Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 154, Issue 2, pp 563–566 | Cite as

Nest-box size influences where secondary-cavity exploiters roost and nest: a choice experiment

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
  • Matthieu Abouladzé
  • Michel Bonnet
  • Virginie Demeyrier
  • Claire Doutrelant
  • Virginie Faucon
  • Gaëlle le Prado
  • Frédéric Lidon
  • Thierry Noell
  • Pascal Pagano
  • Philippe Perret
  • Stéphane Pouplard
  • Rémy Spitaliéry
  • Arnaud Grégoire
Short Note
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The impact of nest-box characteristics (design, position, content) on decisions where to roost or nest have rarely been experimentally investigated. Older studies claimed that secondary cavity-exploiters, such as tits (Paridae), prefer smaller boxes for roosting and larger boxes for breeding. Surprisingly, these aspects of box preference have to our knowledge not been examined in choice experiments. We therefore allowed free-ranging birds to use, as roosting or nesting sites, three box designs attached together on the same support, covering the range of box sizes used to attract Great (Parus major) or Blue (Cyanistes caeruleus) Tits in long-term investigations. We observed that medium-sized and large boxes contained disproportionally more avian excrements before nesting than small boxes. The large boxes also contained disproportionally more body plumages prior to nesting and Great Tit nests. Nest-box size therefore influenced where the birds roosted and nested. Potential costs and benefits of exploitation of boxes differing in size are briefly discussed.

Keywords

Roosting Cavity choice Nest boxes Parus major Great Tit 

Zusammenfassung

Die Nistkastengröße beeinflusst, wo Sekundär-Höhlenbrüter schlafen und brüten: ein Wahlexperiment

Der Einfluss von Nistkasten-Charakteristika (Design, Lage, Inhalt) auf die Entscheidungen eines Vogels bei der Schlafplatz- und Neststandortswahl wurde bisher kaum experimentell untersucht. Ältere Arbeiten behaupten, dass Sekundär-Höhlenbrüter wie etwas Meisen (Paridae) kleinere Kästen zum Schlafen und größere Kästen für die Brut bevorzugen. Überraschenderweise wurden diese Aspekte der Nistkastenwahl unseres Wissens nach noch nicht in Wahlexperimenten untersucht. Wir gaben daher Wildvögeln die Möglichkeit, drei verschiedene Nistkastenvarianten, die das in Langzeitstudien an Kohl- (Parus major) und Blaumeisen (Cyanistes caeruleus) verwendete Größenspektrum abdeckten, und die wir jeweils zusammen an einer gemeinsamen Halterung anbrachten, zum Schlafen und Nisten zu nutzen. Wir beobachteten, dass mittelgroße und große Nistkästen vor der Brutzeit überproportional mehr Vogelexkremente enthielten als kleine Kästen. In großen Kästen fanden sich darüber hinaus vor der Brutzeit überproportional mehr Körperfedern und Kohlmeisen-Nester. Die Nistkastengröße beeinflusste also die Schlafund Nistplatzwahl der Vögel. Potentielle Kosten und Vorteile einer unterschiedlichen Kastennutzung nach Größe werden kurz diskutiert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the French ANR (ANR-09-JCJC-0050-01), the city of Montpellier, the University of Montpellier 2, and OSU-OREME. We thank two anonymous referees for constructive comments.

References

  1. Caula S, Marty P, Martin J-L (2008) Seasonal variation in species composition of an urban bird community in Mediterranean France. Landsc Urban Plan 87:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Christe P, Oppliger A, Richner H (1994) Ectoparasite affects choice and use of roost sites in the great tit, Parus major. Anim Behav 47:895–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dhondt AA, Eyckerman R (1980) Competition between the great tit and the blue tit outside the breeding season in field experiments. Ecology 61:1291–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dhondt AA, Blondel J, Perret P (2010) Why do Corsican blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus ogliastrae not use nest boxes for roosting? J Ornithol 151:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekner A, Tryjanowski P (2008) Do small hole nesting passerines detect cues left by a predator? A test on winter roosting sites. Acta Ornithol 43:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Karlsson J, Nilsson SG (1977) The influence of nest-box area on clutch size in some hole-nesting passerines. Ibis 119:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kempenaers B, Dhondt AA (1991) Competition between blue and great tit for roosting sites in winter: an aviary experiment. Ornis Scand 22:73–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kluijver HN (1951) The population ecology of the great tit Parus m. major L. Ardea 39:1–135Google Scholar
  9. Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Maistre M, Perret P (1997) A single response mechanism is responsible for evolutionary adaptive variation in a bird’s laying date. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:5153–5155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambrechts MM, Adriaensen F, Ardia DR et al (2010) The design of artificial nest boxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithol 45:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lambrechts MM, Wiebe KL, Sunde P et al (2012) Nest box design for the study of diurnal raptors and owls is still an overlooked point in ecology, evolutionary and conservation studies. J Ornithol 153:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Löhrl H (1986) Experimente zur Bruthöhlenwahl der Kohlmeise (Parus major). J Ornithol 127:S51–S59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mainwaring MC (2011) The use of nestboxes by roosting birds during the non-breeding season: a review of the costs and benefits. Ardea 99:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mazgajski TD (2007) Effect of old nest material on nest site selection and breeding parameters in secondary hole nesters—a review. Acta Ornithol 42:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merilä J, Hemborg C (2000) Fitness and feather wear in the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. J Avian Biol 31:504–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nager RG, van Noordwijk AJ (1995) Proximate and ultimate aspects of phenotypic plasticity in timing of great tit breeding in a heterogeneous environment. Am Nat 146:454–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nilsson J-A, Svensson E (1996) The cost of reproduction: a new link between current reproductive effort and future reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:711–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perrins CM (1965) Population fluctuations and clutch size in the great tit Parus major L. J Anim Ecol 34:601–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perrins CM (1979) British tits. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Pinowski J, Haman A, Jerzak L, Pinowski B, Barkowska M, Grodzki A, Haman K (2006) The thermal properties of some nests of the Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus. J Therm Biol 31:573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) An exact test for population structure. Evolution 49:1280–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Balen JH (1984) The relationship between nest-box size, occupation and breeding parameters of the great tit Parus major and some other hole-nesting species. Ardea 72:163–175Google Scholar
  23. Vel’ký M, Kaňuch P, Krištin A (2010) Selection of winter roosts in the great tit Parus major: influence of microclimate. J Ornithol 151:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
    • 1
  • Matthieu Abouladzé
    • 3
  • Michel Bonnet
    • 2
  • Virginie Demeyrier
    • 1
  • Claire Doutrelant
    • 1
  • Virginie Faucon
    • 3
  • Gaëlle le Prado
    • 3
  • Frédéric Lidon
    • 3
  • Thierry Noell
    • 4
  • Pascal Pagano
    • 2
  • Philippe Perret
    • 1
  • Stéphane Pouplard
    • 2
  • Rémy Spitaliéry
    • 2
  • Arnaud Grégoire
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.CEFE-CNRS UMR5175MontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Ville de MontpellierDirection Paysage et NatureMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Parc Zoologique LunaretMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Université Montpellier 2Montpellier cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations