Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 148, Supplement 2, pp 425–434 | Cite as

The importance of excavators in hole-nesting communities: availability and use of natural tree holes in old mixed forests of western Canada

  • Kathryn E. H. Aitken
  • Kathy Martin
Review

Abstract

Nest-holes created by woodpeckers or natural decay processes are an essential commodity for secondary hole-nesting species. Hole-making agents may strongly influence the richness and abundance of species in hole-nester communities. However, few studies have examined the characteristics and relative importance of naturally occurring holes for hole-nesters. Between 1995 and 2006, we examined 1371 excavated and non-excavated holes used by 29 bird and mammal species in central British Columbia, Canada. Excavated holes were much more abundant (85%) than non-excavated holes (15%). Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) excavated 52% of the holes monitored. At the community level, non-excavated holes were used for nesting less than expected based on their availability (6% of total nests), particularly among woodpeckers (2% of nests). However, secondary hole-nesters used non-excavated holes roughly in proportion to their availability (10% of nests), and some excavators used non-excavated holes for nesting (flicker and red-breasted nuthatch, Sitta canadensis, 4% of nests each; black-capped chickadee, Poecile atricapillus, 13% of nests). Although nests in non-excavated holes tended to be lower on the tree, larger internally and with larger entrances, only European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) appeared to select non-excavated holes with characteristics most similar to their preferred excavated holes. Non-excavated holes may be an alternate nesting resource for secondary hole-nesters that cannot acquire an excavated hole and, occasionally, for excavators. The use of non-excavated holes may provide an advantage for secondary hole-nesters by releasing them from the constraints of excavator nest-site preferences.

Keywords

Hole-nesting birds and mammals Importance of excavators Keystone excavators Natural holes Secondary hole-nesters 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge our excellent field technicians including D. Gunawardana, M. Mossop, A. Newbury, A. Norris, T. Sutherland, R. Wilds and many others. This project was supported by research grants to K. Martin from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, University of B.C.), the Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada), Forest Renewal British Columbia (with F. Cooke, Simon Fraser University) and Lignum Limited. K. E. H. Aitken was supported by NSERC (Industrial Post-graduate Scholarship sponsored by Lignum Ltd.; Doctoral Post-graduate Scholarship), Science Council of British Columbia GREAT scholarship, Van Dusen Graduate Fellowship in Forestry, Canfor Corporation Fellowship in Forest Ecosystem Management, Bert Hoffmeister Scholarship in Forest Wildlife, University of B.C. University Graduate Fellowship, and by grants from the North American Bluebird Society and Brink/McLean Grassland Conservation Fund.

