Sources of bias in observations of Murre provisioning behavior
Article first published online: 25 SEP 2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1557-9263.2008.00177.x
©2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation ©2008 Association of Field Ornithologists
Additional Information
How to Cite
Elliott, K. H., Davoren, G. K. and Gaston, A. J. (2008), Sources of bias in observations of Murre provisioning behavior. Journal of Field Ornithology, 79: 298–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1557-9263.2008.00177.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 25 SEP 2008
- Article first published online: 25 SEP 2008
- Received 17 December 2007; accepted 1 June 2008
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- Brünnich's Guillemot;
- feeding watch;
- observational bias;
- observer fatigue;
- Thick-billed Murre;
- Uria lomvia
ABSTRACT Although many studies involve observations of parent birds feeding their young, few investigators have attempted to quantify possible sources of bias associated with such observations. To address this issue, we observed the provisioning behavior of Thick-billed Murres (Uria lomvia) at a breeding colony on Coats Island, Nunavut, Canada from 2004 to 2007. We also attached electronic recorders that indicated every return to the colony and, for some prey items, allowed us to determine whether they were correctly identified based on the profile of the dive preceding delivery. We recorded when the bird arrived without a fish and, because our electronic recorders did not impact feeding rates, we were able to convert the number of arrivals into feeding rates. Of 3744 arrivals observed by the recorders, 13% of arrivals were missed by the observers at the colony, 13% were unidentified and 5% were misidentified. The proportion of missed feedings (AIC weight = 0.46) and unidentified prey (AIC weight = 0.48) increased with decreasing light level, whereas the proportion of misidentified prey increased with increasing light level (AIC weight = 0.30). Distance from the observation blind to the breeding site also influenced the proportion of missed feedings. Unidentified and misidentified feeds occurred more often when the breeding site was partially obscured. Unidentified prey also varied with observer (P= 0.0005), although this did not correlate with observer experience. Fish lengths recorded by observers viewing photographs of fish subsequently collected, and therefore of known length, were consistently about one centimeter lower than actual fish length (R2= 0.71). After correcting for missed feeds and misidentification of fish lengths, we obtained robust estimates of chick energy intake rates (accuracy ± 2%). We concluded that light level was the largest source of bias in feeding watches, but that other factors, such as breeding site location, needed to be considered when analyzing data collected from these watches.
Aunque una práctica común en ornitología es observar lo que alimentan los aves a sus jóvenes, pocos estudios cuantifican el diagonal asociado al procedimiento. Para abordar este problema, condujimos 14 “observaciones de alimentación” (24 o 48 hr) en una colonia de araos de Brünnich (Uria lomvia) a Coats Island, Nunavut, 2004–07. También atamos los registradores de la tiempo-profundidad-temperatura que permitieron de registrar cuando los aves llegan a la colonia y, para algunos artículos de presa, para determinar si fueron identificados correctamente basados en el perfil de zambullida. Registramos cuando el ave llegó sin un pescado (demostrado previamente que la misma proporción de aves entrega pescados con y sin los registradores), podíamos convertir el número de entregas en número de alimentaciones. De 3744 alimentaciones observadas, no registramos 13% de alimentaciones, no podemos identificar 13% y identificamos malas 5%. La proporción de alimentaciones que no registramos (AIC weight = 0.46) y no identificamos (AIC weight = 0.48) aumentó con el nivel de luz bajado, pero la proporción de alimentaciones identificamos malas diminuó con el nivel de luz bajado. La proporción de alimentaciones que no registramos aumentó con distancia de la observación al nido. La proporción de alimentaciones que no podemos identificar y que identificamos malas aumentó cuando el nido fue obscurecido parcialmente. La proporción de alimentaciones que no podemos identificar varió con el observador (P = 0.0005), aunque no ésta correlacionara con experiencia del observador. Las tamañas de los pescados registradas por los observadores que veían las fotografías de los pescados eran constantemente cerca uno centímetro más bajo (R2= 0.71). Concluimos que el nivel de luz era la fuente más grande de diagonal en relojes de alimentación, pero que otros factores, tales como localización del nido, necesitaron ser considerados cuando analizan datos de estos observaciones.

1557-9263/asset/JOFO_centre.gif?v=1&s=ee0c0e67ad60ca567244ead97f36831fef38abac)
1557-9263/asset/JOFO_right.gif?v=1&s=89c37e302121edf14af18b713686a48f1a92230f)
