The effect of supplemental prey and prescribed fire on success of artificial nests

Published source details Jones D.D., Conner L.M., Warren R.J. & Ware G.O. (2002) The effect of supplemental prey and prescribed fire on success of artificial nests. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66, 1112-1117.
Share Tweet Email

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

	Action	Category
	Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation Action Link
	Use prescribed burning on pine forests Action Link

Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation

A replicated, randomised and controlled study in May-July 2000 in 28 longleaf pine Pinus palustris forest plots in Georgia, USA (Jones et al. 2002) found no differences in predation rates on artificial nests in areas provided with supplementary food (commercial dry dog food supplied ad libitum from feeders) and control areas (nest predation over one week: 62% for prey-supplemented areas vs. 55% for control plots; 770 nests tested). Birds and small mammals were responsible for more predation events in food-supplemented plots, whilst unknown predators were responsible for more in non-supplemented plots. Nests were placed on the ground and contained two Japanese quail Corturnix japonica eggs and one wax covered wooden egg. This study also evaluated the impact of prescribed burning on nest survival, discussed in ‘Use prescribed burning – pine forests’. There was no interaction between feeding and burning.
Use prescribed burning on pine forests

A replicated, randomised and controlled study in May-July 2000 in 28 longleaf pine forest plots in Georgia, USA (Jones et al. 2002) found that survival of 770 artificial nests was similar between burned (42%) and unburned plots (41%). Bird predation was greater in burned (14%) than unburned (10%) plots. Small mammal predation was greater in unburned (31%) than in burned (15%) plots. There was no interaction between the supplementary feeding of predators, burning and nest predation.