Palm snags are a critical nesting resource for woodpeckers in an urbanized tropical region

  • Joshua M. DiamondEmail author
  • Michael S. Ross
  • Hong Liu
  • Joel T. Heinen


Critical resources for birds nesting in cities can support populations in spite of the challenges imposed by urbanization, and the identification of such resources can shed light on how species are able to adapt to novel environments. In the case of woodpeckers, these resources also support the conservation of secondary cavity-nesters. Woodpecker nesting has been well-studied in temperate regions, including within urban areas, but in subtropical and tropical regions, less is known. Here we ask what types of trees and what habitats woodpeckers use most, and which species of woodpeckers create the most nest cavities. We recorded information from 967 woodpecker nest trees in the region surrounding Miami, Florida, USA, which contained 1864 nest cavities excavated by four woodpecker species. Palm trees were used more than all other tree categories, and royal palms (Roystonea regia) were the most-used species overall. Woodpeckers preferentially excavated palm snags in every habitat where they were available and three of the four woodpecker species used palms snags over all other categories of trees. Red-bellied Woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) were the most prolific cavity excavators, creating 78.1% of holes. Remnant patches of two native forest types contained the highest densities of woodpecker nest trees. We found a higher density of nest trees in moderately-developed suburban areas than either rural, agricultural areas or in the highly-developed urban core. We consider how these results can inform conservation efforts in the developing tropics, and especially within similar urbanizing environments in the nearby Caribbean.


Hole nests Cavity nest webs Miami-Dade County Palms Urban forestry Birds 



We thank over two dozen volunteers who assisted in field data collection. Funding for this project was provided by the Florida International University Tropics Program and the Susan S. Levine Trust. This is contribution number 918 from the Southeast Environmental Research Center in the Institute of Water & Environment at Florida International University.

Supplementary material

11252_2019_899_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)


