Volume 10 Issue 1
Nov.  2019
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Study area and methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References
Related Articles
Mingju E, Tuo Wang, Shangyu Wang, Ye Gong, Jiangping Yu, Lin Wang, Wei Ou, Haitao Wang. 2019: Old nest material functions as an informative cue in making nest-site selection decisions in the European Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus). Avian Research, 10(1): 43. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0182-5
Citation: Mingju E, Tuo Wang, Shangyu Wang, Ye Gong, Jiangping Yu, Lin Wang, Wei Ou, Haitao Wang. 2019: Old nest material functions as an informative cue in making nest-site selection decisions in the European Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus). Avian Research, 10(1): 43. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0182-5
shu

Old nest material functions as an informative cue in making nest-site selection decisions in the European Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)

  • 1.

    Jilin Engineering Laboratory for Avian Ecology and Conservation Genetics, School of Life Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

  • 2.

    Northeast Normal University Natural History Museum, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

  • 3.

    School of Life Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China

  • 4.

    Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Vegetation Ecology, School of Life Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

  • 5.

    Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China

  • 6.

    Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changchun 130033, China

  • 7.

    Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of AnimalResource Conservation and Utilization, School of Life Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Haitao Wang, wanght402@nenu.edu.cn

  • Received Date: 04 May 2019
  • Accepted Date: 30 Oct 2019
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 08 Nov 2019
    Graphical Abstract
    • Abstract
  • Background 

    For secondary cavity-nesting bird species that do not add lining materials to nests, the presence of old nest material or organic remains that have accumulated within nest cavities from previous breeding events may be a cue of nest-site quality. These materials potentially contain information about past breeding success in con- and heterospecifics and may improve the thermal insulation of eggs during incubation. However, few studies have addressed whether the presence of old nest materials serves as a cue for cavity-nesting raptors when choosing specific nest sites.

    Methods 

    We conducted a 9-year nest box experiment to test whether old nest materials from con- and heterospecifics serve as informative cues to the European Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) when making nest selection decisions, as this species uses nest boxes without adding nesting material.

    Results 

    The presence of old nest materials and entrance size best discriminated nest boxes occupied by European Kestrels from unoccupied boxes. Nest boxes containing conspecific organic remains, artificial dry leaf and branch material, and material left behind by Great Tits (Parus major) were reused at higher rates, especially those containing conspecific nest material, than nest boxes containing true or simulated nest materials from predators. In 2010, no single nest box was occupied by the same banded individual that occupied the box in the previous year (10 females and 2 males were banded in 2009).

    Conclusions 

    European Kestrels preferred nest boxes containing old nest material over empty boxes, which is consistent with previous findings that they exploit con- and heterospecific cues when deciding where to settle and breed, as old nest or organic material provides substrate for incubating females. Kestrels may be able to assess the predation risks associated with a specific nest site based on experience or the presence of prey remains. The repeated use of nest boxes across breeding seasons by kestrels cannot be entirely ascribed to philopatry. This study provides evidence that old nest materials are potentially used as informative cues when making nest-site selection decisions in European Kestrels.

    • FullText(HTML)

  • Hedgerows are agricultural field boundaries with natural, remnant vegetation, grown and managed during the shift from communal to individual agricultural practices (Baudry et al., 2000). They were developed in response to the inherent physical and biological characteristics associated with the prevalent culture. Plant species diversity and composition of hedgerows depend on the interest of individual farmers and the community. Currently, Angacha is the only hedgerow growing region in Ethiopia with diverse hedgerow plant species and complex vegetation structures. Hedgerow habitat quality depends on plant species composition, diversity and its associated fauna (Hinsley and Bellamy, 2000). Local communities use these hedgerows as sources of fuel and construction material; , hedgerows have ecological and cultural values (Baudry et al., 2000). Hedgerows can also serve as a corridor and refuge, play a role in soil conservation and runoff catchments and provide nesting, feeding and wintering sites for birds (Pollard et al., 1974; Burel, 1996; Rappole et al., 2003; Kati and Sekercioglu, 2006).

    Modified habitats, such as hedgerows, support substantial bird diversity (Hughes et al., 2002; Sodhi et al., 2005). However, the diversity of avian species and their response vary, depending on vegetation composition and structure (Chamberlain et al., 2000; Sekercioglu, 2002; Sodhi et al., 2005). The most important factors associated with species richness, abundance and breeding of hedgerow birds are the size (height, width or volume) and the abundance of trees (Hinsley and Bellamy, 2000; Brambilla et al., 2009).

