Linking nest microhabitat selection to nest survival within declining pheasant populations in the Central Valley of California
Ian A. Dwight A , Jessica H. Vogt A , Peter S. Coates
A D , Joseph P. Fleskes A , Daniel P. Connelly B and Scott C. Gardner C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A US Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station, 800 Business Park Drive, Suite D, Dixon, CA 95620, USA.
B Pheasants Forever, 1783 Buerkle Circle, Saint Paul, MN 55110, USA.
C California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1416 9th Street, 12th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA.
D Corresponding author. Email: pcoates@usgs.gov
Wildlife Research 47(5) 391-403 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR18199
Submitted: 21 December 2018 Accepted: 24 February 2020 Published: 15 July 2020
Journal Compilation © CSIRO 2020 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Context: The ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) has experienced considerable population declines in recent decades, especially in agricultural environments of the Central Valley of California. Although large-scale changes in land cover have been reported as an important driver of population dynamics, the effects of microhabitat conditions on specific demographic rates (e.g. nesting) are largely unknown.
Aims: Our goal was to identify the key microhabitat factors that contribute to wild pheasant fitness by linking individual-level selection of each microhabitat characteristic to the survival of their nests within the California Central Valley.
Methods: We radio- or GPS-marked 190 female ring-necked pheasants within five study areas and measured nest-site characteristics and nest fates during 2013–2017. Specifically, we modeled microhabitat selection using vegetation covariates measured at nest sites and random sites and then modeled nest survival as a function of selecting each microhabitat characteristic.
Key results: Female pheasants tended to select nest sites with greater proportions of herbaceous cover and avoided areas with greater proportions of bare-ground. Specifically, perennial grass cover was the most explanatory factor with regard to nest survival, but selection for increasing visual obstruction alone was not shown to have a significant effect on survival. Further, we found strong evidence that pheasants selecting sites with greater perennial grass height were more likely to have successful nests.
Conclusions: Although pheasants will select many types of vegetation available as cover, our models provided evidence that perennial grasses are more beneficial than other cover types to pheasants selecting nesting sites.
Implications: Focusing management actions on promoting perennial grass cover and increased heights at the microsite level, in lieu of other vegetative modifications, may provide improved quality of habitat for nesting pheasants and, perhaps, result in increased productivity. This is especially important if cover is limited during specific times of the nesting period. Understanding how microhabitat selection influences fitness can help land managers develop strategies to increase the sustainability of hunted populations of this popular game-bird species.
Additional keywords: California, Central Valley, habitat selection, nest survival, perennial grass, Phasianus colchicus, ring-necked pheasant, vegetation composition.
References
Anderson, D. R. (2008). ‘Model Based Inferences in the Life Sciences.’ (Springer Science: New York, NY, USA.)Andrén, H. (1992). Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective. Ecology 73, 794–804.
| Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Atkinson, P. W., Fuller, R. J., Vickery, J. A., Conway, G. J., Tallowin, J. R. B., Smith, R. E. N., Haysom, K. A., Ings, T. C., Asteraki, E. J., and Brown, V. K. (2005). Influence of agricultural management, sward structure, and food resources on grassland field use by birds in lowland England. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 932–942.
| Influence of agricultural management, sward structure, and food resources on grassland field use by birds in lowland England.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Steve Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.
| Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., and Wilson, J. D. (2003). Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 182–188.
| Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Best, L. (1986). Conservation tillage: ecological traps for nesting birds? Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–2006) 14, 308–317.
Blomberg, E. J., Gibson, D., and Sedinger, J. S. (2015). Biases in nest survival associated with choice of exposure period: a case study in North American upland game birds. The Condor 117, 577–588.
| Biases in nest survival associated with choice of exposure period: a case study in North American upland game birds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2002). ‘Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-theoretic Approach.’ 2nd edn. (Springer: New York, NY, USA.)
Byers, J. (1997). ‘American Pronghorn. Social Adaptations and the Ghosts of Predators Past.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.)
