Abstract
Nest predation is the most important factor responsible for nest failure in birds. Nest height may be a factor that affects the rate of nest depredation in different species. In this comparative study, we tested a relationship between nest height and nest depredation in open nesting songbirds. We analyzed data from 357 populations of 252 species and found that nests built high in trees were safer than those closer to the ground. Nest depredation rates strongly decreased with increasing nest height above 5 m. This could be because there are fewer nest predator species foraging in the canopy or because there is a lower density of nesting birds making it less profitable for predators to search for nests there. We also found that ground nests in open habitats were more likely to be depredated than those in shrublands and forests. This may be because open habitats are less complex and thus more easily searched by nest predators, or because most nests in open habitats are ground nests and predators can focus on them without having to search other vegetation layers.
Zusammenfassung
Mit zunehmender Nisthöhe nimmt die Nesträuberei bei Waldsingvögeln ab: eine vergleichende Studie.
Nesträuberei ist der wichtigste Faktor, der für das Scheitern von Nestern bei Vögeln verantwortlich ist. Die Nisthöhe könnte ein Faktor sein, der die Häufigkeit der Nestplünderung bei verschiedenen Arten beeinflusst. In dieser vergleichenden Studie haben wir den Zusammenhang zwischen Nisthöhe und Nestplünderung bei offen nistenden Singvögeln untersucht. Wir analysierten Daten aus 357 Populationen von 252 Arten und stellten fest, dass Nester, die hoch in Bäumen gebaut wurden, sicherer waren als solche, die näher am Boden lagen. Mit zunehmender Nisthöhe über 5 m nahm die Zahl der Nesträuber stark ab. Dies könnte darauf zurückzuführen sein, dass in den Baumkronen weniger Arten von Nesträubern auf Nahrungssuche sind oder dass die Dichte der nistenden Vögel geringer ist, so dass es sich für Räuber weniger lohnt, dort nach Nestern zu suchen. Wir haben auch festgestellt, dass Bodennester in offenen Lebensräumen eher geplündert werden als solche in Gebüschen und Wäldern. Dies könnte daran liegen, dass offene Lebensräume weniger komplex sind und daher von Nesträubern leichter durchsucht werden können, oder daran, dass die meisten Nester in offenen Lebensräumen Bodennester sind und die Räuber sich auf sie konzentrieren können, ohne andere Vegetationsschichten durchsuchen zu müssen.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Nest predation is the most important factor responsible for nest failure in birds (Ricklefs 1969; Martin 1993; Remeš et al. 2012b; Matysioková and Remeš 2022). The rate of nest depredation varies highly between species and populations, and there is a large number of factors which could be responsible for this variation. They can be connected to predators themselves (e.g. predator density; Remeš et al. 2012a), properties of nesting species or individuals (e.g. body mass, parental behavior; Matysioková and Remeš 2018; Unzeta et al. 2020), characteristics of the nest (e.g. nest type; Matysioková and Remeš 2022) or nest site (e.g. nest concealment; Martin 1988a, Kelly 1993, Remeš 2005b, but see Borgmann and Conway 2015).
Nest height is easily measured and thus among the most often studied nest characteristics. Traditionally it was believed that the lowest rate of nest survival should be associated with ground nests and nest survival should increase with increasing nests height as nests are getting out of the reach of predators active on the ground (Ricklefs 1969). However, results of previous studies were equivocal. While some supported this view (Holcomb 1969; Wilson and Cooper 1998; Balakrishnan 2010, Ó hUallacháin 2014), others did not (Eguchi et al. 2002; van Dongen and Yocom 2005; Hammond et al. 2016) or even found an opposite relationship (Goddard and Board 1967; Longcore and Jones 1969; Beckmann and McDonald 2016). A possible explanation could be a nonlinear relationship between nest height and the probability of nest depredation. While mammalian predators may mostly focus on nests built on the ground, those built high in the canopy can be more often depredated by avian predators (Remeš 2005a; Kleindorfer et al. 2021). Nests situated in the middle part of vegetation thus can suffer lower nest predation than those built closer to the ground or in the canopy (Filliater et al. 1994; Sockman 1997; Kleindorfer et al. 2021).
In this study, we tested a relationship between nest height and the rate of nest depredation in open nesting songbirds. Using a large number of studies, we analyzed (a) whether ground nests had higher probability of depredation than above-ground nests, (b) whether ground nests were affected by nest predation differently in different habitats, and (c) whether and how nest predation changed with nest height in different habitats.
Methods
For this study we used data presented in Matysioková and Remeš (2022). From this dataset we selected only open nesting species, and used data on daily predation rates (DPR) and study site. From original articles, we extracted data on habitat type. We excluded all studies conducted in wetlands or habitats highly affected by human presence such as town center, university campuses, parks or orchards since those habitats might be avoided by predators (Morton et al. 1993; Vincze et al. 2017), which could bias our analyses. We also excluded studies conducted in more than one type of habitat. Remaining habitats were categorized based on authors’ description as open, shrubland and forest. From the same primary studies we also extracted data on nest height (in meters). We decided not to convert nest heights into vegetation layers sensu Martin (1993), because we believed that with the exception of well-defined ground nests, this delimitation was artificial. Hence, we only categorized nests 0–30 cm high as ground nests and used them as such in subsequent analyses. All other nests were categorized as above-ground nests. Finally, we excluded all studies missing information either on habitat type or nest height.
To perform statistical tests, we used linear mixed models with study site and species identity as random effects. Daily nest predation rates and nest height were square root transformed to bring them closer to a normal distribution. All continuous variables were scaled (their mean was subtracted, and they were divided by their standard deviation) to allow for proper testing of both linear and quadratic effects (Schielzeth 2010). We did not test differences in predation rate among habitats for above-ground nests, because there were too few nests in open habitats. Since the range of nest heights in open habitats was very small (0–1.16 m, N = 90), we analyzed the relationship between the nest height and nest predation rate in shrublands and forests only. We fitted all models in the phyr package for the R language (Li et al. 2020). Body mass has been shown previously to predict nest predation rates (Unzeta et al. 2020). We thus checked that it did not differ among habitats (F-value = 0.63, P = 0.531) or along nest height (estimate (SE) = 0.01 (0.01), Z-score = 1.05, P = 0.293). Accordingly, our results were not biased by a potential confounding effect of body mass.
Results
Altogether, 357 populations of 252 songbird species were included in our final dataset. Most data came from populations breeding in forests (N = 199), followed by those from open habitats (N = 90), and shrublands (N = 68). Average nest height across the habitats was 2.44 m (range 0-18m, N = 357) and differed significantly among the three habitats (F = 122.9, P < 0.001). One hundred and fourteen populations had ground nests, while the remaining 243 populations had above-ground nests.
Ground nests had similar nest predation rate as above-ground nests in all three habitats (estimate (SE) = 0.05 (0.13), Z-score = 0.40, P = 0.688, Fig. 1). However, when we compared nest predation of ground nests between the three habitats, they were significantly less often depredated in shrublands (estimate (SE) = − 0.55 (0.28), Z-score = − 1.98, P = 0.048) and forests (estimate (SE) = − 0.58 (0.28), Z-score = -2.08, P = 0.038, Fig. 1) than in open habitats. Considering the relationship between nest height and nest predation, there was a significant quadratic relationship in forests (estimate (SE) = − 0.16 (0.05), Z-score = − 3.07, P = 0.002), while the linear term was not significant (estimate (SE) = − 0.11 (0.07), Z-score = − 1.60, P = 0.110, Fig. 2). However, when the quadratic term was removed, the linear term was statistically significant (estimate (SE) = − 0.15 (0.07), Z-score = − 2.08, P = 0.038). These results together show that there was a negative trend in nest predation rate with nest height that was particularly apparent above ca. 5 m. On the other hand, nest predation did not change with nest height in shrublands (estimate (SE) = 0.12 (0.12), Z-score = 0.99, P = 0.324, Fig. 2).