    Intensification of agriculture is the main threat to farmland bird diversity, especially for less abundant species (Chamberlain et al., 2000; Whittingham and Evans, 2004). Hedgerow bird population recovery requires restoration of nesting covers such as shrubs, woodland and understories (Peach et al., 2004; Peh et al., 2006).

    There are no previous studies on hedgerows and their birds at Angacha. Sustaining this unique habitat in Ethiopia requires management and conservation. Hence, the present study was aimed to assess and compare three types of hedgerows and their bird diversity, species richness, relative abundance and seasonal composition at Angacha. It helps to devise management measures in order to sustain hedgerows and their faunal diversity, given the present decline of bird diversity and biodiversity in general.

    The present study area was located at the Kembatta Zone, 260 km south of Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia. This area is situated at elevations ranging from 2100 to 3028 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1). The area has a bimodal rainfall pattern with a mean annual rainfall of 1631 mm and mean annual temperature of 20℃. The short rainy season (January or March) is irregular with light rainfall, while the long rainy season (June to September) is characterized by high intensity rains in July. The most common plant species of hedgerows are Arsenic bush (Senna septemtrionalis), Justicia comata (Justicia schimperiana), Bitter leaf (Vernonia amygdalinea), Croton (Croton macrostachys) and Erythrina abyssinica (Erythrina brucei)

    Figure  1.  Map of Angacha with its sub study sites (Source: Ethiopian Mapping Authority, 1998).
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    The present study was carried out from March to August 2010, covering both dry and wet seasons. Surveys of twenty days were carried out per month using point-count and line-transect methods (Bibby et al., 1992; Gibbons et al., 1998). The height and width of the vegetation of the hedgerows were estimated and/or measured (Baudry et al., 2000). Based on the variation in thickness, hedgerows were grouped into one of the following three types: 1) open farmland with fences to dispersed bordering hedges (0–2 m) of S1; 2) thin hedgerows (2–5 m) of S2 and S3; and 3) thick or dense hedgerows (≥5 m) of S4 and S5.

    The hedgerows were located at 0.5 to 1 km distance from each other as shown in Fig. 2. Given this condition, the study site, Angacha was divided into five sub-sites with a total of 125 point counts. Each sub-site had five sampling units and 25 point counts. Five sampling point counts with five replicates were performed per hedgerow type per season per sub-study site. In order to minimize double counting of birds, point counts were made at a distance of 200 m at the junction of hedgerow networks, following the method by Hinsley and Bellamy (2000). In each point count per hedgerow type, bird counts were made at a 25 m radius of a point count by direct observation within 5–10 min.

    Figure  2.  Modeled study area hedgerow types and their thickness. Birds point-counts represent a total of 45 transects and 125 point counts. S1 = 0–2 m (open), S2 = 2–3 m and S3 = 3–5 m (Thin), S4 and S5 ≥ 5 m (Thick).
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    T-tests at a 95% CI and ANOVAs were carried out using SPSS software, version 13 to test avian diversity and distribution in hedgerow types per season. Further, an Excel computer program was used to record data to determine the Shannon-Wiener diversity index and the Simpson similarity index in order to determine species diversity, similarity and relative abundance per type of hedgerow.

    A total of 27 species of birds from 18 families were identified during both the dry and wet seasons in open, thin and thick hedgerows (Table 1). Of these, 25 species were recorded during the dry season and 27 in the wet season. Among the 27 species identified, 5 species were recorded during the dry season in open types of hedgerows, 13 in thin types and 22 in thick hedgerow types.

