<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>P.B. Wood</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Gary E. Williams</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2002</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;We used miniature infrared video cameras to monitor Wood Thrush (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;Hylocichla mustelina&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;) nests during 1998–2000. We documented nest predators and examined whether evidence at nests can be used to predict predator identities and nest fates. Fifty-six nests were monitored; 26 failed, with 3 abandoned and 23 depredated. We predicted predator class (avian, mammalian, snake) prior to review of video footage and were incorrect 57% of the time. Birds and mammals were underrepresented whereas snakes were over-represented in our predictions. We documented ≥9 nest-predator species, with the southern flying squirrel (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;Glaucomys volans&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;) taking the most nests (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 8). During 2000, we predicted fate (fledge or fail) of 27 nests; 23 were classified correctly. Traditional methods of monitoring nests appear to be effective for classifying success or failure of nests, but ineffective at classifying nest predators.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119[1126:ATMODN]2.0.CO;2</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Ornithological Society</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Are traditional methods of determining nest predators and nest fates reliable? An experiment with Wood Thrushes (&lt;i&gt;Hylocichla mustelina&lt;/i&gt;) using miniature video cameras</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>