Discussion
Ground nests are often thought to be more vulnerable to nest predation than above-ground nests, since they are easily accessible to a wide range of ground predators including mammals, snakes, ants, and birds (Best 1978; Weidinger 2009; Conkling 2010; Chen et al. 2015). This was indeed observed in some studies (Craighead and Stockstad 1961; Lloyd 2004), domed nests in Marini (2017). However, other studies found ground nests being more successful (Knapton 1978; Pietz and Granfors 2000; Marzluff et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2015; Pierce et al. 2020) or not different at all from above-ground nests in nest predation rate (Morton et al. 1993), open nests in Marini (2017), which was also true for our data. This equivocality in results suggests that if present, the relationship might be confounded by locality-dependent variables such as dominant type of nest predators or habitat.
While we did not find any difference in nest predation between ground and above-ground nests in any habitat, nest predation in ground nests was higher in open habitats compared to both shrublands and forests. It is possible that the lack of above-ground cover of shrubs and trees in open habitats makes finding nests easier for visually oriented predators. These include birds and snakes (Weatherhead and Blouin-Demers 2004; DeGregorio et al. 2014), and are important nest predators in grasslands, agricultural landscape, and other open habitats (Andrén et al. 1985; Klug et al. 2010; Samsonov et al. 2018). Alternatively, since nests in open habitats are built on the ground or close to the ground, nest predators can focus exclusively on this type of nests. Consequently, their nest searching can be more effective than searching for nests in shrublands and forests, where nests are placed in various vegetation layers (Martin 1988b).
We expected to find nest predation to decrease with increasing height, because higher nests are less accessible to terrestrial nest predators (Mullin and Cooper 2002; Natusch et al. 2017; Kleindorfer et al. 2021). However, the nest predation rate did not change until the nest height reached around 5 m. Above this height it started to significantly decrease and the highest nests experienced the lowest predation rate altogether. Since the really high nests are missing in shrublands, this negative relationship between nest predation rate and nest height could only be observed in forests. This would agree with Martin (1993) who found nest predation in forest habitats being lower in canopy layer compared to mid-height (shrub layer).
One possible explanation could be that nests built lower in the vegetation can be reached by a wide range of nest predators. On the other hand, some predators do not climb (for example European badger Meles meles or terrestrial species of snakes such as European viper Vipera berus) or it might be impossible or difficult for them to get to canopy due to weaker support of thin branches and twigs. Accordingly, empirical evidence shows that only some types of predators such as raptorial birds or some species of snakes depredate nests high in the trees, while other groups such as fire ants or larger mammals are nearly or completely missing there (Reidy and Thompson III 2013; Chiavacci et al. 2014; DeGregorio et al. 2016; Kirby et al. 2018; Morozov 2021). Absence of whole predator guilds in the canopy thus could lead to a lower overall predation rate. Alternatively, the density of nesting birds might decrease with increasing height and it might be more profitable for nest predators to search for nests in lower heights (Martin 1988b; Martin and Martin 2001; Shitikov et al. 2018).
Data availability
All data can be accessed on Zenodo under https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-023-02108-1.
