PREDATION OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL NESTS IN A SOUTHERN PINE FOREST

By Jeffrey J. Buler, R. B. Hamilton. 2000

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c24d76db8349a5ba0b1dc8600cef0f2f7bd74982

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

Citations in the corpus

Demographic and behavioral comparisons of suburban and rural American Crows (2001, background): “Crows frequently depredate the nests of other birds (Sodersrom et al. 1998, Buler and Hamilton 2000 ).”
Differences in Predators of Artificial and Real Songbird Nests: Evidence of Bias in Artificial Nest Studies (2004, background): “Buler and Hamilton (2000) documented 35 mouse visits to artificial nests based on cameras and evidence at the nest but found only 8 depredations on quail eggs by small-mouthed mammals.”
Nest predation in forest birds: influence of predator type and predator's habitat quality (2003, unknown): “…and Cotterill 1998, Söderström et al. 1998), the effects of different predators on the risk of nest predation needs to be further investigated (Buler and Hamilton 2000) as well as the effects of differences in habitat quality for the predator (e.g. the level of other resources for the…”
Predation rate on artificial nests increases with human housing density in suburban habitats (2003, background): “Nest predation causes most reproductive failure in birds (Ricklefs 1969, Hatchwell et al. 1999, Buler and Hamilton 2000, Knutson et al. 2000) and has thus become a focus of many studies examining the impacts of habitat alterations on avian demography, especially that of habitat fragmentation and e”
Video identification of predators at Golden-cheeked Warbler nests (2004, background): “Corvids, in particular, may be attracted to cameras as a novel part of their environment (Buler and Hamilton 2000; Pietz and Granfors 2000) and subsequently associate cameras with a reward (Farnsworth and Simons 2000).”
Review and Meta-Analysis of Camera Effects on Avian Nest Success (2009, methodology): “…surveillance cameras: 1) minimize nest abandonment due to camera deployment by adopting previously published recommendations (Thompson et al. 1999, Buler and Hamilton 2000, Pietz and Granfors 2000, Renfrew and Ribic 2003, Stake and Cimprich 2003); 2) minimize visual and olfactory conspicuousness…”
Evidence of an Edge Effect on Avian Nest Success (2004, background): “The depredation of artificial nests usually differs from that of real nests (e.g., Willebrand & Marcstrom 1988; Buler & Hamilton 2000), so artificial nests should not be used to measure actual rates of nest predation (Wilson et al. 1998).”