1
Supporting Information for:
Characterising demographic variation and contributions to population growth rate in a
declining population
Innes M.W. Sim, Graham W. Rebecca, Sonja Ludwig, Murray C. Grant & Jane M. Reid
2
Table S1
Sample sizes for the variables shown in Fig.3. Rate codes are defined in Table 1.
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
All years
Early laying date
23
25
32
31
30
21
23
20
15
22
21
15
278
Late laying date
16
14
30
24
22
21
16
17
17
11
10
16
214
Early clutch size
8
22
23
20
17
17
22
18
14
17
18
12
208
Late clutch size
13
8
19
13
22
17
10
13
13
11
11
11
161
Early fledged brood size
27
26
23
23
27
16
21
17
11
15
13
12
231
Late fledged brood size
13
12
21
20
18
17
12
13
12
9
7
14
168
Early DNSR
8
18
24
18
16
19
21
19
13
15
16
11
198
Late DNSR
10
6
18
12
20
16
9
10
13
10
12
9
145
Ce
23
32
43
41
39
38
39
24
26
26
28
21
380
Cl
17
16
29
27
26
24
21
18
16
14
17
13
238
RSe
8
18
23
18
16
16
21
17
11
15
13
11
187
RSl
10
6
18
12
18
16
9
10
12
9
7
9
136
Overall RS
8
6
18
12
16
16
9
10
11
9
7
9
131
3
Table S2
Models used to estimate daily nest survival rates (DNSR). ne, nl, and y indicate early-nest, latenest and year dependence in nest survival () probability respectively. ‘+trend’ and ‘*y’ indicate a
linear change across years, and year-dependent effects, respectively. AIC scores corrected for
small sample size (AICc), the AIC difference between the current and best model (AICc) and the
relative weight of each AICc value (AICc weight) are presented. Analyses used nest histories from
198 early and 145 late nests. The best supported model is indicated in bold.
Model
AICc
AICc
AICc weight
Parameters
Deviance
(.)
849.8
0.0
0.398
1
847.8
(ne, nl)
850.8
1.0
0.238
2
846.8
(ne, nl+trend)
851.2
1.5
0.193
3
845.2
(ne+trend, nl)
852.6
2.8
0.098
3
846.6
(ne+trend, nl+trend) 853.7
4.0
0.055
4
845.7
(ne*y, nl)
856.0
6.2
0.018
13
830.0
(ne, nl*y)
864.7
14.9
0.000
13
838.7
(ne*y, nl*y)
870.0
20.2
0.000
24
821.8
4
Table S3
Capture-mark-recapture models used to estimate adult annual apparent survival probabilities (ad).
m, f, s, and y indicate male, female, sex and year dependence in resighting (p) and ad
respectively. ‘+trend’, ‘*y’ and ‘*rand’ indicate a linear change across years, year-dependent
effects and random effects model fitted to year, respectively. Analyses used encounter histories
from 221 individuals (103 males and 118 females). The best supported model is indicated in bold.
Model
AICc
AICc
AICc weight
Parameters
Deviance
(s)p(.)
511.5
0.0
0.329
3
86.1
(m+trend, f)p(.)
512.7
1.3
0.175
4
85.3
(m, f*rand)p(.)
512.8
1.3
0.169
6.9
79.3
(s+trend)p(.)
513.3
1.8
0.133
4
85.8
(m, f+trend)p(.)
513.5
2.0
0.120
4
86.0
(s*trend)p(.)
514.8
3.3
0.063
5
85.3
(m, f*y)p(.)
520.0
8.5
0.005
12
75.8
(s)p(y)
520.4
8.9
0.004
12
76.2
(y)p(.)
522.4
10.9
0.001
11
80.3
(s*y, f*rand)p(.)
525.3
13.8
0.000
15.9
72.6
(s*y)p (.)
533.1
21.6
0.000
21
69.0
(s*y)p(y)
547.4
35.9
0.000
29
64.9
(s*y)p(s*y)
567.7
56.2
0.000
38
63.3
5
Table S4
Known fate models used to estimate post-fledging weekly survival probabilities (f). be, bl and w
indicate early brood, late brood and weekly dependence in f respectively. ‘*w’ indicates a weekdependent effect on survival. The best supported model is indicated in bold.