Chamberlain, D. E., Fuller, R. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Duckworth, J. C., and Shrubb, M. (2000). Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 771–788.
| Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chesness, R., Nelson, M., and Longley, W. (1968). The effect of predator removal on pheasant reproductive success. The Journal of Wildlife Management 32, 683–697.
| The effect of predator removal on pheasant reproductive success.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clark, W., Schmitz, R., and Bogenschutz, T. (1999). Site selection and nest success of ring-necked pheasants as a function of location in Iowa landscapes. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63, 976–989.
| Site selection and nest success of ring-necked pheasants as a function of location in Iowa landscapes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coates, P. S., and Delehanty, D. J. (2010). Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 240–248.
| Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coates, P. S., Prochazka, B. G., Ricca, M. A., Gustafson, K. B., Ziegler, P., and Casazza, M. L. (2017a). Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of greatersage-grouse. Rangeland Ecology and Management 70, 25–38.
| Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of greatersage-grouse.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coates, P. S., Brussee, B. E., Howe, K. B., Fleskes, J. P., Dwight, I. A., Connelly, D. P., Meshriy, M. G., and Gardner, S. C. (2017b). Long-term and widespread changes in agricultural practices influence ring-necked pheasant abundance in California. Ecology and Evolution 7, 2546–2559.
| Long-term and widespread changes in agricultural practices influence ring-necked pheasant abundance in California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28428846PubMed |
Collias, N., and Collias, E. (1984). ‘Nest Building and Bird Behavior.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA.)
Dahlgren, R. B. (1988). Distribution and abundance of the ring-necked pheasant in North America. In ‘Proceedings of the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference’.(Eds D. L. Hallett, W. R. Edwards, and G. V. Burger.) pp. 29–43. (North Central Section of The Wildlife Society: Bloomington, IN, USA.)
Daubenmire, R. (1959). A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science 33, 43–64.
Draycott, R. A. H., Hoodless, A. N., Woodburn, M. I. A., and Sage, R. B. (2008). Nest predation of common pheasants Phasianus colchicus. The Ibis 150, 37–44.
| Nest predation of common pheasants Phasianus colchicus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dumke, R., and Pils, C. (1979). Renesting and dynamics of nest site selection by Wisconsin pheasants. The Journal of Wildlife Management 43, 705–716.
| Renesting and dynamics of nest site selection by Wisconsin pheasants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elton, C. (1939). On the nature of cover. The Journal of Wildlife Management 3, 332–338.
| On the nature of cover.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Evans, K. L. (2004). The potential for interactions between predation and habitat change to cause population declines of farmland birds. The Ibis 146, 1–13.
| The potential for interactions between predation and habitat change to cause population declines of farmland birds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fahrig, L. (2007). Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Functional Ecology 21, 1003–1015.
| Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Frey, S. N., Majors, S., Conover, M. R., Messmer, T. A., and Mitchell, D. L. (2003). Effect of predator control on ring-necked pheasant populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 727–735.
Gibson, D., Blomberg, E. J., and Sedinger, J. S. (2016). Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics: the role of plant phenology and sampling bias. Ecology and Evolution 6, 3621–3631.
| Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics: the role of plant phenology and sampling bias.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27148444PubMed |
Giesen, K. M., Schoenberg, T. J., and Braun, C. E. (1982). Methods for trapping sage grouse in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10, 224–231.
