Nest boxes increase reproductive output for Tree Swallows in a forest grassland matrix in central British Columbia

Secondary cavity-nesting birds depend on tree cavities for nesting and roosting, but many studies of these birds are conducted using nest boxes. Implementation of effective conservation strategies for cavity-nesting species such as nest-site supplementation requires careful comparisons of fecundity...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0204226-e0204226
Hauptverfasser: Norris, Andrea R, Aitken, Kathryn E H, Martin, Kathy, Pokorny, Stanley
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0204226
container_issue 10
container_start_page e0204226
container_title PloS one
container_volume 13
creator Norris, Andrea R
Aitken, Kathryn E H
Martin, Kathy
Pokorny, Stanley
description Secondary cavity-nesting birds depend on tree cavities for nesting and roosting, but many studies of these birds are conducted using nest boxes. Implementation of effective conservation strategies for cavity-nesting species such as nest-site supplementation requires careful comparisons of fecundity and other vital rates for birds using both natural and artificial nest site types. We compared breeding phenology, clutch and brood sizes, and fledging success of Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting in tree cavities and nest boxes during 2001-2003 in British Columbia, Canada. Swallows using nest boxes initiated egg-laying and hatched young at approximately the same time as those in tree cavities (2 June, 23 June, respectively). Female Tree Swallows in boxes laid larger clutches (5.9 ± 0.9 eggs, N = 76) than those in tree cavities (4.2 ± 1.6 eggs, N = 67). The mean number of nestlings hatched was greater in nest boxes (5.2 ± 1.1 nestlings, N = 67) than in tree cavities (2.6 ± 2.0 nestlings, N = 58). Pairs in boxes were over twice as successful in producing fledglings (93.4%; 57 of 61 pairs fledged > 1 young) than those in tree cavities (35.8%; 19 of 53 pairs). Of those successful nests, pairs nesting in boxes fledged 5.1 ± 1.1 young (N = 57), whereas those in tree cavities fledged 3.5 ± 1.2 young (N = 18). Because cavities in nest boxes averaged 60% larger in volume and 1.8 cm wider internally than tree cavities, we suggest that increased reproductive output was correlated with boxes enabling a larger clutch size. In previous research, we found that Tree Swallows were a poor competitor with other cavity-nesting passerines for tree cavities. The addition of nest boxes may serve as an effective way to supplement local reproduction for secondary cavity-nesting bird populations by reducing competition for limited nest sites. This is especially true in regions where the availability of natural nesting sites is highly variable, and where species compete with many other cavity-nesting passerines using a similar ecological niche and nesting cavities.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0204226
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2118225291</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A557679612</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_bdf4a8a3eff2403db2564f90848ef9bc</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A557679612</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3d9b115f7ea880064651251f930aa2aa309ad0a4b5c0c34382eed04c7d83a5893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISG42MWHnHyDVFYcVqqoRAu31sQZ77rKxovttMvb43TTaoN6gXwRa_zNP5nfniR5Scmc8pJ-uLK966Cdb22Hc8JIxljxKDmmgrNZwQh_fLA_Sp55f0VIzquieJoccRKXKPPjxH1HH9La7tCnplMOwWPqcOts06tgrjG1fdj2IdXWpZcOMb24gba1NwOewhAeBFYOvG-ha9INBGd2w6HCLjho00_OBOPX6cK2_aY28Dx5oqH1-GL8niQ_v3y-XHybnZ1_XS5Oz2aqECzMeCNqSnNdIlQVIUVW5JTlVAtOABgAJwIaAlmdK6J4xiuG2JBMlU3FIa8EP0le73W3rfVytMtLRmnFWM4EjcRyTzQWruTWmQ24P9KCkbcB61YSXDCqRVk3OoMKOGrNMsKbmuVFpgWpsgq1qFXU-jhW6-sNNmPzE9HpSWfWcmWvZUFLwSiLAu9GAWd_99FUuTFeYRtdRdvv_zv2TGkW0Tf_oA93N1IriA2YTttYVw2i8jTPy6IUxW3Z-QNUXA1ujIpvS5sYnyS8nyREJuAurKD3Xi4vfvw_e_5ryr49YNcIbVj7-GSCsZ2fgtkeVM5671Dfm0yJHEbjzg05jIYcRyOmvTq8oPuku1ngfwElWQoX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2118225291</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nest boxes increase reproductive output for Tree Swallows in a forest grassland matrix in central British Columbia</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Norris, Andrea R ; Aitken, Kathryn E H ; Martin, Kathy ; Pokorny, Stanley</creator><creatorcontrib>Norris, Andrea R ; Aitken, Kathryn E H ; Martin, Kathy ; Pokorny, Stanley</creatorcontrib><description>Secondary cavity-nesting birds depend on tree cavities for nesting and roosting, but many studies of these birds are conducted using nest boxes. Implementation of effective conservation strategies for cavity-nesting