Nest Boxes Facilitate Local-Scale Conservation of Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) in Alberta, Canada

Corrigan, Robert M.; Scrimgeour, Garry J.; Paszkowski, Cynthia A.

doi:10.5751/ace-00435-060101

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). This corresponds with a long‐term study of nest box uptake for a tree‐nesting species (Corrigan et al ) suggesting that although initial uptake of nest boxes may be high, peak uptake for many species could take several years and may be underestimated in shorter studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Evaluation of artificial nest sites for long-term conservation of a burrow-nesting seabird

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The persistence of many cavity‐nesting animals is threatened by habitat modification and a shortage of suitable breeding sites. Consequently, provision of alternative breeding sites is a frequently applied short‐ to medium‐term conservation action. However, the effectiveness of provisioning for breeding success and persistence of breeding animals is rarely considered and could lead populations into an ecological trap. We evaluated the effectiveness of providing nest boxes for little penguins (Eudyptula minor) compared with natural nests over 25 years. We assessed nest‐box adoption and occupancy rates, compared breeding success (i.e., hatching and fledging success) and indices of productivity (i.e., observed brood size, total fledged chick mass, and the number of clutch initiations) with nest survival models and log‐linear mixed effects models, and compared long‐term residency patterns with Link–Barker mark‐recapture models between artificial and natural nests. Little penguins readily adopted nest boxes and breeding attempts were recorded in about 92% of nest boxes installed for 7 or more years. Breeding productivity from 6,081 monitored clutches varied by year and was similar across nest types in most years, but in poor breeding seasons nest boxes performed better. Survival rates to hatching and fledging averaged 7.6% and 8.6% greater in nest boxes, respectively. Similarly, the average total observed mass of chicks produced per clutch was 11% heavier in nest boxes. Annual site fidelity of 2,331 breeding penguins was similar in areas with nest boxes and areas with natural burrows, despite an average of 35% of natural burrows collapsing each year. Nest‐box provisioning for little penguins overcomes local nest‐site limitation, improves breeding success, and can result in local population increases, so is not indicative of an ecological trap. However, a self‐sustaining local population in the long term will require management strategies that address the underlying processes inhibiting population recovery and assist the transition from artificial nest sites back to natural nest sites. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Evaluation of artificial nest sites for long-term conservation of a burrow-nesting seabird

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goldingay et al 2015) which may also influence long-term functionality. Long-term studies of nest boxes conducted overseas (Adam ık & Kr al 2008;Goodenough et al 2008;Corrigan et al 2011;Sch€ olin & K€ allander 2011;Shutler et al 2012;Hipkiss et al 2013;Burgess 2014;Lambrechts et al 2016) provided no details on the method of attaching nest boxes to trees. However, this is a topic that requires further research.…”

Section: Factors Influencing Whether a Nest Box Was Functionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nest box programmes for birds have been in place for decades around the world. Some, involving 80-150 nest boxes, have been monitored for 41-64 years in Sweden, North America and England (Sch€ olin & K€ allander 2011;Shutler et al 2012;Burgess 2014), while others involving >200 boxes have been monitored for 15-30 years in Canada, England, Sweden and France (Robertson & Rendell 2001;Goodenough et al 2008;Corrigan et al 2011;Hipkiss et al 2013;Lambrechts et al 2016). Some long-term studies involving nonflying mammals have included 90-200 boxes monitored over 18-25 years (Adam ık & Kr al 2008;Williams et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most long-term studies provide scant detail of the management that may have been applied to the nest boxes. Nest boxes 'were replaced successively as needed' (Sch€ olin & K€ allander 2011), were 'repaired, replaced' if required (Hipkiss et al 2013) or were maintained by volunteers (Goodenough et al 2008;Corrigan et al 2011;Lambrechts et al 2016). Some stated that old nests were removed from each box at the conclusion of the breeding season (Robertson & Rendell 2001;Hipkiss et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Outcomes of decades long installation of nest boxes for arboreal mammals in southern Australia

Goldingay¹,

Thomas²,

Shanty³

2018

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Nest boxes are commonly installed to support hollow‐using species where the abundance of hollow‐bearing trees is deficient. Recent studies have provided equivocal evidence about the effectiveness of nest box projects and have highlighted significant management costs associated with some projects. We document the functionality of 303 nest boxes installed across five different community‐led projects in southern Australia for periods of 10–25 years. As expected, we found that nest boxes lost functionality over time. However, 60% remained functional to support the Brush‐tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) and the Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) after almost 20 years. Years installed, method of nest box attachment and tree species influenced whether boxes remained functional. Nest box construction material changed over time so could not be assessed specifically. When inspected in a single year, the Brush‐tailed Phascogale occupied 9% of functional boxes and another 48% contained their nests. The Sugar Glider occupied 15% of functional boxes and another 22% contained their nests. These values suggest the nest box installations were highly effective for these species, although more detailed study is needed to understand what contribution these installations have made to support the local populations. Maintenance of most nest boxes occurred twice a year in the first five years after installation, but many received no maintenance for periods of three years, and some 10–15 years, before our census. Our findings suggest that infrequent maintenance by community groups can sustain nest box projects over periods of several decades. Research into employing nest boxes as a management tool in Australia is still in its infancy. Further studies are needed to resolve factors that limit their effectiveness.

show abstract

“…However, managing local populations of cavity-dependent species with artificial cavities will be logistically challenging (Lindenmayer et al 2003). This has been done for some bird species though the species involved are often those that readily use human-modified areas (Katzner et al 2005;Corrigan et al 2011;Altwegg et al 2014). There is also evidence that insectivorous bat populations can be supported by artificial cavities (Stebbings & Walsh 1991;Flaquer et al 2006;Baranauskas 2010;Bender 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific nest box designs can improve habitat restoration for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals

Goldingay

Rueegger

Grimson

et al. 2015

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree‐cavity‐dependent wildlife faces future shortages of cavities due to a decline in the abundance of large, old trees in many parts of the world. Nest boxes are proposed as a tool to restore habitat value but evidence of their effectiveness for arboreal mammals remains equivocal. This may arise from a poor understanding of design preferences. We conducted investigations in two landscapes in eastern Australia to determine whether species show a preference for specific designs. We observed a preference by some mammal species for particular designs (33–78% occupied/used), suggesting that design refinement can improve the frequency with which nest boxes are used. Although feral species may out‐compete target species for nest boxes, we did not observe this. We recorded feral honeybees (Apis mellifera) in 6–9% of nest boxes but they did not remain, and many occupied boxes were later used by mammals. The introduced common myna bird (Acridotheres tristis) was prevalent in one landscape, but competition for nest boxes was localized. For nest boxes to be an effective habitat restoration tool, they must be able to be occupied over long periods of time. We investigated this for the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), an arboreal marsupial threatened through part of its geographic range. Squirrel gliders occupied and bred within nest boxes (100% used) at two locations continuously over a 10‐year period with minimal nest box maintenance. Individuals occupied boxes for up to 7 years. This confirms that targeted nest box programs can be an effective restoration tool for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals.

show abstract

Nest Boxes Facilitate Local-Scale Conservation of Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) in Alberta, Canada

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluation of artificial nest sites for long-term conservation of a burrow-nesting seabird

Evaluation of artificial nest sites for long-term conservation of a burrow-nesting seabird

Outcomes of decades long installation of nest boxes for arboreal mammals in southern Australia

Specific nest box designs can improve habitat restoration for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About