Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Potential for Predator Learning of Artificial Arboreal Nest Locations

Richard H. Yahner and Carolyn G. Mahan
The Wilson Bulletin
Vol. 111, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 536-540
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4164139
Page Count: 5
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Potential for Predator Learning of Artificial Arboreal Nest Locations
Preview not available

Abstract

We examined the potential for predators to learn the location of artificial arboreal (1.5 m above ground) nests in a managed forested landscape of central Pennsylvania from June-July 1995. We tested the hypothesis that predators do not learn the location of artificial arboreal nests placed repeatedly at the same sites (fixed nests) versus those placed at random sites in three habitats created by clearcutting (forested patches, forested corridors, contiguous forest). Sixty-nine (23%) of 299 total nests in five combined trials were disturbed by predators; 11 (16%) of these disturbances were attributed to corvids. Predation rates were greater on nests placed at random (28%) compared to fixed sites (18%, P < 0.05), indicating predators did not learn or return to the location of arboreal nests during our study. Predation rates varied significantly (P < 0.001) among habitats, with 49% of the nests disturbed in the forested-patch habitat versus only 7% and 13% in forested-corridor and contiguous-forest habitats, respectively. We propose that predation was higher in forested patches than in the other two habitats because the former had greater amounts of edge.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
536
    536
  • Thumbnail: Page 
537
    537
  • Thumbnail: Page 
538
    538
  • Thumbnail: Page 
539
    539
  • Thumbnail: Page 
540
    540