Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:04:49.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Demographic and dispersal data from anthropogenic grasslands: what should we measure?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
John B. Dunning Jr. ,
Daniel M. Scheiman  and
Alexandra Houston
Edited by
Jianguo Liu ,
Vanessa Hull ,
Anita T. Morzillo  and
John A. Wiens
John B. Dunning Jr.
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Daniel M. Scheiman
Affiliation:
Audubon Arkansas, USA
Jianguo Liu
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Vanessa Hull
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Anita T. Morzillo
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science
Get access

Summary

Studies of population dynamics of grassland birds have often followed the source–sink paradigm of Pulliam (1988). We present examples of demographic, dispersal, and modeling studies done with bird species found in anthropogenic grasslands of the midwestern USA. Although we believe that we have gained valuable insights into the factors that affect bird populations found in restored grasslands, hayfields and pastures, some of the demographic and dispersal processes assumed in Pulliam (1988) are difficult to measure with grassland birds. More importantly, the population dynamics of many migratory birds do not follow the structure of individual-based models used in the study of source–sink dynamics as pioneered by Pulliam (1988). We suggest measures of population stability such as territory occupancy, age distribution of successful dispersers, production of offspring, and dispersal may be useful as an alternative for assessing the health of grassland breeding bird populations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 239 - 257
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akçakaya, H. R. (1991). Population viability analysis and risk assessment. In Wildlife 2001: Populations (McCullough, D. R. and Barrett, R. H., eds.). Elsevier Applied Science, New York, USA: 148–157.Google Scholar
Akçakaya, H. R. (2000). Viability analyses with habitat-based metapopulation models. Population Ecology 42: 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akçakaya, H. R. (2002). RAMAS Metapop: Viability Analysis for Stage-structured Metapopulations (version 4.0). Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, NY.Google Scholar
Arsenault, D. P., Stacey, P. B. and Hoelzer, G. A. (2005). Mark–recapture and DNA fingerprinting data reveal high breeding-site fidelity, low natal philopatry, and low levels of genetic population differentiation in flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus). Auk 122: 329–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askins, R. A., Chavez-Ramirez, F., Dale, B. C., Haas, C. A., Herkert, J. R., Knopf, F. L. and Vickery, P. D. (2007). Conservation of grassland birds in North America: understanding ecological processes in different regions. Ornithological Monographs 64.Google Scholar
Beissinger, S. R. and Westphal, M. I. (1998). On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 821–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollinger, E. K. and Gavin, T. A. (1989). The effects of site quality on breeding-site fidelity in bobolinks. Auk 106: 584–594.Google Scholar
Bollinger, E. K. and Gavin, T. A. (2004). Responses of nesting bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) to habitat edges. Auk 121: 767–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollinger, E. K., Bollinger, P. B. and Gavin, T. A. (1990). Effects of hay-cropping on eastern populations of the bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18: 142–150.Google Scholar
Cunningham, M. A. and Johnson, D. H. (2006). Proximate and landscape factors influence grassland bird distribution. Ecological Applications 16: 1062–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVault, T. L., Scott, P. E., Bajema, R. A. and Lima, S. L. (2002). Breeding bird communities of reclaimed coal-mine grasslands in the American Midwest. Journal of Field Ornithology 73: 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ells, S. F. (1995). Bobolink protection and mortality on suburban conservation lands. Bird Observer 23: 98–112.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. J. and Koford, R. R. (2003). Spatial responses of bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) near different types of edges in northern Iowa. Auk 120: 799–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R. J., Koford, R. R. and Seaman, D. A. (2006). Critical demographic parameters for declining songbird breeding in restored grasslands. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galligan, E. W., DeVault, T. L. and Lima, S. L. (2006). Nesting success of grassland and savanna birds on reclaimed surface coal mines of the Midwestern United States. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118: 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. (1994). A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Harmeson, J. P. (1974). Breeding ecology of the dickcissel. Auk 91: 348–359.Google Scholar
Herkert, J. R. (2007). Conservation reserve program benefits on Henslow’s sparrow within the United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2749–2751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herkert, J. R., Reinking, D. L., Wiedenfeld, D. A., Winter, M., Zimmerman, J. L., Jensen, W. E., Finck, E. J., Koford, R. R., Wolfe, D. H., Sherrod, S. K., Jenkins, M. A., Faaborg, J. and Robinson, S. K. (2003). Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest success of breeding birds in the midcontinental United States. Conservation Biology 17: 587–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, K. A., Wassenaar, L. I. and Bayne, E. (2004). Using isotopic variance to detect long-distance dispersal and philopatry in birds: an example with ovenbirds and American redstarts. Condor 106: 732–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, J. P., Robel, R. J., Kemp, K. E. and Zimmerman, J. L. (1999). Effects of habitat on dickcissel abundance and nest success in Conservation Reserve Program fields in Kansas. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, J. R. and Chu, E. W. (1999). Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Karr, J. R., Fausch, K. D., Angermeier, P. L., Yant, P R. and Schlosser, I. J. (1986). Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale, Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Krementz, D. G. and Christie, J. S. (1999). Scrub-successional bird community dynamics in young and mature longleaf pine-wiregrass savannahs. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. G. (1971). Polygyny in the bobolink: habitat quality and the adaptive complex. PhD dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
