Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
2 result(s) for "Fieldfare Turdus pilaris"
Sort by:
A case of interspecific nest use in thrushes (Turdidae)
Apart from some species that reuse their nests regularly, the reuse of open nests is an uncommon phenomenon in the majority of species, especially the passerines. The interspecific reuse of open nests has rarely been described. Here I examine a case of such reuse in thrushes, specifically the reuse of a Fieldfare's (Turdus pilaris) nest by a Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos). A total of 14 Song Thrush nests with eggs were found in an orchard; more than half of these clutches were unsuccessful. Breeding success in the Song Thrush in the orchard was 29% for first clutches/broods and 60% for second clutches/broods. Eleven Fieldfare nests contained clutches: 87% of them were unsuccessful. Breeding success was as low as 14% in the case of first clutches/ broods, and no second clutches/broods were successful. Having reviewed the hypotheses relating to nest reuse, I consider that this case was not brought about by a lack of suitable nesting sites. It was, however, advantageous in that the time and costs of building a new nest were much reduced, given that the nesting territory was of high quality, and that the nesting season is short and breeding success low.
“Strange Behaviours” of Parents at the Nest in an Avian Prey Species as a Potential Source of Bias When Studying Nest Predation and Signs Left by Different Predators
In most passerines, parent birds clean their nests. Egg shells, fecal sacs, and dead nestlings, as well as foreign objects, for example, leaf and twig debris, as they appear, are usually removed from nests in one or another way. If, for one reason or another (nest predation, inclement weather, starvation etc.), all offspring die, parents abandon the nest with egg or/and nestling remains. Finding one or another nest empty and intact before the earliest possible fledging date, observers who monitor nests usually attribute the failure to predation. Camera traps placed at 148 Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) nests in 2016–2020 to study nest predation in Moscow City, Russia documented two cases of sanitation (by females) of entire and almost entire (all but one dead nestling) broods of dead nestlings that had died due to inclement weather. This information is one of the very few, probably the second, and for Eurasian species probably the first published evidence of such a behaviour in passerines. In addition, eight cases of removal by parents of the traces of predation were recorded immediately or soon after (within 0.1–4.2 h) complete depredation of nest contents: eating at the nest or the removal by parents of egg shells, remains of egg contents, as well as feathers lost by parents as a result of predator attacks, an active or passive elimination of disturbances in the lining of the nest cup. Complete or partial “concealment of evidence” by parents occurred in about every four depredated nests, including those in which predators did not leave any “evidence.” The removal by parents of all evidence of clutch/brood failure that had happened for any reason, not only due to predation, was recorded in approximately every third nest from which all offspring disappeared without a trace before the earliest possible fledging date. These behaviours of parents could possibly be considered as bringing them to the point of absurdity, “by inertia,” a sequence of stereotypic actions to maintain cleanliness, as well as the lining of the nest. An observation was also made of a female adding lining material to the nest cup (re-lining) on top of a dead, ca. 7-day old nestling from the failed previous brood and then laying a replacement clutch. All these cases are interesting not only because they provide new information on parental behaviour in the Fieldfare. These “strange behaviours” are also a potential source of bias when studying nest predation and signs left by different predatory species with traditional methods for monitoring the nests, with neither video monitoring nor automatic photography. Furthermore, it must not be excluded that, under some circumstances, even estimates of the relative frequency of different causes of nest failure can be biased due to these behavioural curiosities. That is why it is important to know how many and how frequently do bird species show similar behaviours.