References

  1. Aitken KEH (2007) Resource availability and limitation for a cavity-nesting community in mature conifer forests and aspen groves in interior British Columbia. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken KEH, Martin K (2004) Nest cavity availability and selection in aspen-conifer groves in a grassland landscape. Can J For Res 34:2099–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitken KEH, Wiebe KL, Martin K (2002) Nest-site reuse patterns for a cavity-nesting bird community in interior British Columbia. Auk 119:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alatalo RV, Carlson A, Lundberg A (1988) Nest cavity size and clutch size of pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca breeding in natural tree-holes. Ornis Scand 19:317–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai M-L, Wichmann F, Mühlenberg M (2003) The abundance of tree holes and their utilization by hole-nesting birds in a primeval boreal forest of Mongolia. Acta Ornithol 38:95–102Google Scholar
  6. Bonar RL (2000) Availability of pileated woodpecker cavities and use by other species. J Wildl Manage 64:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breslow NE (2003) Whither PQL? University of Washington biostatistics working paper series No. 192, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  8. Breslow NE, Clayton DG (1993) Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc 88:9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bull EL, Jackson JE (1995) Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 148. The Academy of Natural Sciences/The American Ornithologists’ Union, Philadelphia/Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Burt WH, Grossenheider RP (1980) A field guide to the mammals: North America North of Mexico, 3rd edn. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell RW, Dawe NK, McTaggart-Cowan I, Cooper JM, Kaiser GW, McNall MCE (1990) The birds of British Columbia, vol 2: nonpasserines – diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria and Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, B.C.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson A, Sandstrom U, Olsson K (1998) Availability and use of natural tree holes by cavity nesting birds in a Swedish deciduous forest. Ardea 86:109–119Google Scholar
  13. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Haddad NM (1993) Double keystone bird in a keystone species complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:592–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickson JG, Conner RN, Williamson JH (1983) Snag retention increases bird use of a clear-cut. J Wildl Manage 47:799–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher R, Wiebe K (2006) Nest site attributes and temporal patterns of northern flicker nest loss: effects of predation and competition. Oecologia 147:744–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill BG, Lein MR (1988) Ecological relations of sympatric black-capped and mountain chickadees in southwestern Alberta. Condor 90:875–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingold DJ (1994) Influence of nest-site competition between European starlings and woodpeckers. Wilson Bull 106:227–241Google Scholar
  18. Ingold DJ (1996) Delayed nesting decreases reproductive success in Northern Flickers: implications for competition with European starlings. J Field Ornithol 67:321–326Google Scholar
  19. Kovach Computing Services (2005) Oriana for Windows, version 2.0.2. Anglesey, WalesGoogle Scholar
  20. Lohmus A, Remm J (2005) Nest quality limits the number of hole-nesting passerines in their natural cavity-rich habitat. Acta Oecolog 27:125–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin TE (1993) Evolutionary determinants of clutch size in cavity-nesting birds: nest predation or limited breeding opportunities. Am Nat 142:937–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin K, Eadie JM (1999) Nest webs: a community-wide approach to the management and conservation of cavity-nesting forest birds. Forest Ecol Manag 115:243–257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin K, Aitken KEH, Wiebe KL (2004) Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 106:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin K, Norris A, Drever M (2006) Effects of bark beetle outbreaks on avian biodiversity in the British Columbia interior: implications for critical habitat management. BC J Ecosyst Manage 7:10–24Google Scholar
  25. Martin K, Norris AR (2007) Life in the small-bodied cavity-nester guild: demography of sympatric mountain and black-capped chickadees within nest web communities under changing habitat conditions, chapter 8. In: Otter K (ed) The ecology and behavior of chickadees and titmice: an integrated approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mikusiński G, Angelstam P (1998) Economic geography, forest distribution, and woodpecker diversity in central Europe. Conserv Biol 12:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moore WS (1995) Northern flicker, Colaptes auratus. In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, vol 166. The Academy of Natural Sciences/The American Ornithologists’ Union, Philadelphia/Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  28. Nelson KP, Leroux BG (2006) Statistical models for autocorrelated count data. Stat Med 25:1413–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newton I (1994) The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biol Conserv 70:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  31. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. Remm J, Lohmus A, Remm K (2006) Tree cavities in riverine forests: what determines their occurrence and use by hole-nesting passerines? Forest Ecol Manag 221:267–277Google Scholar
  33. Savard J-PL, Falls JB (1981) Influence of habitat structure on the nesting height of birds in urban areas. Can J Zool 59:924–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slagsvold T (1989) On the evolution of clutch size and nest size in passerine birds. Oecologia 79:300–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steeger C, Hitchcock CL (1998) Influence of forest structure and disease on nest-site selection by Red-breasted Nuthatches. J Wildl Manage 62:1349–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Balen JH, Booy CJH, van Franeker JA, Osieck ER (1982) Studies on hole-nesting birds in natural nest sites: 1. Availability and occupation of natural nest sites. Ardea 70:1–24Google Scholar
  37. Walankiewicz W (1991) Do secondary cavity-nesting birds suffer more from competition for cavities or from predation in a primeval deciduous forest? Nat Areas J 11:203–212Google Scholar
  38. Walankiewicz W (2002) Nest predation as a limiting factor to the breeding population size of the Collared Flycatcher Ficedula albicollis in the Białowieża National Park (NE Poland). Acta Ornithol 37:91–106Google Scholar
  39. Walters EL, Miller EH, Lowther PE (2002) Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber/Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis. In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The Birds of North America, No. 663. Academy of Natural Sciences/The American Ornithologists’ Union, Philadelphia/Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  40. Wedderburn RWM (1974) Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models, and the Gauss-Newton method. Biometrika 61:439–447Google Scholar
  41. Wesołowski T (1989) Nest-sites of hole nesters in a primaeval temperate forest, Bialowieza National Park, Poland. Acta Ornithol 25:321–351Google Scholar
  42. Wesołowski T (2002) Antipredator adaptations in nesting marsh tits Parus palustris – the role of nest site security. Ibis 144:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wesołowski T (2003) Clutch size and breeding performance of Marsh tits Parus palustris in relation to hole size in a primeval forest. Acta Ornithol 38:65–72Google Scholar
  44. Wesołowski T, Stawarczyk T (1991) Survival and population dynamics of nuthatches Sitta europaea breeding in natural cavities in a primeval temperate forest. Ornis Scand 22:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiebe KL (2003) Delayed timing as a strategy to avoid nest-site competition: testing a model using data from starlings and flickers. Oikos 100:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wesołowski T (2007) Lessons from long-term hole-nester studies in a primeval temperate forest. J Ornithol (in press)Google Scholar
  47. Wiebe KL, Swift TL (2001) Clutch size relative to tree cavity size in northern flickers. J Avian Biol 32:167–173. doi:10.1034/jCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiebe KL, Koenig WD, Martin K (2006) Evolution of clutch size in cavity-excavating birds: the nest site limitation hypothesis revisited. Am Nat 167:343–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Applied Conservation Research, Faculty of ForestryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Canadian Wildlife ServiceDeltaCanada

Personalised recommendations