Am Bull. 1945;56: 275-370.
    Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Magrath RD, Oteyza JC, Chalfoun AD, Haff TM, Schmidt KA, et al. Nest predation research: recent findings and future perspectives. J Ornithol. 2015;156: S247-62.
    Jamieson IG, Allendorf FW. How does the 50/500 rule apply to MVPs? Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27: 578-84.
    Jetz W, Sekercioglu CH, Böhning-Gaese K. The worldwide variation in avian clutch size across species and space. PLoS Biol. 2008;6: 2650-7.
    Johnson EI, Stouffer PC, Vargas CF. Diversity, biomass, and trophic structure of a Central Amazonian Rainforest bird community. Rev Bras Ornitol. 2011;9: 1-16.
    Kirwan GM. Notes on the breeding ecology and seasonality of some Brazilian birds. Rev Bras Ornitol. 2009;17: 121-36.
    Laake JL. RMark: An R interface for analysis of capture-recapture data with MARK. R package version 2.2.6. 2013. . Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
    Lemmon PE. A new instrument for measuring forest overstorey density. J For Res. 1957;55: 667-9.
    Lima RAF, Dittrich VAO, Souza VC, Salino A, Breier TB, Aguiar OT. Flora vascular do Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho, São Paulo. Brasil Biota Neotrop. 2011;11: 173-214.
    Linhares KV, Soares FA, Machado CS. Nest support plants of the Araripe Manakin Antilophia bokermanni, a critically endangered endemic bird from Ceará. Brazil Cotinga. 2010;32: 121-5.
    Londoño GA. Parque Nacional del Manu, Cusco, Perú Anidación de Aves en un Gradiente Altitudinal. Chicago: Science and Education; 2014.
    Lopes LE, Marini MA. Biologia reprodutiva de Suiriri affinis e S. islerorum (Aves: Tyrannidae) no Cerrado do Brasil Central. Pap Avulsos Zool. 2005;45: 127-41.
    Lu X. Hot genome leaves natural histories cold. Adv Sci Lett. 2015;349: 1064.
    Machado RB, Silveira LF, Silva MISG, Ubaid FK, Medolago CA, Francisco MR, et al. Reintroduction of songbirds from captivity: the case of the Great-billed Seed-finch (Sporophila maximiliani) in Brazil. Biodivers Conserv. 2020;29: 1613-36.
    Maia-Gouvêa ER, Gouvêa E, Piratelli A. Comunidade de aves de sub-bosque em uma área de entorno do Parque Nacional do Itatiaia, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil Rev Bras Zool. 2005;22: 859-66.
    Mallet-Rodrigues F, Guentert M, Kirwan G. Records of Atlantic Royal Flycatcher Onychorhynchus coronatus swainsoni from Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Cotinga. 2006;26: 06-8.
    Mallet-Rodrigues F, Parrini R, Pacheco JF. Birds of the Serra dos Órgãos, State of Rio de Janeiro, Southeastern Brazil: a review. Rev Bras Ornitol. 2007;15: 05-35.
    Marques-Santos F, Braga TV, Wischhoff U, Roper JJ. Breeding biology of passerines in the subtropical Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ornitol Neotrop. 2015;26: 363-74.
    Martin TE. Nest predation and nest sites. Bioscience. 1993;43: 523-32.
    Martin TE, Geupel GR. Nest-monitoring plots: methods for locating nests and monitoring success. J Field Ornithol. 1993;64: 507-19.
    Mattoso AQ, Pisciotta K, Barros MIA, Maia JLC, Lorejan SF. Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho, Plano de Manejo. São Miguel Arcanjo: Instituto Ekos Brasil; 2008.
    Mayfield H. Nesting success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bull. 1961;73: 255-61.
    Mezquida ET. Nest site selection and nesting success of five species of passerines in a South American openProsopis woodland. J Ornithol. 2004;145: 16-22.
    Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403: 853-8.
    Newmark WD, Stanley TR. Habitat fragmentation reduces nest survival in an Afrotropical bird community in a biodiversity hotspot. PNAS. 2011;108: 11488-93.
    Noske RA, Mulyani YA, Lloyd P. Nesting beside old nests, but not over water, increases current nest survival in a tropical mangrove-dwelling warbler. J Ornithol. 2013;154: 517-23.
    Ocampo D, Londoño GA. Tropical montane birds have increased nesting success on small river islands. Auk. 2015;132: 01-10.
    Oliveira LS, Sousa LMS, Davanço PV, Francisco MR. Breeding behavior of the Lined Seedeater (Sporophila lineola) in southeastern Brazil. Ornitol Neotrop. 2010;21: 251-61.
    Oliveira-Filho AT, Fontes MAL. Patterns of floristic differentiation among Atlantic forests in southeastern Brazil and the influence of climate. Biotropica. 2000;32: 793-810.
    Oniki Y. Is nesting success of birds low in the tropics? Biotropica. 1979;11: 60-9.
    Owens IPF, Bennett PM. Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: Habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. PNAS. 2000;97: 12144-8.
    Pacífico EC, Barbosa EA, Filadelfo T, Oliveira KG, Silveira LF, Tella JL. Breeding to non-breeding population ratio and breeding performance of the globally endangered Lear's Macaw Anodorhynchus leari: conservation and monitoring implications. Bird Conserv Int. 2014;24: 466-76.
    Parker TA Ⅲ, Stotz DF, Fitzpatrick JW. Ecological and distributional databases. In: Stotz DF, Fitzpatrick JW, Parker TA, Moskovits DK, editors. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. p. 113-436.
    Peck ME. Protective adaptation in the nesting habits of some Central American birds. Proc Iowa Acad Sci. 1908;15: 177-82.
    Pense MR, Carvalho APC. Biodiversidade de aves do Parque Estadual do Jaraguá (SP). Conscientiae Saúde. 2005;4: 55-61.
    Perrella DF, Biagolini-Júnior CH, Ribeiro-Silva L, Zima PVQ, Galetti Junior PM, Francisco MR. Nest, eggs, and nestlings of the Atlantic Forest endemic Star-throated Antwren (Rhopias gularis). Wilson J Ornithol. 2015;127: 322-6.
    Perrella DF, Biagolini Junior CH, Ribeiro-Silva L, Zima PVQ, Francisco MR. Reproduction of the Atlantic Forest endemic Star-throated Antwren, Rhopias gularis (Aves: Thamnophilidae). Braz J Biol. 2017;77: 356-60.
    Perrella DF, Ferrari DS, Katayama MV, Paiva RV, Guida FJV. A Avifauna do Parque Estadual das Fontes do Ipiranga, um remanescente de Mata Atlântica imerso na área urbana de São Paulo. SP Ornithologia. 2018;10: 04-16.
    Perrella DF, Zima PVQ, Ribeiro-Silva L, Biagolini CH Jr, Carmignotto AP, Galetti PM Jr, et al. Bats as predators at nests of tropical forest birds. J Avian Biol. 2020;51: e02277.
    Pinto O. Sobre a coleção Carlos Estevão de peles, ninhos e ovos das aves de Belém (Pará). Pap Avulsos Zool. 1953;11: 111-222.
    Piratelli A, Andrade VA, Filho ML. Aves de fragmentos florestais em área de cultivo de cana-de-açúcar no sudeste do Brasil. Iheringia. 2005;95: 217-22.
    Primack RB. Essentials of conservation Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates; 2006.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2017. . Accessed 30 Oct 2018.
    Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv. 2009;142: 1141-53.
    Ribeiro-Silva L, Perrella DF, Biagolini-Jr CH, Zima PVQ, Piratelli AJ, Schlindwein MN, et al. Testing camera traps as a potential tool for detecting nest predation of birds in a tropical rainforest environment. Zoologia. 2018;35: e14678.
    Ribon R, Simon JE, Mattos GT. Bird extinctions in Atlantic Forest fragments of the Viçosa region. Southeastern Brazil Conserv Biol. 2003;17: 1827-39.
    Robinson SK. Coloniality in the Yellow-rumped Cacique as a defense against nest predators. Auk. 1985;102: 506-19.
