Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 159, Issue 3, pp 667–673 | Cite as

Nest-site interference competition with House Sparrows affects breeding success and parental care in Great Tits

  • Aya Goldshtein
  • Shai Markman
  • Yossi Leshem
  • Maya Puchinsky
  • Motti Charter
Original Article

Abstract

Although interspecific competition is suggested to be one of the major forces dictating community structure, interspecific interference competition for nest sites in birds has been reported mainly from observational studies. Here, we asked whether interference by the larger House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) could reduce breeding success and parental behavior in the smaller Great Tit (Parus major) following clutch completion, by experimentally allowing House Sparrows to access half of the Great Tit nest boxes. Significantly more tit pairs failed to raise young in nest boxes that House Sparrows were able to enter during their breeding period compared to those that were not able to do so, because House Sparrows usurped 77.8% of the Great Tit nests. Great Tits also increased the duration of nest defense in the presence of House Sparrows. As the outcome of interference competition may lead to breeding failure, birds should necessarily evolve ways to avoid nest competitors either by selecting nests that restrict access to their larger competitors and/or by initiating breeding earlier. Conservation efforts should be directed toward attaching a metal restrictor plate around the entrance of nest boxes to prevent woodpeckers from enlarging the entrance and larger species from entering nests.

Keywords

Interspecific interactions Nest failure Parental behavior Community structure Nest box Usurpation 

Zusammenfassung

Konkurrenz um Nistplätze mit dem Haussperling beeinträchtigt den Bruterfolg und die elterliche Brutpflege von Kohlmeisen

Obwohl zwischenartliche Konkurrenz angeblich eine der wichtigsten treibenden Kräfte hinter der Gemeinschaftsstruktur ist, wurde zwischenartliche Konkurrenz um Nistplätze bei Vögeln bislang in erster Linie nur mit reinen Beobachtungen beschrieben. In dieser Untersuchung prüften wir, ob Störungen durch den Haussperling (Passer domesticus) den Bruterfolg und die Brutpflege von Kohlmeisen (Parus major) beeinträchtigen können. Nach Komplettierung der Gelege der Kohlmeisen ermöglichten wir in einem Experiment den Haussperlingen Zugang zur Hälfte der vorhandenen Meisenkästen. In diesen Nestern waren signifikant mehr Meisenpaare nicht in der Lage, ihre Jungen aufzuziehen, als in Nestern ohne Zugang von Haussperlingen, weil die Haussperlinge 77,8% dieser Nistkästen übernahmen. Waren Haussperlinge in der Nähe, verbrachten die Kohlmeisen auch mehr Zeit mit der Verteidigung ihrer Gelege. Da diese Art der Konkurrenz zu Brut-Misserfolgen führen kann, sollten Vögel Methoden entwickeln, solche Nestkonkurrenten zu vermeiden, entweder durch die Auswahl von Nisthöhlen, die es ihren größeren Konkurrenten unmöglich macht einzudringen und/oder durch einen früheren Brutbeginn. Um zu vermeiden, dass Spechte das Flugloch erweitern, und so größere Arten die Höhlen übernehmen, können Metallplatten um die Einfluglöcher angebracht werden.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Jonathan Chazan who took an active part throughout the entire study; to Shaul Aviel, Kobi Meyrom, and Shai Halevi for their advice and technical assistance; to Ori Peleg, Avi Koplovich, Mary Weber, Shir Asher, and Nati Wein for field assistance; to Israel Goldshtein and Sergio Chazan for help in building the nest boxes; and to Naomi Paz for editorial assistance. We thank Tel Aviv University, the Jewish National Fund, and the Smollar-Winnikov Scholarship Fund for funding this research.

