Geology topics

M.R. Marshall

Publications and source records attributed to M.R. Marshall.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2011

Nest success of grassland sparrows on reclaimed surface mines

Grasslands resulting from surface mine reclamation support grassland songbird populations in several midwestern and eastern states in the United States, especially where reclaimed mines are large (>1,000ha). However, most reclaimed surface mines in Pennsylvania are small (<200ha), and nest success is unknown. We evaluated nest success of grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum), Henslow's (A. henslowii), and Savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis) on 4 reclaimed surface mines (50-180ha) in western Pennsylvania, USA from 2006 to 2007. Overall nest success based on mean covariate values was 0.435 (95% CI = 0.376-0.504) for grasshopper sparrows, 0.396 (95% CI = 0.295-0.533) for Henslow's sparrows, and 0.158 (95% CI = 0.063-0.392) for Savannah sparrows. These estimates of nest success are comparable to those on larger reclaimed mines and other habitats. Grasshopper and Henslow's sparrow nests that were well concealed were less likely to fail than highly visible nests (??visible = -0.028, CI = -0.051 to -0.005 for grasshopper sparrows; ??visible = -0.063, CI = -0.112 to -0.014 for Henslow's sparrows), and nests in areas with surrounding deep litter were more likely to fail than nests in areas with shallow litter (??litterD = -0.145, CI = -0.335 to 0.045 for grasshopper sparrows; ??litterD = -0.676, CI = -1.187 to -0.116 for Henslow's sparrows). Savannah sparrow nests in areas with high visual obstruction by vegetation were less likely to fail than nests in areas with sparse and short vegetation (??VisOb = 0.048, CI = 0.006-0.091). Daily probability of survival for grasshopper sparrow nests was greatest early and late in the breeding season, and Savannah sparrow nest survival followed a decreasing linear trend. Nest survival of Henslow's sparrows was greater on warm days (??temp = 0.197, CI = 0.014-0.379), whereas for Savannah sparrows nest survival decreased on warm days and on days with rain, but for Savannah sparrows confidence intervals of weather effects included zero (??temp = -0.098, CI = -0.246 to 0.050; ??rain = 3.13, CI = -14.19 to 20.45). We suggest that small reclaimed surface mine grasslands can provide valuable nesting habitat and could be important to the conservation of grassland bird populations. Because nest success can increase in the latter part of the nesting season, agricultural disturbances or management activities in mid- to late summer could adversely affect reproductive success. ?? 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗

USGS2007

Incorporating availability for detection in estimates of bird abundance

Several bird-survey methods have been proposed that provide an estimated detection probability so that bird-count statistics can be used to estimate bird abundance. However, some of these estimators adjust counts of birds observed by the probability that a bird is detected and assume that all birds are available to be detected at the time of the survey. We marked male Henslow's Sparrows ( Ammodramus henslowii ) and Grasshopper Sparrows ( A. savannarum ) and monitored their behavior during May-July 2002 and 2003 to estimate the proportion of time they were available for detection. We found that the availability of Henslow's Sparrows declined in late June to <10% for 5- or 10-min point counts when a male had to sing and be visible to the observer; but during 20 May-19 June, males were available for detection 39.1% (SD = 27.3) of the time for 5-min point counts and 43.9% (SD = 28.9) of the time for 10-min point counts ( n = 54). We detected no temporal changes in availability for Grasshopper Sparrows, but estimated availability to be much lower for 5-min point counts (10.3%, SD = 12.2) than for 10-min point counts (19.2%, SD = 22.3) when males had to be visible and sing during the sampling period ( n = 80). For distance sampling, we estimated the availability of Henslow's Sparrows to be 44.2% (SD = 29.0) and the availability of Grasshopper Sparrows to be 20.6% (SD = 23.5). We show how our estimates of availability can be incorporated in the abundance and variance estimators for distance sampling and modify the abundance and variance estimators for the double-observer method. Methods that directly estimate availability from bird counts but also incorporate detection probabilities need further development and will be important for obtaining unbiased estimates of abundance for these species.

The Auk↗

USGS2000

Estimating survival of neotropical-nearctic migratory birds: Are they dead or just dispersed?

The most common method for estimating adult survival in site specific demographic studies of Neotropical-Nearctic migratory bird populations is by measuring the return rate of marked individuals. Return rate historically has been defined as the ratio of resighted birds to the total number banded (i.e., with bands on) the prior year, and has been used as a 'minimum number known alive' estimate of survival. Return rates potentially underestimate true survival (the complement of mortality) for two reasons. First, not every bird that returns to the study plot is actually encountered by the field researcher, and second, not every bird that survives to the next breeding season returns to the study plot. We use a branching-tree diagram to illustrate that the essential problem with return rate methodology is that the fate of birds that are not resighted is unknown. It is widely recognized that Cormack-Jolly-Seber based analyses greatly improve 'survival' estimates by incorporating the probability of resighting a bird given that it is alive and present on the study plot. However, these estimates will underestimate true survival if birds disperse beyond the range of the resighting effort. Because long-distance dispersal events are an important component of migratory bird ecology, we cannot estimate true survival from return rate data until better information on dispersal distances and probabilities are collected. We discuss several conservation implications of underestimating survival,.and suggest terminology that is potentially less confusing.

Book chapter↗

USGS1999

Does nonrandom nest placement imply nonrandom nest predation?: A reply

In response to the critique by Schmidt and Whelan (Condor 101(4):916-920, 1999), we find that the relationship between nest success and tree selectivity is dependent upon inclusion or exclusion of particular tree species, whether or not years are pooled, and the selectivity index used. We question their use of point estimates of nest success with extremely high variances, defend our index, question the application of the Chesson (1983) index to our data, and explain the need to analyze years separately. Bottomland hardwood forest systems are extremely variable; hydroperiods alter the suitability of nesting substrates, availability of alternative food, and behavior of predators and their prey. Given these features, actively searching for Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) nests is seldom an efficient predator foraging strategy. Therefore, these predation events are best described as random; nests are principally encountered opportunistically by generalist predators while searching for other prey.

Condor↗