  1. Abdelrahman OZ (2000) The distribution and abundance of the exotic and native urban avifauna in Miami-Dade County Florida. Florida International UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Acosta M, Mugica L, Torres O et al (2004) Current status of Cuban threatened birds: case studies of conservation programs. J Caribb Ornithol 17:52–58Google Scholar
  3. Alberti M (2008) Advances in urban ecology: integrating humans and ecological processes in urban ecosystems, 1st edn. Springer, SeattleCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alonso J, Heinen JT (2011) Miami Dade County’s environmentally endangered lands program: local efforts for a global cause. Nat Areas J 31:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson EC, LaMontagne JM (2016) Nest selection by red-headed woodpeckers across three spatial scales in an urban environment. Urban Ecosyst 19:297–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjorholm S, Svenning JC, Skov F, Balslev H (2005) Environmental and spatial controls of palm (Arecaceae) species richness across the Americas. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:423–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanc LA, Martin K (2012) Identifying suitable woodpecker nest trees using decay selection profiles in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). For Ecol Manag 286:192–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanc LA, Walters JR (2008) Cavity excavation and enlargement as mechanisms for indirect interactions in an avian community. Ecology 89:506–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond J (1928) The distribution and habits of the birds of the Republic of Haiti. In: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. pp 483–521Google Scholar
  11. Boyle WA, Ganong CN, Clark DB, Hast MA (2008) Density, distribution, and attributes of tree cavities in an old-growth tropical rain Forest. Biotropica 40:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brush T, Anderson BW, Ohmart RD (1983) Habitat selection related to resource availability among cavity-nesting birds. In: Davis JW, Goodwin GA, Ockenfeis RA (eds) Proceedings of the symposium on snag habitat management. Fort Collins, Colorado, pp 88–98Google Scholar
  13. Bull, E. L., Parks, C. G., & Torgersen, T. R. (1997). Trees and logs imprtant to wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Reasearch Station General Technical Report (Vol. PNW-GTR-39)Google Scholar
  14. Bütler R, Angelstam P, Ekelund P, Schlaepfer R (2004) Dead wood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker presence in boreal and sub-alpine forest. Biol Conserv 119:305–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chave J, Muller-Landau HC, Baker TR et al (2006) Regional and phylogenetic variation of wood density across 2456 neotropical tree species. Ecol Appl 16:2356–2367.[2356:RAPVOW]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404:990–992. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke AL, Pacin T (2002) Domestic cat “colonies” in natural areas: a growing exotic species threat. Nat Areas J 22:154–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cockle KL, Martin K (2015) Temporal dynamics of a commensal network of cavity-nesting vertebrates: increased diversity during an insect outbreak. Ecology 96:1093–1104. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cockle K, Martin K, Wiebe K (2011a) Selection of Nest trees by cavity-nesting birds in the Neotropical Atlantic Forest. Biotropica 43:228–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cockle KL, Martin K, Wesołowski T (2011b) Woodpeckers, decay, and the future of cavity-nesting vertebrate communities worldwide. Front Ecol Environ 9:377–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dawes LC, Adams AE, Escobedo FJ, Soto JR (2018) Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs. Urban Ecosyst 21:657–671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond JM (2018) Record of an exceptionally low Nest of a red-bellied woodpecker in Florida. Southeast Nat 17:N68–N71Google Scholar
  24. Diamond JM, Heinen JT (2016) Conserving rare plants in locally-protected urban forest fragments: a case study from Miami-Dade County, Florida. Urban For Urban Green 20:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diamond JM, Ross MS (2018) Tree selection and foraging height of wintering yellow-bellied sapsuckers ( Sphyrapicus varius ) in an urban environment. Wilson J Ornithol 130:932–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Drapeau P, Nappi A, Imbeau L, Saint-Germain M (2009) Standing deadwood for keystone bird species in the eastern boreal forest: managing for snag dynamics. For Chron 85:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dudley J, Saab V (2003) A field protocol to monitor cavity-nesting birds. Fort Collins, ColoradoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elchuk CL, Wiebe KL (2002) Food and predation risk as factors related to foraging locations of northern flickers. Wilson Bull 114:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elliott ML, Broschat TK (2000) Ganoderma butt rot of palmsGoogle Scholar
  30. Evans KL (2010) Individual species and urbanisation. In: Gaston KJ (ed) Urban ecology, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 53–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Figarski T (2014) Habitat characteristics of the Syrian woodpecker (Dendrocopos syriacus) in the city of Radom, Poland – preliminary results. In: Böhner J, Indykiewicz P (eds) Urban Fauna. Animal, man, and the City - interactions and relationships. Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Przyrodniczy, Bydgoszcz, pp 225–234Google Scholar
  32. Figarski T, Kajtoch Ł (2018) Differences in habitat requirements between two sister Dendrocopos woodpeckers in urban environments: implication for the conservation of Syrian woodpecker. Acta Ornithol 53:23–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. (2017). List of Invasive Plant Species. Retrieved from
  34. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2003) Issue assessment: impacts of feral and free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife in Florida. Tallahassee, FLGoogle Scholar
  35. Giannini HC, Heinen JT (2014) Miami-Dade County’s environmentally endangered lands covenant program: creating protected areas on private lands via financial incentives. Nat Areas J 34:338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gorman G (2014) Woodpeckers of the world. A photographic guide, 1st edn. Firefly books, Inc, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  37. Gutzat F, Dormann CF (2018) Decaying trees improve nesting opportunities for cavity- nesting birds in temperate and boreal forests: a meta-analysis and implications for retention forestry. Ecol Evol 8:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heinen JT (1995) Nature preserves. In: Nierenberg WA (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental biology, vol 2. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 551–561Google Scholar
  39. Hoyt SF (1957) The ecology of the pileated woodpecker. Ecology 38:246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hutto RL (1998) Using landbirds as an indicator species group. In: Marzluff JM, Sallabanks R (eds) Avian conservation: research and management, 1st edn. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 75–92Google Scholar
  41. Ilsøe SK, Kissling WD, Fjeldså J, Sandel B, Svenning JC (2017) Global variation in woodpecker species richness shaped by tree availability. J Biogeogr 44:1824–1835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. James FC, Hess C a, Kicklighter BC, Thum R a (2001) Ecosystem management and the niche gestalt of the red-cockaded woodpecker in longleaf pine forests. Ecol Appl 11:854–870Google Scholar
