Nests are a critically important factor in determining the breeding success of many species of birds. Nevertheless, we have surprisingly little understanding of how the local environment helps determine the materials used in nest construction, how this differs among related species using similar nest sites, or if materials used directly or indirectly influence the numbers of offspring successfully reared. We also have little understanding of any potential links between nest construction and the assemblage of invertebrates which inhabit nests, in particular, ectoparasites. We addressed these questions by monitoring the success rates of Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus and Great Tits Parus major, using nest boxes in rural, urban greenspace and urban garden settings. We collected used nests, identified the arthropods present, and measured the proportions of highly processed anthropogenic materials used in nest construction. Twenty-five percent of Great Tit nest materials were of anthropogenic origin and this was consistent across habitats, while Blue Tits used little (1-2%) anthropogenic material except in gardens (*16%), suggesting that Great Tits preferentially sought out these materials. In fledged nests, an increasing use of anthropogenic material was associated with a lower general arthropod diversity and ectoparasite predator abundance (Blue Tits only), but higher levels of Siphonaptera (fleas).Higher arthropod diversity was associated with lower flea numbers, suggesting that increased diversity played a role in limiting flea numbers. No direct link was found between breeding success and either anthropogenic material usage or arthropod diversity and abundance. However, breeding success declined with increasing urbanisation in both species and increased with nest weight in Blue Tits. The interplay between urbanisation and bird ecology is complex; our work shows that subtle anthropogenic influences may have indirect and unexpected consequences for urban birds.

In countries such as the UK, USA and Australia, approximately half of all households provide supplementary food for wild birds, making this the public's most common form of active engagement with nature. Year‐round supplementary feeding is currently encouraged by major conservation charities in the UK as it is thought to be of benefit to bird conservation. However, little is understood about how the provision of supplementary food affects the behaviour and ecology of target and non‐target species. Given the scale of supplementary feeding, any negative effects may have important implications for conservation. Potential nest predators are abundant in urban areas and some species frequently visit supplementary feeding stations. We assess whether providing supplementary food affects the likelihood of nest predation in the vicinity of the feeder, by acting as a point attractant for potential nest predators. We provided feeding stations (empty, peanut feeder, peanut feeder with guard to exclude potential nest predators) in an area of suburban parkland in the UK and monitored the predation rate of eggs placed in artificial nests located at distances that replicated the size of typical suburban gardens. Nest predators (Magpies Pica pica, Grey Squirrels Sciurus carolinensis) were frequent visitors to filled feeders, and predation caused by Magpies, European Jays Garrulus glandarius and Grey Squirrels was significantly higher when nests were adjacent to filled feeders. The presence of a feeder guard did not significantly reduce nest predation. As supplementary feeding is becoming increasingly common during the breeding season in suburban habitats, we suggest that providing point attractants to nest predators at this time may have previously unconsidered consequences for the breeding success of urban birds.

No abstract

Providing food for wild birds is perhaps the most widespread intentional interaction between people and wildlife. In the UK, almost half of households feed wild birds, often as peanuts and seed supplied in hanging feeders. Such food is also taken by the introduced, invasive Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis. Little is known of how Grey Squirrels utilise this resource and how they affect feeder use by wild birds. To assess this we recorded the numbers and time spent by animals visiting experimental feeding stations in suburban gardens, and also asked if exclusionary guards (to prevent Grey Squirrel access), food type (peanut, mixed seed), habitat and weather conditions influenced visits. Using automated cameras, we recorded 24825 bird and 8577 Grey Squirrel visits. On average >44% of the time feeders were utilised, they were being visited by Grey Squirrels. Grey Squirrel presence prevented birds from feeding at the same time (>99.99%). Feeders where Grey Squirrels were dominant were less likely to be visited by birds, even in their absence. Guards reduced Grey Squirrel use to a minimum on seed feeders, and by approximately half on peanut feeders. Squirrels, food type, guard status, habitat and rainfall all influenced bird activity and timing of feeder visits. Our work suggests that Grey Squirrels reduce the availability of supplementary food to wild birds, while gaining large volumes of food resources with corresponding benefits. Given the ubiquity of supplementary feeding, it is likely that this is an important resource for urban Grey Squirrels; feeder guards mitigate this effect.

No abstract