Nest Predation and Nest Defence in European and North American Woodpeckers: A Review

Paclík, Martin; Mišík, Ján; Weidinger, Karel

doi:10.5735/086.046.0503

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But it should be noted that many bird species actively defend their nest, often at great perceived risk to the defending bird (e.g. Larsen et al 1996), or construct their nest at great cost to deter predators (Paclik et al 2009). Such costs to reduce predation risk on eggs and nestlings are classic non-lethal effects: behaviours that exert a large cost to the nesting bird in time and resources that could otherwise be allocated to other raising more young.…”

Section: High Costs Of Compensating For Predation Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation in bird populations

Cresswell

2010

J Ornithol

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the classic ecological questions is how predators affect population size. This is often assessed by measuring how many individuals are killed by a predator, yet such direct effects may only be a relatively minor part of population dynamics. Predators frequently affect prey populations indirectly, with the fear of predation resulting in costly behavioural compensation leading to potentially large population and community effects. Large observable lethal effects may then just represent the most easily observed "special" cases of the effects of predation on populations, with the costs of non-lethal effects being ubiquitous and usually dominant. This review explores these two ideas: that cases where there are no population effects due to predation, and cases where lethal effects dominate, are unusual and involve special circumstances. First, systems where predation effects appear not to arise include complete avoidance of predators by prey; when other environmental factors limit populations so that predation is not additive to mortality; when there are other more vulnerable prey for a predator; when predators interact; because the relationship of perceived predation risk with predator abundance is usually a non-linear function, and simply because non-lethal effects have not been considered. Second, lethal effects tend to dominate over non-lethal effects when there is a high cost of compensating for predation risk associated with either resource constraint or a particularly vulnerable niche or life history stage (e.g. the nest stage generally for birds); when prey are the most popular prey of a predator or linear trophic chains operate; when there is evolutionary lag such as introduced predators and naïve prey populations; and when there are several predator species hunting the same prey in diverse ways. The presence of predators may or may not affect the size of a bird population at any particular life history stage, although in most cases it will through non-lethal effects and occasionally through lethal effects.But the presence of predators will always affect intra-and interspecific competition and so will always affect population dynamics. Studies that wish to fully demonstrate that predation has no effect on bird populations must show that lethal effects and the costs of non-lethal compensation by the prey do not significantly change its density and so the level of competition.3

show abstract

Section: High Costs Of Compensating For Predation Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation in bird populations

Cresswell

2010

J Ornithol

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Birds that nest in holes usually successfully reproduce because their broods are difficult for predators to plunder (Martin and Li 1992;Wesołowski and Tomiałojć 2005;Mazgajski and Rejt 2006). However, predators can be the main cause of woodpecker brood loss (Mazgajski 2002;Mazgajski and Rejt 2006;Paclik et al 2009). Other reasons for unsuccessful woodpecker nesting are nest competition and parasitiism by secondary cavity nesters (Mazgajski 2000(Mazgajski , 2003Kosiński and Ksit 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reproductive biology of the Syrian Woodpecker Dendrocopos syriacus in a newly colonized area of south-eastern Poland

Michalczuk

2015

J Ornithol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syrian Woodpecker nests were studied in a 305-km 2 area of the agricultural landscape in SE Poland. The median egg-laying date was found to be 12 May and the median fledging date was 20 June (the earliest laying date was April 24 and the latest fledging date was July 25). Females laid from two to seven eggs (median 5.0 eggs, n = 56). An average of 4.4 young hatched per nest (SD = 1.18, median 5, maximum 6, n = 41) after 9-13 days of incubation (median 10 days, n = 37). Two to six nestlings left successful nests (median 4, n = 37) after 24-30 days (median 27, n = 36), with a mean of 2.8 (SD = 2.24, median 3, n = 56) young fledging per nest. The main reason for the loss of young observed in 31 % of the Syrian Woodpecker broods was nest parasitism by starlings. These results suggest that the process and dynamics of the range expansion of the Syrian Woodpecker are influenced by a higher reproductive output of Syrian Woodpeckers at the extremities of its range as compared to that of the rest of the Syrian Woodpecker population. April; spätestes Ausflugdatum 25. Juli). Die Weibchen legten zwischen 2 und 7 Eiern (Median 5 Eier, n = 56). Nach 9-13 Tagen Brüten (Median 10 Tage, n = 37) schlüpften bis zu sechs Jungvögel, mit einem Durchschnitt von 4.4 Jungen pro Nest (SD = 1.18, Median 5, n = 41). Nach 24-30 Tagen (Median 27, n = 36) im Nest, flogen 2 bis 6 Jungtiere aus dem Nest einer erfolgreichen Brut aus (Median 4, n = 37), mit einem Durchschnitt von 2.8 (SD = 2.24, Median 3, n = 56) insgesamt. Der Hauptgrund für Brutverluste, der bei 31 % der Bruten des Blutspechts gefunden wurde, war Nestparasitismus durch Stare. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass der Prozess und die Dynamik der Ausbreitung des Blutspechts beeinflusst wird durch eine höhere Reproduktionsrate der Population an den äußersten Rändern des Verbreitungsgebiets im Vergleich zur Population im Zentrum. Keywords

show abstract

“…We also encourage research to test prevailing hypotheses about how woodpecker nests are protected. For white-headed woodpecker, researchers have hypothesized that nests may be protected from sciurid depredation by 1) being placed in areas of low sciurid abundance (which leads to low encounter rates by sciurids; Wightman et al 2010;Hollenbeck et al 2011; see also review by Paclik et al 2009), 2) being placed in areas where sciurids have a difficult time locating nest sites (such as areas of high tree density, which also leads to low encounter rates by sciurids; Hollenbeck et al 2011), and 3) parental attentiveness/defense (Hollenbeck et al 2011;Kozma and Kroll 2012). Nests did not seem protected by low encounter rates in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet most video surveillance studies have focused on open-cup nesting birds. Although nest predation in cavity nesters is lower, nest predation is nevertheless considered the leading cause of nest failure in this guild (Mahon and Martin 2006;Paclik et al 2009). Information on nest predators for primary cavity excavators (PCEs) is important because PCEs are keystone species whose cavities are used by many secondary cavity users.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cameras Show Sciurids Visiting White-Headed Woodpecker Nests Without Depredating Contents

Lorenz

Fischer

2017

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In western North America, rodents in the family Sciuridae are considered woodpecker nest predators and management to reduce sciurid habitat has been suggested. However, there have been few actual observations of woodpecker nest predation. In 2014, we used passive infrared cameras in an attempt to identify nest predators for white-headed woodpeckers Picoides albolarvatus in Washington. We monitored 17 nests for 4,296 observer-hours and were surprised to document 33 cases in which two putative nest predators-chipmunks Tamias spp. and Douglas squirrels Tamiasciurus douglasii-visited but did not depredate nests. Most nests visited by these rodents were successful (71.4%) and no eggs or nestlings were lost to predation (no partial depredations). Future studies using continuous video surveillance at nests would help identify nest predators of white-headed woodpecker and quantify proportions of nests depredated by different species.

show abstract

Nest Predation and Nest Defence in European and North American Woodpeckers: A Review

Cited by 41 publications

References 69 publications

Predation in bird populations

Predation in bird populations

The reproductive biology of the Syrian Woodpecker Dendrocopos syriacus in a newly colonized area of south-eastern Poland

Cameras Show Sciurids Visiting White-Headed Woodpecker Nests Without Depredating Contents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About