What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies

Because reliable estimates of nesting success are very important to avian studies, the defnition of a “successful nest” and the use of different analytical methods to estimate success have received much attention. By contrast, variation in the criteria used to determine whether an occupied site that...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Auk
Main Authors: Victoria Garcia, Courtney J. Conway
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: American Ornithological Society 2009
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.06259
id ftbioone:10.1525/auk.2009.06259
record_format openpolar
spelling ftbioone:10.1525/auk.2009.06259 2024-05-12T08:01:26+00:00 What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies Victoria Garcia Courtney J. Conway Victoria Garcia Courtney J. Conway world 2009-01-01 text/HTML https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.06259 en eng American Ornithological Society doi:10.1525/auk.2009.06259 All rights reserved. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.06259 Text 2009 ftbioone https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.06259 2024-04-16T02:13:14Z Because reliable estimates of nesting success are very important to avian studies, the defnition of a “successful nest” and the use of different analytical methods to estimate success have received much attention. By contrast, variation in the criteria used to determine whether an occupied site that did not produce offspring contained a nesting attempt is a source of bias that has been largely ignored. This problem is especially severe in studies that deal with species whose nest contents are relatively inaccessible because observers cannot determine whether or not an egg was laid for a large proportion of occupied sites. Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) often lay their eggs ≥3 m below ground, so past Burrowing Owl studies have used a variety of criteria to determine whether a nesting attempt was initiated. We searched the literature to document the extent of that variation and examined how that variation influenced estimates of daily nest survival. We found 13 different sets of criteria used by previous authors and applied each criterion to our data set of 1,300 occupied burrows. We found significant variation in estimates of daily nest survival depending on the criteria used. Moreover, differences in daily nest survival among populations were apparent using some sets of criteria but not others. These inconsistencies may lead to incorrect conclusions and invalidate comparisons of the productivity and relative site quality among populations. We encourage future authors working on cavity-, canopy-, or burrow-nesting birds to provide specific details on the criteria they used to identify a nesting attempt. Text Avian Studies BioOne Online Journals Burrows ENVELOPE(163.650,163.650,-74.300,-74.300) The Auk 126 1 31 40
institution Open Polar
collection BioOne Online Journals
op_collection_id ftbioone
language English
description Because reliable estimates of nesting success are very important to avian studies, the defnition of a “successful nest” and the use of different analytical methods to estimate success have received much attention. By contrast, variation in the criteria used to determine whether an occupied site that did not produce offspring contained a nesting attempt is a source of bias that has been largely ignored. This problem is especially severe in studies that deal with species whose nest contents are relatively inaccessible because observers cannot determine whether or not an egg was laid for a large proportion of occupied sites. Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) often lay their eggs ≥3 m below ground, so past Burrowing Owl studies have used a variety of criteria to determine whether a nesting attempt was initiated. We searched the literature to document the extent of that variation and examined how that variation influenced estimates of daily nest survival. We found 13 different sets of criteria used by previous authors and applied each criterion to our data set of 1,300 occupied burrows. We found significant variation in estimates of daily nest survival depending on the criteria used. Moreover, differences in daily nest survival among populations were apparent using some sets of criteria but not others. These inconsistencies may lead to incorrect conclusions and invalidate comparisons of the productivity and relative site quality among populations. We encourage future authors working on cavity-, canopy-, or burrow-nesting birds to provide specific details on the criteria they used to identify a nesting attempt.
author2 Victoria Garcia
Courtney J. Conway
format Text
author Victoria Garcia
Courtney J. Conway
spellingShingle Victoria Garcia
Courtney J. Conway
What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies
author_facet Victoria Garcia
Courtney J. Conway
author_sort Victoria Garcia
title What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies
title_short What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies
title_full What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies
title_fullStr What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies
title_full_unstemmed What Constitutes a Nesting Attempt? Variation in Criteria Causes Bias and Hinders Comparisons Across Studies
title_sort what constitutes a nesting attempt? variation in criteria causes bias and hinders comparisons across studies
publisher American Ornithological Society
publishDate 2009
url https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.06259
op_coverage world
long_lat ENVELOPE(163.650,163.650,-74.300,-74.300)
geographic Burrows
geographic_facet Burrows
genre Avian Studies
genre_facet Avian Studies
op_source https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.06259
op_relation doi:10.1525/auk.2009.06259
op_rights All rights reserved.
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2009.06259
container_title The Auk
container_volume 126
container_issue 1
container_start_page 31
op_container_end_page 40
_version_ 1798843577706479616