Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/breeding-biology-of-the-endangered-yellow-cardinal-gubernatrix-WvFMCqtaDv
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © Sociedade Brasileira de Ornitologia 2019
- eISSN
- 2178-7875
- DOI
- 10.1007/bf03544446
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 44 4 4–52. ARTICLE March 2019 Breeding biology of the endangered Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata in Brazil 1,2 1 Christian Beier & Carla Suertegaray Fontana Laboratório de Ornitologia, Programa de Pós-graduação em Zoologia, Museu de Ciências e Tecnologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. Corresponding author: beier.ornito@gmail.com Received on 25 October 2018. Accepted on 27 March 2019. ABSTRACT T T: Th e Yellow Cardinal, Gubernatrix cristata, has a small geographic range in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. We studied the natural history of the only known Brazilian population of this “Endangered” species (~50 individuals), which is socially monogamous and may breed cooperatively. During two breeding seasons (October to February 2013–2015), we monitored nests and described the main breeding traits. Th e breeding season started from the fi rst week of October, with a peak of active nests in mid- November and lasted until mid-February. We found 32 nests, of which 30 were monitored. Female built the open-cup nests in six days (n = 1). All nests were built on Prosopis trees, on average at 2.4 m from the ground. Modal clutch size was three eggs (n = 19), and female incubated for 13 days on average (n = 7). Hatching rate was 76% and nestlings fled ged after 16 days (n = 6). Nestling survival rate was 67% with mean productivity of 1.6 fl edglings/successful nest. Shiny Cowbird, Molothrus bonariensis, parasitized nests of the Yellow Cardinal, with a frequency of 67% and intensity of 1.9 egg per parasitized nest (1–4 eggs; n = 13). Parasitism in nestlings by botfly larvae (Philornis sp.) occurred in 33% of nests with nestlings. Nest predation was the main cause of nest losses (73%) and we recorded a Geoff roy's Cat, Leopardus geoffroy i, preying on a nest with eggs. Th e probability of success using the Program MARK was 13%. Fledgling survival rate during the fi rst month outside the nest was 62% (8/13 fl edglings). We found a longer breeding season, occurrence of second broods, and higher rates but fewer nest losses due to brood parasitism in comparison to the Argentinian population. We highlight the importance of natural history studies for the conservation of diff erent populations of the same species. K K KE E EY-WORDS: brood parasitism, Molothrus bonariensis, nest predation, nesting success. INTR R RODUCTION recently its natural history was poorly known. Previous information about its breeding biology was limited to a The Yellow Cardinal , Gubernatrix cristata, is a passerine few old nesting records (Castellanos 1932, Höy 1969), a that was more abundant in the past and now have a very nest description (de la Peña 1981), and the breeding status fragmented distribution through northeast Argentina, of collected specimens (Belton 1994). Domínguez et al. Uruguay and southern Brazil (Ridgely & Tudor 2009). (2015) published the first study of the breeding biolog y Records in Brazil were few and it was even thought that of a Yellow Cardinal population in Corrientes province, the species was possibly extinct in the country (BirdLife Argentina. Some potential threats to breeding cardinals International 2018, Jaramillo 2019). Historical records are nest predation, brood parasitism, botfly parasitism are concentrated in southern and western Rio Grande do (Domínguez et al. 2015), hybridization (Bertonatti & Sul state (Bencke et al. 2003). Nowadays, there is at least López-Guerra 1997), and endogamy (Beier et al. 2017). one established resident population in the Rio Grande do Shiny Cowbird, Molothrus bonariensis s (hereafter, Sul with less than 50 individuals (Martins-Ferreira et al. cowbirds), is a generalist brood parasite and its eggs 2013, Beier et al. 2017). Bird trapping and habitat loss led were found in nests of 270 bird species (Lowther 2018), to a drastic population decline of the Yellow Cardinal in including Yellow Cardinal (Domínguez et al. 2015). all its range (Dias 2008, Ridgely & Tudor 2009, Azpiroz Th e main impact of cowbirds that parasitize hosts with et al. 2012, Martins-Ferreira et al. 2013). similar or larger body masses is the egg puncturing, which Studies of breeding biology and life-history increases the probability of nest abandonment (Massoni comparisons between populations enable early & Reboreda 2002, Reboreda et al. 2003, Domínguez identifi cation of threats, even before any evident et al. 2015). Also, botfl y larvae, Philornis s sp. (Diptera), population decline occur (Martin & Geupel 1993). may infest nestlings of the Yellow Cardinal (Domínguez Despite the decreasing trend of populations advised for et al. 2015). Botflies put their e ggs on nests of several the Yellow Cardinal (BirdLife International 2018), until bird species and their larvae