References

  1. Amarasekare P (2002) Interference competition and species coexistence. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:2541–2550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395696 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Case TJ, Gilpin ME (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:3073–3077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Charter M, Leshem Y, Ezer A et al (2008) The first record of use of a nest box by Hoopoe Upupa epops in Israel. Acrocephalus 29(29):105–107Google Scholar
  5. Charter M, Izhaki I, Leshem Y (2010a) Effects of the risk of competition and predation on large secondary cavity breeders. J Ornithol 151:791–795.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-010-0514-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charter M, Leshem Y, Halevi S, Izhaki I (2010b) Nest box use by Great Tits in semi-arid rural residential gardens. Wilson J Ornithol 122:604–608.  https://doi.org/10.1676/09-164.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charter M, Leshem Y, Izhaki I (2013) Asymmetric seasonal nest site competition between Great Tits and House Sparrows. J Ornithol 154:173–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0884-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charter M, Izhaki I, Ben Mocha Y, Kark S (2016) Nest-site competition between invasive and native cavity nesting birds and its implication for conservation. J Environ Manag 181:129–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696.  https://doi.org/10.1086/284165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cordero PJ, Summers-Smith JD (1993) Hybridization between House and Tree Sparrow (Passer domesticus, P. montanus). J Ornithol 134:69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01661134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dayan T, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological and community-wide character displacement: the next generation. Ecol Lett 8:875–894.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00791.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dhondt AA (2007) What drives differences between North American and Eurasian tit studies ? In: Otter KA (ed) Ecology and behavior of chickadees and titmice: an integrated approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhondt AA (2011) Interspecific competition in birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhondt AA, Eyckerman R (1980) Competition between the Great Tit and the Blue Tit outside the breeding season in field experiments. Ecology 61:1291–1296.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1939036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frei B, Nocera JJ, Fyles JW (2015) Interspecific competition and nest survival of the threatened Red-headed Woodpecker. J Ornithol 156:743–753.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-015-1177-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gowaty PA (1981) Aggression of breeding Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis) toward their mates and models of intra-and interspecific intruders. Anim Behav 29:1013–1027.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80055-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grether GF, Losin N, Anderson CN, Okamoto K (2009) The role of interspecific interference competition in character displacement and the evolution of competitor recognition. Biol Rev 84:617–635.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00089.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedblom M, Söderström B (2012) Effects of urban matrix on reproductive performance of Great Tit (Parus major) in urban woodlands. Urban Ecosyst 15(1):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katsnelson E, Motro U, Feldman MW, Lotem A (2008) Early experience affects producer–scrounger foraging tendencies in the House Sparrow. Anim Behav 75:1465–1472.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.09.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kempenaers B, Dhondt AA (1991) Competition between Blue and Great Tit for roosting sites in winter: an aviary experiment. Ornis Scand 22:73–75.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3676624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Král M, Bicík V (1992) Nest defence by the Collared Flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis) against the Great Tit (Parus major). Folia Zool 41:263–269Google Scholar
  22. Krist M (2004) Importance of competition for food and nest-sites in aggressive behaviour of Collared Flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. Bird Study 51:41–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650409461331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lambrechts MM, Adriaensen F, Ardia DR et al (2010) The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: supplementary material. Acta Ornithol 45:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markman S, Yom-Tov Y, Wright J (1995) Male parental care in the Orange-tufted Sunbird: behavioural adjustments in provisioning and nest guarding effort. Anim Behav 50:655–669.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80127-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin TE (1993) Nest predation and nest sites: new perspectives on old patterns. Bioscience 43:523–532.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1311947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin TE (1995) Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monogr 65:101–127.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2937160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin TE, Scott J, Menge C (2000) Nest predation increases with parental activity: separating nest site and parental activity effects. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 267:2287–2293.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matthysen E (1998) The nuthatches. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Meek SB, Robertson RJ (1994) Interspecific competition for nestboxes affects mate guarding in Eastern Bluebirds, Sialia sialis. Anim Behav 47:295–302.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1994.1042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merilä J, Wiggins DA (1995) Interspecific competition for nest holes cause adult mortality in the Collared Flycatcher. Condor 97:445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minot EO, Perrins CM (1986) Interspecific interference competition-nest sites for Blue and Great Tits. J Anim Ecol 55:331–350.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Nilsson SG (1984) The evolution of nest-site selection among hole-nesting birds: the importance of nest predation and competition. Ornis Scand 15:167–175.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3675958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearce D, Pryke SR, Griffith SC (2011) Interspecific aggression for nest sites: model experiments with Long-tailed Finches (Poephila acuticauda) and endangered Gouldian finches (Erythrura gouldiae). Auk 128:497–505.  https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2011.11085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pell AS, Tidemann CR (1997) The impact of two exotic hollow-nesting birds on two native parrots in savannah and woodland in eastern Australia. Biol Conserv 79:145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00112-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roughgarden J (1983) Competition and theory in community ecology. Am Nat 122:583–601.  https://doi.org/10.1086/284160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schluter D (2000) Ecological character displacement in adaptive radiation. Am Nat 156:S4–S16.  https://doi.org/10.1086/303412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2461233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shirihai H (1996) The birds of Israel. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Slagsvold T (1975) Competition between the Great Tit Parus major and the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca in the breeding season. Ornis Scand 6:179–190.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3676230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strubbe D, Matthysen E (2009) Experimental evidence for nest-site competition between invasive Ring-necked Parakeets (Psittacula krameri) and native nuthatches (Sitta europaea). Biol Conserv 142:1588–1594.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Summers-Smith J (1967) The House Sparrow. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 70:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.5253/arde.v70.p1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiebe KL (2016) Interspecific competition for nests: prior ownership trumps resource holding potential for Mountain Bluebird competing with Tree Swallow. Auk 133:512–519.  https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-16-25.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiens J (1992) The ecology of bird communities. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Winge K, Järvi T (1988) Nest-hole defence by the Great Tit against Pied Flycatcher intrusion: a test of the “parental investment” and the “fighting ability” hypotheses. Oikos 51:364–366.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3565319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life SciencesTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Environment, Faculty of Natural SciencesUniversity of Haifa, OranimTivonIsrael
  3. 3.Shamir Research InstituteUniversity of HaifaKatzrinIsrael

Personalised recommendations