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.
A. Báldi
1999. The use of artificial nests for estimating rates of nest survival. Ornis Hung. 8–9: 39–55. Google Scholar
E. M. Bayne
,
K. A. Hobson
1999. Do clay eggs attract predators to artificial nest? J. Field Ornithol. 70: 1–7. Google Scholar
W. B. Davison
,
E. Bollinger
2000. Predation rates on real and artificial nests of grassland birds. Auk 117: 147–153. Google Scholar
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
J. P. Gibbs
1991. Avian nest predation in tropical wet forest: An experimental study. Oikos 60: 155–161. Google Scholar
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
C. Lindell
2000. Egg type influences predation rates in artificial nest experiments. J. Field Ornithol. 71: 16–21. Google Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
T. E. Martin
1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest site, nest predation, and food. Ecol. Monogr. 65: 101–127. Google Scholar
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
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
A. P. Møller
1987. Egg predation as a selective factor for nest design: An experiment. Oikos 50: 91–94. Google Scholar
R. P. Moore
,
W. D. Robinson
2004. Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85: 1562–1567. Google Scholar
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
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
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
T. Pärt
,
J. Wretenberg
2002. Do artificial nests reveal relative nest prédation risk for real nests? J. Avian. Biol. 33: 39–16. Google Scholar
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
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
S. A. Rangen
,
R. G. Clare
,
K. A. Hobson
2000. Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117: 136–146. Google Scholar
R. E. Ricklefs
1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 9: 1–8. Google Scholar
B. E. Saether
1996. Evolution of avian life histories — does nest prédation explain it all? Trend Ecol. Evol. 11: 311–312. Google Scholar
T. Santos
,
J. L. Telleria
1992. Edge effect on nest predation in Mediterranean fragmented forests. Biol. Conserv. 60: 1–5. Google Scholar
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
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
A. F. Skutch
1949. Do tropical birds rear as many young as they can nourish? Ibis 91: 430–55. Google Scholar
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
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
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
M. Yanes
,
F. Suárez
1997. Nest predation and reproduction traits in small passerines: a comparative approach. Acta Oecol. 18: 413–26. Google Scholar
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
Acta Ornithologica
Vol. 39 • No. 2
December 2004
Vol. 39 • No. 2
December 2004
artificial ground nest
nest predation
plasticine egg
quail egg
recultivated area