    Table  1.  Recorded avian species and their relative abundance in different hedgerow types during both wet and dry seasons
    Bird species recorded Scientific name Hedgerow types
    0–2 m (open) 2–5 m (thin) > 5 m (thick)
    Groundscraper thrush Psophocichia litsitsirupa 0.0133(–) 0.0266 (–) – (–)
    Mountain thrush Turdus abyssinicus 0.0067(0.0158) 0.0200 (0.0213) – (–)
    Ruppell's Robin Chat Cossyfa semirufa – (–) 0.0333 (0.0284) 0.0533 (0.0426)
    Ruppell's Black Chat Myrmecocichla melaena* – (–) 0.0067 (–) – (–)
    Common Fiscal Lunius collaris* 0.0067 (0.0071) 0.0133 (0.0212) 0.0333 (0.284)
    Swainsson's sparrow Passer swainsonni 0.0133 (0.01442) 0.0133 (0.0212) 0.0400 (0.0355)
    Red-cheeked Cordon bleu Uraegenatusbengalus – (–) 0.0133 (0.0071) 0.0133 (0.0071)
    Village weaver Ploceus cucculatus 0.0133 (0.0071) 0.0200 (0.0142) 0.0267 (0.0284)
    Red-billed firefinch Laganosticta senegala 0.0200 (0.0284) 0.0333 (0.0426) 0.0709 (0.0709)
    African Paradise flycatcher Terpsiphone vividis – (–) – (–) 0.0067 (0.0071)
    Towny flanked prinia Prinia subflava – (–) 0.0133 (0.0142) 0.0200 (0.0212)
    Common bulbul Pycnonotusbarbatus – (–) 0.0200 (0.0284) 0.0600 (0567)
    Green-backed Honeyguide Prodotiscus zambesiae – (–) 0.0467 (0.0567) 0.0867 (0.0851)
    Variable sunbird Cinniris vnustus – (–) 0.0200 (0.0142) 0.0467 (0.0425)
    Tekezze sunbird Necatarinia teacazze – (–) 0.0067 (0.0071) 0.0067 (0.0071)
    Scarlet-chested sunbird Chalcometra senegalensis – (–) 0.0067(0.0071) 0.0067(0.0071)
    White-cheeked turaco Tauraco leucotis* – (–) – (–) 0.0200 (0.0142)
    Banded Barbet Lybius undatus* – (–) – (–) 0.0133 (0.0071)
    Black-billed Barbet Lybiusguifisobalito – (–) – (–) 0.0067 (0.0071)
    Abyssinian Oriole Orolus monacha* – (–) – (–) 0.0600 (0.0567)
    Sacred ibis Threslciomis aethopicus – (–) – (–) 0.0200 (0.0142)
    Hadad ibis Bostrychia hagedash – (–) – (–) 0.0133 (0.0142)
    Glossy ibis Piegedisfalcinellus – (–) – (–) 0.0333 (0.0284)
    Wattled ibis Bostrychia carucullata* – (–) – (–) 0.0467 (0.0425)
    Hamerkop Scopus umbreta – (–) – (–) 0.0133 (0.0071)
    Egyptian Goose Alopachen aegypticus – (–) – (–) 0.0267 (0.0142)
    African grey hornbill Tockus nasutus – (–) – (–) 0.0067 (0.0071)
    Note: – means absence; inside ( ) is dry season avian relative abundance (individuals per population per hedgerow types), and outside ( ) is wet season avian relative abundance; * means endemic species.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    High species richness was observed in thick hedgerows. Species richness in the three types of hedgerows ranged from 5 to 22 during dry season and from 6 to 24 during the wet season. There were variations in the bird species richness among hedgerow types (t = 3.361, p < 0.05) but not between seasons. The highest species diversity was obtained in the thick hedgerow type. Compared with other hedgerow types, thick hedgerows harbored high endemism (Table 2). Species similarity was high between thin and thick hedgerow types followed by open and thin types during both dry and wet seasons. The least similarity was observed between open and thick types (Table 3).

    Table  2.  Species richness and diversity indices during both dry and wet season
    Season Hedgerow types Species richness H′ Hmax H′/Hmax D′ % species
    Dry Open 5 0.037 1.61 0.023 27.02 20.0
    Thin 13 0.482 2.56 0.190 2.07 55.6
    Thick 22 0.778 3.09 0.610 1.28 85.0
    Wet Open 6 0.042 1.80 0.023 23.81 22.2
    Thin 15 0.083 2.71 0.031 12.05 55.6
    Thick 24 0.500 5.50 0.091 1.50 88.9
    Note: species richness = number of species per hedgerow type per season. H′ = Shannon-Wiener's index, D′ = Simpson's index.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  3.  Species similarity among the hedgerow types during dry and wet seasons
    Season Hedgerow types Open Thin Thick
    Dry Open 0.38 0.18
    Thin 0.38 0.55
    Thick 0.18 0.55
    Wet Open 0.40 0.25
    Thin 0.40 0.63
    Thick 0.25 0.63
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The distribution of avian species among the hedgerow types were 22.2% in open hedgerows, 55.5% in thin hedgerows and 88.9% in thick hedgerows. The highest preference was observed for the thick hedgerow type (Table 2). Relative abundance varied during dry and wet seasons for different hedgerow types. During dry and wet seasons, the relative abundance of the Green-backed Honey Guide (Prodotiscus zambesiae) was highest in thick and thin hedgerows, followed by the Red-billed Firefinch (Laganosticta senegala) in relation to other species per hedgerow per season. But the relative abundance of the red-billed fire finch was the highest within open hedgerows.