species such as nest-site supplementation requires careful comparisons of fecundity and other vital rates for birds using both natural and artificial nest site types. We compared breeding phenology, clutch and brood sizes, and fledging success of Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting in tree cavities and nest boxes during 2001-2003 in British Columbia, Canada. Swallows using nest boxes initiated egg-laying and hatched young at approximately the same time as those in tree cavities (2 June, 23 June, respectively). Female Tree Swallows in boxes laid larger clutches (5.9 ± 0.9 eggs, N = 76) than those in tree cavities (4.2 ± 1.6 eggs, N = 67). The mean number of nestlings hatched was greater in nest boxes (5.2 ± 1.1 nestlings, N = 67) than in tree cavities (2.6 ± 2.0 nestlings, N = 58). Pairs in boxes were over twice as successful in producing fledglings (93.4%; 57 of 61 pairs fledged &gt; 1 young) than those in tree cavities (35.8%; 19 of 53 pairs). Of those successful nests, pairs nesting in boxes fledged 5.1 ± 1.1 young (N = 57), whereas those in tree cavities fledged 3.5 ± 1.2 young (N = 18). Because cavities in nest boxes averaged 60% larger in volume and 1.8 cm wider internally than tree cavities, we suggest that increased reproductive output was correlated with boxes enabling a larger clutch size. In previous research, we found that Tree Swallows were a poor competitor with other cavity-nesting passerines for tree cavities. The addition of nest boxes may serve as an effective way to supplement local reproduction for secondary cavity-nesting bird populations by reducing competition for limited nest sites. This is especially true in regions where the availability of natural nesting sites is highly variable, and where species compete with many other cavity-nesting passerines using a similar ecological niche and nesting cavities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204226</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30303975</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Animal behavior ; Animal reproduction ; Behavior ; Biology ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Bird populations ; Birds ; Boxes ; Breeding ; Cavities ; Cavity nesting ; Climate change ; Clutch size ; Clutches ; Conservation ; Ecological niches ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Egg laying ; Eggs ; Environmental aspects ; Fecundity ; Forests ; Grasslands ; Juveniles ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Nest boxes ; Nest building ; Nesting ; Nests ; Predation ; Protection and preservation ; Researchers ; Songbirds ; Statistics ; Success ; Supplements ; Swallows ; Tachycineta ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0204226-e0204226</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Norris et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Norris et al 2018 Norris et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3d9b115f7ea880064651251f930aa2aa309ad0a4b5c0c34382eed04c7d83a5893</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3d9b115f7ea880064651251f930aa2aa309ad0a4b5c0c34382eed04c7d83a5893</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5080-1285</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6179212/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6179212/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30303975$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Norris, Andrea R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aitken, Kathryn E H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Kathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pokorny, Stanley</creatorcontrib><title>Nest boxes increase reproductive output for Tree Swallows in a forest grassland matrix in central British Columbia</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Secondary cavity-nesting birds depend on tree cavities for nesting and roosting, but many studies of these birds are conducted using nest boxes. Implementation of effective conservation strategies for cavity-nesting species such as nest-site supplementation requires careful comparisons of fecundity and other vital rates for birds using both natural and artificial nest site types. We compared breeding phenology, clutch and brood sizes, and fledging success of Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting in tree cavities and nest boxes during 2001-2003 in British Columbia, Canada. Swallows using nest boxes initiated egg-laying and hatched young at approximately the same time as those in tree cavities (2 June, 23 June, respectively). Female Tree Swallows in boxes laid larger clutches (5.9 ± 0.9 eggs, N = 76) than those in tree cavities (4.2 ± 1.6 eggs, N = 67). The mean number of nestlings hatched was greater in nest boxes (5.2 ± 1.1 nestlings, N = 67) than in tree cavities (2.6 ± 2.0 nestlings, N = 58). Pairs in boxes were over twice as successful in producing fledglings (93.4%; 57 of 61 pairs fledged &gt; 1 young) than those in tree cavities (35.8%; 19 of 53 pairs). Of those successful nests, pairs nesting in boxes fledged 5.1 ± 1.1 young (N = 57), whereas those in tree cavities fledged 3.5 ± 1.2 young (N = 18). Because cavities in nest boxes averaged 60% larger in volume and 1.8 cm wider internally than tree cavities, we suggest that increased reproductive output was correlated with boxes enabling a larger clutch size. In previous research, we found that Tree Swallows were a poor competitor with other cavity-nesting passerines for tree cavities. The addition of nest boxes may serve as an effective way to supplement local reproduction for secondary cavity-nesting bird populations by reducing competition for limited nest sites. This is especially true in regions where the availability of natural nesting sites is highly variable, and where species compete with many other cavity-nesting passerines using a similar ecological niche and nesting cavities.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal reproduction</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bird populations</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Boxes</subject><subject>Breeding</subject><subject>Cavities</subject><subject>Cavity nesting</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Clutch size</subject><subject>Clutches</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Ecological niches</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Egg laying</subject><subject>Eggs</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Fecundity</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Grasslands</subject><subject>Juveniles</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Nest boxes</subject><subject>Nest building</subject><subject>Nesting</subject><subject>Nests</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Protection and preservation</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Songbirds</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Supplements</subject><subject>Swallows</subject><subject>Tachycineta</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEoqXwBggiISG42MWHnHyDVFYcVqqoRAu31sQZ77rKxovttMvb43TTaoN6gXwRa_zNP5nfniR5Scmc8pJ-uLK966Cdb22Hc8JIxljxKDmmgrNZwQh_fLA_Sp55f0VIzquieJoccRKXKPPjxH1HH9La7tCnplMOwWPqcOts06tgrjG1fdj2IdXWpZcOMb24gba1NwOewhAeBFYOvG-ha9INBGd2w6HCLjho00_OBOPX6cK2_aY28Dx5oqH1-GL8niQ_v3y-XHybnZ1_XS5Oz2aqECzMeCNqSnNdIlQVIUVW5JTlVAtOABgAJwIaAlmdK6J4xiuG2JBMlU3FIa8EP0le73W3rfVytMtLRmnFWM4EjcRyTzQWruTWmQ24P9KCkbcB61YSXDCqRVk3OoMKOGrNMsKbmuVFpgWpsgq1qFXU-jhW6-sNNmPzE9HpSWfWcmWvZUFLwSiLAu9GAWd_99FUuTFeYRtdRdvv_zv2TGkW0Tf_oA93N1IriA2YTttYVw2i8jTPy6IUxW3Z-QNUXA1ujIpvS5sYnyS8nyREJuAurKD3Xi4vfvw_e_5ryr49YNcIbVj7-GSCsZ2fgtkeVM5671Dfm0yJHEbjzg05jIYcRyOmvTq8oPuku1ngfwElWQoX</recordid><startdate>20181010</startdate><enddate>20181010</enddate><creator>Norris, Andrea R</creator><creator>Aitken, Kathryn E H</creator><creator>Martin, Kathy</creator><creator>Pokorny, Stanley</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5080-1285</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181010</creationdate><title>Nest boxes increase reproductive output for Tree Swallows in a forest grassland matrix in central British Columbia</title><author>Norris, Andrea R ; Aitken, Kathryn E H ; Martin, Kathy ; Pokorny, Stanley</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3d9b115f7ea880064651251f930aa2aa309ad0a4b5c0c34382eed04c7d83a5893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal reproduction</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bird populations</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Boxes</topic><topic>Breeding</topic><topic>Cavities</topic><topic>Cavity nesting</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Clutch size</topic><topic>Clutches</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Ecological niches</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Egg laying</topic><topic>Eggs</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Fecundity</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Grasslands</topic><topic>Juveniles</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Nest boxes</topic><topic>Nest building</topic><topic>Nesting</topic><topic>Nests</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Protection and preservation</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Songbirds</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Supplements</topic><topic>Swallows</topic><topic>Tachycineta</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Norris, Andrea