Model
AICc
AICc
AICc weight
Parameters
Deviance
(be, bl)
316.6
0.0
0.405
2
14.2
(be*w, bl)
317.5
0.9
0.253
6
6.9
(be, bl*w)
317.9
1.3
0.214
6
7.3
(be*w, bl*w)
319.0
2.4
0.120
10
0.0
(.)
325.4
8.8
0.005
1
25.0
(w)
326.9
10.3
0.002
5
18.4
6
Table S5
Capture-mark-recapture models used to estimate first-year annual apparent survival probabilities
(1). be, bl, ae, al and y indicate early-brood, late-brood, early-brood adult (1+years), late-brood
adult (1+years) and year dependence in re-sighting (p) and 1 respectively. Adult survival in this
model was included as a nuisance variable only. ‘+trend’ and ‘*y’ indicate a linear change across
years, and year-dependent effects, respectively. Analyses used encounter histories from 1386
individuals (799 early and 587 late brood chicks). The best supported model is indicated in bold.
Model
AICc
AICc
AICc weight
Parameters
Deviance
(b+trend, a)p(.)
599.8
0.0
0.412
4
79.1
(be, bl, a)p(.)
600.4
0.6
0.305
4
79.7
(b*trend, a)p(.)
601.9
2.0
0.151
5
79.1
(be, bl, ae, al)p(.)
602.3
2.5
0.118
5
79.6
(b, a)p(.)
607.1
7.3
0.011
3
88.3
(be*y, bl, a)p(.)
610.0
10.2
0.003
14
69.0
(be, bl*y, ae, al)p(.)
615.1
15.3
0.000
15
72.0
(be*y, bl*y, a)p(.)
623.0
23.2
0.000
24
61.5
(be*y, bl*y, ae, al)p(.)
625.0
25.1
0.000
25
61.4
(be*y, bl*y, ae, al)p(y)
644.8
45.0
0.000
35
60.3
(be*y, bl*y)p(y)
791.3
191.5
0.000
32
213.2
(be*y, bl*y)p(b*y)
810.3
210.4
0.000
41
213.2
7
Table S6
Comparison of mean estimates of reproductive success (RS) and survival for ring ouzels in Glen Clunie with those from other studies on ring ouzels and
other related species. Figures separated by ‘/’ are for early- and late-nests respectively, while figures separated by ‘-‘ indicate the range in values from
various studies.
Clutch
Fledged
size
brood size
ONSR
RS
f 1 week
f 5 weeks
ad
References
Ring ouzel
4.0/4.0
3.6/3.7
0.65/0.57
2.3/2.1
0.88/0.74
0.57/0.22
0.42
this study
Ring ouzel
3.9-4.2
3.4-4.0
0.41-0.68
1.6-2.5
-
-
-
1
Blackbird
3.9-4.1
3.4-3.5
0.14-0.55
1.9
-
-
0.65
2-5
Song thrush
4.2/3.8
3.9/3.2
0.19-0.44
0.8-1.6
0.77
0.30
0.56-0.63
4-9
Wood thrush
3.3/2.6
2.0-3.3
0.26-0.65
0.6-1.9
0.71-0.93
0.43
0.58-0.64
10-20
Ovenbird
2.8-4.9
4.3-4.7
0.26-0.69
1.4-2.9
0.68
0.56
0.52-0.60
21-23
Swainson’s thrush
-
-
-
-
-
0.52
0.56-0.57
24-26
8
References
1. Burfield, I. (2002) The breeding ecology and conservation of the ring ouzel Turdus torquatus in
Britain. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.
2. Hatchwell, B.J., Chamberlain, D.E. & Perrins, C.M. (1996) The reproductive success of blackbirds
Turdus merula in relation to habitat structure and choice of nest site. Ibis, 138, 256-262.
3. BTO Bird Facts. http://www.bto.org/birdfacts/index.htm.
4. Paradis, E., Braille, S.R., Sutherland, W.J. & Gregory, R.D. (1998) Patterns of natal and breeding
dispersal in birds. Journal of Animal Ecology, 67, 518-536.
5. Siriwardena, G.M., Baillie, S.R. & Wilson, J.D. (1998) Variation in the survival rates of some British
passerines with respect to their population trends on farmland. Bird Study, 45, 276-292.
