Translator Disclaimer
1 July 2006 Nest sites of Great Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos major and Middle Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos medius in Near-Natural and Managed Riverine Forests
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The main goals of this study were to determine whether woodpeckers differ in nest-site selection between near-natural old-growth forests protected for ca. 50 years and managed forests. Great Spotted Woodpeckers preferred oaks as nest sites, but Middle Spotted Woodpeckers selected dead trees as well as live ashes and oaks. It was found that the degree of silviculture did not affect the preference for tree species between long-term protected and managed areas in either Dendrocopos species. However, the share of ashes as nesting trees for Middle Spotted Woodpeckers was distinctly smaller in managed stands. In primeval Quercus-Fraxinus-Ulmus riverine forests ashes are thought to have played an important role as a nest-site for this species. In unmanaged forests both woodpeckers nested in trees of a larger diameter, at a nearly twofold higher rate than in managed stands. Nest-height was influenced by tree diameter. However, these relationships varied between the two woodpecker species, in relation both to the type of management and to the tree species, and were the most pronounced in Middle Spotted Woodpeckers nesting in ashes in near-natural stands. The type of management did not affect the placements of nest-holes in relation to tree condition, state of tree stump and condition of the wood in either species. However, in comparison to the near-natural forests, both species excavated holes more frequently than expected in tree-trunks in the managed stands. The results of the present work suggest a convergence of some nest-site characteristics in managed forests.

REFERENCES

1.

Giese C. L. Adkins , F. J. Cuthbert 2003. Influence of surrounding vegetation on woodpecker nest tree selection in oak forests of the Upper Midwest, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 179: 523–534. Google Scholar

2.

S. Bachmann , G. Pasinelli 2002. Raumnutzung syntop vorkommender Buntspechte Dendrocopos major und Mittelspechte D. medius und Bemerkungen zur Konkurrenzsituation. Ornithol. Beob. 99: 33–48. Google Scholar

3.

M.-L. Bai , F. Wichmann , M. Mühlenberg 2005. Nest-site characteristics of hole-nesting birds in a primeval boreal forest of Mongolia. Acta Ornithol. 40: 1–14. Google Scholar

4.

Hoyo J. del , A. Elliott , J. Sargatal (eds). 2002. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol VII. Jacamars to Woodpeckers. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Google Scholar

5.

D. S. Dobkin , A. C. Rich , J. A. Pretare , W. H. Pyle 1995. Nest-site relationship among cavity-nesting birds of riparian and snowpocket aspen woodlands in the northwestern Great Basin. Condor 97: 694–707. Google Scholar

6.

B. Fauvel , F. Lallement H. Carré 2001. Écologie du pic mar Dendrocopos medius en Champagne (Est France). Alauda 69: 87–101. Google Scholar

7.

K. J. Gutzwiller , S. H. Anderson 1987. Multiscale associations between cavity-nesting birds and features of Wayoming streamside woodlands. Condor 89: 534–548. Google Scholar

8.

E. Günther 1993. Zur Wahl des Höhlenstandortes von Buntund Mittelspecht (Dendrocopos major und D. medius) im nordöstlichen Harz (Sachsen-Anhalt). Orn. Jber. Mus. Heineanum 11: 67–73. Google Scholar

9.

S. Hågvar , G. Hågvar , E. Mønness 1990. Nest site selection in Norwegian woodpeckers. Holarc. Ecol. 13: 156–165. Google Scholar

10.

O. Hildén 1965. Habitat selection in birds: a review. Ann. Zool. Fennici 2: 53–75. Google Scholar

11.

L. Jenni 1981. Das Skelettmuskelsystem des halses von Buntspecht und Mittelspecht Dendrocopos major und medius. J. Ornithol. 122: 57–61. Google Scholar

12.

D. H. Johnson 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61: 65–71. Google Scholar

13.

Z. Kosiński 2006. Factors affecting the occurrence of middle spotted and great spotted woodpeckers in deciduous forests — a case study from Poland. Ann. Zool. Fennici 43: 198–210. Google Scholar

14.

Z. Kosiński , M. Kempa , R. Hybsz 2004. The accuracy and efficiency of different techniques for censusing territorial Middle Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos medius. Acta Ornithol. 39: 29–34. Google Scholar

15.

Z. Kosiński , P. Ksit Comparative reproductive biology of Middle Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos medius and Great Spotted Woodpeckers D. major in a riverine forest. Bird Study (in press). Google Scholar

16.

Z. Kosiński , A. Winiecki 2003. [Estimation of the Middle Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos medius numbers — a comparison between the mapping technique combined with audio stimulation and the nest searching method]. Notatki Ornitol. 44: 43–55. Google Scholar

17.

Z. Kosiński , A. Winiecki 2004. Nest-site selection and niche partitioning among the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major and Middle Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos medius in riverine forests of Central Europe. Ornis Fennica 81: 145–156. Google Scholar

18.

Z. Kosiński , A. Winiecki 2005. Factors affecting the density of the middle spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos medius: a macrohabitat approach. J. Ornithol. 146: 263–270. Google Scholar

19.

S. M. Kossenko , E. Yu. Kaygorodova 2003. [Ecological features of the Middle Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos medius) in the Desna Polesie]. Ornithologia 30: 94–103. Google Scholar

20.