Glemnitz, M., Zander, P., and Stachow, U. (2015). Regionalizing land use impacts on farmland birds. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187, 336.
| Regionalizing land use impacts on farmland birds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25957192PubMed |
Haensly, T., Crawford, J., and Meyers, S. (1987). Relationships of habitat structure to nest success of ring-necked pheasants. The Journal of Wildlife Management 51, 421–425.
| Relationships of habitat structure to nest success of ring-necked pheasants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hausleitner, D., Reese, K., and Appa, A. (2005). Timing of vegetation sampling at greater sage-grouse nests. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58, 553–556.
| Timing of vegetation sampling at greater sage-grouse nests.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Holland, J. D., Bert, D. G., and Fahrig, L. (2004). Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54, 227–233.
| Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jones, R. E. (1968). A board to measure cover used by prairie grouse. The Journal of Wildlife Management 32, 28–31.
| A board to measure cover used by prairie grouse.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jones, R. E., and Hungerford, K. E. (1972). Evaluation of nesting cover as protection from magpie predation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 36, 727–732.
| Evaluation of nesting cover as protection from magpie predation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jorgensen, C. F., Powell, L. A., Lusk, J. J., Bishop, A. A., and Fontaine, J. J. (2014). Assessing landscape constraints on species abundance: does the neighborhood limit species response to local habitat conservation programs? PLoS One 9, e99339.
| Assessing landscape constraints on species abundance: does the neighborhood limit species response to local habitat conservation programs?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24918779PubMed |
Joselyn, G. B., Warnock, J. E., and Etter, S. L. (1968). Manipulation of roadside cover for nesting pheasants: a preliminary report. The Journal of Wildlife Management 32, 217–233.
| Manipulation of roadside cover for nesting pheasants: a preliminary report.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kallioniemi, H., Väänänen, V.-M., Nummi, P., and Virtanen, J. (2015). Bird quality, origin and predation level affect survival and reproduction of translocated pheasants Phasianus colchicus. Wildlife Biology 21, 269–276.
| Bird quality, origin and predation level affect survival and reproduction of translocated pheasants Phasianus colchicus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kristan, W. B. (2003). The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source–sink systems and ecological traps. Oikos 103, 457–468.
| The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source–sink systems and ecological traps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Laake, J., and Rexstad, E. (2007). Appendix C. RMark: an alternative approach to building linear models. In ‘Program MARK: a Gentle Introduction’. (Eds E. Cooch and G. White.) pp. C1–C115. (Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA.)
Labisky, R. F. (1959). Night-lighting: a technique for capturing birds and mammals. Biological Notes 040, 1–11.
Labisky, R. F., and Jackson, G. L. (1966). Characteristics of egg-laying and eggs of yearling pheasants. The Wilson Bulletin 78, 379–399.
Laforge, M. P., Vander Wal, E., Brook, R. K., Bayne, E. M., and McLoughlin, P. D. (2015). Process-focussed, multi-grain resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling 305, 10–21.
| Process-focussed, multi-grain resource selection functions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lauridsen, T., and Lodge, D. (1996). Avoidance by Daphnia magna of fish and macrophytes: chemical cues and predator-mediated use of macrophyte habitat. Limnology and Oceanography 41, 794–798.
| Avoidance by Daphnia magna of fish and macrophytes: chemical cues and predator-mediated use of macrophyte habitat.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lever, C. (1987). ‘Naturalized birds of the world.’ (John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA.)
Lockyer, Z. B., Coates, P. S., Casazza, M. L., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D. J. (2015). Nest‐site selection and reproductive success of greater sage‐grouse in a fire‐affected habitat of northwestern Nevada. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79, 785–797.
Manly, F. J., McDonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., McDonald, T. L., and Erickson, W. P. (2002). ‘Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies.’ (Chapman and Hall: London, UK.)
Marzluff, J. M., Boone, R. B., and Cox, G. W. (1994). Native pest bird species in the West: why have they succeeded where so many have failed? Studies in Avian Biology 15, 202–220.