6. Thomson, D.L. & Cotton, P.A. (2000) Understanding the decline of the British population of song
thrushes Turdus philomelos. Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds (eds N.J.
Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice & J.A. Vickery), pp. 151–155. British Ornithologists’ Union, Tring,
UK.
7. Kelleher, K.M. & O’Halloran, J. (2007) Influence of nesting habitat on breeding Song Thrushes
Turdus philomelos. Bird Study, 54, 221-229.
8. Robinson, R.A., Green, R.E., Baillie, S.R., Peach, W.J. & Thomson, D.L. (2004) Demographic
mechanisms of the population decline of the song thrush Turdus philomelos in Britain. Journal of
Animal Ecology, 73, 670–682.
9. Payevsky, V.A. & Vysotsky, V.G. (2003) Migratory song thrushes Turdus philomelos hunted in
Europe: survival rates and other demographic parameters. Avian Science, 3, 13-20.
9
10. Brown, W.P. & Roth, R.R. (2002) Temporal patterns of fitness and survival in the Wood Thrush.
Ecology, 83, 958-969.
11. Simons, T.R., Farnsworth, G.L. & Shriner, S.A. (2000) Evaluating Great Smoky Mountains National
Park as a population source for the Wood Thrush. Conservation Biology, 14, 1133-1144.
12. Donovan, T.M., Thompson, F.R., Faaborg, J. & Probst, J.R. (1995) Reproductive success of
migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology, 9, 1380-1395.
13. Kaiser, S.A. & Lindell, C.A.. 2007. Effects of distance to edge and edge type on nestling growth and
nest survival in the wood thrush. The Condor, 109, 288-303.
14. Fauth, P.T. (2001) Wood thrush populations are not all sinks in the agricultural Midwestern United
States. Conservation Biology, 15, 523-527.
15. Fauth, P.T. (2000) Reproductive success of Wood Thrushes in forest fragments in northern
Indiana. The Auk, 117, 194-204.
16. Powell, L. A., Lang, J.D., Krementz, D.G. & Conroy, M.J. (2005) Use of radio-telemetry to reduce
bias in nest searching. Journal of Field Ornithology, 76, 274-278.
17. Anders, A.D., Dearborn, D.C., Faaborg, J. & Thompson, F.R. (1997) Juvenile survival in a
population of neotropical migrant birds. Conservation Biology, 11, 698-707.
18. Schmidt, K.A., Rush, S.A. & Ostfeld, R.S. (2008) Wood thrush nest success and post-fledging
survival across a temporal pulse of small mammal abundance in an oak forest. Journal of Animal
Ecology, 77, 830-837.
10
19. Savidge, I.R. & Davis, D.E. (1974) Survival of some common passerines in a Pennsylvania woodlot.
Bird-Banding, 45, 152-155.
20. Roth, R.R. & Johnson, R.K. (1993) Long-term dynamics of a Wood Thrush population breeding in a
forest fragment. The Auk, 110, 37-48.
21. Flaspohler, D.J., Temple, S.A. & Rosenfield, R.N. (2001) Effects of forest edges on Ovenbird
demography in a managed forest landscape. Conservation Biology, 15, 173-183.
22. Porneluzi, P.A. & Faaborg, J. (1999) Season-long fecundity, survival, and viability of ovenbirds in
fragmented and unfragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology, 13, 1151-1161.
23. Bayne, E.M. & Hobson, K.A. (2002) Annual survival of adult American Redstarts and Ovenbirds in
the southern Boreal forest. Wilson Bulletin, 114, 358–367.
24. White, J.D., Gardali, T., Thompson, F.R. & Faaborg, J. (2005) Resource selection by juvenile
Swainson’s Thrushes during the postfledging period. The Condor, 107, 388-401.
25. Gardali, T., Barton, D.C., White, J.D. & Geupel, G. (2003) Juvenile and adult survival of Swainson’s
thrush (Catharus ustulatus) in coastal California: annual estimates using capture-recapture
analyses. The Auk, 120, 1188-1194.
26. Nichols, J. D., Noon, B.R., Stokes, S.L. & Hines, J.E. (1981) Remarks on the use of mark-recapture
methodology in estimating avian population size. Studies in Avian Biology, 6, 121–136.