Nest-dwelling ectoparasites of two sympatric hole-nesting passerines in relation to nest composition: An experimental study

Abstract

There are often marked differences in the incidence of nest-dwelling ectoparasite species on different coexisting and similar avian host species. This has been shown especially for fleas (Siphonaptera), larvae of flies (Diptera), and mites (Acarina) in nests of tits and flycatchers breeding in nest-boxes in close proximity to each other. One of the possible reasons for these differences is the marked differences in nest composition between avian species. We show here differences in ectoparasite presence and nest composition for blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) coexisting in oak forests in central Spain. There also may be intraspecific differences in local preferences for nest-building materials according to availability of plant materials, which could be due to arthropod repellent properties of different potential nest components. We show here a local difference in nest composition between 2 pied flycatcher populations in relation to availability of a preferred material associated with higher ectoparasite presence in the locality without the preferred nest material. We test the hypotheses that differential incidence of ectoparasites at the interspecific and intraspecific levels may depend on nest composition. We conducted a nest exchange experiment in one study locality in 2007 placing in nest-boxes occupied by flycatchers 1) nests constructed by blue tits in 2006 in another locality and removed before use and stored frozen, 2) nests constructed by flycatchers in 2006 in another locality with different nest composition and removed before use and stored frozen, and 3) nests constructed by other flycatcher pairs in the same study locality in 2007. Another group of flycatcher nests was kept as pure control, while a few blue tit nests constructed in 2007 and taken over by flycatchers were used for comparison with nests of treatment 1. No effect on presence of mites and blowflies of either nest-constructing species or locality of construction was observed for pied flycatcher nests, and for fleas only an effect of locality but not of nest constructing species was detected. On the other hand, presence of mites and blowflies differed between nests constructed by blue tits and occupied by either blue tits or pied flycatchers. Nest composition does not explain the differential incidence of nest-dwelling ectoparasites on coexisting avian host species.

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

“…We found variation in the use of anthropogenic nest components similar to that found in other studies on Blue Tit and related species here in the UK and in Europe more generally (Moreno et al 2009;Britt and Deeming 2011;Reynolds et al 2016) although this variation is understudied . Like Reynolds et al (2016) we found that anthropogenic material was present throughout the site types and in the majority of nests irrespective of the local level of urbanisation.…”

“…Such a relationship between anthropogenic materials and parasite load, even if indirect, may help explain findings by others on variation in nest ectoparasite loads with different materials (Moreno et al 2009;Tomás et al 2012;Cantarero et al 2013;Reynolds et al 2016). Nevertheless, it is not clear if nest material choice and associated changes in arthropod assemblage help explain variation in breeding success associated with urbanisation.…”

“…Successful nests were removed between 2 days and 3 weeks from the estimated fledging date and sealed in plastic bags (Moreno et al 2009). Failed nests that had grown chicks were removed when all the chicks were found to have died or had been predated.…”

“…Nest composition may influence ectoparasite load by affecting larval mortality and growth through effects on nest humidity (Heeb et al 2000) or through the attraction/repellence effects of the materials themselves (Remeš and Krist 2005;Mennerat et al 2009a;Tomás et al 2012). As nest construction and host defence behaviour may differ significantly between species utilising similar nest sites in a local area, ectoparasite loads may also differ (Moreno et al 2009). …”

“…Moreno et al 2009;Suárez-Rodríguez et al 2013) but only one has previously been carried out in a European urban environment (Reynolds et al 2016), focusing on fleas and Blue Tits. Generalist nest-dwelling ectoparasites such as fleas (Siphonaptera) and biting mites (Acari, principally the family Dermanyssidae) are common in passerine nests (Moreno et al 2009;Cantarero et al 2013), but the latter are rarely considered.…”