Matthews, T. W., Taylor, J. S., and Powell, L. A. (2012). Ring-necked pheasant hens select managed Conservation Reserve Program grasslands for nesting and brood-rearing. Wildlife Management 76, 1653–1660.
| Ring-necked pheasant hens select managed Conservation Reserve Program grasslands for nesting and brood-rearing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mineau, P., and Whiteside, M. (2006). Lethal risk to birds from insecticide use in the United States: spatial and temporal analysis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25, 1214–1222.
| Lethal risk to birds from insecticide use in the United States: spatial and temporal analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16704051PubMed |
Nielson, R. M., McDonald, L. L., Sullivan, J. P., Burgess, C., Johnson, D. S., Johnson, D. H., and Howlin, S. (2008). Estimating the response of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) to the conservation reserve program. The Auk 125, 434–444.
| Estimating the response of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) to the conservation reserve program.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Orians, G. H., and Wittenberger, J. F. (1991). Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. American Naturalist 137, S29–S49.
| Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Patterson, M., and Best, L. (1996). Bird abundance and nesting success in Iowa CRP fields: the importance of vegetation structure and composition. American Midland Naturalist 135, 153–167.
| Bird abundance and nesting success in Iowa CRP fields: the importance of vegetation structure and composition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Peckarsky, B., and Penton, M. (1988). Why do Ephemerella nymphs scorpion posture: a ‘ghost of predation past’? Oikos 53, 185–193.
| Why do Ephemerella nymphs scorpion posture: a ‘ghost of predation past’?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Core Team (2014). ‘R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria.)
Rearden, J. D. (1951). Identification of waterfowl nest predators. The Journal of Wildlife Management 15, 386–395.
| Identification of waterfowl nest predators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rice, C. G. (2003). Utility of pheasant call counts and brood counts for monitoring population density and predicting harvest. Western North American Naturalist 63, 178–188.
Robel, R. J., Briggs, J. N., Dayton, A. D., and Hulbert, L. C. (1970). Relationships between visual obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range Management 23, 295–297.
| Relationships between visual obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robertson, P. A. (1996). Does nesting cover limit abundance of ring-necked pheasants in North America? Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 98–106.
Schroeder, M. A., Young, J. R., and Braun, C. E. (1999). Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In ‘The Birds of North America’. (Eds A. Poole and F. Gill.) pp. 425. (The Academy of Natural Sciences: Philadelphia, PA, USA.)
Sedgwick, J. (2004). Site fidelity, site territoriality, and natal philopatry in willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii). The Auk 121, 1103–1121.
| Site fidelity, site territoriality, and natal philopatry in willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Seymour, A. S., Harris, S., and White, P. C. L. (2004). Potential effects of reserve size on incidental nest predation by red foxes Vulpes vulpes. Ecological Modelling 175, 101–114.
| Potential effects of reserve size on incidental nest predation by red foxes Vulpes vulpes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, S., Stewart, N., and Gates, J. (1999). Homes ranges, habitat selection, and mortality of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in north central Maryland. American Midland Naturalist 141, 185–197.
| Homes ranges, habitat selection, and mortality of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in north central Maryland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, P. A., Gilchrist, H. G., and Smith, J. N. M. (2007). Effects of nest habitat, food, and parental behavior on shorebird nest success. The Condor 109, 15–31.
| Effects of nest habitat, food, and parental behavior on shorebird nest success.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wakkinen, W. L., Reese, K. P., Connelly, J. W., and Fischer, R. A. (1992). An improved spotlighting technique for capturing sage-grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20, 425–426.
Warner, R. (1994). Agricultural land use and grassland habitat in Illinois: future shock for Midwestern birds? Conservation Biology 8, 147–156.
| Agricultural land use and grassland habitat in Illinois: future shock for Midwestern birds?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Warner, R., and Etter, S. (1989). Hay cutting and the survival of pheasants: a long-term perspective. The Journal of Wildlife Management 53, 455–461.
| Hay cutting and the survival of pheasants: a long-term perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
White, G. C., and Burnham, K. P. (1999). Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46, S120–S138.
| Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wood, A., and Brotherson, J. (1981). Microenvironment and nest site selection by ring-necked pheasants in Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist 41, 457–460.
Zuur, A. F., Leno, E. N., Valker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., and Smith, G. M. (2009). ‘Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R: Statistics for Biology and Health.’ (Springer Science + Business Media, LLC: New York, NY, USA.)
