, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp 452–456 | Cite as

Dependence of clutch predation rate of Eurasian reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus on nesting site selection: a model study

  • Marie Kameníková
  • Josef Navrátil
  • Josef RajchardEmail author


The article is focused on describing a possible way of how biological data can be processed, introduces the procedures used and compares the results gained from a field ornithological study. This was carried out using statistical methods of nonparametric regression with binomial classification and probit function together with the method with forward selection, and presents the most significant outcomes. Some of the interesting findings of this study are as follows: first, a lower level of reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus Hermann 1804) nest predation by bird predators was proven in the common reed [Phragmites australis (Cavanilles) Trinius 1841] stands growing in shallow waters, compared to nests located in stands growing in deeper waters. For this field research artificial nests containing one egg made of plasticine and one egg of Japanese quail were used. Second, a negative correlation was proven between predation of nests and their distance from the nearest tree, whereas no interdependence was proven either for various nesting-site types (oligotrophic sandpits, ponds with intensive fish-pond management and ponds with extensive use) or monitoring time (during the first, resp. second nesting). Based on the methods applied, 56% of egg predation variability was clarified and last but not least, the efficiency of these statistical methods was proven for practical use in similar field research zoological studies.

Key words

artificial nests sandpit pond nonparametric regression probit function 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank Mgr. Jitka Chromeckova and Mr. Willem Westra for improving the English of this paper.