References
Andrén H, Angelstam P, Lindström E, Widén P (1985) Differences in predation pressure in relation to habitat fragmentation: an experiment. Oikos 45:273–277
Balakrishnan P (2010) Reproductive biology of the Square-tailed Black Bulbul Hypsipetes ganeesa in the Western Ghats. Indian Birds 5:134–138
Beckmann C, McDonald PG (2016) Placement of re-nests following predation: Are birds managing risk? Emu 116:9–13
Best LB (1978) Field Sparrow reproductive success and nesting ecology. Auk 95:9–22
Borgmann KL, Conway CJ (2015) The nest-concealment hypothesis: new insights from a comparative analysis. Wilson J Ornithol 127:646–660
Chen W-J, Lee P-F, Lin R-S (2015) Identifying predators of passerine shrub and ground nests in a lowland forest of Taiwan. Taiwan J Biodivers 17:101–120
Chiavacci SJ, Bader TJ, Bednarz JC (2014) Preferred nest site characteristics reduce predator-specific predation risk in a canopy-nesting raptor. J Wildl Manage 78:1022–1032
Conkling T (2010) Analysis of the Black-capped Vireo and White-eyed Vireo nest predator assemblages. Dissertation. Texas A&M University
Craighead JJ, Stockstad DS (1961) Evaluating the use of aerial nesting platforms by Canada Geese. J Wildl Manage 25:363–372
DeGregorio BA, Chiavacci SJ, Weatherhead PJ et al (2014) Snake predation on North American bird nests: Culprits, patterns and future directions. J Avian Biol 45:325–333
DeGregorio BA, Chiavacci SJ, Benson TJ, Sperry JH, Weatherhead PJ (2016) Nest Predators of North American Birds: continental patterns and implications. Bioscience 66:655–665
Eguchi K, Yamagishi S, Asai S, Nagata H, Hino T (2002) Helping does not enhance reproductive success of cooperatively breeding rufous vanga in Madagascar. J Anim Ecol 71:123–130
Filliater TS, Breitwisch R, Nealen PM (1994) Predation on Northern Cardinal nests: does choice of nest site matter? Condor 96:761–7698
Goddard SV, Board VV (1967) Reproductive success of Red-winged Blackbirds on north central Oklahoma. Wilson Bull 79:283–289
Hammond RL, Crampton LH, Foster JT (2016) Nesting success of native and introduced forest birds on the island of Kaua’i. J Avian Biol 47:252–262
Holcomb LC (1969) Breeding biology of the American goldfinch in Ohio. Bird-Banding 40:26–44
Kelly JP (1993) The effect of nest predation on habitat selection by dusky flycatchers in limber pine-juniper woodland. Condor 95:83–93
Kirby WB, Stanbury AJ, Lewis J et al (2018) Nest survival, causes of failure and productivity of British Hawfinches Coccothraustes coccothraustes. Bird Study 65:279–289
Kleindorfer S, Common LK, Sumasgutner P (2021) Nesting Success and Nesting Height in the critically endangered Medium Tree Finch (Camarhynchus pauper). Birds 2:427–444
Klug PE, Wolfenbarger L, McCarty JP (2010) Snakes are important nest predators of Dickcissels in an agricultural landscape. Wilson J Ornithol 122:799–803
Knapton R (1978) Breeding ecology of the Clay-colored Sparrow. 137–157
Li D, Dinnage R, Nell LA et al (2020) phyr: an r package for phylogenetic species-distribution modelling in ecological communities. Methods Ecol Evol 11:1455–1463
Lloyd P (2004) Variation in nest predation among arid-zone birds. Ostrich 75:228–235
Longcore JR, Jones RE (1969) Reproductive success of the Wood Thrush in a Delaware woodlot. Wilson Bull 81:396–406
Marini MA (2017) Nesting success of birds from Brazilian Atlantic Forest fragments. Rev Bras Ornitol 25(77–7):83
Martin TE (1988a) Nest placement: implications for selected life-history traits, with special reference to clutch size. Am Nat 132:900–910
Martin TE (1988b) On the advantage of being different: nest predation and the coexistence of bird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 85:2196–2199
Martin TE (1993) Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. Am Nat 141:897–913
Martin PR, Martin TE (2001) Ecological and fitness consequences of species coexistence: a removal experiment with wood warblers. Ecology 82:189–206
Marzluff JM, Withey JC, Whittaker KA et al (2007) Consequences of habitat utilization by nest predators and breeding songbirds across multiple scales in an urbanizing landscape. Condor 109:516–534
Matysioková B, Remeš V (2018) Evolution of parental activity at the nest is shaped by the risk of nest predation and ambient temperature across bird species. Evolution 72:2214–2224