infest the nestlings, feeding Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana with scattered thorny trees and shrubs, dominated by mainly on blood cells for four to eight days until they Prosopis affinis s and Vachellia caven (Fabaceae). This is one drop out to pupate (Dudaniec & Kleindorfer 2006). of the last and the largest reminiscent of this vegetation in Depending on the infestation intensity, i.e. the number of larvae infesting a nestling, it may have negative effects on Brazil (Marchiori & Alves 2011). Three areas were grazed nestling survival and increase nest abandonment after all by cattle (Fig. 1). We studied the breeding biology of the Yellow nestlings died (Dudaniec & Kleindorfer 2006, Rabuffetti Cardinal from October through February (2013–2015), & Reboreda 2007). since nesting activity has not been recorded before We studied the breeding biology of the only known population of the Yellow Cardinal in Brazil. The main October in a previous pilot study. Our dataset is the same breeding traits such as breeding season, nest, eggs, clutch used by Beier et al. (2017). We searched for adults at the beginning of each breeding season. Adults found were size, incubation, nestlings, brood parasitism, and nest captured using mist nets and marked with a numbered survival were described. aluminum ring (standard CEMAVE/ICMBio, the Brazilian Banding Agency) and a unique combination of METHODS colored plastic rings. We banded nestlings at 10 days of age or captured soon after fled ging. Study area Nest search We conducted this study in the municipality of Barra do Quaraí, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Th ree study We searched for nests only in areas with savanna areas were in the Espinilho State Park (ESP), and one vegetation mainly observing the mating pair, following the female and/or any individual carrying materials for at São Marcos Ranch (SMR), adjacent to the ESP. Th e nest building or feeding the nestlings. Each nest found climate is classifi ed as humid subtropical with hot summer (Cfa) in Köppen's climate classifi cation, with 1300 mm was georeferenced and monitored every two or three days accumulated annual rainfall and 19°C mean annual (rarely four or fi ve days), when we recorded the nest status temperature (Alvares et al. 2013; maximum 46°C was (active and inactive) and contents (number of eggs and/ or nestlings), from the day that nest was found until it taken by a camera trap in December 2013). Th e vegetation became inactive. When it was not possible to infer the is characterized by an area of insertion of Espinal Province (Cabrera & Willink 1973), which consists of grasslands exact day that a nest event occurred (laying, start of Figure 1. Espinilho State Park with the localization of the four study sites in Barra do Quaraí, Rio Grande do Sul state, at the frontier of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. Study sites B, C, and D were cattle grazed. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana incubation, hatching, fled ging or nest loss), we considered al. 2011). We calculated fled gling survival as the ratio that it occurred halfway between nest observations. between the number of young that survived 30 days after fl edging (young cardinals disperse after >10 months; Breeding season Beier et al. 2017) and the total number of fled glings. We assumed that fledgling died or was predated when it was We considered the breeding season length as the period of not seen with its parents after three consecutive visits (six days between the beginning of the first nest construction to nine days), which we considered enough time for the and the day the last nest ended, for both breeding seasons chick be able to follow its parents and to be more easily together. To estimate the start of the first nest construction detected. in the breeding season, we used the mean duration for each nest period (construction, laying, incubation, and R R Renesting nestling). We estimated nest building initiation date of the first nest based on the mean duration of nestin g stages We calculated the mean time interval and distance and plumage development of fledglings, for a mating pair between nesting attempts of the same female on each found with two fled glings in November 2014. Last day breeding season. Although only seven females were of breeding period was estimated using the approximated marked, we assumed that nesting attempts in the same date when the last active nest became inactive. territory were from the same female, especially when there was no evidence of divorce or female death (i.e., male alone for several days and performing courtship Description of nests and eggs displays). At least one individual of the mating pair was marked in all nests (13 nests only the male, four nests We described nest format and support type (as only the female, and 13 nests both individuals marked). recommended by Simon & Pacheco 2005), supporting plant species, and materials of which it was composed. Th e nest construction period was considered from the Parasitism placing of first materials on nest