Territory and population attributes affect Florida scrub‐jay fecundity in fire‐adapted ecosystems

Fecundity, the number of young produced by a breeding pair during a breeding season, is a primary component in evolutionary and ecological theory and applications. Fecundity can be influenced by many environmental factors and requires long‐term study due to the range of variation in ecosystem dynamics. Fecundity data often include a large proportion of zeros when many pairs fail to produce any young during a breeding season due to nest failure or when all young die independently after fledging. We conducted color banding and monthly censuses of Florida scrub‐jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) across 31 years, 15 populations, and 761 territories along central Florida's Atlantic coast. We quantified how fecundity (juveniles/pair‐year) was influenced by habitat quality, presence/absence of nonbreeders, population density, breeder experience, and rainfall, with a zero‐inflated Bayesian hierarchical model including both a Bernoulli (e.g., brood success) and a Poisson (counts of young) submodel, and random effects for year, population, and territory. The results identified the importance of increasing “strong” quality habitat, which was a mid‐successional state related to fire frequency and extent, because strong territories, and the proportion of strong territories in the overall population, influenced fecundity of breeding pairs. Populations subject to supplementary feeding also had greater fecundity. Territory size, population density, breeder experience, and rainfall surprisingly had no or small effects. Different mechanisms appeared to cause annual variation in fecundity, as estimates of random effects were not correlated between the success and count submodels. The increased fecundity for pairs with nonbreeders, compared to pairs without, identified empirical research needed to understand how the proportion of low‐quality habitats influences population recovery and sustainability, because dispersal into low‐quality habitats can drain nonbreeders from strong territories and decrease overall fecundity. We also describe how long‐term study resulted in reversals in our understanding because of complications involving habitat quality, sociobiology, and population density.