Abstract
Animals are predicted to prefer high-quality over low-quality habitats, but adaptive habitat selection is less straightforward than often assumed. Preferences may improve only specific fitness metrics at particular spatial scales, with variation across time or between sexes. Preferences sometimes even reduce fitness. We investigated the context specificity of adaptive habitat selection, studying dickcissels (Spiza americana)—a polygynous songbird—as a model. From 2014 to 2015, we measured male and female habitat preferences at two scales (territories and landscape patches) on 21 grassland patches in Ringgold County, Iowa, USA. We tested whether preferences improved four fitness metrics—polygyny, avoidance of brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), fledgling productivity, and offspring condition. Both sexes preferred territories where offspring attained superior condition and patches where parasitism was infrequent. Females preferred patches where nests produced more fledglings, and in 2014, males on preferred (i.e., early-established) territories attracted more mates and produced more fledglings. However, males on non-preferred (i.e., late-established) territories were more successful in 2015. This inconsistency may have arisen because females were abundant and nest-predation rates were low in May–June 2014, allowing early-settling males to produce many young. In 2015, however, females were more abundant and nests more successful later in the breeding season. Our results show that habitat preferences do not uniformly improve fitness, and some benefits differ between sexes. Moreover, preference–fitness relationships only manifest at specific scales, and annual variation in population and predation dynamics can limit consistency. Detecting adaptive habitat selection thus requires multi-year measurements and careful consideration of relevant scales.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aebischer A, Perrin N, Krieg M, Studer J, Meyer DR (1996) The role of territory choice, mate choice and arrival date on breeding success in the Savi’s warbler Locustella luscinioides. J Avian Biol 27:143–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/3677143
Arnold TW (2010) Uninformative parameters and model selection using Akaike’s information criterion. J Wildl Manage 74:1175–1178. https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-367
Benson TJ, Anich NM, Brown JD, Bednarz JC (2010) Habitat and landscape effects on brood parasitism, nest survival, and fledgling production in Swainson’s warblers. J Wildl Manage 74:81–93. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-442
Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (2000) Bird census techniques, 2nd edn. Academic Press Inc, London
Borgmann KL, Conway CJ, Morrison ML (2013) Breeding phenology of birds: mechanisms underlying seasonal declines in the risk of nest predation. PLoS One 8:10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065909
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York
Chalfoun AD, Martin TE (2007) Assessments of habitat preferences and quality depend on spatial scale and metrics of fitness. J Appl Ecol 44:983–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01352.x
Chalfoun AD, Schmidt KA (2012) Adaptive breeding-habitat selection: is it for the birds? Auk 129:589–599. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2012.129.4.589
Clark RG, Shutler D (1999) Avian habitat selection: pattern from process in nest-site use by ducks? Ecology 80:272–287. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080%5b0272:ahspfp%5d2.0.co;2
Duchardt CJ, Miller JR, Debinski DM, Engle DM (2016) Adapting the fire-grazing interaction to small pastures in a fragmented landscape for grassland bird conservation. Rangeland Ecol Manag 69:300–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2016.03.005
Ellison KS, Ribic CA, Sample DW, Fawcett MJ, Dadisman JD (2013) Impacts of tree rows on grassland birds and potential nest predators: a removal experiment. PLoS One 8:e59151–e59151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059151
Embar K, Raveh A, Hoffman I, Kotler BP (2014) Predator facilitation or interference: a game of vipers and owls. Oecologia 174:1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2760-2
Filliater TS, Breitwisch R, Nealen PM (1994) Predation on northern cardinal nests: does choice of nest site matter? Condor 96:761–768. https://doi.org/10.2307/1369479
Fletcher RJ, Koford RR, Seaman DA (2006) Critical demographic parameters for declining songbirds breeding in restored grasslands. J Wildl Manage 70:145–157. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541x(2006)70%5b145:cdpfds%5d2.0.co;2
Forsman JT, Martin TE (2009) Habitat selection for parasite-free space by hosts of parasitic cowbirds. Oikos 118:464–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17000.x
