DOI: 10.5061/dryad.jm63xsjhb
title: Predator exclosures increase nest success but reduce adult survival and increase dispersal distance of Piping Plovers, indicating exclosures should be used with caution

description: Diagnosing unsuccessful population outcomes for endangered species
 requires understanding relationships among vital rates, ecological
 conditions, and management variables, including unintended consequences of
 management actions. The federally-threatened Piping Plover (Charadrius
 melodus) has remained below recovery goals, despite intensive management,
 including the use of nest exclosures to protect eggs from predation. We
 studied ecological factors and management actions affecting nest success,
 survival, site fidelity, and dispersal of the New Jersey, USA population
 of Piping Plovers over a seven-year period, focused on evaluating the
 impact of exclosures on demography. While exclosures increased nest
 success by 62% over a 34-day period, exclosed nests were 4.7 times more
 likely to be abandoned, which was likely a consequence of adult mortality.
 Abandoned nests were associated with lower adult survival, particularly
 for males, but there was evidence that site fidelity was greater for birds
 whose last nest was exclosed vs. unexclosed. Regardless of exclosure
 status, females who abandoned their first nesting attempt dispersed 10
 times farther between attempts than those whose first nest attempts were
 lost to other causes. Moreover, females that abandoned their last nesting
 attempts dispersed farther than females that lost their last nest to
 predation or flooding. This difference was more substantial for males. Our
 results corroborate studies documenting adverse impacts of exclosures on
 survival, and, for the first time, demonstrate that surviving mates
 (particularly females) emigrate from the breeding site, resulting in a
 realized loss of a local breeding pair. Further, we used an online
 population project model (i.e., PiperEx) to demonstrate that exclosures
 are not expected to improve growth rates in New Jersey. We conclude that
 there is a tradeoff among increased nest survival, reduced adult survival
 and increased emigration rates, and we encourage managers to consider
 whether exclosures are worth the protection of eggs from predators using
 online decision support tools.
description: *** output:pdf\_document: defaulthtml\_document: default --- # Project
 Title Predator exclosures increase nest success but reduce adult survival
 and increase dispersal distance of Piping Plovers, indicating exclosures
 should be used with caution ## Description The datasets below were used in
 the above named manuscript published in Ornithological Applications. ###
 Nest Check Attributes Each line represents an individual nest check 1\.
 Year: year the nesting attempt occurred 2\. Date: date of nest observation
 3\. ADStatus: status of the nest on this nest check \(e\.g\.\, 1 = alive\,
 2 = predated\, 3 = flooded/buried\, 4 = abandoned\, 5 = unknown status\, 6
 = hatched\, 7 = lost to unknown causes\, 8 = unknown fate\) 4\. Exclosed:
 whether or not the nest was exclosed on a particular observation 5\. DOY:
 day of the year \(Jan 1st = 1\) 6\. Interval: number of days since the
 previous nest check 7\. siteid: individual nest site identifier 8\. year:
 year identifier 9\. nestid: individual nest identifier ### Within Season
 Dispersal Attributes Each line represents an individual dispersal event
 1\. Year: year the nesting attempt occurred 2\. Age: age of the nesting
 individual 3\. Sex: sex of the nesting individual 4\. Fate1: whether the
 previous nest attempt was abandoned 5\. DistanceKM: distance in kilometers
 to the previous nest attempt 6\. BandID: identifier for individual birds
 ### Between Season Dispersal Attributes Each line represents an individual
 dispersal event 1\. Year: year the nesting attempt occurred 2\. Age: age
 of the nesting individual 3\. Sex: sex of the nesting individual 4\.
 LastNestAbandoned: whether the last nest attempt was abandoned \(1 = Y\, 2
 = N\) 5\. DistanceKM: distance in kilometers to the previous nest attempt
 6\. BandID: identifier for individual birds ### Capture History Attributes
 Each line represents an individual bird 1\. BandID: identifier for the
 individual bird 2\. BandYear: year the individual bird was banded 3\.
 BandSite: site identifier for where the site the bird was banded 4\.
 BandAge: age at which the bird was banded 5\. Sex: sex of the individual\,
 if determined 6\. b2012: breeding season \(1 = observed during breeding
 season\, 0 = not observed\) 7\. w2012\-2013: non\-breeding season \(1 =
 observed during the non\-breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 8\. b2013:
 breeding season \(1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed\)
 9\. w2013\-2014: non\-breeding season \(1 = observed during the
 non\-breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 10\. b2014: breeding season \(1
 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 11\. w2014\-2015:
 non\-breeding season \(1 = observed during the non\-breeding season\, 0 =
 not observed\) 12\. b2015: breeding season \(1 = observed during breeding
 season\, 0 = not observed\) 13\. w2015\-2016: non\-breeding season \(1 =
 observed during the non\-breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 14\. b2016:
 breeding season \(1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed\)
 15\. w2016\-2017: non\-breeding season \(1 = observed during the
 non\-breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 16\. b2017: breeding season \(1
 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 17\. w2017\-2018:
 non\-breeding season \(1 = observed during the non\-breeding season\, 0 =
 not observed\) 18\. b2018: breeding season \(1 = observed during breeding
 season\, 0 = not observed\) 19\. w2018\-2019: non\-breeding season \(1 =
 observed during the non\-breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 20\. b2019:
 breeding season \(1 = observed during breeding season\, 0 = not observed\)
 21\. w2019\-2020: non\-breeding season \(1 = observed during the
 non\-breeding season\, 0 = not observed\) 22\. e2012: whether the
 individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed \(1 = Y\, 0
 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 23\. e2013: whether the individual's last
 nest attempt of the season was exclosed \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not
 applicable\) 24\. e2014: whether the individual's last nest attempt
 of the season was exclosed \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 25\.
 e2016: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was
 exclosed \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 26\. e2017: whether the
 individual's last nest attempt of the season was exclosed \(1 = Y\, 0
 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 27\. e2018: whether the individual's last
 nest attempt of the season was exclosed \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not
 applicable\) 28\. e2019: whether the individual's last nest attempt
 of the season was exclosed \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 29\.
 a2012: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was
 abandoned \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 30\. a2013: whether the
 individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned \(1 = Y\,
 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 31\. a2014: whether the individual's
 last nest attempt of the season was abandoned \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not
 applicable\) 32\. a2015: whether the individual's last nest attempt
 of the season was abandoned \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 33\.
 a2016: whether the individual's last nest attempt of the season was
 abandoned \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 34\. a2017: whether the
 individual's last nest attempt of the season was abandoned \(1 = Y\,
 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 35\. a2018: whether the individual's
 last nest attempt of the season was abandoned \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not
 applicable\) 36\. a2019: whether the individual's last nest attempt
 of the season was abandoned \(1 = Y\, 0 = N\, NA = not applicable\) 37\.
 cold2012: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA
 38\. cold2013: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\,
 USA 39\. cold2014: number of January days below 0C in Brunswick\,
 Georgia\, USA 40\. cold2015: number of January days below 0C in
 Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 41\. cold2016: number of January days below 0C
 in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 42\. cold2017: number of January days below
 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 43\. cold2018: number of January days
 below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 44\. cold2019: number of January
 days below 0C in Brunswick\, Georgia\, USA 45\. h2012: number of named
 Atlantic hurricanes 46\. h2013: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 47\.
 h2014: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 49\. h2015: number of named
 Atlantic hurricanes 50\. h2016: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 51\.
 h2017: number of named Atlantic hurricanes 52\. h2018: number of named
 Atlantic hurricanes 53\. h2019: number of named Atlantic hurricanes ##
 Authors MICHELLE L. STANTIAL^1^^†^, JONATHAN B. COHEN^1^, ABIGAIL J.
 DARRAH^2^, BROOKE MASLO^3^ ^1^SUNY College of Environmental Science and
 Forestry, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, 1 Forestry
 Drive, Syracuse, New York 13210, USA ^2^Audubon Delta, Coastal Bird
 Stewardship Program, 5107 Arthur Street, Moss Point, Mississippi, 39563,
 USA ^3^Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Department of Ecology,
 Evolution and Natural Resources, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, New
 Jersey, 08901, USA ^†^michelle.stantial@gmail.com ## Acknowledgments We
 thank Christina “Kashi” Davis, Emily Heiser, and Todd Pover for logistical
 and field support. We thank Rebeca Linhart, Tyler Tomassone, and our many
 technicians and interns for assistance in the field. We also thank the
 anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their
 many insightful comments and suggestions. This study was funded by
 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
 Service (USFWS), and New Jersey Non-game and Endangered Species Program
 (NJENSP). All animal-handling protocols were approved by the SUNY-ESF
 IACUC (#190303). Trapping, banding, and research efforts were approved by
 the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL permit # 23736), USFWS (#TE35010D-0) and
 NJENSP (permit # SC 2019112). The authors have no conflicts of interest to
 declare. All authors helped conceive the ideas for the paper and designed
 the methodology. Michelle L. Stantial conducted the fieldwork, Michelle L.
 Stantial analyzed the data, Michelle L. Stantial and Jonathan B. Cohen led
 the writing of the paper. All authors gave final approval for publication.
 Data and code are available from the following figshare digital
 repository: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21818031.