    Avian species richness, diversity, composition and endemics vary in relation to hedgerow types. These characteristics are positively associated with the variability in hedgerow plant species richness, composition and heterogeneity (Chamberlain et al., 2000; Bradbury, et al., 2001; Newton, 2004). The present study revealed the impact of hedgerow types with their variability in vegetation structure and heterogeneity of avian communities. This might be associated with the provision of cover, food, nest and nesting material. The observed high species richness, diversity and avian preferences as well as endemism for thick hedgerows and the poor community structure in open hedgerow demonstrate the impact of heterogeneity of hedgerow vegetation and its types.

    During both dry and wet seasons, high avian species similarity was observed between thick and thin hedgerow types followed by open and thin types. Shared vegetation structures and provision of common resources might have contributed to this similarity. However, species similarity deviated between open and thick hedgerows. Seasonal similarity within hedgerow types was high for thick hedgerows and was least for open types (Pollard et al., 1974; Bradbury et al., 2001). This suggests a preference of avifauna to different hedgerow types and their high ecological value. This was realized in the present study with a nearly exclusive habitation of endemic birds in thick, well managed hedgerows. Thus, the complexity of farmland boundaries (hedgerows) determined them as the habitat for the prevalent bird species (Bradbury et al., 2001).

    Intensification of agriculture and pressure from population growth affected habitat quality of hedgerows. Thinning and removal of hedgerow plants and plowing to their base reduced the habitat quality where the bird species community was poor (Whittingham and Evans, 2004). In the present study, the association of the White-cheeked Turaco (Tauraco leucotis) and Banded Barbet (Lybius undatus) with indigenous fruiting trees of thick hedgerows above 5 m, such as Erythrina brucei, showed ecological interaction of the indicator hedgerow plant species and the preference of its associated birds. However, a loss of hedgerows reduced habitat quality, causing their bird populations to decline (Peach et al., 2004).

    High species diversity, richness and endemism in thick hedgerow types during dry and wet seasons show their preference due to the availability and provision of various essential resources. Despite this, bird species preference and similarity among hedgerow types deviated considerably where the highest similarity was observed in thin and thick hedgerows during both dry and wet seasons. Habitats where natural communities are altered to managed ecosystems, conservation and regulation of hedgerows are important for the maintenance of bird distributions, diversity and ecosystem services, given the scenario of challenging changes in climate. Therefore, in order to manage and conserve hedgerows and their avian diversity, a certain amount of awareness of hedgerows and their ecological interaction with birds, as well as their role in crop production, is required. Mitigative actions are needed for the region in order to restore and conserve hedgerows as a pool for biodiversity and panacea to their loss.

    I am indebted to Professor M. Balakrishnan for his valuable criticism and review of this manuscript. My gratitude also goes to the respective Biology Departments of Dilla and Addis Ababa University for their financial support to execute this study. My special thanks go to Shagie Kokiso and her daughters and anonymous farmers of the study area for their concern, unreserved assistance and cooperation during the study period.