R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aitken, Kathryn E H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Kathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pokorny, Stanley</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Norris, Andrea R</au><au>Aitken, Kathryn E H</au><au>Martin, Kathy</au><au>Pokorny, Stanley</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nest boxes increase reproductive output for Tree Swallows in a forest grassland matrix in central British Columbia</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-10-10</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0204226</spage><epage>e0204226</epage><pages>e0204226-e0204226</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Secondary cavity-nesting birds depend on tree cavities for nesting and roosting, but many studies of these birds are conducted using nest boxes. Implementation of effective conservation strategies for cavity-nesting species such as nest-site supplementation requires careful comparisons of fecundity and other vital rates for birds using both natural and artificial nest site types. We compared breeding phenology, clutch and brood sizes, and fledging success of Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting in tree cavities and nest boxes during 2001-2003 in British Columbia, Canada. Swallows using nest boxes initiated egg-laying and hatched young at approximately the same time as those in tree cavities (2 June, 23 June, respectively). Female Tree Swallows in boxes laid larger clutches (5.9 ± 0.9 eggs, N = 76) than those in tree cavities (4.2 ± 1.6 eggs, N = 67). The mean number of nestlings hatched was greater in nest boxes (5.2 ± 1.1 nestlings, N = 67) than in tree cavities (2.6 ± 2.0 nestlings, N = 58). Pairs in boxes were over twice as successful in producing fledglings (93.4%; 57 of 61 pairs fledged &gt; 1 young) than those in tree cavities (35.8%; 19 of 53 pairs). Of those successful nests, pairs nesting in boxes fledged 5.1 ± 1.1 young (N = 57), whereas those in tree cavities fledged 3.5 ± 1.2 young (N = 18). Because cavities in nest boxes averaged 60% larger in volume and 1.8 cm wider internally than tree cavities, we suggest that increased reproductive output was correlated with boxes enabling a larger clutch size. In previous research, we found that Tree Swallows were a poor competitor with other cavity-nesting passerines for tree cavities. The addition of nest boxes may serve as an effective way to supplement local reproduction for secondary cavity-nesting bird populations by reducing competition for limited nest sites. This is especially true in regions where the availability of natural nesting sites is highly variable, and where species compete with many other cavity-nesting passerines using a similar ecological niche and nesting cavities.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30303975</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0204226</doi><tpages>e0204226</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5080-1285</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2018-10, Vol.13 (10), p.e0204226-e0204226
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2118225291
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
subjects Analysis
Animal behavior
Animal reproduction
Behavior
Biology
Biology and Life Sciences
Bird populations
Birds
Boxes
Breeding
Cavities
Cavity nesting
Climate change
Clutch size
Clutches
Conservation
Ecological niches
Ecology and Environmental Sciences
Egg laying
Eggs
Environmental aspects
Fecundity
Forests
Grasslands
Juveniles
Medicine and Health Sciences
Nest boxes
Nest building
Nesting
Nests
Predation
Protection and preservation
Researchers
Songbirds
Statistics
Success
Supplements
Swallows
Tachycineta
Wildlife conservation
title Nest boxes increase reproductive output for Tree Swallows in a forest grassland matrix in central British Columbia
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T15%3A21%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nest%20boxes%20increase%20reproductive%20output%20for%20Tree%20Swallows%20in%20a%20forest%20grassland%20matrix%20in%20central%20British%20Columbia&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Norris,%20Andrea%20R&rft.date=2018-10-10&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0204226&rft.epage=e0204226&rft.pages=e0204226-e0204226&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0204226&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA557679612%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2118225291&rft_id=info:pmid/30303975&rft_galeid=A557679612&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_bdf4a8a3eff2403db2564f90848ef9bc&rfr_iscdi=true