site until the first e gg laying. Nests and eggs were measured only after they were Brood parasitism frequency was the proportion of nests abandoned, or when the egg failed to hatch, to avoid with at least one cowbird egg from the total of nests possible negative effects of nest manipulation. Nests were that completed laying. For calculating brood parasitism measured using a ruler (1.0 mm precision) and nest height intensity, we used the mean number of cowbird eggs was measured using a retractable ruler (1.0 cm precision). per parasitized nests, considering only nests without Egg measurements were taken using a caliper (0.05 mm) partial clutch losses. Prevalence of botfly parasitism was and weighed using a digital scale (0.01 g). calculated as the ratio between the number of parasitized nests and the number of nests where nestlings were at Clutch size, incubation, and nestlings least 5 days old. Clutch size was noted at all nests, excluding those with Nest survival evidence of partial losses during egg laying. Th e clutch was considered completed after two consecutive visits without We considered the nest as predated when eggs or an increase in the number of eggs, and only from nests nestlings too young to fl edge vanished, including nests found during building, laying, or up to four days after with eggshells. Nests were considered as abandoned if incubation started (Lopes & Marini 2005). Incubation their contents remained with no sign of parental care. period starts after laying of the penultimate to the last Other potential causes of nest losses were nestling death egg until hatching, according to our observations and and brood parasite success. We installed camera-traps literature (Domínguez et al. 2015). Hatching rate was (Bushnell Trophy Cam HD) at eight nests to identify nest calculated as the ratio between the number of hatchlings predators, during incubation and nestling periods, 5–10 and the number of eggs at hatching (Di Giacomo et al. m far from the nests, and recorded a total of 12.5 h of 2011). Nestling stage starts at hatching and ends when video. A nest was considered successful when at least one the fi rst nestling leaves the nest, and we used only nests nestling of Yellow Cardinal fledged. We calculated the nest found with eggs and became successful to estimate its survival using three diff erent methods: (a) the apparent duration. Nest productivity was the number of fledglings success, as the ratio between the number of successful per successful nest and per female. Nestling survival was nests and the total number of monitored nests (Marini et calculated as the ratio between the number of fled glings al. 2010); (b) the Mayfield nestin g success, estimating the and hatchlings, considering only nests found during Daily Survival Rates (DSR) and the probability of success t ti tn construction, egg laying or incubation (Di Giacomo et (DSR R R ) for each nest period (DSR R R and DSR R R , where, ti Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana = number of days between laying and hatching = 14 days, fi rst twigs until laying of the fi rst egg. Mean nest height tn = number of days between hatching and fled ging = was 2.43 ± 0.67 m (1.07–4.43 m, n = 30). Nests were 17 days; Mayfi eld 1975), with modifi cations suggested built mostly in Prosopis affinis s trees (97%), and one nest by Hensler & Nichols (1981) to calculate the standard was built in P. nigra. Eggs were ovoid with a light bluish- deviation (SD) of the DSR for each period; and (c) the green background color and black spots (sometimes Program MARK, running the null model to calculate the it could have a few streaks) distributed over the entire DSR and DSR R R (t = number of days between laying and surface or concentrated at the blunt pole (Figs. 3A & C). fledging = 31 days; White & Burnham 1999). Only nests Mean egg mass was 3.84 ± 0.15 g and measured 24.7 ± with known fate were used to estimate nest survival. Nest 1.1 mm in length and 17.7 ± 0.6 mm in width (seven survival was not associated with nesting attempt order, eggs at different ages from three nests). so we considered successive nesting attempts of the same female/pair as independent events (six successful nests of Clutch size, incubation, nestlings and fledgling s 12 among first, two of six among second, and zero of two among third nesting attempts; chi-squared test: (2) = Mean clutch size was 2.95 ± 0.52 eggs (2–4 eggs; mode = 1.36, P P = 0.51; Di Giacomo et al. 2011). 