    • References (64)
  • Aitken KEH, Wiebe KL, Martin K. Nest-site reuse patterns for a cavity-nesting bird community in interior British Columbia. Auk. 2002;119:391-402.
    Aparicio JM, Bonal R, Munoz A. Experimental test on public information use in the colonial Lesser Kestrel. Evol Ecol. 2007;21:783-800.
    Beheler AS, Rhodes OE, Weeks PH. Breeding site and mate fidelity in Eastern Phoebes (Sayornis phoebe) in Indiana. Auk. 2003;120:990-9.
    Beletsky LD, Orians GH. Effects of breeding experience and familiarity on site fidelity in female red-winged blackbirds. Ecology. 1991;72:787-96.
    Bouslama Z, Lambrechts MM, Ziane N, Djenidi R, Chabi Y. The effect of nest ectoparasites on parental provisioning in a north-African population of the Blue Tit Parus caeruleus. Ibis. 2002;144:e73-8.
    Brown CR, Brown MB. Coloniality in the Cliff Swallow: the effect of group size on social behavior. J Parasitol. 1997;27:751.
    Burnham KK, Burnham WA, Newton I. Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus post-glacial colonization and extreme long-term use of nest-sites in Greenland. Ibis. 2009;151:514-22.
    Citta JJ, Lindberg MS. Nest-site selection of passerines: effects of geographic scale and public and personal information. Ecology. 2007;88:2034-46.
    Dall SRX, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20:187-93.
    Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M. Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implications for the study of coloniality. Ecology. 1998;79:2415-28.
    Davies WH, Kalisz PJ, Wells RJ. Eastern bluebirds prefer boxes containing old nests. J Field Ornithol. 1994;65:250-3.
    Deeming DC. Avian incubation: behaviour, environment, evolution. Auk. 2002;119:1210-1.
    Deng QX, Wang HT, Yao D, Wang XY, E MJ, Wang T, et al. Conspecific brood parasitism and nesting biology of Mandarin ducks Aix galericulata in northeast China. Wilson J Ornithol. 2011;123:479-85.
    Dow H, Fredga S. Breeding and natal dispersal of the goldeneye, Bucephala clangula. J Anim Ecol. 1983;52:681-96.
    Dubois F, Cezilly F, Pagel M. Mate fidelity and coloniality in waterbirds: a comparative analysis. Oecologia. 1998;116:433-40.
    Erckmann WJ, Beletsky LD, Orians GH, Johnsen T, Sharbaugh S, Antonio C. Old nests as cues for nest-site selection: an experimental test with Red-winged Blackbirds. Condor. 1990;92:113-7.
    Forsman JT, Hjernquist MB, Taipale J, Gustafsson L. Competitor density cues for habitat quality facilitating habitat selection and investment decisions. Behav Ecol. 2008;19:539-45.
    Frey SJK, Hadley AS, Betts MG. Microclimate predicts within-season distribution dynamics of montane forest birds. Divers Distrib. 2016;22:944-59.
    Galef BG, Giraldeau L. Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Anim Behav. 2001;61:3-15.
    Geng R, Zhang X, Ou W, Sun HM, Lei FM, Gao W, et al. Diet and prey consumption of breeding Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) in Northeast China. Prog Nat Sci. 2009;19:1501-7.
    Gibb BJ. The breeding biology of the great and blue titmice. Ibis. 1950;92:507-39.
    Gong Y, Bibi N, Wang HT. Nest usurpation between Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata and coexisting bird species in nest boxes in a secondary forest, Zuojia Nature Reserve, China. Pak J Zool. 2018;50:1537.
    Gowaty PA, Plissner JH. Breeding dispersal of eastern bluebirds depends on nesting success but not on removal of old nests: an experimental study. J Field Ornithol. 1997;68:323-30.
    Hilton GM, Hansell MH, Ruxton GD, Reid JM, Monaghan P. Using artificial nests to test importance of nesting material and nest shelter for incubation energetics. Auk. 2004;121:777-87.
    Hromada M, Antczak M, Valone TJ, Tryjanowski P. Settling decisions and heterospecific social information use in shrikes. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3930.
    Johannesen E, Perriman L, Steen H. The effect of breeding success on nest and colony fidelity in the Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) in Otago, New Zealand. Emu. 2002;102:241-7.
    Johnson LS. Removal of old nest material from the nesting sites of house wrens: effects on nest site attractiveness and ectoparasite loads. J Field Ornithol. 1996;67:212-21.
    Lagrange P, Gimenez O, Doligez B, Pradel R, Garant D, Pelletier F, et al. Assessment of individual and conspecific reproductive success as determinants of breeding dispersal of female tree swallows: a capture-recapture approach. Ecol Evol. 2017;7:7334-46.
    Lindberg MS, Sedinger JS. Ecological consequences of nest site fidelity in Black Brant. Condor. 1997;99:25-38.
    López BC, Potrony D, López A, Badosa E, Bonada A, Salo R. Nest box use by boreal owls (Aegolius funereus) in the Pyrenees mountains in Spain. J Raptor Res. 2010;44:40-9.
    Mainwaring MC, Hartley IR, Lambrechts MM, Deeming DC. The design and function of birds' nest. Ecol Evol. 2014;4:3909-28.
    Martin TE. Processes organizing open-nesting bird assemblages: competition or nest predation? Evol Ecol. 1988;2:37-50.
    Marzluff JM. Do pinyon jays alter nest placement based on prior experience? Anim Behav. 1988;36:1-10.
