SPATIAL VARIATION IN NEST-SITE SELECTION BY A SECONDARY CAVITY-NESTING BIRD IN A HUMAN-ALTERED LANDSCAPE

The Condor ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 615-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
CINTIA CORNELIUS
2021 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 167-178
Author(s):  
Jennifer Morinay ◽  
Federico De Pascalis ◽  
Davide M. Dominoni ◽  
Michelangelo Morganti ◽  
Francesco Pezzo ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 373 (1746) ◽  
pp. 20170010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeleine Beekman ◽  
Benjamin P. Oldroyd

During reproductive swarming, a honeybee swarm needs to decide on a new nest site and then move to the chosen site collectively. Most studies of swarming and nest-site selection are based on one species, Apis mellifera . Natural colonies of A. mellifera live in tree cavities. The quality of the cavity is critical to the survival of a swarm. Other honeybee species nest in the open, and have less strict nest-site requirements, such as the open-nesting dwarf honeybee Apis florea . Apis florea builds a nest comprised of a single comb suspended from a twig. For a cavity-nesting species, there is only a limited number of potential nest sites that can be located by a swarm, because suitable sites are scarce. By contrast, for an open-nesting species, there is an abundance of equally suitable twigs. While the decision-making process of cavity-nesting bees is geared towards selecting the best site possible, open-nesting species need to coordinate collective movement towards areas with potential nest sites. Here, we argue that the nest-site selection processes of A. florea and A. mellifera have been shaped by each species' specific nest-site requirements. Both species use the same behavioural algorithm, tuned to allow each species to solve their species-specific problem. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Collective movement ecology’.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingju E ◽  
Tuo Wang ◽  
Shangyu Wang ◽  
Ye Gong ◽  
Jiangping Yu ◽  
...  

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.


The Condor ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary K. Chase

Abstract I tested the hypothesis that individual Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia) choose nesting microhabitat that reduces their risk of nest predation, using two years of data (n = 196 nests) from two adjacent sites in California coastal scrub, one grazed and one ungrazed. Nesting habitat was compared between nest patches and random locations, and between successful and unsuccessful nests. In both sites, nest patch habitat differed significantly in structure and plant species composition from habitat available within territories. However, of six habitat characteristics associated with nest patch choice, only two were related to nest success, and that relationship differed between the two study sites. Only in the grazed site was the amount of coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) in the nest patch positively associated with both nest site selection and nest success. In contrast, coyote bush was unrelated to nest site choice and had a nonlinear relationship with nest success in the ungrazed site, such that nests surrounded by intermediate amounts of coyote bush had the lowest probability of success. In the grazed site, nests surrounded by intermediate amounts of rushes (Juncus spp.) were also less successful. Nests built in larger, discrete patches of vegetation were more successful in the ungrazed site, but not in the grazed site. Although the sites differed greatly in the amount of preferred nest microhabitat available, there was no difference between the sites in the overall rate of nest success (23–32%). I suggest that spatial variation in the relationship between nest habitat and nest outcome may favor flexible nest-site preferences in this population. Selección de Sitios de Nidificación y Éxito de los Nidos en una Población de Melospiza melodia: La Importancia de la Variación Espacial Resumen. Evalué la hipótesis que dice que los individuos de Melospiza melodia eligen nidificar en microhábitats que reducen el riesgo de depredación de los nidos. Utilicé datos de dos años (n = 196 nidos) provenientes de dos sitios adyacentes, uno pastoreado y otro sin pastoreo, ubicados en matorral costero de California. El hábitat de nidificación fue comparado entre parches con nidos y localidades aleatorias, y entre nidos exitosos y no exitosos. En ambos sitios el hábitat de los parches con nidos fue significativamente diferente en la estructura y composición de especies de plantas comparado con el hábitat disponible dentro de los territorios. Sin embargo, de seis características de hábitat asociadas con la elección del parche de nidificación, sólo dos estuvieron relacionadas con el éxito de los nidos, y esta relación difirió entre los sitios estudiados. Sólo en los sitios con pastoreo hubo una asociación positiva entre la cantidad de matas de Baccharis pilularis en los parches y la selección de sitios para nidificar y el éxito de los nidos. En contraste, B. pilularis no se relacionó con la selección del lugar de nidificación en sitios no pastoreados, y tuvo una relación no lineal con el éxito reproductivo, de modo que los nidos rodeados por cantidades intermedias de B. pilularis presentaron la menor probabilidad de éxito. En los sitios pastoreados, los nidos rodeados por cantidades intermedias de Juncus spp. también fueron los menos exitosos. En sitios sin pastoreo, los nidos construidos en parches de vegetación grandes y discretos fueron los más exitosos, pero esto no ocurrió en sitios pastoreados. Aunque los sitios fueron sumamente distintos en relación a la cantidad disponible de microhábitat preferido para nidificar, no presentaron diferencias en la tasa general de éxito de los nidos (23–32%). Sugiero que la variación espacial en la relación entre el hábitat y el éxito de los nidos puede favorecer la flexibilidad en la preferencia de sitios de nidificación en esta población.


2009 ◽  
Vol 257 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria A. Saab ◽  
Robin E. Russell ◽  
Jonathan G. Dudley

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Podofillini ◽  
Jacopo G Cecere ◽  
Matteo Griggio ◽  
Andrea Curcio ◽  
Enrico L De Capua ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Schaale ◽  
◽  
Joseph Baxley ◽  
Narcisa Pricope ◽  
Raymond M. Danner

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. e01524
Author(s):  
Karim Loucif ◽  
Mohamed Cherif Maazi ◽  
Moussa Houhamdi ◽  
Haroun Chenchouni

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document