Nest design in a changing world: Great tit Parus major nests from a Mediterranean city environment as a case study

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
  • Anne Charmantier
  • Virginie Demeyrier
  • Annick Lucas
  • Samuel Perret
  • Matthieu Abouladzé
  • Michel Bonnet
  • Coline Canonne
  • Virginie Faucon
  • Stéphanie Grosset
  • Gaëlle le Prado
  • Frédéric Lidon
  • Thierry Noell
  • Pascal Pagano
  • Vincent Perret
  • Stéphane Pouplard
  • Rémy Spitaliéry
  • Cyril Bernard
  • Philippe Perret
  • Jacques Blondel
  • Arnaud Grégoire
Article

Abstract

Investigations of urbanization effects on birds have focused mainly on breeding traits expressed after the nest-building stage (e.g. first-egg date, clutch size, breeding success, and offspring characteristics). Urban studies largely ignored how and why the aspects of nest building might be associated with the degree of urbanization. As urban environments are expected to present novel environmental changes relative to rural environments, it is important to evaluate how nest-building behavior is impacted by vegetation modifications associated with urbanization. To examine nest design in a Mediterranean city environment, we allowed urban great tits (Parus major) to breed in nest boxes in areas that differed in local vegetation cover. We found that different measures of nest size or mass were not associated with vegetation cover. In particular, nests located adjacent to streets with lower vegetation cover were not smaller or lighter than nests in parks with higher vegetation cover. Nests adjacent to streets contained more pine needles than nests in parks. In addition, in nests adjacent to streets, nests from boxes attached to pine trees contained more pine needles than nests from boxes attached to other trees. We suggest that urban-related alterations in vegetation cover do not directly impose physical limits on nest size in species that are opportunistic in the selection of nesting material. However, nest composition as reflected in the use of pine needles was clearly affected by habitat type and the planted tree species present, which implies that rapid habitat change impacts nest composition. We do not exclude that urbanization might impact other aspects of nest building behaviour not covered in our study (e.g. costs of searching for nest material), and that the strengths of the associations between urbanization and nest structures might differ among study populations or species.

