Differences in Predators of Artificial and Real Songbird Nests: Evidence of Bias in Artificial Nest Studies

By Frank R. Thompson, D. Burhans. 2004

191 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/64e122ebfdc2380e13346a75a24c3b50591f887d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. Peter P. Marra
2. Richard T. Holmes
3. A. Anders
4. Keith A. Hobson
5. T. Sillett
6. Frank R. Thompson
7. T. Sherry
8. J. Faaborg

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. T. Sillett
2. T. Sherry
3. Richard T. Holmes
4. Peter P. Marra
5. Keith A. Hobson
6. Frank R. Thompson
7. J. Faaborg
8. A. Anders

Citations in the corpus

• Testing ecological and behavioral correlates of nest predation (2007, background): “Although the predator community of artificial and real nests may not be the same for different nesting guilds or habitats (Thompson and Burhans 2003, 2004), this is unlikely in this system because of the limited predator community and the focus on a single habitat type.”
• Nestling begging increases predation risk, regardless of spectral characteristics or avian mobbing (2009, background): “For example, artificial nest structures such as cane baskets may evoke predator neophobia or even attract an entirely new subset of predators (see Major and Kendal 1996; Thompson and Burhans 2004 for reviews).”
• Recent advances in understanding migration systems of New World land birds (2010, background): “For example, in Missouri, artificial nests were depredated primarily by corvids and raccoons, real nests mainly by snakes (Thompson and Burhans 2004).”
• Review of impacts of the introduced house mouse on islands in the Southern Ocean: are mice equivalent to rats? (2009, background): “nests and eggs found evidence of mouse predation, although such studies are difficult to interpret (Faaborg 2004; Thompson and Burhans 2004).”
• Review and Meta-Analysis of Camera Effects on Avian Nest Success (2009, background): “Methods to infer predator identity using artificial nests are rife with their own biases (Willebrand and Marcström 1988, Major and Kendal 1996, Pärt and Wretenberg 2002, Burke et al. 2004, Thompson and Burhans 2004).”
• Demographic Responses by Birds to Forest Fragmentation (2005, methodology): “Artificial nest experiments were excluded from this study because generalizing from those studies to the effects of fragmentation on survivorship of real bird nests has proven difficult (e.g., Faaborg 2004; Thompson & Burhans 2004).”