Matysioková B, Remeš V (2022) Stronger negative species interactions in the tropics supported by a global analysis of nest predation in songbirds. J Biogeogr 49:511–522
Morozov N (2021) Causes of nesting losses and parental behaviour in the fieldfare Turdus pilaris: results obtained by applying trail cameras in the big city. Russ J Ornithol 2023:189–190
Morton ML, Sockman KW, Peterson LE (1993) Nest predation in the mountain white-crowned sparrow. Condor 95:72–82
Mullin SJ, Cooper RJ (2002) Barking up the wrong tree: climbing performance of rat snakes and its implications for depredation of avian nests. Can J Zool 80:591–595
Natusch DJD, Lyons JA, Shine R (2017) Safety first: terrestrial predators drive selection of highly specific nesting sites in colonial-breeding birds. J Avian Biol 48:1104–1113
Ó hUallacháin D (2014) Nest site location and success rates of an urban population of woodpigeon Columba palumbus in Ireland. Biol Environ Proc R Irish Acad 114:13–17
Pierce AJ, Sankamethawee W, Powell LA, Gale GA (2020) Patterns of nesting and nest success in an evergreen forest in Southeast Asia. Emu 120:46–55
Pietz PJ, Granfors DA (2000) Identifying predators and fates of grassland passerine nests using miniature video cameras. J Wildl Manage 64:71–87
Reidy JL, Thompson III FR (2013) Predatory identity can explain nest predation patterns. In: Studies in avian biology. University of California Press, pp 135–148
Remeš V (2005a) Nest concealment and parental behaviour interact in affecting nest survival in the blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla): an experimental evaluation of the parental compensation hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:326–332
Remeš V (2005b) Birds and rodents destroy different nests: a study of Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla using the removal of nest concealment. Ibis 147:213–216
Remeš V, Matysioková B, Cockburn A (2012a) Long-term and large-scale analyses of nest predation patterns in Australian songbirds and a global comparison of nest predation rates. J Avian Biol 43:435–444
Remeš V, Matysioková B, Cockburn A (2012b) Nest predation in New Zealand songbirds: exotic predators, introduced prey and long-term changes in predation risk. Biol Conserv 148:54–60
Ricklefs RE (1969) An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithson Contrib to Zool 9:1–48
Samsonov SV, Makarova TV, Shitikov DA (2018) Nest predators species of open nesting songbirds of abandoned fields in «Rusky Sever» national park (Russia). Nat Conserv Res 3:2015–2018
Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113
Shitikov D, Vaytina T, Makarova T et al (2018) Species-specific nest predation depends on the total passerine nest density in open-nesting passerines. J Ornithol 159:483–491
Sockman KW (1997) Variation in life-history traits and nest-site selection affects risk of nest predation in the California gnatcatcher. Auk 114:324–332
Unzeta M, Martin TE, Sol D (2020) Daily nest predation rates decrease with body size in passerine birds. Am Nat 196:743–754
van Dongen WFD, Yocom LL (2005) Breeding biology of a migratory Australian passerine, the golden whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis). Aust J Zool 53:213–220
Vincze E, Seress G, Lagisz M et al (2017) Does urbanization affect predation of bird nests? A meta-analysis. Front Ecol Evol 5:29
Weatherhead PJ, Blouin-Demers G (2004) Understanding avian nest predation: Why ornithologists should study snakes. J Avian Biol 35:185–190
Weidinger K (2009) Nest predators of woodland open-nesting songbirds in central Europe. Ibis 151:352–360
Wilson RR, Cooper RJ (1998) Acadian flycatcher nest placement: doest placement influences reproductive success? Condor 100:673–679
Funding
Open access publishing supported by the National Technical Library in Prague.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by F. Bairlein.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Matysioková, B., Remeš, V. Nest predation decreases with increasing nest height in forest songbirds: a comparative study. J Ornithol 165, 257–261 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-023-02108-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-023-02108-1