Keywords

Nest design Nest-box design Urban habitat Parus major Great tit 

References

  1. Adams CE, Lindsey KJ (2011) Anthropogenic ecosystems: the influence of people on urban wildlife populations. Urban ecology, 116-128. Oxford university PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Alabrudzińska J, Kaliński A, Słomczyński R, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P, Bańbura J (2003) Effects of nest characteristics on breeding success of great tits Parus major. Acta Ornithol 38:151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Álvarez E, Barba E (2008) Nest quality in relation to adult bird condition and its impact on reproduction in great tits. Acta Ornithol 43:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Álvarez E, Belda EJ, Verdejo J, Barba E (2013) Variation in great tit nest mass and composition and its breeding consequences: a comparative study in four Mediterranean habitats. Avian Biol Res 6:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailly J, Scheifler R, Berthe S, Clément-Demange V-A, Leblond M, Pasteur B, Faivre B (2016) From eggs to fledging: negative impact of urban habitat on reproduction in two tit species. J Ornithol 157:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blondel J, Thomas DW, Charmantier A, Perret P, Bourgault P, Lambrechts MM (2006) A thirty-year study of phenotypic and genetic variation of Blue tits in Mediterranean habitat mosaics. Bioscience 56:661–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britt J, Deeming DC (2011) First-egg date and air temperature affect nest construction in Blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus, but not in great tits Parus major. Bird Study 58:78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bueno-Enciso J, Ferrer ES, Barrientos R, Sanz JJ (2016) Effect of nestbox type on the breeding performance of two secondary hole-nesting passerines. J Ornithol 157:759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caula S, Marty P, Martin J-L (2008) Seasonal variation in species composition of an urban bird community in Mediterranean France. Landscape Urban Plan 87:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chamberlain DE, Cannon AR, Toms MP, Leech DI, Hatchwell BJ, Gaston KJ (2009) Avian productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta-analysis. Ibis 151:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clergeau P, Croci S, Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki M-J, Dinetti M (2006) Avifauna homogenization by urbanization: analysis at different European latitudes. Biol Conserv 127:336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deeming DC (2016) How does the bird-nest incubation unit work? Avian Biol Res 9:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deeming DC, Mainwaring MC (2015) Functional properties of nests. In: Deeming DC, Reynolds SJ (eds) Nests, eggs, and incubation: new ideas about avian reproduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demeyrier V, Lambrechts MM, Perret P, Grégoire A (2016) Experimental demonstration of an ecological trap for a wild bird in a man-transformed environment. Anim Behav 118:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glądalski M, Bańbura M, Kalińskic A, Markowski M, Skwarska J, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P, Cyżewska I, Bańbura J (2016) Effects of nest characteristics on reproductive performance in Blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus and great tits Parus major. Avian Biol Res 9:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodenough AE, Hart AG, Elliot SL (2008) Variation in offspring quality with cavity orientation in the great tit. Ethol Ecol Evol 20:375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood JG (1998) Aspects of the breeding biology of great tits Parus major L. and blue tits Parus caeruleus L. in Belfast. Ir Nat J 26:99–103Google Scholar
  18. Hansell M (2000) Bird nests and construction behaviour. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hebda G, Mitrus S (2011) Decomposition rate of old nest material in tree holes. Acta Ornithol 46:101–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hõrak P (1993) Low fledging success of urban great tits. Ornis Fenn 70:168–172Google Scholar
  21. Hurtrez-Boussès S, de Garine-Wichatitsky M, Perret P, Blondel J, Renaud F (1999) Variations in prevalence and intensity of blow fly infestations in an insular Mediterranean population of blue tits. Can J Zool 77:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaliński A, Wawrzyniak J, Bańbura M, Skwarska J, Zieliński P, Glądalski M, Bańbura J (2014) Does the threat of European pine Marten (Martes martes) predation influence the height of nests built by Blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and great tits (Parus major)? Avian Biol Res 7:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laland KN, Sterelny K (2006) Perspective: seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction. Evolution 60:1751–1762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambrechts MM, Adriaensen F, Ardia DR, Artemyev A, Atiénzar F, Bańbura J, Barba E, Bouvier J-C, Camprodon J, Cooper CB, Dawson RD, Eens M, Eeva T, Faivre B, Garamszegi LZ, Goodenough AE, Gosler AG, Grégoire A, Griffith SC, Gustafsson L, Scott Johnson L, Kania W, Keišs O, Llambias PE, Mainwaring MC, Mänd R, Massa B, Mazgajski TD, Møller AP, Moreno J, Naef-Daenzer B, Nilsson J-A, Norte AC, Orell M, Otter KA, Park CR, Perrins CM, Pinowski J, Porkert J, Potti J, Remeš V, Richner H, Rytkönen S, Shiao M-T, Silverin B, Slagsvold T, Smith HG, Sorace A, Stenning MJ, Stewart I, Thompson CF, Török J, Tryjanowski P, van Noordwijk AJ, Winkler DW, Ziane N (2010) The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithol 45:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lambrechts MM, Aimé C, Midamegbe A, Galan M-J, Perret P, Grégoire A, Doutrelant C (2012) Nest size and breeding success in first and replacement clutches: an experimental study in blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus. J Ornithol 153:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambrechts MM, Demeyrier V, Fargevieille A, Giovannini P, Lucas A, Marrot P, Midamegbe A, Perret P, Charmantier A, Doutrelant C, Grégoire A (2014) Great tits build shallower nests than blue tits. Avian Biology Research 7:251–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Bernard C, Caro SP, Charmantier A, Demeyrier V, Doutrelant C, Fargevieille A, Dubuc-Messier G, de Franceschi C, Giovannini P, Grégoire A, Hurtrez-Boussès S, Lucas A, Mainwaring MC, Marrot P, Mennerat A, Perret S, Perret P (2016a) Exploring biotic and abiotic determinants of nest size in Mediterranean great tits (Parus major) and blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus). Ethology 