    Mazgajski TD. Nest site choice in relation to the presence of old nests and cavity depth in the starling Sturnus vulgaris. Ethol Ecol Evol. 2003;15:273-81.
    Mazgajski TD. Effect of old nest material on nest site selection and breeding parameters in secondary hole nesters—a review. Acta Ornithol. 2007;42:1-14.
    Negro JJ, Hiraldo F. Nest-site selection and breeding success in the lesser kestrel Falco naumanni. Bird Study. 1993;40:115-9.
    Nilsson SG, Johnsson K, Tjernberg M. Is avoidance by black woodpeckers of old nest holes due to predators? Anim Behav. 1991;8:439-41.
    Olsson K, Allander K. Do fleas and/or old nest material, influence nest site preference in hole-nesting passerines? Ethology. 1995;101:160-70.
    Ondrušová K, Adamík P. Characterizing the mammalian hair present in great tit (Parus major) nests. Bird Study. 2013;60:428-31.
    Orell M, Rytkönen S, Ilomäki K. Do pied flycatchers prefer nest boxes with old nest material? Ann Zool Fenn. 1993;30:313-6.
    Orians GH, Wittenberger JF. Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. Am Nat. 1991;137:S29-49.
    Parejo D, Danchin E, Silva N, White JF, Dreiss AN, Avilés JM. Do great tits rely on inadvertent social information from blue tits? A habitat selection experiment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2008;62:1569-79.
    Pärt T, Doligez B. Gathering public information for habitat selection: prospecting birds cue on parental activity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;270:1809-13.
    Podofillini S, Cecere JG, Griggio M, Curcio A, De Capua EL, Fulco E, et al. Home, dirty home: effect of old nest material on nest-site selection and breeding performance in a cavity-nesting raptor. Curr Zool. 2018;64:693-702.
    Proctor H, Owens I. Mites and birds: diversity, parasitism and coevolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000;15:358-64.
    Pyle P, Sydeman WJ, Hester M. Effects of age, breeding experience, mate fidelity and site fidelity on breeding performance in a declining population of Cassin's auklets. J Anim Ecol. 2001;70:1088-97.
    Reitsma LA, Holmes RT, Sherly TW. Effects of removal of red squirrels, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, and eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus, on nest predation in a northern hardwood forest: an artificial nest experiment. Oikos. 1990;57:375-80.
    Rendell WB, Verbeek NA. Old nest material in nest boxes of tree swallows: effects on nest-site choice and nest building. Auk. 1996;113:319-28.
    Ruth JM, Skagen SK. Territory and nest site selection patterns by Grasshopper Sparrows in southeastern Arizona. Condor. 2017;119:469-83.
    Saino N, Calza S, Møller AP. Effects of a dipteran ectoparasite on immune response and growth trade-offs in Barn Swallow, Hirundo rustica, nestlings. Oikos. 1998;81:217-28.
    Serrano D, Tella JL, Forero MG, Donázar JA. Factors affecting breeding dispersal in the facultatively colonial lesser kestrel: individual experience vs conspecific cues. J Anim Ecol. 2001;70:568-78.
    Serrano D, Tella JL, Donázar JA, Pomarol M. Social and individual features affecting natal dispersal in the colonial lesser kestrel. Ecology. 2003;84:3044-54.
    Sorace A, Petrassi F, Consiglio C. Long-distance relocation of nestboxes reduces nest predation by Pine Marten Martes martes. Bird Study. 2004;51:119-24.
    Stanback MT, Dervan AA. Within-season nestsite fidelity in Eastern Bluebirds: disentangling effects of nest success and parasite avoidance. Auk. 2001;118:743-5.
    Stanback MT, Rockwell EK. Nest-site fidelity in Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis) depends on the quality of alternate cavities. Auk. 2003;120:1029-32.
    Styrsky JN. Influence of predation on nest-site reuse by an open-cup nesting neotropical passerine. Condor. 2005;107:133-7.
    Sumasgutner P, Vasko V, Varjonen R, Korpimaki E. Public information revealed by pellets in nest sites is more important than ectoparasite avoidance in the settlement decisions of Eurasian Kestrels. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014;68:2023-34.
    Switzer PV. Site fidelity in predictable and unpredictable habitats. Evol Ecol. 1993;7:533-55.
    Switzer PV. Past reproductive success affects future habitat selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1997;40:307-12.
    Tomás G, Merino S, Moreno J, Morales J. Consequences of nest reuse for parasite burden and female health and condition in blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus. Anim Behav. 2007;73:805-14.
    Vergara P, Aguirre JI, Fargallo JA, Davila JA. Nest-site fidelity and breeding success in White Stork Ciconia ciconia. Ibis. 2006;148:672-7.
    Wesolowski T. Anti-predator adaptations in nesting marsh tits Parus palustris: the role of nest-site security. Ibis. 2002;144:593-601.
    Wiens JA. Population responses to patchy environment. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1976;7:81-120.
    Zhou T, Wang HT, Liu Y, Lei FM, Gao W. Patterns of magpie nest utilization by a nesting raptor community in a secondary forest. Prog Nat Sci. 2009;19:1253-9.
    • Related Articles