    Robinson SK, Terborgh J. Bird community dynamics along primary successional gradients of an Amazonian whitewater river. Ornithol Monogr. 1997;48: 641-72.
    Robinson WD, Sherry TW. Mechanisms of avian population decline and species loss in tropical forest fragments. J Ornithol. 2012;153: S141-52.
    Rodrigues VB, Jesus FM, Campo RI. Local habitat disturbance increases bird nest predation in the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest. Anim Biodiv Conserv. 2018;41: 117-20.
    Roldán-Clarà B, LaPergola JB, Chapa-Vargas L, Calmé S. Nest survival in the Neotropical Black Catbird (Melanoptila glabrirostris). J Ornithol. 2013;154: 491-9.
    Roper JJ. Try and try again: nest predation favors persistence in a Neotropical bird. Ornitol Neotrop. 2005;16: 253-62.
    Schunck F, Melo MA, Sanches LA, Godoy FI, Martins GG, Mix P. Avifauna do Parque Ecológico do Guarapiranga e sua importância para a conservação das aves da Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Ornithologia. 2016;9: 35-57.
    Sick H. Ornitologia brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira; 1997.
    Skutch AF. Incubation and nesting periods of Central American birds. Auk. 1945;62: 08-37.
    Skutch AF. Life histories of Central American birds II: Families Vireonidae, Sylviidae, Turdidae, Troglodytidae, Paridae, Corvidae, Hirundinidae and Tyrannidae. Berkeley: Cooper Ornithological Society; 1960.
    Small MF, Hunter ML. Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested landscapes. Oecologia. 1988;76: 62-4.
    Tashian RE. Some birds from the palenque region of Northeastern Chiapas. México Auk. 1952;69: 60-6.
    Tellkamp MP, Martin TH. Noteworthy bird records from southern Yucatán state. México Cotinga. 2015;37: 18-21.
    Terborgh J. Preservation of natural diversity: the problem of extinction prone species. Bioscience. 1974;24: 715-22.
    Tonetti VR, Rego MA, de Luca AC, Develey PF, Schunck F, Silveira LF. Historical knowledge, richness and relative representativeness of the avifauna of the largest native urban rainforest in the world. Zoologia. 2017;34: e13728.
    Ubaid FK, Silveira LF, Medolago CB, Costa TVV, Francisco MR, Barbosa KVC, et al. Taxonomy, natural history, and conservation of the Great-billed Seed-Finch Sporophila maximiliani (Cabanis, 1851) (Thraupidae, Sporophilinae). Zootaxa. 2018;4442: 551-71.
    Von Ihering H. Novas contribuições para a ornitologia do Brasil. Rev Mus Paul. 1914;9: 411-88.
    Wetmore A. The birds of the Republic of Panamá, part 3, Passeriformes: Dendrocolaptidae (Woodcreepers) to Oxyruncidae (Sharpbills). Smithson Misc Collect. 1972;150: 1-631.
    White GC, Burnham KP. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study. 1999;46: S120-39.
    Whittingham MJ. Observations at a nest of the Pacific Royal Flycatcher Onychorhynchus coronatus occidentalis. Bull Br Ornithol Club. 1994;114: 131-2.
    Willis EO. The composition of avian communities in remanescent woodlots in Southern Brazil. Pap Avulsos Zool. 1979;33: 01-25.
    Winkler DW. Nests, eggs, and young: the breeding biology of birds. In: Podulka S, Rohrbaugh, RW, Bonney R, Handbook of bird biology. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 2004. p. 8.1-8.152.
    Xiao H, Hu Y, Lang Z, Fang B, Guo W, Zhang Q, et al. How much do we know about the breeding biology of bird species in the world? J Avian Biol. 2016;47: 1-6.
    Zima PVQ, Perrella DF, Biagolini-Jr CH, Ribeiro-Silva L, Francisco MR. Breeding behavior of the Atlantic forest endemic Blue Manakin (Chiroxiphia caudata). Wilson J Ornithol. 2017;129: 53-61.
    Zoellick BW, Ulmschneider HM, Cade BS, Stanley AW. Isolation of Snake River islands and mammalian predation of waterfowl nests. J Wildlife Manage. 2004;68: 650-62.