3 eggs; n = 19), laying one egg/day. The incubation was initiated on the penultimate egg laid, lasted 12.9 ± 0.9 Statistical analysis days (12–14 days; n = 7) and only the female incubated the eggs. Hatching rate was 0.76 ± 0.25 (n = 14 nests) To assess differences on mean time interval an d distance and there was no difference between un parasitized between successful and unsuccessful nesting attempts we and parasitized nests (unparasitized: 0.80 ± 0.16, n = used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U U U-test (or Wilcoxon 6; parasitized: 0.73 ± 0.31, n = 8; U U = 23, P P = 0.95). rank sum test). We also used Z Z Z-test to assess differences Hatchlings (Fig. 3B) were orange skinned, with light grey of DSR and DSR R R between incubation and nestling down feathers on the head and back, red-carmine mouth, stages and parasitized and unparasitized nests. We used yellowish gape, and opened their eyes around seven days R software (R Core Team 2015) to run the statistical old. Th e nestlings (Fig. 3D) remained in the nest for tests. Values are presented as mean ± SD and considered 16.0 ± 1.3 days (15–18 days; n = 6). Nestling survival statistically signifi cant when P P < 0.05. rate of successful nests was 0.67 ± 0.28 (n = 6). Mean productivity was 1.6 ± 0.7 (1–3) fl edglings per successful nests (n = 8) and 2.6 ± 1.8 (1–5) fled glings per female (n RESULTS = 5). Fledglings had bare nape and belly, with remaining grey down feathers on the crown; greyish and streaked Nest search and breeding season breast, yellowish margins in wing feathers; fl ight and tail feathers not fully developed; yellowish gape. Fledglings at We found 32 nests, 14 in 2013–2014 of nine breeding the age of 35–40 days from hatching were muddy forms pairs and 18 in 2014–2015 belonging to 12 pairs. of the adult female (Figs. 3E & F). The fled gling survival Two nests found during construction were apparently rate was 62% (8/13 fl edglings). abandoned (never seen with eggs). Of the 30 remaining nests, six were found during nest-building, eight during egg laying, 13 during incubation, and three nests with nestlings. Both individuals of the pair were marked in 13 nests, only the male was marked in 13 nests and in four nests only the female was marked. We estimated that the beginning of nesting season was 03 October and the last nest became inactive on 12 February, totalizing 131 days. The peak of active nests was in late November (Fi g. 2). Description of nests and eggs Nest building was performed by females but closely Fi Figure 2 2. NNb umber of estimated nests of f i d f YYelloll w CarC dinal b di l by followed by males. Th e nest is a high cup/fork, with an nesting stage (laying/incubation: white bars; nestling stage: external layer of twigs (Prosopis s spp.) and an inner layer grey bars), total active nests (black bars), and nests parasitized of thinner sticks, grass, and other plants, lined with by cowbirds (dots) by two-week intervals during two breeding filamentous plants and horse/cattle hair. The nest was seasons (2013–2015) in Barra do Quaraí, Rio Grande do Sul built in six days (n = 1), considering the period from the state, Brazil. Data from both breeding seasons were combined. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana Figure 3. Nest and eggs of Yellow Cardinal in the municipality of Barra do Quaraí, Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil ( ( (A A A). Nestling in the day of hatching with host egg (top) and brood parasite egg (left of nestling) (B). Destroyed clutch with one egg of Yellow Cardinal and four eggs of Shiny Cowbird, including the white egg (C). Yellow Cardinal nestling (right) and Shiny Cowbird nestling (left) from the same successful nest (D). Yellow Cardinal a few hours after fl edged (E). Yellow Cardinal of about 25 days after fl edged (F). Photo author: Christian Beier. R R Renesting unsuccessful (n = 7) attempts (25.2 ± 10.3 days vs. 10.1 ± 4.3 days; U U = 1.5, P P = 0.02). Mean distance between We observed up to three nesting attempts performed by renesting attempts was 220.75 ± 86.36 m (99–330 m, n the same female (two females). From all nesting attempts, = 12), and there was no diff erence between successful (n 40% was renesting, 35.7% (5 of 14) in 2013–2014 and = 4) and unsuccessful (n = 8) attempts (174.75 ± 74.58 m 43.8% (7 of 16) in 2014–2015 breeding seasons, eight vs. 243.75 ± 86.74 m; U U = 7, P P = 0.15). pairs did one renesting attempt and two pairs did two renesting attempts. We observed renesting after a successful Brood parasitism attempt (n = 2) in two breeding pairs with helpers. Other two renesting occurred after successful attempts, but the Th e frequency of brood parasitism was 67% (20/30). The fl edglings of the previous nests did not survive the fi rst intensity of parasitism was 1.9 ± 1.3 eggs per parasitized month after fl edging, then we did not consider them as nest (1–4 eggs, n = 13). Th ree cowbird eggs measured second broods. Mean interval between renesting attempts 25.1 ± 0.6 mm in length, 20.4 ± 0.1 mm in width and was 15.6 ± 10.1 days (6–36 days, n = 11), and the interval weighed 5.23 ± 0.12 g. Parasite eggs were white or creamy, was significantly lon ger after successful (n = 4) than after completely covered with brown spots, except for one egg Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana that was white with a single brown spot (Figs. 3B & C). days, 5 nest losses vs. 0.432 ± 0.166, n = 102 nest-days, 5 Cowbird eggs were never rejected. We found punctured nest losses; Z Z = 0.07, P P = 0.95). host eggs in 15% (3/20) of parasitized nests, and then the Mayfi eld Nesting Success for the Yellow Cardinal owners abandoned the nest. Punctured eggs were often was 24% for unparasitized and 15% for parasitized nests. consumed by ants. In four parasitized nests (20%, 4/20) There was no difference between the DSR R R of unparasitized cardinals were successful (unparasitized successful nests: and parasitized nests during incubation (0.492 ± 0.178, 40%, 4/10). Even on nests where cowbirds hatched (n n = 76 nest-days, 4 nest losses vs. 0.395 ± 0.132, n = 117 = 8), in three (37.5%), the cardinals were successful and nest-days, 8 nest losses; Z Z = 0.44, P P = 0.66) and nestling in only one (12.5%) the two cowbirds fl edged (without stage (0.485 ± 0.179, n = 91 nest-days, 4 nest losses vs. cardinal fledglings). In three cases, the cowbird nestlin g 0.391 ± 0.154, n = 106 nest-days, 6 nest losses; Z Z = 0.40, hatched about three or four days after cardinals, and was P P = 0.69). For Philornis s parasitism, the DSR R R during the seen in only one nest revision, then disappeared. In one nestling stage was 0.279 ± 0.129 (n = 105 nest-days, 8 nest we found the corpse of the cowbird nestling at the nest losses) for unparasitized and 0.691 ± 0.183 (n = 88 bottom of the nest after the cardinals fledged. nest-days, 2 nest losses) for parasitized nests, and there was no significant difference between them ( Z Z = 1.84, P Botfly parasitism = 0.07). We found a DSR of 0.937 ± 0.013 (SE) and a DSR R R of 0.134, using Program MARK. Prevalence of botfl y parasitism was 33% of nests (6/18). In one nest, nestlings were only cowbirds and they were DISCUSSION predated. Th e earliest nest with botfl ies was recorded on 07 November and the latest on 18 December. Four botfl y-parasitized nests (80%, n = 5) were successful and Th e natural history of the Yellow Cardinal was poorly one nest was lost with the nestling death, for which we known until recently when a study was conducted in were not able to determine the cause. The intensit y of Argentina (Domínguez et al. 2015), relatively close to our botfl y parasitism was in average 12.7 ± 5.5 larvae/nestling study site (at two sites, about 130 and 180 km northwest, (n = 3). We found one nestling with 19 botfly larvae, it respectively). Despite the geographic proximity, we found fl edged but disappeared soon after. some diff erences: a longer breeding season, occurrence of second broods, and higher frequency and intensity but Nest survival fewer nest losses due to brood parasitism. Domínguez et al. (2015) conducted their study prior (2011–2012) Only eight nests (26.7%, n = 30) were successful, four to ours (2013–2015), so we cannot determine whether (28.6%, n = 14) in 2013–2014 and four (25.0%, n = 16) the diff erences found were related to temporal or spatial in the 2014–2015 breeding seasons. The main cause of factors. Additionally, we have already reported cooperative nest loss was predation (73%), followed by egg puncture breeding in the Brazilian population (Beier et al. 2017), (14%), nestling death (9%) and nest parasite success which was not reported in other populations (Domínguez (4%) (n = 22). One Geoffro y's Cat (Leopardus geoffroy i) et al. 2015, Segura et al. 2019). was recorded by the camera trap preying on a nest with We found higher frequency (67%) and intensity eggs. The nest was about 1.8 m above ground, in a fork (~2 eggs/parasitized nest) of brood parasitism by of the tree trunk. We did not record any other predation cowbirds than in Argentina (33%, 1 egg/parasitized nest; attempt or identified other predators. Domínguez et al. 2015). Despite that, only 18% of nest The DSR was 0.938 ± 0.018 during incubation losses were due to cowbird parasitism in our study. While and 0.948 ± 0.016 during the nestling stage. The DSR R R in Argentina nest abandonment due to egg puncturing during incubation was 0.431 ± 0.105 (n = 193 nest-days, by female cowbirds (54% of parasitized nests) represents 12 nest losses) and during the nestling stage was 0.425 ± a threat of concern (Domínguez et al. 2015), in our study, 0.117 (n = 193 nest-days, 10 nest losses). The Ma yfield it seems to have lesser importance (15% of parasitized Nesting Success was 18.3% (23.65% in 2013–2014 and nests). Shiny Cowbird has an incubation period of 11–12 12.32% in 2014–2015). Th ere was no diff erence between days (Fraga 2011), very similar to the Yellow Cardinal (13 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 breeding seasons in DSR for days), and cowbird nestlings disappeared from nests where incubation (0.956 ± 0.020 vs. 0.912 ± 0.033; Z Z = 1.12, cardinals hatched fi rst. Cowbirds hatchlings may not get P P = 0.26) and nestling stages (0.945 ± 0.025 vs. 0.951 enough food competing with cardinal nestlings three or ± 0.022; Z Z = 0.18, P P = 0.86) or in DSR R R for incubation four days older, or the host parents rejected the parasite, (0.568 ± 0.146, n = 113 nest-days, 5 nest losses vs. 0.285 for which we do not have other evidence. Brown-headed ± 0.138, n = 80 nest-days, 7 nest losses; Z Z = 1.41, P P = Cowbird, Molothrus ater, nestlings are more successful 0.16) and nestling stages (0.416 ± 0.167, n = 91 nest- in nests of hosts with similar or intermediate body size Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana (Kilner 2003), which is the case for Yellow Cardinal (47 Martin 1993) or to the most common potential nest site, g; Beier et al. 2017) and Shiny Cowbirds (45–51 g; Fraga reducing predation probability (Martin 1993, Liebezeit 2011), but we did not fi nd nests where both, host and & George 2002). parasite, were successful. The Yellow Cardinal and other threatened bird Prevalence of botfly parasitism was greater in species are also associated with short grass, which is Brazil (33%) than in Argentina (22%), occurred during maintained mostly by cattle grazing in our study area a longer period (~40 days vs. 14 days), and apparent (Pereira 2015). The removal of cattle may lead to the success was higher on infested nests (80%, n = 5 vs. 50%, development of taller grass and shrub encroachment, and n = 4; Domínguez et al. 2015). Domínguez et al. (2015) consequently, ground feeding birds could be evicted from found no significant difference in chick survival between this area. Conservation schemes must consider vegetation parasitized (25%) and unparasitized nests (78%). In management to prevent potential impacts on populations our study, some fledglings disappeared a few days after of ground-foraging birds. they fledged, which we assumed that they died, based on The natural history of many bird species is still their developmental stage. Ectoparasites may delay the poorly known, if not completely unknown, especially development of the nestling, and even when they do not in the Neotropics (Stutchbury & Morton 2001, Xiao affect the nestlin g success, they could decrease the post- et al. 2017). Various of these species are threatened fledging survival (Streby et al. 2009 ). and the knowledge on their natural histories is of the Th e breeding season was around 45 days longer utmost importance to their conservation. Even across in Brazil than in Argentina (Domínguez et al. 2015). A distinct populations of a species, there are remarkable longer breeding season could mean more nesting attempts diff erences, such that each of these populations should (Ricklefs & Bloom 1977) and may be a strategy to be considered as a single unit for the conservation of compensate high rates of nest predation (Slagsvold 1984, genetic, ecological and cultural variability, as it is for the Martin 1996, 2014, Di Giacomo et al. 2011), which in Yellow Cardinal (Domínguez et al. 2016, 2017). Our our study accounted for 73% of nest losses. Unless it is study highlights the importance of autecology studies too late in the season, females will always renest after nest in diff erent populations of a single species, to allow a predation and the number of nesting attempts will be better understanding of variations in spatial-temporal determined by the number of days lost in the breeding patterns and processes and their implications for species season for each nest lost (Schmidt & Whelan 1999). We and ecosystems conservation. observed more renesting attempts (40% of all nesting attempts) and longer mean interval between attempts (16 days), but less attempts per pair during a breeding season ACKNOW W WLEDGEMENTS (up to three attempts) than in Argentina (30%, 12 days, and up to four attempts per pair; Domínguez et al. 2015). We like to thank Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Rio Th e Yellow Cardinal have biparental care, and Grande do Sull (SEMA-RS) and Espinilho State Park staffs some nests (n = 7) were also attended by helpers, which for granting the permissions to research on a protected contributed to brood provisioning and territorial defense area, and São Marcos Ranch for granting access to a study (Beier et al. 2017). Cooperative breeding in this population site. Sistema de Autorização e Informação em Biodiversidade may be a response to high rates of nest predation and (SISBIO/ICMBio) and Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e brood parasitism, and/or habitat saturation (e.g., Manica Conservação das Aves Silvestres s (CEMAVE) for granting & Marini 2012, Beier et al. 2017). Only mating pairs the capture and banding permissions. We also thank with nest helpers had second broods, probably due to the Condomínio Agropecuário Ceolin, Fazenda São João o and extra food and vigilance provided by them. Cooperative Granja Santo Ângelo o for its huge support. M. Repenning, breeding may also allow reducing female investment on M.S. Pereira, A. Pereira, M.S. Borba, E. Chiarani and C.B. egg yolk (Russell et al. 2007, Paquet et al. 2013), for which Andretti for their fi eldwork assistance and ideas. We are we do not have information for the Yellow Cardinal. grateful to A.B. Azpiroz, A.S. Di Giacomo, J.J. Roper, In a pilot study in 2012, we found two nests (n = H. Beier, A.L. Boesing, T.W. da Silva, and anonymous 8) on cactus Cereus hildmannianus s (C.B., M.S. Pereira & reviewers for suggestions and comments. To Janet W. Reid M.S. Borba pers. obs.), but all nests of the present study for English revision. We also like to thank F.P. Tirelli for were found on Prosopis s trees. Domínguez et al. (2015) also helping on nest predator identifi cation. C.B. and C.S.F. found more nests on Prosopis affinis s (76%), followed by were supported by a studentship and a research fellowship, 15% on Vachellia caven. Although V. caven occurs in our respectively, from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento study area, we did not find any nest on that tree s pecies. Científico e Tecnológico o (CNPq). Our fieldwork was Th e preference to nest on a supporting plant species may substantially funded by Fundação Grupo O Boticário de be related to nest concealment (Martin & Roper 1988, Proteção à Natureza a (grant number 0975_20131). Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana Kilner R.M. 2003. How selfi sh is a cowbird nestling? Animal Behaviour REFERENCES 66: 569–576. Liebezeit J.R. & George T.L. 2002. Nest predators, nest-site selection, Alvares C.A., Stape J.L., Sentelhas P.C., Gonçalves J.L.M. & and nesting success of the Dusky Flycatcher in a managed Sparovek G. 2013. Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Ponderosa Pine Forest. Condor r 104: 507–517. Meteorologische Zeitschrift t 22: 711–728. Lopes L.E. & Marini M.Â. 2005. Biologia reprodutiva de Suiriri Azpiroz A.B., Alfaro M. & Jiménez S. 2012. Lista roja de las aves del affinis s e S. islerorum (Aves: Tyrannidae) no Cerrado do Brasil Uruguay: una evaluación del estado de conservación de la avifauna central. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia a 45: 127–141. nacional con base en los criterios de la Unión Internacional para Lowther P.E. 2018. Lists of victims and hosts of the parasitic cowbirds Conservación de la Naturaleza. Montevideo: Dirección Nacional ( ( (Molothrus s). https://www.fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/ de Medio Ambiente. cowbird-hosts-05sep2018.pdf (Access on 07 December 2018). Beier C., Repenning M., Pereira M.S., Pereira A. & Fontana C.S. 2017. Manica L.T. & Marini M.Â. 2012. Helpers at the nest of White- Cooperative breeding and demography of Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix banded Tanager Neothraupis fasciata a benefit male breeders but cristata a in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia a 25: 12–19. do not increase reproductive success. Journal of Ornithology y 153: Belton W. 1994. Aves do Rio Grande do Sul: distribuição e biologia. São 149–159. Leopoldo: Editora UNISINOS. Marchiori J.N.C. & Alves F.S. 2011. A Província do Espinhal no Rio Bencke G.A., Fontana C.S., Dias R.A., Maurício G.N. & Mähler-Jr. Grande do Sul, p. 8–42. In: Deble L.P., Deble A.S.O. & Leão J.K.F. 2003. Aves, p. 189–479. In: Fontana C.S., Bencke G.A. & A.L.S. (eds.). O Bioma Pampa: contribuições científica s. Bagé: Reis R.E. (eds.). Livro vermelho da fauna ameaçada de extinção no EDIURCAMP. Rio Grande do Sulll. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS. Marini M.Â., Duca C. & Manica L.T. 2010. Técnicas de pesquisa Bertonatti C. & López-Guerra A. 1997. Hibridación entre Cardenal em biologia reprodutiva de aves, p. 297–312. In: von Matter Amarillo (Gubernatrix cristata) y Diuca Común (Diuca diuca S., Straube F.C., Accordi I.A., Piacentini V.Q. & Cândido-Jr. minor r) en estado silvestre, en la Argentina. Hornero 14: 235–242. J.F. (eds.). Ornitologia e conservação: ciência aplicada, técnicas de BirdLife International. 2018. Species factsheet: Gubernatrix cristata. pesquisa e levantamento. Rio de Janeiro: Technical Books. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/yellow-cardinal- Martin T.E. 1993. Nest predation and nest sites: new perspectives on gubernatrix-cristata (Access on 07 December 2018). old patterns. Bioscience e 43: 523–532. Cabrera A.L. & Willink A. 1973. Biogeografia de America Latin a. Martin T.E. 1996. Life history evolution in tropical and south Washington: Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA). temperate birds: what do we really know? Journal of Avian Biology Castellanos A. 1932. Aves del valle de los Reartes (Córdoba). Hornero 27: 263–272. 5: 1–40. Martin T.E. 2014. A conceptual framework for clutch-size evolution de la Peña M.R. 1981. Notas nidologicas sobre pepiteros, cardenales, in songbirds. American Naturalist 183: 313–324. etc. (Aves, Emberizidae), primera parte. Historia Naturall 2: 1–4. Martin T.E. & Geupel G.R. 1993. Nest-monitoring plots: methods for Di Giacomo A.S., Di Giacomo A.G. & Reboreda J.C. 2011. Male and locating nests and monitoring success. Journal of Field Ornithology female reproductive success in a threatened polygynous species: 64: 507–519. the Strange-tailed Tyrant, Alectrurus risora. Condor r 113: 619–628. Martin T.E. & Roper J.J. 1988. Nest predation and nest-site selection Dias R.A. 2008. Gubernatrix cristata, p. 536–537. In: Machado of a western population of the Hermit Th rush. Condor r 90: 51–57. A.B.M., Drummond G.M. & Paglia A.P. (eds.). Livro vermelho da Martins-Ferreira C., Bencke G.A., Fontana C.S., Dias R.A., Repenning fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção. Brasília: MMA/Fundação Biodiversitas. M., Damiani R.V., Mauricio G.N., Gianuca A.T., Krügel M.M., Franz I., Rovedder C.E., Rupp A.E., Pereira M.S., Vizentin- Domínguez