Great Tits Build Shallower Nests than Blue Tits in an Insular Oak-Dominated Habitat Mosaic

Abstract

Longitudinal multi-plot studies of nest architecture in non-domesticated birds are rare. Here we report the results of an 18-year multi-plot study that compared heights of fresh female-built nests in Corsican Great Tits (Parus major) and Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus ogliastrae). Boxes with relatively small nest-chambers were erected in a landscape with habitat patches that were either dominated by food-rich broad-leaved deciduous oaks (Quercus humilis) or food-poor evergreen oaks (Quercus ilex). Nest height tended to change with oak habitat type in a species-specific manner. Great Tits built shallower nests than Blue Tits supporting the published findings from other geographic regions (Poland, UK, southern mainland France). Potential impacts of local climate factors and risks related to nest predation on the species-specific expression of the size of nests are discussed.

Use of anthropogenic material affects bird nest arthropod community structure: influence of urbanisation, and consequences for ectoparasites and fledging success

“…This concurs with a number of previous nest box studies, though not all (Lambrechts et al 2016b), and may be linked to adult quality (Alvarez et al 2013;Gladalski et al 2016;Lambrechts et al 2016a). Such differences in turn may be linked to differences in nesting behaviour and reproductive output between these species, as Blue Tits typically build proportionally heavier nests and have a higher average reproductive output per breeding attempt than the larger Great Tit (Lambrechts et al 2014(Lambrechts et al , 2015Gladalski et al 2016).…”

“…Nevertheless, in urban areas nest boxes may be the main nesting cavities available to Great and Blue Tits (Davies et al 2009). Given the different responses detected in this study and by others of these two related species, it is important to consider that different bird species may respond differently to similar pressures (Lambrechts et al 2015;Gladalski et al 2016), so we must be mindful of drawing broad conclusions from single-species studies (Reynolds et al 2016;Vaugoyeau et al 2016). Due to the relatively poor breeding season during our fieldwork, sample numbers were lower than anticipated, which reduced the statistical power of our study.…”

Exploring Biotic and Abiotic Determinants of Nest Size in Mediterranean Great Tits (Parus major) and Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus)

“…Lambrechts et al. , ) and considered the fixed effects of species (great tit vs. blue tit), region (mainland southern France vs. Corsica), oak‐habitat type ( Q. pubescens vs. Q. ilex ), reproductive stage (before vs. during egg‐laying), the average weather during the week preceding the nest measurement (average ambient temperature, rainfall), the date when the first egg was laid (lay‐date in Julian dates), the size of the incubated clutch and female age (yearling vs. older). Nest‐box identity (n = 654), year (1997–2014), female identity (n = 1878) and study site (n = 15) were considered as random factors.…”

“…Lambrechts et al. (, ) also argued that different cavity‐nesting species perceive the nest‐chamber environment in species‐specific ways which may explain why in small standardized nest‐chambers, larger great tits built significantly smaller nests than smaller blue tits. However, few field studies have investigated the relative simultaneous contribution of different environmental factors in the expression of nest size while controlling for phenotypic characteristics of the nest builders.…”

“…Based on the literature and the background information available for this study system (see above) that guided our statistical analyses, we examined the following possible associations: (1) Although former studies in local Mediterranean study plots found that great tits build smaller nests than blue tits (Lambrechts et al. , ), these studies did not examine whether these interspecific differences remained significant after controlling for abiotic factors related to region or weather. Following the arguments developed in Lambrechts et al.…”