CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Species Distribution and Climate ChangeAvian ecology and behaviorWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Linking Dynamic Habitat Selection with Wading Bird Foraging Distributions across Resource Gradients

Open access
Beerens, James M., Noonburg, Erik G., Gawlik, Dale E.·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0128182PMC PMC4480858
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Species distribution models (SDM) link species occurrence with a suite of environmental predictors and provide an estimate of habitat quality when the variable set captures the biological requirements of the species. SDMs are inherently more complex when they include components of a species' ecology such as conspecific attraction and behavioral flexibility to exploit resources that vary across time and space. Wading birds are highly mobile, demonstrate flexible habitat selection, and respond quickly to changes in habitat quality; thus serving as important indicator species for wetland systems. We developed a spatio-temporal, multi-SDM framework using Great Egret (Ardea alba), White Ibis (Eudocimus albus), and Wood Stork (Mycteria Americana) distributions over a decadal gradient of environmental conditions to predict species-specific abundance across space and locations used on the landscape over time. In models of temporal dynamics, species demonstrated conditional preferences for resources based on resource levels linked to differing temporal scales. Wading bird abundance was highest when prey production from optimal periods of inundation was concentrated in shallow depths. Similar responses were observed in models predicting locations used over time, accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Species clustered in response to differing habitat conditions, indicating that social attraction can co-vary with foraging strategy, water-level changes, and habitat quality. This modeling framework can be applied to evaluate the multi-annual resource pulses occurring in real-time, climate change scenarios, or restorative hydrological regimes by tracking changing seasonal and annual distribution and abundance of high quality foraging patches.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0128182

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the Florida Everglades, multiple lines of evidence collected over three decades indicate that the effects of water management and restoration projects on food availability during the nesting season are key contributors to nesting success and the sustainability of wading bird populations.

    “Similarly, in the Florida Everglades, multiple lines of evidence collected over three decades indicate that the effects of water management and restoration projects on food availability during the nesting season are key contributors to nesting success and the sustainability of wading bird populations (WebTable 1; Beerens et al. 2015).”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Beerens et al. 2015

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. [1]Rittenhouse CD, Thompson FR, Dijak WD, Millspaugh JJ, Clawson RL. Evaluation of habitat suitability models for forest passerines using demographic data. J Wildl Manage. 2010; 74: 411– 422.
  2. [2]Garshelis DL. Delusions in habitat evaluation: measuring use, selection, and importance In: Boitani L, Fuller TK, editors. Research techniques in animal ecology: Controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press; 2000 pp. 111– 164.
  3. [3]Elith J, Leathwick JR. Species distribution models: Ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2009; 40: 677– 697.
  4. [4]Austin M. Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol Modell. 2007; 200: 1– 19.
  5. [5]McLoughlin PD, Morris DW, Fortin D, Vander Wal E, Contasti AL. Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection functions. J Anim Ecol. 2010; 79: 4– 12. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01613.x 19732211 · DOI
  6. [6]Arthur SM, Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Garner GW. Assessing habitat selection when availability changes. Ecology. 1996; 77: 215– 227.
  7. [7]Beyer HL, Haydon DT, Morales JM, Frair JL, Hebblewhite M, Mitchell M, et al The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use-availability designs. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010; 365: 2245– 54. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0083 20566501 PMC2894962 · DOI
  8. [8]Mysterud A, Ims R. Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in trade-off situations. Ecology. 1998; 79: 1435– 1441.
  9. [9]Frid A, Dill L. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol. 2002; 6: 11.
  10. [10]Hebblewhite M, Merrill E. Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. J Appl Ecol. 2008; 45: 834– 844.
  11. [11]Gillies CS, Hebblewhite M, Nielsen SE, Krawchuk MA, Aldridge CL, Frair JL, et al Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. J Appl Ecol. 2006; 75: 887– 898. 17009752
  12. [12]Godvik IMR, Loe LE, Vik JO, Veiberg V, Langvatn R, Mysterud A. Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. Ecology. 2009; 90: 699– 710. 19341140
  13. [13]Gawlik DE. The effects of prey availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecol Monogr. 2002; 72: 329– 346.