  1. Báldi A. & Batáry P. 2005. Nest predation in European reedbeds: different losses in edges but similar losses in interiors. Folia Zool. 54 (3): 285–292.Google Scholar
  2. Báldi A. & Kisbenedek T. 1999. Species-specific distribution of reed-nesting passerine birds across reed-bed edges: Effects of spatial scale and edge type. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 45 (2): 97–114.Google Scholar
  3. Batáry P. & Baldi A. 2005. Factors affecting the survival of real and artificial Great Reed Warblers nests. Biologia 60 (2): 215–219.Google Scholar
  4. Batáry P., Winkler H. & Báldi A. 2004. Experiments with artificial nests on predation in reed habitats. J. Ornithol. 145 (1): 59–63. DOI: 10.1007/sl0336-003-0010-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Čpek M., Pozgayova M., Procházka P. & Honza M. 2010. Repeated presentations of the common cuckoo increase nest defense by the Eurasian reed warbler but do not induce it to make recognition errors. Condor 112 (4): 763–769. DOI: http: 10.1525/cond.2010.100063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darolová A., Krištofĭk J. & Hoi H. 2014. Vegetation type variation in marsh habitats: does it affect nest site selection, reproductive success, and maternal investment in Reed Warblers? J. Ornithol. 155 (4): 997–1008. DOI: 10.1007/sl0336-014-1086-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duckworth J.W. 1991. Response of breeding reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus to mounts of sparrowhawk Ac-cipiter nissus, cuckoo Cuculus canorus and jay Garru-lus glandarius. Ibis 133 (1): 68–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1991.tb04812.xGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferguson J.W.H. 1994. Do nest site characteristics affect the breeding success of Red Bishops Euplectes orix? Ostrich 65 (3-4): 274–280. DOI: 10.1080/00306525.1994.9632687Google Scholar
  9. Gill S.A. & Sealy S.G. 1996. Nest defence by yellow warblers: Recognition of a brod parasite and an avian nest predator. Behaviour 133 (3): 263–282. DOI: 10.1163/156853996X00 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Golawski A. & Mitrus C. 2014. Nest site characteristics and breeding success of the red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) in agricultural landscape in eastern Poland: Advantage of nesting close to buildings. Ecoscience 21 (2): 168–173. DOI: 10.2980/21-2-3653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halupka L., Halupka K., Klimczuk E. & Sztwiertnia H. 2014. Coping with shifting nest predation refuges by European Reed Warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus. PLoS One 9: ell5456. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115456Google Scholar
  12. Hoi H. & Winkler H. 1988. Feindruck auf Schilfbruter eine exper-imentelle Untersuchung. J. Ornithol. 129 (4): 439–447. DOI: 10.1007/BF01644487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoi H. & Winkler H. 1994. Predation on nests: a case of apparent competition. Oecologia 87 (3-4): 436–440. DOI: 10.1007/BF00324234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoi H., Darolová A. & Krištofĭk J. 2001. Factors influencing nest depredation in European Reed Passerines, pp. 27-36. In: Hoi H. (ed.), The Ecology of Reed Birds, Biosystematics and Ecology Series 18, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, 177 pp. ISBN: 3700130260, 9783700130260Google Scholar
  15. Honza M., Øien I. J., Moksnes A. & Røskaft E. 1998. Survival of Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus clutches in relation to nest position. Bird Study 45: 104–108. DOI: 10.1080/00063659809461083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hume R. 2002. Ptáci Evropy [Birds of Europe]. Euromedia group Knižní klub, Praha, 448 pp. ISBN: 80-242-1133-5Google Scholar
  17. Kameníková M. 2009. Sledovani hnízdních parametrů rákosníka obecného (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) na nahodně vybraných lokalitách v CHKO Třeboňsko [Observation of nesting parameters of reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) at accidentally chosen localities in PLA Trebonsko]. Mgr. Thesis, Jihočeská univerzita v českých Budějovicích, Přírodovědecká fakulta, české Budějovice, 51 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Lopez-Iborra G., Pinheiro R. T., Sancho C. & Martinez A. 2004. Nest size influences nest predation risk in two coexisting Acrocephalus warblers. Ardea 92 (1): 85–91.Google Scholar
  19. Moskát C. 2005. Nest defence and egg rejection in great reed warblers over the breeding cycle: are they synchronised with the risk of brood parasitism? Ann. Zool. Fenn. 42 (6): 579–586.Google Scholar
  20. Musil P. 1998. Zmeny pocetnosti hnízdních populací vodních ptáků na rybnících Třeboňské pánve v letech 1981-1997 [Changes in numbers of breeding populations of water birds on fishponds in Třeboň Basin in the years 1981-1997]. Sylvia 34 (1): 13–26.Google Scholar
  21. Musil P. 2000. Monitoring hnízdních populaci vodních ptáků [Monitoring of waterbird nesting populations]. Sylvia 36 (1): 6–11.Google Scholar
  22. Neudorf D.L. & Sealy S.G. 1992. Reaction of four passerine species to threats of predation and cowbird parasitism - enemy recognition or generalized responses. Behaviour 123 (1): 84–105. DOI: 10.1163/156853992X00138Google Scholar
  23. Øien I.J., Honza M., Moksnes A. & Røskaft E. 1996. The risk of parasitism in relation to the distance from reed warbler nests to cuckoo perches. J. Anim. Ecol. 65 (2): 147–153. DOI: 10.2307/5717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polak M. 2014. Protective nesting association between the Barred Warbler Sylvia nisoria and the Red-backed Shrike Lanius col-lurio: an experiment using artificial and natural nests. Ecol. Res. 29: 949–957. DOI: 10.1007/sll284-014-1183-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sieving K.E. & Willson M.F. 1998. Nest predation and avian species diversity in northwestern forest understory. Ecology 79 (7): 2391–2402. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2391: NPAASD]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sloan S.S., Holme R.T. & Sherry T.W. 1998. Depredation rates and predators at artificial bird nests in an unfragmented northern hardwoods forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 62 (2): 529–539. DOI: 10.2307/3802326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stokke B.G., Hafstad I., Rudolfse G., Bargain B., Beier J., Campas D. B., Dyrcz A., Honza M., Leisler B., Pap P.L., Patapavicius R., Procházka P., Schulze-Hagen K., Thomas R., Moksnes A., Møller A.P., Røskaft E. & Soler M. 2007. Host density predicts presence of cuckoo parasitism in reed warblers. Oikos 116 (6): 913–922. DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15832.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stastný K., BejČek V. & Hudec K. 2006. Atlas hnizdniho rozšíření ptáků v České republice 2001-2003 [Atlas of Bird Nesting Distribution of the Czech Republic]. Aventinum, Praha, 464 pp. ISBN: 80-86858-19-7Google Scholar
  29. Trnka A., Batáry P. & Prokop P. 2009. Interacting effects of vegetation structure and breeding patterns on the survival of Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus nests. Ardea 97 (1): 109–116. DOI: doi:10.5253/078.097.0113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trnka A., Peterkova V. & Prokop P. 2014. Management of reedbeds: mosaic reed cutting does not affect prey abundance and nest predation rate of reed passerine birds. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 22 (3): 227–234. DOI: 10.1007/sll273-013-9325-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trnka A. & Prokop P. 2006. Do predators cause a chase in passerine movement patterns as indicated by mist-net tramping rates? Ardea 94 (1): 71–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Slovak Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Kameníková
    • 1
  • Josef Navrátil
    • 1
  • Josef Rajchard
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations