Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 22–29 | Cite as

Ectoparasitism and the role of green nesting material in the European starling

  • Peter T. Fauth
  • David G. Krementz
  • James E. Hines
Original Papers

Summary

The use of green nesting material is widespred among birds. Recent evidence suggests that birds use secondary chemicals contained in green plants to control ectoparasites. We manipulated green nesting material and ectoparasites of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) to test two hypotheses: (1) ectoparasites adversely affect prefledging survival and morphometrics or postfledging survival, and (2) green nesting material ameliorates the effects of ectoparasites. We recorded fat score, numbers of scabs, tarsal length, body mass, and hematocrit level on each nestling 17 days after hatching. We also fitted each nestling with unique patagial tags and resighted the starlings for 6–8 weeks after fledging to estimate survival and sighting rates. Nests devoid of green nesting material and dusted with the insecticide, carbaryl, had fewer high ectoparasite infestations, and nestlings had significantly lower scab scores, and significantly higher body masses than nestlings in undusted boxes. However, there was no difference in postfledging survival between birds from carbaryl-treated and undusted nests. There also was no difference in prefledging survival and morphometrics or postfledging survival between nestlings from boxes with and without green nesting material. These results do not support the hypothesis that starlings use green nesting material to control nest ectoparasites. We suggest an alternative hypothesis; green nesting material is used for mate selection or pairbonding in the starling.

Key words

Sturnus vulgaris Green nesting material Nest protection hypothesis Ectoparasitism Postfledging survival 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ali S, Ripley SD (1974) Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan, vols. 1–10. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP (1976) Population ecology of the mallard. VI. The effect of exploitation on survival. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 128Google Scholar
  3. Arendt WJ (1985) Philornis ectoparasitism of pearly-eyed thrashers. I. Impact on growth and development of nestlings. Auk 102:270–280Google Scholar
  4. Boyd EM (1951) A survey of parasitism of the starling Sturnus vulgaris L. in North America. J Parasitol 37:56–84Google Scholar
  5. Brown C, Brown MB (1986) Ectoparasitism as a cost of coloniality in cliff swallows (Hirundo pyrrhonota). Ecology 67:1206–1218Google Scholar
  6. Brownie C, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Robson DS (1985) Statistical inference from band recovery data — a handbook. 2nd ed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 156Google Scholar
  7. Brownie C, Hines JE, Nichols JD (1986) Constant-parameter capture-recapture models. Biometrics 42:561–574Google Scholar
  8. Carothers AD (1973) The effects of unequal catchability of Jolly-Seber estimates. Biometrics 29:79–100Google Scholar
  9. Carothers AD (1979) Quantifying unequal catchability and its effect on survival estimates in an actual population. J Anim Ecol 48:863–869Google Scholar
  10. Clark L, Mason JR (1985) Use of nest material as insecticidal and anti-pathogenic agents by the European starling. Oecologia 67:169–179Google Scholar
  11. Clark L, Mason JR (1987) Olfactory discrimination of plant volatiles by the European starling. Anim Behav 35:227–235Google Scholar
  12. Clark L, Mason JR (1988) Effect of biologically active plants used as nest material and the derived benefit to starling nestlings. Oecologia 77:174–180Google Scholar
  13. Cummings JL (1987) Nylon fasteners for attaching leg and wing tags to blackbirds. J. Field Ornithol. 58:265–269Google Scholar
  14. Feare C (1984) The starling. New York, Oxford Univ PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Gold CS, Dahlsten DL (1983) Effects of parasitic flies (Protocalliphora spp.) on nestlings of mountain and chestnut-backed chickadees. Wilson Bull 95:560–572Google Scholar
  16. Helms CW, Drury WH Jr. (1960) Winter and migratory weight and fat field studies on some North American buntings. Bird-Banding 31:1–39Google Scholar
  17. Hill EF (1979) Cholinesterase activity in Japanese quail dusted with carbaryl. Lab Anim Sci 29:349–352Google Scholar
  18. Johnston RF, Hardy JW (1962) Behavior of the purple martin. Wilson Bull 74:243–262Google Scholar
  19. Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247Google Scholar
  20. Jolly GM (1982) Mark-recapture models with parameters constant in time. Biometrics 38:301–321Google Scholar
  21. Kahl MP Jr. (1972) Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. The wood storks (genera Mycteria and Ibis). Ibis 114:15–29Google Scholar
  22. Kessel B (1957) A study of the breeding biology of the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris L) in North America. Am Midl Nat 58:257–331Google Scholar
  23. Krementz DG, Nichols JD, Hines JE (1989) Postfledging survival of European starlings. Ecology 70:646–655Google Scholar
  24. Meyers LE (1922) The American swallow bug, Oeciacus vicarius Horvath (Hemiptera: Cimicidae). Parasitology 20:159–172Google Scholar
  25. Moss WW, Camin JH (1970) Nest parasitism, productivity, and clutch size in purple martins. Science 168:1000–1003Google Scholar
  26. Pollock KH (1981) Capture-recapture models: a review of current methods, assumptions and experimental design. Stud Avian Biol 6:426–435Google Scholar
  27. Pollock KH, Hines JE, Nichols JD (1985) Goodness-of-fit tests for open capture-recapture models. Biometrics 41:399–410Google Scholar
  28. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildl Monogr 107:1–97Google Scholar
  29. Powlesland RG (1977) Effects of the haematophagous mite, Ornithonyssus bursa on nestling starlings in New Zealand. New Zealand J Zool 4:85–94Google Scholar
  30. Seber GAF (1965) A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52:249–259Google Scholar
  31. Seber GAF (1982) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. 2nd ed. New York, MacMillan Publ. CoGoogle Scholar
  32. Stromborg KL, Grue CE, Nichols JD, Hepp GR, Hines JE, Bourne HC (1988) Postfledging survival of European starlings exposed as nestlings to an organophosphorous insecticide. Ecology 68:590–601Google Scholar
  33. Tucker RK, Crabtree DG (1970) Handbook of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Publication 84, pp. 11–123Google Scholar
  34. van Noordwijk AJ, van Balen JH (1988) The great tit, Parus major. In: Reproductive Success (TH Clutton-Brock, ed.) Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 119–135Google Scholar
  35. Walter G, Hudde H (1987) Carnus hemapterus (Milichiidae, Diptera), an ectoparasite of nestlings. J Ornithol 128:251–255Google Scholar
  36. Wasylik A (1971) Nest types and abundance of mites. Ekol Pol 19:689–699Google Scholar
  37. Wimberger PH (1984) The use of green plant material in bird nests to avoid ectoparasites. Auk 101:615–618Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter T. Fauth
    • 1
  • David G. Krementz
    • 2
  • James E. Hines
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePatuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA

Personalised recommendations