  14. [14]Frederick PC, Gawlik DE, Ogden JC, Cook MI, Lusk M. The White Ibis and Wood Stork as indicators for restoration of the Everglades ecosystem. Ecol Indic. 2009; 9: S83– S95.
  15. [15]Mazzotti FJ, Best GR, Brandt LA, Cherkiss MS, Jeffery BM, Rice KG. Alligators and crocodiles as indicators for restoration of Everglades ecosystems. Ecol Indic. 2009; 9: S137– S149.
  16. [16]Russell GJ, Bass OL, Pimm SL. The effect of hydrological patterns and breeding-season flooding on the numbers and distribution of wading birds in Everglades National Park. Anim Conserv. 2002; 5: 185– 199.
  17. [17]Beerens JM, Gawlik DE, Herring G, Cook MI. Dynamic habitat selection by two wading bird species with divergent foraging strategies in a seasonally fluctuating wetland. Auk. 2011; 128: 651– 662.
  18. [18]Kahl MP. Food ecology of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) in Florida. Ecol Monogr. 1964; 34: 97– 117.
  19. [19]Ogden JC. A comparison of wading bird nesting colony dynamics (1931–1946 and 1974–1989) as an indication of ecosystem conditions in the southern Everglades In: Davis SM, Ogden JC, editors. Everglades, the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press; 1994 pp. 533– 570.
  20. [21]Gawlik DE, Crozier GE. A test of cues affecting habitat selection by wading birds. Auk. 2007; 124: 1075.
  21. [22]Lantz SM, Gawlik DE, Cook MI. The effects of water depth and emergent vegetation on foraging success and habitat selection of wading birds in the Everglades. Waterbirds. 2011; 34: 439– 447.
  22. [23]Ogden JC. Everglades ridge and slough conceptual ecological model. Wetlands. 2005; 25: 810– 820.
  23. [24]Herring G, Gawlik DE, Cook MI, Beerens JM. Sensitivity of nesting Great Egrets (Ardea alba) and White Ibises (Eudocimus albus) to reduced prey availability. Auk. 2010; 127: 660– 670.
  24. [25]Fleming D, Wolff W, DeAngelis D. Importance of landscape heterogeneity to wood storks in Florida Everglades. Environ Manag. 1994; 18: 743– 757.
  25. [26]Frederick PC, Spalding MG. Factors affecting reproductive success of wading birds (Ciconiiformes) in the Everglades ecosystem In: Davis SM, Ogden JC, editors. Everglades, the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press; 1994 pp. 659– 691.
  26. [27]Frederick PC, Ogden JC. Philopatry and nomadism: Contrasting long-term movement behavior and population dynamics of White Ibises and Wood Storks. Waterbirds. 1997; 20: 316– 323.
  27. [28]Bancroft GT, Strong AM, Sawicki RJ, Hoffman W, Jewell SD (1994) Relationships among wading bird foraging patterns, colony locations, and hydrology in the Everglades In: Davis SM, Ogden JC, editors. Everglades, the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press; 1994. pp. 615– 658
  28. [30]Liu Z, Volin JC, Owen D, Pearlstine LG, Allen JR, Mazzotti FJ, et al Validation and ecosystem applications of the EDEN water-surface model for the Florida Everglades. Ecohydrology. 2009; 2: 182– 194.
  29. [31]Trexler JC, Goss CW. Aquatic fauna as indicators for Everglades restoration: Applying dynamic targets in assessments. Ecol Indic. 2009; 9: S108– S119.
  30. [32]Botson B. Mechanisms that generate resource pulses and drive wading bird nesting in a fluctuating wetland. M.Sc. Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. 2012.
  31. [33]Trexler JC, Loftus WF, Jordan F, Chick JH (2002) Ecological scale and its implications for freshwater fishes in the Florida Everglades In: Porter JW, Porter KG, editors. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook CRC Press; 2002 pp 153– 181.