M., Reboreda J.C. & Mahler B. 2015. Impact of Shiny Bugoni J., Joenck C.M., Straube F.C., Reinert B.L., Bornschein Cowbird and botfl y parasitism on the reproductive success of the M.R., Dias D., Vieira B.P. & Serafi ni P.P. 2013. Plano de ação globally endangered Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata. Bird nacional para a conservação dos Passeriformes ameaçados dos Campos Conservation Internationall 25: 294–305. Domínguez M., Reboreda J.C. & Mahler B. 2016. Effects o f Sulinos e Espinilho. Brasília: ICMBio. fragmentation and hybridization on geographical patterns of song Massoni V. & Reboreda J.C. 2002. A neglected cost of brood variation in the endangered Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata. parasitism: egg punctures by shiny cowbirds during inspection of Ibis s 158: 738–746. potential host nests. Condor r 104: 407–412. Domínguez M., Tiedemann R., Reboreda J.C., Segura L., Tittarelli Mayfi eld H.F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson F. & Mahler B. 2017. Genetic structure reveals management Bulletin 87: 456–466. units for the Yellow Cardinal (Gubernatrix cristata), endangered Paquet M., Covas R., Chastel O., Parenteau C. & Doutrelant C. 2013. by habitat loss and illegal trapping. Conservation Genetics s 18: Maternal eff ects in relation to helper presence in the cooperatively 1131–1140. breeding Sociable Weaver. PLoS ONE E 8: e59336. Dudaniec R.Y. & Kleindorfer S. 2006. Eff ects of the parasitic fl ies Pereira M.S. 2015. Assembleia de aves territorialistas na formação of the genus Philornis s (Diptera: Muscidae) on birds. Emu 106: Espinilho: densidade e seleção de habitat reprodutivo. MSc. 13–20. Dissertation. Porto Alegre: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Fraga R. 2011. Shiny Cowbird (Molothrus bonariensis s), p. 786. In: del Rio Grande do Sul. Hoyo J., Elliott A. & Christie D.A. (eds.). Handbook of the birds R Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing g g. of the world: tanagers to New World blackbirds. Barcelona: Lynx https://www.r-project.org (Access on 15 December 2015). Editions. Rabuffetti F.L. & Reboreda J.C. 2007. Earl y infestation by bot flies Hensler G. & Nichols J.D. 1981. The Mayfield method of estimatin g (Philornis seguyi i i) decreases chick survival and nesting success in Chalk- nesting success: a model, estimators and simulation results. Wilson browed Mockingbirds ( ( (Mimus saturninus s). Auk k 124: 898–906. Bulletin 93: 42–53. Reboreda J.C., Mermoz M.E., Massoni V., Astié A.A. & Rabuffetti Höy G. 1969. Addendas a la avifauna salteña. Hornero 11: 53–56. F.L. 2003. Impacto del parasitismo de cría del Tordo Renegrido Jaramillo A. 2019. Yellow Cardinal. In: del Hoyo J., Elliott A., Sargatal (Molothrus bonariensis s) sobre el éxito reproductivo de sus J., Christie D.A. & de Juana E. (eds.). Handbook of the birds of hospedadores. Hornero 18: 77–88. the world alive. Barcelona: Lynx Editions. https://www.hbw.com/ Ricklefs R.E. & Bloom G. 1977. Components of avian breeding node/62098 (Access on 22 April 2019). productivity. Auk k 94: 86–96. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Breeding biology of the Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata Beier & Fontana Ridgely R.S. & Tudor G. 2009. Field guide to the songbirds of South Slagsvold T. 1984. Clutch size variation of birds in relation to nest America: the passerines. Austin: University of Texas Press. predation: on the cost of reproduction. Journal of Animal Ecology Russell A.F., Langmore N.E., Cockburn A., Astheimer L.B. & Kilner 53: 945–953. R.M. 2007. Reduced egg investment can conceal helper effects in Streby H.M., Peterson S.M. & Kapfer P.M. 2009. Fledging success cooperatively breeding birds. Science e 317: 941–944. is a poor indicator of the effects of bird blow flies on Ovenbird Schmidt K.A. & Whelan C.J. 1999. The relative impacts of nest survival. Condor r 111: 193–197. predation and brood parasitism on seasonal fecundity in songbirds. Stutchbury B.J.M. & Morton E.S. 2001. Behavioral ecology of tropical Conservation Biology y 13: 46–57. birds. Cambridge: Academic Press. Segura L.N., Perelló M., Gress N.H. & Ontiveros R. 2019. The lac k White G. & Burnham K.P. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation of males due to illegal trapping is causing polygyny in the globally from populations of marked animals. Bird Study y 46: S120–S139. endangered Yellow Cardinal Gubernatrix cristata. Revista Brasileira Xiao H., Hu Y., Lang Z., Fang B., Guo W., Zhang Q., Pan X. & Lu de Ornitologia a 27: 40–43. X. 2017. How much do we know about the breeding biology of Simon J.E. & Pacheco S. 2005. On the standardization of nest bird species in the world? Journal of Avian Biology y 48: 513–518. descriptions of Neotropical birds. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 13: 143–154. Associate Editor: Lilian T. Manica. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019
Journal
Ornithology Research – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 1, 2019
Keywords: brood parasitism; Molothrus bonariensis; nest predation; nesting success