Zasiedlenie poszczególnych typów budek lęgowych w lesie sosnowym - ocena efektywności kompensacji przyrodniczej względem różnych gatunków ptaków

• Autorzy: Leniowski K. , Wegrzyn E.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Use of nest boxes in Scots pine stand - assessment of effectiveness of the biological compensation towards various bird species

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

We studied the use of 299 nest boxes placed as the biological compensation for forest removal during construction of A4 motorway in south−east Poland. Four types of nest boxes were placed in Scots pine stands: standard box type I (n=73), standard box type II (n=80), an open box (n=73) and a box for treecreepers Certhia sp. (n=73). During the first breeding season 78% of standard boxes I and 16% of standard boxes II were occupied. Standard boxes I were used mainly by the Great Tit Parus major and Blue Tit Cyanistes careuleus. Standard boxes II were used only by the European Starling Sturnus vulgaris. Neither open boxes, nor boxes for the treecreepers were occupied by any species. In the second breeding season similar number of standard boxes type I were used by tits, while starlings occupied significantly more boxes of type II than a year before. Boxes for treecreepers as well as open ones remained unoccupied. We emphasize the need of monitoring of the effects of any compensation as it allows to adjust proper methods for different species.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

lesnictwo; kompensacja przyrodnicza; lasy sosnowe; skrzynki legowe; wykorzystanie

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Sylwan
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 157
• Numer: 11
• Opis fizyczny: s.854-859,rys.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Leniowski K.

• Zakład Zoologii, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, ul.Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów

autor

Wegrzyn E.

• Zakład Zoologii, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, ul.Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów

Bibliografia

• Aitken K. E. H., Martin K. 2007. The importance of excavators in hole−nesting communities: availability and use of natural tree holes in old mixed forests of western Canada. Journal of Ornithology 148: 425−434.
• Ballók Z., Náhlik A., Tari T. 2010. Effects of Building a Highway and Wildlife Crossings in a Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) Habitat in Hungary. Acta Silv. Lign. Hung. 6: 67−74.
• Bloom P. H., Hawks S. J. 1983. Nest box use and reproductive biology of the American kestrel in Lassen County, California. Raptor research 17 (1): 9−14.
• Bolton M., Medeiros R., Hothersall B., Campos A. 2004. The use of artificial breeding chambers as a conservation measure for cavity−nesting procellariiform seabirds: a case study of the Madeiran storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro). Biological Conservation 116:73−80.
• Brawn J. D. 1984. Defense of nest boxes by Western Bluebirds during the post−breeding period. Condor 86: 494−495.
• Corrigan R. M., Scrimgeour G. J., Paszkowski C. 2011. Nest boxes facilitate local−scale conservation of common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) and bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) in Alberta, Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 6 (1): 1.
• Cuperus R., Bakermans M. M. G. J., Udo de Haes H. A., Canters K. J. 2001. Ecological Compensation in Dutch Highway Planning. Environmental Management 27 (1): 75−89.
• Cuperus R., Canters K. J., Udo de Haes H. A., Friedman D. S. 1999. Guidelines for Ecological Compensation Associated with Highways. Biological Conservation 90: 41−51.
• Dalang T., Hersperger A. M. 2010. How much compensation do we need? Replacement ratio estimates for Swiss dry grassland biotopes. Biological Conservation 143 (8): 1876−1884.
• Gale R., Willner J., Gates E., Devlin W. J. 1983. Nest Box Use by Cavity−nesting Birds. American Midland Naturalist 109 (1): 194−201.
• García−Navas V., Arroyo L., Sanz J. J., Díaz M. 2008. Effect of nest box type on occupancy and breeding biology of tree sparrows Passer montanus in central Spain. Ibis 150: 356−364.
• Kuiper G. 1997. Compensation of Environmental Degradation by Highways: A Dutch Case Study. European Environment 7: 118−125.
• Lalas C., Jones P. R., Jones J. 1999. The design and use of a nest box for Yellow−eyed Penguins Megadyptes antipodes – a response to a conservation need. Marine Ornithology 27: 199−204.
• Li P., Martin T. E. 1991. Nest−site selection and nesting success of cavity−nesting birds in high elevation forest drainages. Auk 108: 405−18.
• McComb W. C., Noble R E. 1981. Nest−box and natural−cavity use in three midsouth forest habitats. J. Wildl. Manage. 45: 93−101.
• Müller A. P. 1989. Parasites, predators and nest boxes: facts and artifacts in nest box studies of birds? Oikos 56: 421−423.
• Newton I. 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole−nesting birds: a review. Biological Conservation 70:265−276.
• Nilsson J.−E. 2008. A 20−year study of a nest−box breeding bird population with special regard to the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. Ornis Svecica 18:52−64.
• Pöysä H., Pöysä S. 2002. Nest−site limitation and density dependence of reproductive output in the Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula: implications for the management of cavity nesting birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 39:502−510.
• Simon C. Griffith A. B., Sarah R., Pryke A., Mylene Mariette A. 2008. Use of nest−boxes by the Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata): implications for reproductive success and research. Emu 108: 311−319.