22:492–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lambrechts MM, Marrot P, Fargevieille A, Giovannini P, Lucas A, Demeyrier V, Midamegbe A, Perret P, Grégoire A, Charmantier A, Doutrelant C (2016b) Nest size is not closely related to breeding success in blue tits: a long-term nest-box study in a Mediterranean oak habitat. Auk 133:198–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mainwaring MC (2015) Nest construction and incubation in a changing climate. In: Deeming DC, Reynolds SJ (eds) Nests, eggs, and incubation: new ideas about avian reproduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mainwaring MC, Hartley IR (2013) The energetic costs of nest building in birds. Avian Biol Res 6:12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mainwaring MC, Hartley IR, Lambrechts MM, Deeming DC (2014) The design and function of birds’ nests. Ecol Evol 20:3909–3928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marzluff JM (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world, 19-47. Kluwer academic publishersGoogle Scholar
  33. Marzluff JM (2017) A decadal review of urban ornithology and a prospectus for the future. Ibis 159:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mazgajski TD, Rykowska Z (2008) Dependence of nest mass on nest hole depth in the great tit Parus major. Acta Ornithol 43:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Møller AP, Adriaensen F, Artemyev AV, Bańbura J, Barba E, Biard C, Blondel J, Bouslama Z, Bouvier J-C, Camprodon J, Cecere F, Chaine A, Charmantier A, Charter M, Chicoń M, Cusimano C, Czeszczewik D, da Silva LP, Demeyrier V, Doligez B, Doutrelant C, Dubiec A, Eens M, Eeva T, Faivre B, Ferns PN, Forsman JT, García-del-Rey E, Goldshtein A, Goodenough AE, Gosler AG, Góźdź I, Grégoire A, Gustafsson L, Hartley IR, Heeb P, Hinsley SA, Isenmann P, Jacob S, Järvinen A, Juškaitis R, Korpimäki E, Krams I, Laaksonen T, Leclercq B, Lehikoinen E, Loukola O, Lundberg A, Mainwaring MC, Mänd R, Massa B, Mazgajski TD, Merino S, Mitrus C, Mönkkönen M, Morales Fernaz J, Morin X, Nager RG, Nilsson J-A, Nilsson SG, Norte AC, Ojanen M, Orell M, Perret P, Pimentel CS, Pinxten R, Priedniece I, Quidoz M-C, Remeš V, Richner H, Robles Díez H, Russell A, Rytkönen S, Senar JC, Seppänen JT, Slagsvold T, Solonen T, Sorace A, Stenning MJ, Török J, Tryjanowski P, van Noordwijk AJ, von Numers M, Walankiewicz W, Lambrechts MM (2014a) Variation in nest size in relation to clutch size in birds. Ecol Evol 4:3583–3595CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Møller AP, Adriaensen F, Artemyev AV, Bańbura J, Barba E, Biard C, Blondel J, Bouslama Z, Bouvier J-C, Camprodon J, Cecere F, Chaine A, Charmantier A, Charter M, Chicoń M, Cusimano C, Czeszczewik D, da Silva LP, Doligez B, Doutrelant C, Dubiec A, Eens M, Eeva T, Faivre B, Ferns PN, Forsman JT, García-del-Rey E, Goldshtein A, Goodenough AE, Gosler AG, Góźdź I, Grégoire A, Gustafsson L, Hartley IR, Heeb P, Hinsley SA, Isenmann P, Jacob S, Järvinen A, Juškaitis R, Kania W, Korpimäki E, Krams I, Laaksonen T, Leclercq B, Lehikoinen E, Loukola O, Lundberg A, Mainwaring MC, Mänd R, Massa B, Mazgajski TD, Merino S, Mitrus C, Mönkkönen M, Morales Fernaz J, Moreno J, Morin X, Nager RG, Nilsson J-A, Nilsson SG, Norte AC, Ojanen M, Orell M, Perret P, Perrins CM, Pimentel CS, Pinxten R, Priedniece I, Quidoz M-C, Remeš V, Richner H, Robles Díez H, Russell A, Rytkönen S, Senar JC, Seppänen JT, Slagsvold T, Solonen T, Sorace A, Stenning MJ, Török J, Tryjanowski P, van Noordwijk AJ, von Numers M, Walankiewicz W, Lambrechts MM (2014b) Clutch-size variation in western Palaearctic secondary hole-nesting passerine birds in relation to nest box design. Methods Ecol Evol 5:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreno J (2012) Avian nests and nest-building as signals. Avian Biol Res 5:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Perrins CM (1979) British tits. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Perrins CM, McCleery RH (1989) Laying dates and clutch size in the great tit. Wilson Bull 101:236–253Google Scholar
  41. Remacha C, Delgado JA (2009) Spatial nest-box selection of cavity-nesting bird species in response to proximity to recreational infrastructures. Landsc Urban Plan 93:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds SJ, Davies CS, Elwell E, Tasker PJ, Willians A, Sadler JP, Hunt D (2016) Does the urban gradient influence the composition and ectoparasite load of nests of an urban bird species? Avian Biol Res 9:224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaedelin FC, Taborsky M (2009) Extended phenotypes as signals. Biol Rev 84:293–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Slagsvold T (1989) Experiments on clutch size and nest size in passerine birds. Oecologia 80:297–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Slagsvold T, Amundsen T (1992) Do great tits adjust hatching spread, egg size and offspring sex ratio to changes in clutch size? J Anim Ecol 61:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suárez-Rodríguez M, López-Rull I, Macías GC (2012) Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: new ingredients for an old recipe? Biol Lett 9(1). doi:10.1098/rsbl20120931
  47. Surgey J, du Feu CR, Deeming DC (2012) Opportunistic use of a wool-like artificial material as lining of tit (Paridae) nests. Condor 114:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tomás G, Merino S, Moreno J, Sanz JJ, Morales J, García-Fraile S (2006) Nest weight and female health in the Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus). Auk 123:1013–1021Google Scholar
  49. Wang Y, Chen S, Jiang P, Ding P (2008) Black-billed magpies (Pica pica) adjust nest characteristics to adapt to urbanization in Hangzhou, China. Can J Zool 86:676–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel M. Lambrechts
    • 1
  • Anne Charmantier
    • 1
  • Virginie Demeyrier
    • 1
  • Annick Lucas
    • 1
  • Samuel Perret
    • 1
  • Matthieu Abouladzé
    • 3
  • Michel Bonnet
    • 2
  • Coline Canonne
    • 1
  • Virginie Faucon
    • 3
  • Stéphanie Grosset
    • 2
  • Gaëlle le Prado
    • 3
  • Frédéric Lidon
    • 3
  • Thierry Noell
    • 4
  • Pascal Pagano
    • 2
  • Vincent Perret
    • 3
  • Stéphane Pouplard
    • 2
  • Rémy Spitaliéry
    • 2
  • Cyril Bernard
    • 1
  • Philippe Perret
    • 1
  • Jacques Blondel
    • 1
  • Arnaud Grégoire
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive CEFE, UMR 5175, Campus CNRS, Université de MontpellierUniversité Paul-Valéry MontpellierMontpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Ville de MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Parc de LunaretMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.UniverlacitéUniversité de MontpellierMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations