Comparing the Accuracy of Egg Candling and Egg Flotation to Estimate the Hatching Date of Northern Bobwhite Clutches

Floating and candling avian eggs to assess hatch dates has been used successfully to estimate hatch dates for wild bird clutches for decades. However, there is a dearth of information assessing the accuracy of these techniques to estimate northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) hatch dates. We captured and fitted a hen bobwhites with very high frequency transmitters during January and February of 2011–2012. We monitored each bird twice weekly until nesting was initiated. We searched for the nest while the hen was away from the nest (i.e., feeding) to reduce potential abandonment. We used egg floatation and egg candling methods to attempt to estimate wild northern bobwhite clutches during the 2011–2012 nesting seasons. We used a mini MagLite© (97 lumens; Mag Instrument, Inc., Ontario, CA, USA) with the glass lens removed so eggs would sit near the bulb to increase the illumination. We used a dark green 68-cm x 137-cm towel to cover the observer in the field to reduce the naturally occurring light, which might have reduced the visibility of the chick embryo. We based age of the eggs (no. of days since the start of incubation) on the embryo growth stage at the time of nest discovery. We conducted egg flotation at the same time as candling. We used a 100-mL glass beaker with 100-mL of ambient temperature tap water to completely submerge the egg to estimate hatch date. We based the flotation estimation age on the angle at which the egg floated in the water. We also conducted a controlled laboratory experiment using pen-raised quail eggs collected from the breeding colony at the Quail-Tech Alliance breeding facility in Lubbock, Texas. We placed 110 eggs in a commercial incubator that was maintained at 37° C with 55% humidity for the duration of the study. We used 3 novice observers to determine the impact of observer bias on the techniques of estimating hatch date. We placed random groups of eggs (i.e., 5–15 eggs at a time until 110 eggs were obtained) into the incubator at a staggered rate to increase variation in the study. We used the same field techniques for hatch date estimation in the controlled study. We first floated eggs during both controlled and field observations to reduce any potential bias that candling might have on the hatch date estimation (i.e., lack of embryo growth). During the controlled study observers examined the eggs individually. Using the average estimated hatch date (Julian date) as a predictor, we used linear regression to determine the accuracy of the candling and floating methods. We also used a linear regression to determine the accuracy of each estimation technique and observers. When candle and egg floating occurred in a field setting, both methods were found to overestimate the actual hatch date of the clutches discovered (n = 47; R2 = 0.993, P \u3c 0.001; estimated hatch days when using candle: x̄ = 1.21 ± 0.92 days, floating: x̄ = 0.89 ± 0.97 days). However, the mean difference between the candling and flotation was -0.38 days (SE = 1.07 days). Regression analysis suggests that candling and egg flotation are fairly accurate predictors of the actual hatch date for newly discovered bobwhite nests (candling: β = 0.43, t = 3.75, P = 0.001; floating: β = 0.53, t = 4.79, P \u3c 0.001). Use of the candling method appears to be correct 43% of the time whereas egg flotation accurately predicted the estimated hatch date 53% of the time. Under controlled conditions, all 3 observers were new to both techniques of hatch date estimation and were all taught by the same instructor for each method. During the controlled test, we found that observers were highly variable. Two observers could predict the estimated hatch date by using the candling and egg flotation methods to a close estimation of the actual hatch date (floating [observer 1: β = 0.23, t = 2.80, P = 0.006 and observer 2: β = 0.47, t = 5.52, P \u3c 0.001]; candling [observer 1: β = 0.30, t = 4.00, P = 0.006, observer 2: β = 0.219, P \u3c 0.01]). Although observer 3 was unable to predict the estimated hatch date for both estimation methods (floating: β = –0.001, t = –0.013, P = 0.684; candling: β = 0.043, t = 0.40, P = 0.990). We also examined any potential abandonment or hatchability issues that might have risen while using candling or floating to estimate hatch dates for wild clutches. We found that 0.06% (5 of 80 nests) of hens abandoned their clutches during this study. Of the 5 nests that were abandoned zero were abandoned because of measurements obtained during the initial investigation of the nest site. All abandonments were due to either weather (i.e., summer hail), predators, or livestock. Viability and hatchability were unaffected for the remaining clutches that were measured during the field study. We found that candling and egg flotation are both viable methods for estimating hatch dates of bobwhite clutches during an initial measurement when a nest is discovered. When an entire clutch is measured accuracy can be within 1 day of the actual estimated hatch date (based on a 24-day incubation period). However, observers or researchers who will estimate hatch dates for clutches should be properly trained and allowed time to acclimate to the measuring techniques to potentially increase their accuracy at estimating hatch dates for northern bobwhite clutches

Plasticity of Least Tern and Piping Plover nesting behaviors in response to sand temperature

Birds that nest on the ground in open areas, such as Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) and Interior Least Terns (Sternula antillarum athalassos), are exposed to high temperatures in thermally stressful environments. As a result, some ground-nesting avian species have adapted behavioral strategies to maintain thermal regulation of eggs and themselves. We assessed the impact of sand temperature on shorebird nesting behaviors by installing video cameras and thermocouples at 52 Least Tern and 55 Piping Plover nests on the Missouri River in North Dakota during the 2014–2015 breeding seasons. Daily duration and frequency of shading behaviors exhibited a nonlinear relationship with temperature; therefore, we used segmented regressions to determine at what threshold temperature (mean temperature = 25.7⸰C for shading behavior daily frequency and mean temperature = 25.1⸰C for shading behavior daily duration) shorebird adults exhibited a behavioral response to rising sand temperatures. Daily nest attendance of both species decreased with increasing sand temperatures in our system. Frequency and duration of daily shading behaviors were positively correlated with sand temperatures above the temperature threshold. Piping Plovers exhibited more and longer shading behaviors above and below the temperature thresholds (below: frequency = 10.30 ± 1.69 se, duration = 7.29 min ± 2.35 se; above: frequency = 59.27 ± 6.87 se) compared to Least Terns (below: frequency = −1.37 ± 1.98 se, duration = −0.73 min ± 1.51 se; above: frequency = 31.32 ± 7.29 se). The effects of sand temperature on avian ground-nesting behavior will be critical to understand in order to adapt or develop recovery plans in response to climate change

Nest-Site Characteristics of Northern Bobwhites Translocated Into Weeping Lovegrass CRP

Habitat loss and fragmentation have been considered major causes for the decline of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). There are . 400,000 ha of weeping lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields in the Southern High Plains of Texas some of which could be modified to provide usable habitat for northern bobwhites. Timely colonization of improved CRP habitat by northern bobwhite is unlikely without transplantation, because of distance from existing populations. We radio-marked and transplanted 94 northern bobwhite into weeping lovegrass CRP and monitored nest success. We recorded high nest success in 2002 (70%) and 2003 (71%) for northern bobwhite nesting in weeping lovegrass CRP in the area studied. The composition of weeping lovegrass CRP fields available in our study area appears to be suitable nesting cover for northern bobwhite

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health