Effects of nest-box density on the behavior of Tree Swallows during nest building

AbstractEIBL-EIBESFELDT (1961) and THORPE (1963) have suggested that nest-building in various species is reinforced by stimuli associated with the acquisition of a finished nest. HINDE & STEVENSON (1969, 1970) have proposed, by contrast, that individual nest building activities may persist and act as reinforcers regardless of whether or not they lead to nest formation. Evidence for these views is discussed. Five experiments designed to test HINDE and STEVENSON'S view arc described. In Experiments I and 2, naive female mice were given access to hoppers of paper strips for 14 days. Carrying of strips into the nest box declined rapidly to zero as the nests reached completion, but gathering of strips from the hoppers continued at the original level. It is concluded that carrying and subsequent events associated with nest acquisition are not necessary for the initiation and maintenance of gathering. In Experiments 3 and 4, access to paper strips was made contingent upon performance of an arbitrary operant (key pressing). The majority of subjects continued to key press and gather paper after the cessation of carrying, but at a reduced level. Furthermore, key pressing to gather only occurred if the operant-reinforcer distance was very small. It is concluded that gathering per se is less reinforcing than gathering plus carrying and building. In Experiment 5, amount of gathering per reinforcement was varied by using different widths of paper. Number of reinforcements per session was positively related to paper width, providing further evidence that gathering is reinforcing. It is concluded that gathering is at least to some extent autonomously controlled, and that it is a weak positive reinforcer. However the results also suggest that other reinforcing events are present at a later stage in the nest building sequence. Some theories concerning the causation of selfsustaining activities, and their implications for unitary drive theories, are discussed.

Download Full-text

Double Broods of Tree Swallows in One Nest Box

Blue Jay ◽

10.29173/bluejay4352 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 40 (4) ◽

Author(s):

D. Stiles ◽

C. Neill

Keyword(s):

Tree Swallows ◽

Nest Box

Download Full-text

Attempted Nest Building in Aeroplanes by Tree Swallows

Blue Jay ◽

10.29173/bluejay3918 ◽

1970 ◽

Vol 31 (2) ◽

Author(s):

E.O. Hohn

Keyword(s):

Nest Building ◽

Tree Swallows

Download Full-text

Nonideal nest box selection by tree swallows breeding in farmlands: Evidence for an ecological trap?

Ecology and Evolution ◽

10.1002/ece3.8323 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ève Courtois ◽

Dany Garant ◽

Fanie Pelletier ◽

Marc Bélisle

Keyword(s):

Ecological Trap ◽

Tree Swallows ◽

Nest Box

Download Full-text

Effects of urbanization and nest box design on reproduction vary by species in three cavity-nesting passerines in the Okanagan Valley

Canadian Journal of Zoology ◽

10.1139/cjz-2020-0028 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Catherine Dale ◽

Matthew W Reudink ◽

Laurene M Ratcliffe ◽

Ann E McKellar

Keyword(s):

Tree Swallows ◽

Artificial Nest ◽

Nest Box ◽

Nest Boxes ◽

Cavity Nesting ◽

Conservation Actions ◽

Western Bluebirds ◽

Mountain Bluebirds ◽

Artificial Nest Boxes ◽

Okanagan Valley

Artificial nest boxes provide an important resource for secondary cavity-nesting passerines, whose populations may be limited by the availability of nesting sites. However, previous studies have demonstrated that the design and placement of boxes may affect the reproductive success of the birds that use them. In this study, we asked whether the habitat surrounding a nest box or the type of box influenced reproduction in three cavity-nesting passerines. We studied western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana Swainson, 1832), mountain bluebirds (S. currucoides Bechstein, 1798), and tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor Vieillot, 1808) breeding in artificial nest boxes at sites across 70 km of the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, Canada. Sites varied in their degree of urbanization, from relatively undisturbed ranchland, to cultivated vineyards, to frequently disturbed ‘suburban’ habitat, and boxes varied in type of entrance (slot or hole). Western bluebirds nested earlier in vineyards, and tree swallows produced significantly fewer fledglings in suburban habitat. In addition, tree swallows nested earlier and produced more fledglings in slot boxes. Our results suggest that conservation actions for cavity-nesting passerines may depend on the target species, which in turn should dictate the appropriate box type and habitat when erecting or replacing nest boxes.

Download Full-text

Spatiotemporal Patterns in Nest Box Occupancy by Tree Swallows Across North America

Avian Conservation and Ecology ◽

10.5751/ace-00517-070103 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Dave Shutler ◽

David J. T. Hussell ◽

D. R. Norris ◽

David W. Winkler ◽

Raleigh J. Robertson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

North America ◽

Spatiotemporal Patterns ◽

Tree Swallows ◽

Nest Box

Download Full-text

Neural Circuits Underlying Nest Building in Male Zebra Finches

Integrative and Comparative Biology ◽

10.1093/icb/icaa108 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 60 (4) ◽

pp. 943-954 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sophie C Edwards ◽

Zachary J Hall ◽

Eira Ihalainen ◽

Valerie R Bishop ◽

Elisa T Nicklas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Behavior ◽

Nest Building ◽

Lateral Septum ◽

Early Gene ◽

Zebra Finches ◽

Nest Material ◽

Motor Pathway ◽

Nest Box ◽

The Social ◽

Behavior Network

Abstract Nest building consists of a series of motor actions, which are concomitant with activity in regions of the anterior motor pathway, the social behavior network, and the reward circuity in nest building adult male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). It is not clear, however, whether this activity is due to nest building, collection, and/or manipulation of nest material. To identify which areas of the brain are specifically involved, we used immunohistochemistry to quantify the immediate early gene c-Fos in male zebra finches that were nest building (Building), birds given a nest box but could interact only with tied down nest material (Fixed), and birds that were not given a nest box or nest material (Control). We investigated the following brain regions: the anterior motor pathway (anterior ventral mesopallium [AMV], AN, anterior striatum [ASt]), areas of the social behavior network (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, dorsomedial subdivision [BSTmd], lateral septum [LS]), the dopaminergic reward circuitry (ventral tegmental area), and the cerebellum. We found that there was greater Fos immunoreactivity expression in the BSTmd, LS, and AMV with increased material deposition; in LS, AMV ASt, and Folium VI with increased material carrying; in LS, AMV, and ASt with increased nest material tucking; and in LS and all folia (except Folium VIII) with increased tugging at tied down material. These data confirm a functional role for areas of the anterior motor pathway, social behavior network, and the cerebellum in nest material collection and manipulation by birds.

Download Full-text

Nest-Building Behavior in PCB-Contaminated Tree Swallows

The Auk ◽

10.2307/4089453 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 116 (1) ◽

pp. 55-63 ◽

Cited By ~ 51

Author(s):

John P. McCarty

Keyword(s):

Nest Building ◽

Tree Swallows ◽

Building Behavior

Download Full-text

Cooperative nest building in wild jackdaw pairs

10.1101/2020.12.15.422933 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Luca G. Hahn ◽

Rebecca Hooper ◽

Guillam E. McIvor ◽

Alex Thornton

Keyword(s):

Reproductive Success ◽

Division Of Labour ◽

Nest Building ◽

Evolution Of Cooperation ◽

Moderate Degree ◽

Nest Box ◽

Cooperative Strategies ◽

Monogamous Species ◽

Lay Date

Animals create diverse structures, both individually and cooperatively, using materials from their environment. One striking example are the nests birds build for reproduction, which protect the offspring from external stressors such as predators and temperature, promoting reproductive success. To construct a nest successfully, birds need to make various decisions, for example regarding the nest material and their time budgets. To date, research has focused mainly on species where one sex is primarily responsible for building the nest. In contrast, the cooperative strategies of monogamous species in which both sexes contribute to nest building are poorly understood. Here we investigated the role of both sexes in nest building and fitness correlates of behaviour in wild, monogamous jackdaw pairs (Corvus monedula). We show that both partners contributed to nest building and behaved similarly, with females and males present in the nest box for a comparable duration and transporting material to the nest equally often. However, while females spent more time constructing the nest, males tended to invest more time in vigilance, potentially as a means of coping with competition for nest cavities. These findings suggest a moderate degree of division of labour, which may facilitate cooperation. Moreover, some aspects of behaviour were related to proxies of reproductive success (lay date and egg volume). Females that contributed relatively more to bringing material laid earlier clutches and pairs that spent less time together in the nest box had larger eggs. Thus, selection pressures may act on how nest building pairs spend their time and cooperatively divide the labour. We conclude that cooperative nest building in birds could be associated with monogamy and obligate biparental care, and provides a vital but relatively untapped context through which to study the evolution of cooperation.

Download Full-text

The effect of straw on farrowing site choice and nest building behaviour in sows

Animal Science ◽

10.1017/s000335610002064x ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 54 (1) ◽

pp. 129-133 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

D. S. Arey ◽

A. M. Petchey ◽

V. R. Fowler

Keyword(s):

Nest Building ◽

Important Influence ◽

Nest Material ◽

Significant Preference ◽

Nest Box ◽

Nesting Behaviour ◽

Group 2 ◽

Building Behaviour ◽

Group 1

AbstractFarrowing site choice was examined in 40 sows. In group 1, the preference of 16 sows was tested for pre-formed lying areas which incorporated the characteristics of previously observed farrowing nests: a hollow (H), a mattress (M), a nest box (B) and a flat control (C). None of the sows farrowed on C which indicated that choice was based on some evaluation of the lying surface. However, there was no significant preference for the three nest features: H6, M6, B 4. In group 2, C was replaced by a straw area (S). Four different amounts of straw were offered: 18, 9, 4·5 and 2·25 kg with four, four, eight, eight sows on trial at each amount respectively. All the sows farrowed on S at the 18, 9 and 4·5 levels; at 2·25 kg, three farrowed on S and five moved the straw to other lying areas on which they farrowed. The results indicated that the location of nest material has an important influence on farrowing site choice because it allows the performance of nesting behaviour. Although performance of the behaviour was not affected by the amount of straw available, 2·25 kg appeared to be inadequate for a satisfactory nest.

Download Full-text