Frei B, Fyles JW, Nocera JJ (2013) Maladaptive habitat use of a North American woodpecker in population decline. Ethology 119:377–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12074
Germain RR, Schuster R, Delmore KE, Arcese P (2015) Habitat preference facilitates successful early breeding in an open-cup nesting songbird. Funct Ecol 29:1522–1532. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12461
Hasselquist D (1998) Polygyny in great reed warblers: a long-term study of factors contributing to male fitness. Ecology 79:2376–2390. https://doi.org/10.2307/176829
Heithaus MR (2005) Habitat use and group size of pied cormorants (Phalacrocorax varius) in a seagrass ecosystem: possible effects of food abundance and predation risk. Mar Biol 147:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-004-1534-0
Higgins KF, Kirsch LM, Ball IJ (1969) A cable-chain device for locating duck nests. J Wildl Manage 33:1009–1011. https://doi.org/10.2307/3799339
Hoover JP, Reetz MJ (2006) Brood parasitism increases provisioning rate, and reduces offspring recruitment and adult return rates, in a cowbird host. Oecologia 149:165–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0424-1
Jaenike J, Holt RD (1991) Genetic variation for habitat preference: evidence and explanations. Am Nat 137:S67–S90. https://doi.org/10.1086/285140
Johnson MD (2007) Measuring habitat quality: a review. Condor 109:489–504. https://doi.org/10.1650/8347.1
Jones TM, Ward MP, Benson TJ, Brawn JD (2017) Variation in nestling body condition and wing development predict cause-specific mortality in fledgling dickcissels. J Avian Biol 48:439–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01143
Joos CJ, Thompson FR III, Faaborg J (2014) The role of territory settlement, individual quality, and nesting initiation on productivity of Bell’s vireos Vireo bellii bellii. J Avian Biol 45:584–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.00400
Lamb CT, Mowat G, McLellan BN, Nielsen SE, Boutin S (2017) Forbidden fruit: human settlement and abundant fruit create an ecological trap for an apex omnivore. J Anim Ecol 86:55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12589
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schanbenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary
Lloyd JD, Martin TE (2005) Reproductive success of chestnut-collared longspurs in native and exotic grassland. Condor 107:363–374. https://doi.org/10.1650/7701
Mägi M, Mänd R, Tamm H, Sisask E, Kilgas P, Tilgar V (2009) Low reproductive success of great tits in the preferred habitat: a role of food availability. Ecoscience 16:145–157. https://doi.org/10.2980/16-2-3215
Maresh Nelson SB, Coon JJ, Duchardt CJ, Miller JR, Debinski DM, Schacht WH (2018) Contrasting impacts of invasive plants and human-altered landscape context on nest survival and brood parasitism of a grassland bird. Landsc Ecol 33:1799–1813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0703-3
Martin TE, Geupel GR (1993) Nest-monitoring plots—methods for locating nests and monitoring success. J Field Ornithol 64:507–519
Martin PR, Martin TE (2001) Ecological and fitness consequences of species coexistence: a removal experiment with wood warblers. Ecology 82:189–206. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082%5b0189:eafcos%5d2.0.co;2
McLoughlin PD, Gaillard JM, Boyce MS, Bonenfant C, Messier F, Duncan P, Klein F (2007) Lifetime reproductive success and composition of the home range in a large herbivore. Ecology 88:3192–3201. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1974.1
Misenhelter MD, Rotenberry JT (2000) Choices and consequences of habitat occupancy and nest site selection in sage sparrows. Ecology 81:2892–2901. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081%5b2892:cacoho%5d2.0.co;2
Mosser A, Fryxell JM, Eberly L, Packer C (2009) Serengeti real estate: density vs. fitness-based indicators of lion habitat quality. Ecol Lett 12:1050–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01359.x
National Climatic Data Center (2019) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access. Accessed 8 Mar 2019
Orians GH, Wittenberger JF (1991) Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. Am Nat 137:29–49
Pietz PJ, Buhl DA, Shaffer JA, Winter M, Johnson DH (2009) Influence of trees in the landscape on parasitism rates of grassland passerine nests in southeastern North Dakota. Condor 111:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2009.080012
Quinlan SP, Green DJ (2012) Riparian habitat disturbed by reservoir management does not function as an ecological trap for the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). Can J Zool 90:320–328. https://doi.org/10.1139/z11-138
Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF, Mila B (1996) Manual of field methods for monitoring landbirds. In: General Technical Report—Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, p 44
Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2007) Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for olive-sided flycatchers? Condor 109:109–121. https://doi.org/10.1650/0010-5422(2007)109%5b109:ishfae%5d2.0.co;2
Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(02)02580-6
Sergio F, Newton I (2003) Occupancy as a measure of territory quality. J Anim Ecol 72:857–865. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00758.x
Shaffer TL, Thompson FR III (2007) Making meaningful estimates of nest survival with model-based methods. Stud Avian Biol-Ser 34:84–95
Shew JJ, Nielsen CK, Sparling DW (2019) Finer-scale habitat predicts nest survival in grassland birds more than management and landscape: a multi-scale perspective. J Appl Ecol 56:929–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13317
Sousa BF, Westneat DF (2013a) Positive association between social and extra-pair mating in a polygynous songbird, the dickcissel (Spiza americana). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:243–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1444-y
Sousa BF, Westneat DF (2013b) Variance in mating success does not produce strong sexual selection in a polygynous songbird. Behav Ecol 24:1381–1389. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art077
Suedkamp Wells KM, Ryan MR, Millspaugh JJ, Thompson FR III, Hubbard MW (2007) Survival of postfledging grassland birds in Missouri. Condor 109:781–794
Tewksbury JJ, Garner L, Garner S, Lloyd JD, Saab V, Martin TE (2006) Tests of landscape influence: nest predation and brood parasitism in fragmented ecosystems. Ecology 87:759–768. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1790
Uboni A, Smith DW, Stahler DR, Vucetich JA (2017) Selecting habitat to what purpose? The advantage of exploring the habitat-fitness relationship. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1705
Utz JL, Shipley LA, Rachlow JL, Johnstone-Yellin T, Camp M, Forbey JS (2016) Understanding tradeoffs between food and predation risks in a specialist mammalian herbivore. Wildl Biol 22:167–173. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00121
Vitz AC, Rodewald AD (2011) Influence of condition and habitat use on survival of post-fledgling songbirds. Condor 113:400–411. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2011.100023
Walk JW, Wentworth K, Kershner EL, Bollinger EK, Warner RE (2004) Renesting decisions and annual fecundity of female dickcissels (Spiza americana) in Illinois. Auk 121:1250–1261. https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2004)121%5b1250:rdaafo%5d2.0.co;2
Zimmerman JL (1966) Polygyny in the dickcissel. Auk 83:534–546
Zimmerman JL (1971) The territory and its density dependent effect in Spiza americana. Auk 88:591–612. https://doi.org/10.2307/4083752
Zimmerman JL, Finck EJ (1989) Philopatry and correlates of territorial fidelity in male dickcissels. N Am Bird Bander 14:83–85
Zuckerberg B, Ribic CA, McCauley LA (2018) Effects of temperature and precipitation on grassland bird nesting success as mediated by patch size. Conserv Biol 32:872–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13089
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to J. Capozzelli, O. Garza, D. Jen, K. Malone, T. Park, T. Swartz, and B. Vizzachero for field assistance. We thank D. Debinski, W. Schacht, and D. Engle for contributing funding; J. Rusk and S. Rusk for managing pastures; T. J. Benson, J. Capozzelli, J. Fraterrigo, and R. Schooley for comments on the manuscript; P. Sterner and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for access to lands; and many undergraduates for helping to process data. Partial funding was provided by the Competitive State Wildlife Grants program U-D F14AP00012 in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program; by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture under award number ILLU-875-918; and by an award to SBMN and JJC from the Frances M. Peacock Scholarship for Native Bird Habitat from the Garden Club of America.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SBMN conceived the ideas, designed the methodology, analyzed the data, and led the writing; SBMN and JJC collected the data; JJC and JRM contributed critically to study design, analyses, and writing; SBMN, JJC, and JRM contributed funding.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Markku Orell.
Studies of whether animal habitat preferences enhance fitness are often contradictory. We show that context is key. Preferences improve fitness, but benefits are scale dependent and vary over time.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maresh Nelson, S.B., Coon, J.J. & Miller, J.R. Do habitat preferences improve fitness? Context-specific adaptive habitat selection by a grassland songbird. Oecologia 193, 15–26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04626-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04626-8