Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2004 Ground Nesting in Recultivated Forest Habitats — A Study with Artificial Nests
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The study was carried out in the outskirts of the town of Pecs (southern Hungary) in a recultivated former coal mine. Bordered by Turkey Oak forests, this open area forms a wedge-shaped clearing in that woodland. Since trees and taller shrubs are rare in the area, it is mainly ground nesting bird species that occur in the clearing. In order to discover whether it is more advantageous to nest in the recultivated area (clearing) than in the nearby forest or at its edges, 150 artificial ground nests were constructed. On 7 May 2002, one quail egg and a plasticine egg of similar size were placed in each of the artificial nests. After a week it was found that 24% of nests in the clearing, 30% of those in the forest edge, and 44% of the ones inside the forest had suffered depredation. The proportions of damaged plasticine and quail eggs inside the forest and at the forest edge were similar, whereas the quail eggs in the clearings were significantly less damaged than plasticine eggs. Of all the experimental eggs, significantly more plasticine eggs (29%) were damaged than quail eggs (17%), which suggests that small-bodied predators are unable to break the quail eggs. 18% of the plasticine eggs attacked, and 72% of the quail eggs attacked were removed from the nest by the predator. Among the predators, small mammals were dominant in the clearing and inside the forest, and birds at the forest edge. Based on the prédation of quail eggs, the survival chances of ground nests in the clearing are greater than at the forest edge or inside the forest.

REFERENCES

1.

A. Báldi 1999. The use of artificial nests for estimating rates of nest survival. Ornis Hung. 8–9: 39–55. Google Scholar

2.

E. M. Bayne , K. A. Hobson 1999. Do clay eggs attract predators to artificial nest? J. Field Ornithol. 70: 1–7. Google Scholar

3.

W. B. Davison , E. Bollinger 2000. Predation rates on real and artificial nests of grassland birds. Auk 117: 147–153. Google Scholar

4.

T. J. Fenske-Crawford , G. J. Niemi 1997. Predation of artificial ground nests at two types of edges in a forest-dominated landscape. Condor 99: 14–24. Google Scholar

5.

J. P. Gibbs 1991. Avian nest predation in tropical wet forest: An experimental study. Oikos 60: 155–161. Google Scholar

6.

K. P. Lewis , W. A. Montewecchi 1999. Predation on different-sized quail eggs in an artificial nest study in western Newfoundland. Can. J. Zool. 77: 1170–1173. Google Scholar

7.

C. Lindell 2000. Egg type influences predation rates in artificial nest experiments. J. Field Ornithol. 71: 16–21. Google Scholar

8.

L. H. Maclvor , S. M. Melvin , C. R. Griffin 1990. Effects of research activity on piping plover nest predation. J. Wildl. Manage. 54: 443–47. Google Scholar

9.

T. J. Maier , R. M. DeGraaf 2000. Predation of Japanese Quail vs. House Sparrow eggs in artificial nests: small eggs reveal small predators. Condor 102: 325–332. Google Scholar

10.

T. J. Maier , R. M. DeGraaf 2001. Differences in depredation by small predators limit the use of plasticine and Zebra Finch eggs in artificial-nest studies. Condor 103: 180–183. Google Scholar

11.

R. E. Major , C. E. Kendal 1996. The contribution of artificial nest experiments to understanding avian reproductive success: a review of methods and conclusions. Ibis 138: 298–307. Google Scholar

12.

M. A. Marini , S. K. Robinson , E. J. Heske 1995. Edge effects on nest predation in the Shawnee national forest, southern Illinois. Biol. Conserv. 74: 203–213. Google Scholar

13.

T. E. Martin 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest site, nest predation, and food. Ecol. Monogr. 65: 101–127. Google Scholar

14.

A. Matthews , C. R. Dickman , R. E. Major 1999. The influence of fragment size and edge on nest predation in urban bushland. Ecography 22: 349–356. Google Scholar

15.

M. N. Melampy , E. L. Kershner , M. A. Jones 1999. Nest predation in suburban and rural woodlots of Northern Ohio. Am. Midl. Nat. 141: 284–292. Google Scholar

16.

A. P. Møller 1987. Egg predation as a selective factor for nest design: An experiment. Oikos 50: 91–94. Google Scholar

17.

R. P. Moore , W. D. Robinson 2004. Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85: 1562–1567. Google Scholar

18.

A. C. Niehaus , S. B. Heard , S. D. Hendrix , S. L. Hillis 2003. Measuring edge effects on nest predation in forest fragments: do Finch and Quail eggs tell different stories? Am. Midl. Nat. 149: 335–343. Google Scholar

19.

C. P. Ortega , J. C. Ortega , C. A. Rapp , S. A. Backensto 1998. Validating the use of artificial nests in predation experiments. J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 925–932. Google Scholar

20.

P. W. C. Paton 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conserv. Biol. 8: 17–26. Google Scholar

21.

T. Pärt , J. Wretenberg 2002. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest prédation risk for real nests? J. Avian. Biol. 33: 39–16. Google Scholar

22.

M. Pescador , S. Peris 2001. Effects of land use on nest predation: an experimental study in Spanish croplands. Folia Zool. 50: 127–136. Google Scholar

23.

J. J. Purger , L. A. Mészáros , D. Purger 2004. Predation on artificial nests in post-mining recultivated area and forest edge: contrasting the use of plasticine and quail eggs. Ecol. Eng. 22: 209–212. Google Scholar

24.

S. A. Rangen , R. G. Clare , K. A. Hobson 2000. Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117: 136–146. Google Scholar

25.

R. E. Ricklefs 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9: 1–8. Google Scholar

26.

B. E. Saether 1996. Evolution of avian life histories — does nest prédation explain it all? Trend Ecol. Evol. 11: 311–312. Google Scholar

27.

T. Santos , J. L. Telleria 1992. Edge effect on nest predation in Mediterranean fragmented forests. Biol. Conserv. 60: 1–5. Google Scholar

28.

L. Sasvári , T. Csörgő , I. Hahn 1995. Bird nest predation and breeding density in primordial and man-made habitats. Folia Zool. 44: 305–314. Google Scholar

29.

L. C. Seitz , D. A. Zegers 1993. An experimental study of nest predation in adjacent deciduous, coniferous and successional habitats. Condor 95: 294–304. Google Scholar

30.

A. F. Skutch 1949. Do tropical birds rear as many young as they can nourish? Ibis 91: 430–55. Google Scholar

31.

B. Söderström , T. Part , J. Rydén 1998. Different nest predator faunas and nest predation risk on ground and shrub nests at forest ecotones: an experiment and a review. Oecologia 117: 108–118. Google Scholar

32.

J. Szegi , J. Oláh , G. Fekete , T. HalÁsz , G VÁrallyay , S. Bartha 1988. Recultivation of the spoil banks created by open-cut mining activities in Hungary. AMBIO 17: 137–143. Google Scholar

33.

K. Weidinger 2002. Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 424–437. Google Scholar

34.

M. Yanes , F. Suárez 1997. Nest predation and reproduction traits in small passerines: a comparative approach. Acta Oecol. 18: 413–26. Google Scholar

35.

J. H. Zar 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th, Prentice Hall, London. Google Scholar

36.

D. A. Zegers , S. May , L. J. Goodrich 2000. Identification of nest predators at farm/forest edge and forest interior sites. J. Field Ornithol. 71: 207–216. Google Scholar
Jenő J. Purger, Lídia A. Mészáros, and Dragica Purger "Ground Nesting in Recultivated Forest Habitats — A Study with Artificial Nests," Acta Ornithologica 39(2), 141-145, (1 December 2004). https://doi.org/10.3161/068.039.0211
Received: 1 March 2004; Accepted: 1 October 2004; Published: 1 December 2004
JOURNAL ARTICLE
5 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top