P. Li , T. E. Martin 1991. Nest-site selection and nesting success of cavity-nesting birds in high elevation forest drainages. Auk 108: 405–418. Google Scholar

21.

B. Manly , L. McDonald , D. Thomas 1993. Resource selection by animals. Statistical design and analysis for field studies. Chapman and Hall, London. Google Scholar

22.

K. Martin , K. E. H. Aitken , K. L. Wiebe 2004. Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: Nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 106: 5–19. Google Scholar

23.

J. M. Matuszkiewicz 2001. [Forest communities of Poland]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa. Google Scholar

24.

T. D. Mazgajski 1997. [Changes in the numbers and nest sites of the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major and the Middle Spotted Woodpecker D. medius in the Las Bielański Reserve in Warsaw]. Ochr. Przyr. 54: 155–160. Google Scholar

25.

T. D. Mazgajski 1998. Nest-site characteristics of Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major in Central Poland. Pol. J. Ecol. 46: 33–41. Google Scholar

26.

T. D. Mazgajski 2002. Nesting phenology and breeding success in Great Spotted Woodpecker Picoides major near Warsaw (Central Poland). Acta Ornithol. 37: 1–5. Google Scholar

27.

K. G. Michalek , J. Miettinen 2003. Dendrocopos major Great Spotted Woodpecker. BWP Update. Vol. 5, No. 2: 101–184. Oxford Univ. Press. Google Scholar

28.

G. Pasinelli 2000. Oaks (Quercus sp.) and only oaks? Relations between habitat structure and home range size of the middle spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos medius). Biol. Conserv. 93: 227–235. Google Scholar

29.

G. Pasinelli 2003. Dendrocopos medius Middle Spotted Woodpecker. BWP Update. Vol. 5, No. 1: 49–99. Oxford Univ. Press. Google Scholar

30.

G. Pasinelli , J. Hegelbach , H.-U. Reyer 2001. Spacing behavior of the Middle Spotted Woodpecker in central Europe. J. Wildl. Manage. 65: 432–441. Google Scholar

31.

Š. Pavlík 1994. A model of the influence of some environmental factors on the population density of the great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) and the middle spotted woodpecker (D. medius). Biologia (Bratislava) 49: 767–771. Google Scholar

32.

J. Rolstad , B. Løken , E. Rolstad 2000. Habitat selection as a hierarchical spatial process: the green woodpecker at the northern edge of its distribution range. Oecologia 124: 116–129. Google Scholar

33.

j. Schepps , S. Lohr , T. E. Martin 1999. Does tree hardness influence nest-tree selection by primary cavity nesters? Auk 116: 658–665. Google Scholar

34.

L. L. Short 1979. Burdens of the Picid hole-excavating habit. Wilson Bull. 91: 16–28. Google Scholar

35.

K. W. Smith 1997. Nest site selection of the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major in two oak woods in Southern England and its implications for woodland management. Biol. Conserv. 80: 283–288. Google Scholar

36.

A. Spitznagel 1990. The influence of forest management on woodpecker density and habitat use in floodplain forests of the Upper Rhine Valley. In: A. Carlson , G. Aulén (eds). Conservation and Management of Woodpecker Populations. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Wildlife Ecology, Report 17. Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 117–145. Google Scholar

37.

StatSoft, Inc. (2003). STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. Google Scholar

38.

I. Stenberg 1996. Nest site selection in six woodpecker species. Fauna norv. Ser. C, Cinclus 19: 21–38. Google Scholar

39.

L. Tomiałojć , T. Wesołowski , W. Walankiewicz 1984. Breeding bird community of a primaeval temperate forest (Białowieża National Park, Poland). Acta Ornithol. 20: 241–310. Google Scholar

40.

G. M. Tucker , M. I. Evans 1997. Habitats for birds in Europe: a conservation strategy for the wider environment. BirdLife International, Cambridge. Google Scholar

41.

T. Wesołowski 1995. Value of Białowieża Forest for the conservation of white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos in Poland. Biol. Conserv. 71: 69–75. Google Scholar

42.

T. Wesołowski , L. Tomiałojć 1986. The breeding ecology of woodpeckers in a temperate primaeval forest — preliminary data. Acta Ornithol. 22: 1–21. Google Scholar

43.

S. Winter , M. Flade , H. Schumacher , E. Kerstan , G. Möller 2005. The importance of near-natural stand structures for the biocenosis of lowland beech forests. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 79: 127–144. Google Scholar

44.

K. Yamauchi , S. Yamazaki , Y. Fujimaki 1997. [Breeding habitats of Dendrocopos major and D. minor in urban and rural areas]. Jpn. J. Ornithol. 46: 121–131. Google Scholar
Ziemowit Kosiński, Paweł ksit, and Aleksander winiecki "Nest sites of Great Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos major and Middle Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos medius in Near-Natural and Managed Riverine Forests," Acta Ornithologica 41(1), 21-32, (1 July 2006). https://doi.org/10.3161/068.041.0108
Received: 1 January 2006; Accepted: 1 June 2006; Published: 1 July 2006
JOURNAL ARTICLE
12 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top