McCoy, T. D., Ryan, M. R., Kurzejeski, E. W. and Burger, L. W. (1999). Conservation Reserve Program: source or sink for grassland birds in Missouri?Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 530–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, T. D., Ryan, M. R., Burger, L. W. and Kurzejeski, E. W. (2001). Grassland bird conservation: CP1 vs. CP2 plantings in Conservation Reserve Program fields in Missouri. American Midland Naturalist 145: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millenbah, K. F., Winterstein, S. R., Campa, H., Furrow, L. T. and Minnis, R. B. (1996). Effects of conservation reserve program field age on avian relative abundance, diversity and productivity. Wilson Bulletin 108: 760–770.Google Scholar
Nolan, V. (1978). The ecology and behavior of the prairie warbler Dendroica discolor. Ornithological Monographs 26.Google Scholar
Patten, M. A., Shochat, E., Reinking, D. L., Wolfe, D. H. and Sherrod, S. K. (2006). Habitat edge, land management, and rates of brood parasitism in tallgrass prairie. Ecological Applications 16: 687–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, M. P. and Best, L. B. (1996). Bird abundance and nesting success in Iowa CRP fields: the importance of vegetation structure and composition. American Midland Naturalist 135: 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D. W., Vickery, P. D. and Shriver, W. G. (2008). Population viability analysis of the Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus): testing recovery goals and management options. Auk 125: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlut, N. G., Strong, A. M., Donovan, T. M. and Buckley, N. J. (2006). Grassland songbirds in a dynamic management landscape: behavioral responses and management strategies. Ecological Applications 16: 2235–2245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. and Danielson, B. J. (1991). Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. American Naturalist 137(Suppl.): S50–S66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyle, P. (1997). Identification Guide to North American Birds, Part 1. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, CA.Google Scholar
Pyle, P., Jones, S. L. and Ruth, J. M. (2008). Molt and Aging Criteria for Four North American Grassland Passerines. US Department of Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6011–2008, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Reed, J. M., Mills, L. S., Dunning, J. B. Jr., Menges, E. S., McKelvey, K. S., Frye, R., Beissinger, S. R., Anstett, M. and Miller, P. (2002). Emerging issues in population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 16: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, R. B., Ribic, C. A. and Nack, J. L. (2005). Edge avoidance by nesting grassland birds: a futile strategy in a fragmented landscape. Auk 122: 618–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, J. W., Althoff, D. P., Gipson, P. S. and Pontius, J. S. 2003. Evaluation of a reproductive index to estimate dickcissel reproductive success. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 136–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, S. A. and Stutchbury, B. J. M. (2008). Survival of fledgling hooded warblers (Wilsonia citrina) in small and large forest fragments. Auk 125: 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheiman, D. M. (2005). Dispersal rates, extinction risk, and metapopulation dynamics of bobolinks. PhD dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Scheiman, D. M., Bollinger, E. K. and Johnson, D. H. (2003). Effects of leafy spurge infestation on grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheiman, D. M., Dunning, J. B. and With, K. A. (2007). Metapopulation dynamics of bobolinks occupying agricultural grasslands in the Midwestern United States. American Midland Naturalist 158: 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stith, B. M., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Woolfenden, G. E. and Pranty, B. (1996). Classification and conservation of metapopulations: a case study of the Florida scrub-jay. In Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation (McCullough, D. R., ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC: 187–215.Google Scholar
Sutter, B. and Ritchison, G. (2005). Effects of grazing on vegetation structure, prey availability, and reproductive success of grasshopper sparrows. Journal of Field Ornithology 76: 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, S. A. (2002). Dickcissel (Spiza americana). In The Birds of North America: No. 703 (Poole, A. and Gill, F., eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA: 1–24.Google Scholar
Temple, S. A., Fevold, B. M., Paine, L. K., Undersander, D. J. and Sample, D. W. (1999). Nesting birds and grazing cattle: accommodating both on Midwestern pastures. Studies in Avian Biology 19: 196–202.Google Scholar
Vickery, P. D. (1996). Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). In The Birds of North America: No. 239 (Poole, A. and Gill, F., eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC: 1–24.Google Scholar
Vickery, P. D., Hunter, M. L. and Wells, J. V. (1992). Use of a new reproductive index to evaluate relationships between habitat quality and breeding success. Auk 109: 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walk, J. W. and Warner, R. E. (1999). Effects of habitat area on the occurrence of grassland birds in Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 141: 339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, G. C. and Burnham, K. P. (1999). Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Suppl.): 120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, M. and Faaborg, J. (1999). Patterns of area sensitivity in grassland-nesting birds. Conservation Biology 13: 1424–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A., King, A. W. and Jensen, W. E. (2008). Remaining large grasslands may not be sufficient to prevent grassland bird declines. Biological Conservation 141: 3152–3167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberger, J. F. (1976). Habitat selection and the evolution of polygyny in bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). PhD dissertation, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA.
Zimmerman, J. L. (1982). Nesting success of dickcissels (Spiza americana) in preferred and less preferred habitats. Auk 99: 292–298.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J. L. (1983). Cowbird parasitism of dickcissels in different habitats and at different nest densities. Wilson Bulletin 95: 7–22.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J. L. (1984). Nest predation and its relationship to habitat and nest density in dickcissels. Condor 86: 68–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×