    Zhu X, Srivastava DS, Smith JNM, Martin K. Habitat selection and reproductive success of Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) at its northern limit. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e44346.
    • Related Articles

  • Related Articles

    Lin Sun, Chunhong Liang, Shidi Qin, Ying Zhu, Ke He. 2024: Exploring the interplay of T cell receptor-V gene copy numbers and major histocompatibility complex selection pressure in avian species: Insights into immune system evolution and reproductive investment. Avian Research, 15(1): 100204. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2024.100204
    Monserrat Del Caño, Flavio Quintana, Giacomo Dell'Omo, Agustina Gómez-Laich. 2024: Tri-axial accelerometry allows to determine parental food provisioning behaviour in a marine bird. Avian Research, 15(1): 100194. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2024.100194
    Yachang Cheng, Lei Zhu, Lin Xue, Shisheng Ma, Nan Jia, Shaoping Zang, Zhihai Cao, Jing Yuan, Yang Liu. 2024: Diverse foraging strategies of breeding Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel in the productive marginal sea of the Northwest Pacific. Avian Research, 15(1): 100157. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100157
    Jianchuan Li, Wen Zhang, Ningning Sun, Yujie Wang, Lifang Gao, Ran Feng, Liqing Fan, Bo Du. 2024: Correlation of personality with individual reproductive success in shrub-nesting birds depends on their life history style. Avian Research, 15(1): 100153. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100153
    Shaobin Li, Xiaoman Liu, Guopan Li, Xiaolong Du. 2023: Large-brained birds lay smaller but heavier clutches. Avian Research, 14(1): 100116. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100116
    Lei Cheng, Lizhi Zhou, Chao Yu, Zhenhua Wei, Chunhua Li. 2023: Flexible nest site selection of the endangered Oriental Storks (Ciconia boyciana): Trade-off from adaptive strategies. Avian Research, 14(1): 100088. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100088
    Donghui Ma, Mengjie Lu, Zhichang Cheng, Xingnan Du, Xiaoyu Zou, Xingxing Yao, Xinkang Bao. 2021: Male parent birds exert more effort to reproduce in two desert passerines. Avian Research, 12(1): 37. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00273-6
    Liqing Fan, Lifang Gao, Zhenqin Zhu, Xiaodan Zhang, Wen Zhang, Haiyang Zhang, Jianchuan Li, Bo Du. 2021: The Grey-backed Shrike parents adopt brood survival strategy in both the egg and nestling phases. Avian Research, 12(1): 11. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00244-x
    Xinkang Bao, Wei Zhao, Fangqing Liu, Jianliang Li, Donghui Ma. 2020: Egg investment strategies adopted by a desertic passerine, the Saxaul Sparrow (Passer ammodendri). Avian Research, 11(1): 15. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00201-0
    Aiwu Jiang, Demeng Jiang, Fang Zhou, Eben Goodale. 2017: Nest-site selection and breeding ecology of Streaked Wren-Babbler (Napothera brevicaudata) in a tropical limestone forest of southern China. Avian Research, 8(1): 28. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-017-0086-1

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(3)

    1. Michael A. Weston, Nick Porch, Desley A. Whisson, et al. Do different camera trap lures result in different detection rates of vertebrates because of their attractiveness to invertebrates?. Ecological Management & Restoration, 2024. DOI:10.1111/emr.12603
    2. Emilia Grzędzicka. Bird Feeder Explorers Are Not Attracted by the Seeds of Invasive Weeds in Winter. Diversity, 2024, 16(2): 81. DOI:10.3390/d16020081
    3. Christoph Randler, Nadine Kalb. Circadian activity of the fat dormouse Glis glis measured with camera traps at bait stations. Mammal Research, 2021, 66(4): 657. DOI:10.1007/s13364-021-00583-6

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Figures(4)  /  Tables(2)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article has an altmetric score of 3
    Article has an altmetric score of 3
    Article views (618) PDF downloads (3) Cited by(3)
    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd.   Technical support: info@rhhz.net

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return