Abstract
The use of artificial nestboxes has improved the understanding of the ecology and behaviour of secondary cavity-nesting animals. Although earlier investigations have shown that nestbox characteristics can influence where animals roost or breed, the impact of ageing of nestboxes on occupation rates has rarely been investigated with experiments based on choice. In this study, the occupation rate of new and old wooden nestboxes set up side by side on the same tree (n = 140 pairs) was investigated in mixed coniferous-deciduous forest in Lithuania. Great tits Parus major and pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca evidently preferred to breed in new nestboxes, while hazel dormice Muscardinus avellanarius and yellow-necked mice Apodemus flavicollis did not show any preference to a certain nestbox type and equally occupied old and new nestboxes. Saxon wasps Dolichovespula saxonica also occupied both nestbox types equally and a similar tendency was observed in European hornets Vespa crabro. By contrast, black garden ants Lasius niger showed a tendency to occupy old nestboxes. The results of the present study are important when considering the use of nestboxes in monitoring small hole-nesting birds and hazel dormice. The preference of birds for new nestboxes may influence long-term monitoring results when nestboxes become older and when old nestboxes are replaced with new ones. This important limitation has not been emphasised in review papers on the inadequacies of nestboxes in studies of hole-nesting birds. However, as ageing of nestboxes does not influence the occupation rates by hazel dormice, the use of nestboxes does not bias the results of long-term monitoring of this species.
References
Adamík P, Král M (2008) Nest losses of cavity nesting birds caused by dormice (Gliridae, Rodentia). Acta Theriol 53:185–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03194251
Blagosklonov KN (1970) On the importance of illumination of the nest in hole-nesting birds. Bull Mosc Soc Natur Biol 5:45–47. (in Russian)
Bright P, Morris P, Mitchell-Jones T (2006) The dormouse conservation handbook, 2nd edn. English Nature, Peterborough
Broughton RK, Hebda G, Maziarz M, Smith KW, Smith L, Hinsley SA (2015) Nest-site competition between bumblebees (Bombidae), social wasps (Vespidae) and cavity-nesting birds in Britain and the western Palearctic. Bird Study 62:427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2015.1046811
Büchner S, Lang J, Jokisch S (2010) Monitoring der Haselmaus Muscardinus avellanarius in Hessen im Rahmen der Berichtspflicht zur FFH-Richtlinie. Natur Landschaft 85:334–339
Ekner-Grzyb A, Żołnierowicz KM, Lisicki D, Tobółka M (2014) Habitat selection taking nest-box age into account: a field experiment in secondary hole-nesting birds. Folia Zool 63:251–255
Gatter W, Schütt R (1999) Langzeitentwicklung der Höhlenkonkurrenz zwischen Vögel (Aves) und Säugetieren (Bilche Gliridae; Mäuse Muridae) in den Wäldern Baden-Württembergs. Ornitol Anz 38:107–130
Goodwin CED, Hodgson DJ, Al-Fulaij N, Bailey S, Langton S, Mcdonald RA (2017) Voluntary recording scheme reveals ongoing decline in the United Kingdom hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius population. Mammal Rev 47:183–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12091
Henze O, Gepp J (2004) Vogelnistkästen in Garten & Wald. Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz–Stuttgart
Holveck M-J, Grégoire A, Doutrelant C, Lambrechts MM (2019) Nest height is affected by lamppost lighting proximity in addition to nestbox size in urban great tits. J Avian Biol: e01798. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01798
Juškaitis R (1995) Relations between common dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) and other occupants of bird nest-boxes in Lithuania. Folia Zool 44:289–296
Juškaitis R (2003) Abundance dynamics and reproduction success in the common dormouse, Muscardinus avellanarius, populations in Lithuania. Folia Zool 52:239–248
Juškaitis R (2006) Interactions between dormice (Gliridae) and hole-nesting birds in nestboxes. Folia Zool 55:225–236
Juškaitis R (2008) Long-term common dormouse monitoring: effects of forest management on abundance. Biodivers Conserv 17(14):3559–3565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9470-9
Juškaitis R (2010) Nestbox dwellers: birds, mammals, social insects. Lututė, Kaunas. (in Lithuanian with English summary)
Koppmann-Rumpf B, Heberer C, Schmidt KH (2003) Long term study of the reaction of the edible dormouse Glis glis (Rodentia: Gliridae) to climatic changes and its interactions with hole-breeding passerines. Acta Zool Hung 49(Suppl 1):69–76
Lambrechts MM, Adriaensen F, Ardia DR et al (2010) The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithol 45:1–26. https://doi.org/10.3161/000164510X516047
Langowska A, Ekner A, Skórka P, Tobolka M, Tryjanowski P (2010) Nest-site tenacity and dispersal patterns of Vespa crabro colonies located in bird nest-boxes. Sociobiology 56:375–382
Lebl K, Bieber C, Adamík P, Fietz J, Morris P, Pilastro A, Ruf T (2011) Survival rates in a small hibernator, the edible dormouse: a comparison across Europe. Ecography 34:683–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06691.x
Mainwaring MC (2011) The use of nestboxes by roosting birds during the nonbreeding season: a review of the costs and benefits. Ardea 99:167–176. https://doi.org/10.5253/078.099.0206
Mazgajski TD (2007) Nest hole age decreases nest site attractiveness for the European starling Sturnus vulgaris. Ornis Fenn 84:32–38
Maziarz M, Wesołowski T (2014) Does darkness limit the use of tree cavities for nesting by birds? J Ornithol 155:793–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-014-1069-1
Møller AP (1989) Parasites, predators and nest boxes: facts and artefacts in nest box studies in birds? Oikos 56:421–423
Møller AP (1992) Nest boxes and the scientific rigour of experimental studies. Oikos 63:309–311. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545393
Møller AP (1994) Facts and artefacts in nest-box studies: implications for studies of birds of prey. J Rapt Res 28:143–148
Morris P (2011) Dormice: a tail of two species, 2nd edn. Whittet Books, Stansted
Newton I (1994) The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: a review. Biol Conserv 70:265–276
Podkowa P, Surmacki A (2017) The importance of illumination in nest site choice and nest characteristics of cavity nesting birds. Sci Rep 7:1329. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01430-y
Sorace A, Petrassi F, Consiglio C (2004) Long-distance relocation of nestboxes reduces nest predation by pine marten Martes martes. Bird Study 51:119–124
Vilka I (1999) Population dynamics of small cavity nesting birds in Latvia (1984–1997). Vogelwelt 120(Suppl):223–227
Vilka I (2003) On the importance of nestbox age in monitoring populations of small hole-nesting birds. Ornis Hung 12–13:229–236
Wesołowski T (2002) Anti-predator adaptations in nesting marsh tits Parus palustris: the role of nest-site security. Ibis 144:593–601. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1474-919X.2002.00087.x
Wesołowski T (2011) Reports from nestbox studies: a review of inadequacies. Acta Ornithol 46:13–17. https://doi.org/10.3161/000164511x589866
Wesołowski T, Maziarz M (2012) Dark tree cavities – a challenge for hole nesting birds? J Avian Biol 43:454–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.2012.43.issue-5
White I (2012) The national dormouse monitoring programme in Britain. Peckiana 8:103–107
Williams DR, Pople RG, Showler DA, Dicks LV, Child MF, zu Ermgassen EKHJ, Sutherland WJ (2013) Bird Conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter
Acknowledgements
I thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and Jos Stratford for improving the English of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
All applicable national and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
Conflict of interest
The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Juškaitis, R. Different preferences for new versus old nestboxes by birds, rodents and social insects. Biologia 75, 2327–2330 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00493-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00493-z