  32. [34]Gunderson LH. Vegetation of the Everglades: determinants of community composition In: Davis SM, Ogden JC, editors. Everglades, the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press; 1994 pp 323– 340.
  33. [37]Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
  34. [38]Campomizzi AJ, Butcher JA, Farrell SL, Snelgrove AG, Collier BA, Gutzwiller KJ, et al Conspecific attraction is a missing component in wildlife habitat modeling. J Wildl Manage. 2008; 72: 331– 336.
  35. [40]Dormann CF. Effects of incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the analysis of species distribution data. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2007; 16: 129– 138.
  36. [41]McCarter K, Burris E. Accounting for spatial correlation using radial smoothers in statistical models used for developing variable-rate treatment prescriptions. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. 2010.
  37. [43]Dorn NJ, Cook MI, Herring G, Boyle RA, Nelson J, Gawlik DE. Aquatic prey switching and urban foraging by the White Ibis Eudocimus albus are determined by wetland hydrological conditions. Ibis. 2011; 153: 323– 335.
  38. [44]Ogden JC, Kushlan JA, Tilmant JT. Prey selectivity by the Wood Stork. The Condor. 1976; 78: 324– 330.
  39. [45]Loftus WF, Eklund AM. Long-term dynamics of an Everglades small-fish assemblage In: Davis SM, Ogden JC, editors. Everglades, the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press; 1994 pp. 461– 483
  40. [46]Chick JH, Ruetz CR, Trexler JC. Spatial scale and abundance patterns of large fish communities in freshwater marshes of the Florida Everglades. Wetlands. 2004; 24: 652– 664.
  41. [47]Cook MI, Herring HK. System-wide summary In: Cook MI, Herring HK, editors. South Florida Wading Bird Report, vol. 13 South Florida Water Management District; 2007 pp. 1– 2.
  42. [49]Herring HK, Gawlik DE. Resource selection functions for Wood Stork foraging habitat in the southern Everglades. Waterbirds. 2011; 34: 133– 142.
  43. [50]Folmer EO, Olff H, Piersma T. The spatial distribution of flocking foragers: Disentangling the effects of food availability, interference and conspecific attraction by means of spatial autoregressive modeling. Oikos. 2012; 121: 551– 561.
  44. [51]Kushlan J. Wading bird predation in a seasonally fluctuating pond. Auk. 1976; 93: 464– 476.
  45. [52]Tobler W. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geo. 1970; 46: 234– 240.
  46. [53]Kühn I. Incorporating spatial autocorrelation may invert observed patterns. Divers Distrib. 2006; 13: 66– 69.
  47. [54]Kellogg CM, Dorn NJ. Consumptive effects of fish reduce wetland crayfish recruitment and drive species turnover. Oecologia. 2012; 168: 1111– 21. 10.1007/s00442-011-2162-2 22011844 · DOI
  48. [55]Frederick PC, Ogden JC. Pulsed breeding of long-legged wading birds and the importance of infrequence severe drought conditions in the Florida Everglades. Wetlands. 2001; 21: 484– 491.
  49. [56]Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), Pub.L. pp. 106–54.
  50. [57]Beerens JM. Development, evaluation, and application of spatio-temporal wading bird foraging models to guide Everglades restoration. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida Atlantic University. 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beerens, J. M., Noonburg, E. G., & Gawlik, D. E.
Affiliations
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • Florida Atlantic University (US)
Corresponding author
Beerens, James M.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-06-24
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
e0128182
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0128182
PMC
PMC4480858
OpenAlex
W2117625204
Cited by
53
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Florida Atlantic University
  • Everglades Foundation
  • Universidad del Atlántico
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
wading birds, habitat selection, foraging distribution, species distribution modeling, Ardea alba, white ibis, wood stork, wetland indicator species, shallow water depth, social attraction, spatial autocorrelation, hydrological restoration, climate change, resource gradients, spatio-temporal modeling
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Models, Theoretical, Species Specificity, Ecosystem, Wetlands, Climate Change, Hydrology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review