  43. Kajtoch Ł, Figarski T (2017) Comparative distribution of Syrian and great spotted woodpeckers in different landscapes of Poland. Folia Zool 66:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kerpez TA, Smith NS (1990) Nest-site selection and Nest-cavity characteristics of Gila woodpeckers and northern flickers. Condor 92:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kratter AW (1998) The nests of two bamboo specialists: Celeus spectabilis and Cercomacra manu (Nidos de dos Especialistas de Bambú: Celeus spectabilis y Cercomacra manu). J Field Ornithol 69:37–44Google Scholar
  46. Lammertink M (2014) Trends in threat status and priorities in conservation of the woodpeckers of the world. Acta Ornithol 49:207–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. LaMontagne JM, Kilgour RJ, Anderson EC, Magle S (2015) Tree cavity availability across forest, park, and residential habitats in a highly urban area. Urban Ecosyst 18:151–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee D, West S (2011) Wayside trees of tropical Florida: a guide to the native and exotic trees and palms of Miami and tropical South Florida, 1st editio. Tellus Books, MebaneGoogle Scholar
  49. Leonard DLJ, Stout IJ (2006) Woodpecker use of forested wetlands in central peninsular Florida. Southeast Nat 5:621–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lorenz TJ, Vierling KT, Johnson TR, Fischer PC (2015) The role of wood hardness in limiting nest site selection in avian cavity excavators. Ecol Appl 25:1016–1033. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Loyd A, Smith J, Richter B, Blanchette R (2017) The Laccate Ganoderma of the southeastern United States: a cosmopolitan and important genus of wood decay fungi. Gainesville, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  52. Luck GW, Smallbone LT (2010) Species diversity and urbanisation: patterns, drivers and implications. In: Gaston KJ (ed) Urban ecology, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 88–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Luneau MD, Noel BL (2010) A wireless video camera for viewing tree cavities. J Field Ornithol 81:176–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Makonese M, Mushamba S (2004) The policy, legislative and institutional framework for urban forestry in Zimbabwe. Urban Agric Mag 13:34–35Google Scholar
  55. Martin K, Eadie JM (1999) Nest webs: a community-wide approach to the management and conservation of cavity-nesting forest birds. For Ecol Manag 115:243–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martin K, Aitken KEH, Wiebe KL (2004) Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Colombia, Canada: Nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 106:5–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marzluff JM, Gehlbach FR, Manuwal DA (1998) Urban environments: influences on avifauna and challenges for the avian conservationist. In: Marzluff JM, Sallabanks R (eds) Avian conservation: research and management, 1st edn. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 283–299Google Scholar
  58. Maschinski J, Ross MS, Liu H, O’Brien J, von Wettberg EJ, Haskins KE (2011) Sinking ships: conservation options for endemic taxa threatened by sea level rise. Clim Chang 107:147–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meyer WB, Turner BLI (1992) Human population growth and global land-use/cover change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:39–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Miami-Dade County. (2007). A Greenprint for our Future: Miami-Dade County Street Tree Master Plan. Department of Environmental Resource Management Techincal ReportGoogle Scholar
  61. Mikusiński G (2006) Woodpeckers: distribution , conservation, and research in a global perspective. Ann Zool Fenn 43:86–95Google Scholar
  62. Mitchell AD, Kirkconnell A, Wells LJ (2000) Notes on the status and nesting ecology of Fernandina’s flicker Colaptes fernandinae. Bull Br Ornithol Club 120:103–112Google Scholar
  63. Morrison JL, Chapman WC (2005) Can urban Parks provide habitat for woodpeckers? Northeast Nat 12:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mörtberg U, Wallentinus H-G (2000) Red-listed forest bird species in an urban environment — assessment of green space corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 50:215–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Moulton CA, Adams LW (1991) Effects of urbanization on foraging strategy of woodpeckers. In: Wildlife conservation in metropolitan environments, NIUW Sympo. National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, MD, pp 67–73Google Scholar
  66. Myczko Ł, Rosin ZM, Skórka P, Tryjanowski P (2014) Urbanization level and woodland size are major drivers of woodpecker species richness and abundance. PLoS One 9:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Neumann B, Vafeidis AT, Zimmermann J, Nicholls RJ (2015) Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - a global assessment. PLoS One 10.
  68. Pavek DS (1993) Carnegiea gigantea. In: fire effects information system [online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, fire sciences laboratory (producer)Google Scholar
  69. Possley JE, Maschinski JM (2008) Patterns of plant composition in fragments of globally imperiled pine Rockland Forest: effects of soil type, recent fire frequency, and fragment size. Nat Areas J 28:379–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roberge JM, Mikusiński G, Svensson S (2008) The white-backed woodpecker: umbrella species for forest conservation planning? Biodivers Conserv 17:2479–2494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Robles H, Martin K (2013) Resource quantity and quality determine the inter-specific associations between ecosystem engineers and resource users in a cavity-nest web. PLoS One 8:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Russell RE, Saab VA, Dudley JG, Rotella JJ (2006) Snag longevity in relation to wildfire and postfire salvage logging. For Ecol Manag 232:179–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schepps J, Lohr S, Martin TE (1999) Does tree hardness influence Nest-tree selection by primary cavity nesters? Auk 116:658–665. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Short LL (1974) Habits of Three Endemic West Indian Woodpeckers (Aves , Picidae). Am Museum noitates 1–44Google Scholar
  75. Stevenson GB (1996) Palms of South Florida, 1st edn. University Press of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  76. Tomasevic JA, Marzluff JM (2017) Cavity nesting birds along an urban-wildland gradient: is human facilitation structuring the bird community? Urban Ecosyst 20:435–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tomasevic JA, Marzluff JM (2018) Use of suburban landscapes by the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Condor Ornithol Appl 120:1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trotta LB, Baiser B, Possley J, Li D, Lange J, Martin S, Sessa EB (2018) Community phylogeny of the globally critically imperiled pine Rockland ecosystem. Am J Bot 105:1735–1747. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. United States Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder. Retrieved December 9th, 2015 from:
  80. Villard P, Rousteau A (1998) Habitats, density, population size, and the future of the Guadeloupe woodpecker (Melanerpes herminieri). Ornitol Neotrop 9:121–128Google Scholar
  81. Villard P, Feldmann P, Ferchal A, Pavis C (2010) Population size and habitat associations of the endemic Guadeloupe woodpecker. J Field Ornithol 81:278–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walankiewicz W, Czeszczewik D (2005) Use of the aspen Populus tremula by birds in primeval stands of the Bialowieza National Park. Notatki Ornitol 46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and EnvironmentFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Southeast Environmental Research CenterFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  3. 3.International Center for Tropical BotanyFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  4. 4.Fairchild Tropical Botanic GardenCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations