Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2002 Winter Abundance of Hole-Nesting Birds in Natural- Versus Managed Woods in Zealand (Denmark)
Jens Bursell
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Foraging observations (1 observation/bird) of tits and associated species were recorded during four winter months in two natural old-growth and two managed forests. The number of daily foraging observations was used as an index of bird abundance. The daily mean number of foraging observations for Parus major, P. caeruleus, P. palustris, Sitta europea, Certhia familiaris and Dendrocopos major was significantly higher in natural old-growth vs managed forest (ratio 4.8 : 1 for all six species pooled and 3.1 : 1, 3.2 : 1, 4.7 : 1, 5.7 : 1, 7.4 : 1 and 4.7 : 1 for the above-mentioned species, respectively). As the larger dominant species has an advantage in competition for nest holes, we would expect these to exhibit the smallest abundance ratio skews. This was not, however, the case and consequently, the results of this study do not support the hypothesis that a lack of nest holes should be the primary limiting factor for hole nesting species in managed forests. It was found that the species showing the strongest preference for foraging on dead wood were the same that had the most pronounced density skew between forest types. This could indicate that the lack of food resulting from silvicultural practice could be very important as a limiting factor in managed forests. Analyses of the use of dead wood of different diameter and from different tree species indicate that forest birds exploit diverse types of dead wood. Partially decayed standing dead wood was the most important substrate for the majority of species.

REFERENCES

1.

U. Boström 1988. [The avifauna in different age stages of natural- and managed forests in Sweden, Our Birdworld]. 47: 68–76 Google Scholar

2.

S. B. Brřgger-Jensen, 1992. [Bird societies in Danish natural forest, in Natural forests of Denmark]. Symposium at the Univ. of Ĺrhus, 2nd ed., pp. 25–31. Google Scholar

3.

S. B. Brřgger-Jensen 1996. The influence of forest management on the occurrence and densities of Danish woodland birds. Ph. D. Thesis, Inst. Zoology, Univ. Copenhagen. Google Scholar

4.

S. Cramp (ed.). 1993. The Birds of Western Palearctic. Vol. VII. Oxford Univ. Press. Google Scholar

5.

B. Gensbřl 1991. [Birds of Scandinavia]. 2nd ed., GAD Publications. Google Scholar

6.

S. Harrap 1996. Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers. Christopher Helm and A & C Black, London. Google Scholar

7.

H. Hübertz 1979. [Forest structure and bird life]. Danish Forest Soc. Bull. 64: 31–62. Google Scholar

8.

S. H. Hurlbert 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monographs 54: 187–211. Google Scholar

9.

S. B. Jensen 1992. [Bird societies in Danish natural forest, in Natural forests of Denmark, report from symposium at the University of Ĺrhus]. 2nd ed., Rainforest Group Nepenthes, Denmark, pp. 25–31. Google Scholar

10.

A. H. Joensen 1965. An investigation on bird populations in four deciduous forest areas on Als in 1962 and 1963. Dansk Ornithol. Foren. Tidskrift 59: 115–186. Google Scholar

11.

D. Lack 1954. The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford, England. Google Scholar

12.

D. H. Morse 1978. Structure and foraging patterns of flocks of tits and associated species in an English woodland during the winter. Ibis 120: 298–311. Google Scholar

13.

I. Newton 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole nesting birds: a review. Biol. Conserv. 70: 265–276. Google Scholar

14.

S. G. Nilsson 1979. Effect of forest management on the breeding bird community in southern Sweden. Biol. Conserv. 16: 135–44. Google Scholar

15.

U. Sandström 1992. Cavities in trees: their occurrence, formation and importance for hole-nesting birds in relation to silvicultural practice. Rapport 23, Swedish Univ. Agricult. Sci., Uppsala. Google Scholar

16.

M. Speight 1989. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nature and Environment Ser. 42, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Google Scholar

17.

W. Walankiewicz 1991. Do secondary cavity-nesting birds suffer more from competition for cavities or from predation in a primeval deciduous forest? Natural Areas J. 11: 203–212. Google Scholar

18.

J. R. Waters , B. R. Noon , J. Verner 1995. Lack of nest site limitation in a cavity-nesting bird community. J. Wildl. Manage. 54: 239–245. Google Scholar

19.

C. Welsh , D. Capen 1992. Availability of nesting sites as a limit to woodpecker populations. Forest Ecol. Manage. 48: 31–41. Google Scholar

20.

T. Wesołowski 1995. Birds from a primeval temperate forest hardly use feeders in winter. Ornis Fennica 72: 132–134. Google Scholar
Jens Bursell "Winter Abundance of Hole-Nesting Birds in Natural- Versus Managed Woods in Zealand (Denmark)," Acta Ornithologica 37(2), 67-74, (1 December 2002). https://doi.org/10.3161/068.037.0202
Received: 1 December 2001; Accepted: 1 October 2002; Published: 1 December 2002
JOURNAL ARTICLE
8 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
abundance of birds
dead wood
foraging of birds
forest microhabitats
hole-nesting birds
natural forest
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top