artificial nest boxes
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

22
(FIVE YEARS 6)

H-INDEX

5
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-138
Author(s):  
Olena Yarys ◽  
Angela Chaplygina ◽  
Roman Kratenko

Abstract The paper describes investigations on the reproduction biology (nesting, clutching, hatching, fledglings` departure) of the Common Redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus) in artificial nest boxes (AN) in Northeastern Ukraine. There were three sites of research: Hetman NNP, NPP “Gomilshansky Forests”, and RLP “Feldman Ecopark”. The research was performed during the nesting period from the first week of April to the first week of July in 2015‒2020. Annually, 5‒8 bird counts were conducted at each site. The first complete egg clutches at Hetman NNP were observed from 08.05 to 17.05 (2015‒2020) and at NPP “Gomilshansky Forests” from 02.05 to28.05 (2017‒2020). Dates of the first egg laying, at various conditions, had inter-annual variability because of unstable weather conditions in May. The average parameters of nests in AN at Hetman NNP were the following: diameter of nests (D) ‒ 124.1±6.3 mm; diameter of trays (d) ‒ 61.5±1.7 mm; nest height (H) ‒ 63.5±9.4 mm; depth of trays (h) ‒ 48.6±2.7 mm; nest mass (m) ‒ 43.7±3.8 mm. The size of complete clutches in Northeastern Ukraine was calculated when eggs were incubated. According to the average indicators, during 2015‒2020, the average size of the clutch was 6.9±0.3 (5‒8) eggs at Hetman NNP, 6.2±0.4 (6‒8) eggs at NPP “Gomilshansky Forests” and 8.5±0.5 (8‒9) eggs at RLP “Feldman Ecopark”. Incubation period of Ph. phoenicurus lasted on average for 15‒20 days.


Author(s):  
Catherine Dale ◽  
Matthew W Reudink ◽  
Laurene M Ratcliffe ◽  
Ann E McKellar

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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Fischer ◽  
J Chambon ◽  
I Debski ◽  
JA Hiscock ◽  
R Cole ◽  
...  

© The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Inc. The tendency of various species, including many Procellariiformes, to breed in sub-terrestrial burrows, complicates breeding biology studies. Artificial nest boxes facilitate detailed data collection, but may alter the buffering capacity of natural burrows, especially when these nests are exposed to direct sunlight (e.g., in non-forested habitats). We tested the buffering capacity of artificial nest boxes, equipped with additional insulating features, ex-situ in a non-forested sand dune in New Zealand. Specifically, we compared daily temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) means, minima, and maxima between artificial nest boxes, Procellariiform burrow replicas, and ambient conditions sourced further inland using linear mixed effects models (LMMs), followed by post-hoc tests. Differences between artificial nest boxes and replicas were non-significant (P > 0.05). Our results thus showed that the applied insulating features were sufficient to retain the buffering capacities expected in natural burrows, even in exposed habitats such as sand dunes. Hence, we encourage the use of insulated artificial nest boxes in breeding biology studies targeting burrowing Procellariiformes (and other sub-terrestrially breeding species) in non-forested areas.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Fischer ◽  
J Chambon ◽  
I Debski ◽  
JA Hiscock ◽  
R Cole ◽  
...  

© The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Inc. The tendency of various species, including many Procellariiformes, to breed in sub-terrestrial burrows, complicates breeding biology studies. Artificial nest boxes facilitate detailed data collection, but may alter the buffering capacity of natural burrows, especially when these nests are exposed to direct sunlight (e.g., in non-forested habitats). We tested the buffering capacity of artificial nest boxes, equipped with additional insulating features, ex-situ in a non-forested sand dune in New Zealand. Specifically, we compared daily temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) means, minima, and maxima between artificial nest boxes, Procellariiform burrow replicas, and ambient conditions sourced further inland using linear mixed effects models (LMMs), followed by post-hoc tests. Differences between artificial nest boxes and replicas were non-significant (P > 0.05). Our results thus showed that the applied insulating features were sufficient to retain the buffering capacities expected in natural burrows, even in exposed habitats such as sand dunes. Hence, we encourage the use of insulated artificial nest boxes in breeding biology studies targeting burrowing Procellariiformes (and other sub-terrestrially breeding species) in non-forested areas.


2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren S. Le Roux ◽  
Karen Ikin ◽  
David B. Lindenmayer ◽  
Gideon Bistricer ◽  
Adrian D. Manning ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
张雷 ZHANG Lei ◽  
李东来 LI Donglai ◽  
马锐强 MA Ruiqiang ◽  
奚长海 XI Changhai ◽  
万冬梅 WAN Dongmei

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 711-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diatpain Warakai ◽  
Daniel Solomon Okena ◽  
Paul Igag ◽  
Muse Opiang ◽  
Andrew L. Mack

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document