  • Related Articles

    Tihana Hamzaj, Brendan Graham, Katherine Bonilla, Ignacio Gutiérrez, Luis Sandoval. 2022: Intruder familiarity and not duet similarity influences the territory defense in a year-round territorial bird species. Avian Research, 13(1): 100032. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2022.100032
    Dilshod Akhrorov, Tianlong Cai, Gang Song, Ping Fan, Ahunim Fenitie Abebe, Peng He, Fumin Lei. 2022: Ecological constraints on elevational gradients of bird species richness in Tajikistan. Avian Research, 13(1): 100026. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2022.100026
    Tingting Yi, Yue-Hua Sun, Wei Liang. 2020: Potential cuckoo hosts have similar egg rejection rates to parasitized host species. Avian Research, 11(1): 34. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00220-x
    Cecilia Odette Carral-Murrieta, Michelle García-Arroyo, Oscar H. Marín-Gómez, J. Roberto Sosa-López, Ian MacGregor-Fors. 2020: Noisy environments: untangling the role of anthropogenic noise on bird species richness in a Neotropical city. Avian Research, 11(1): 32. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00218-5
    Chenxia Liang, Jun Liu, Bin Pan, Na Wang, Jie Yang, Guisheng Yang, Gang Feng. 2020: Precipitation is the dominant driver for bird species richness, phylogenetic and functional structure in university campuses in northern China. Avian Research, 11(1): 26. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00212-x
    Yan Zhou, Anping Chen, Jenny Q. Ouyang, Yanlin Liu, Aiyu Zheng, Zaixi Yang, Yong Zhang, Bin Wang, Yifei Jia, Shengwu Jiao, Qing Zeng, Changhu Lu. 2020: Comparing community birdwatching and professional bird monitoring with implications for avian diversity research: a case study of Suzhou, China. Avian Research, 11(1): 19. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00205-w
    Bei An, Lixun Zhang, Yutao Wang, Sen Song. 2020: Comparative phylogeography of two sister species of snowcock: impacts of species-specific altitude preference and life history. Avian Research, 11(1): 1. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0187-0
    Kang Luo, Zhaolu Wu, Haotian Bai, Zijiang Wang. 2019: Bird diversity and waterbird habitat preferences in relation to wetland restoration at Dianchi Lake, south-west China. Avian Research, 10(1): 21. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0162-9
    Xingcheng He, Xiaoyi Wang, Shane DuBay, Andrew Hart Reeve, Per Alström, Jianghong Ran, Qiao Liu, Yongjie Wu. 2019: Elevational patterns of bird species richness on the eastern slope of Mt. Gongga, Sichuan Province, China. Avian Research, 10(1): 1. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0140-7
    Jin-Ming Zhao, Li-Zhi Zhou. 2018: Area, isolation, disturbance and age effects on species richness of summer waterbirds in post-mining subsidence lakes, Anhui, China. Avian Research, 9(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0101-1

Catalog

    Figures(1)  /  Tables(2)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article has an altmetric score of 5
    Article has an altmetric score of 5
    Article views (232) PDF downloads (10) Cited by()
    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd.   Technical support: info@rhhz.net

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return