Nest-site characteristcs of hole-nesting birds in a primeval boreal forest of Mongolia

• Autorzy: Bai M -L , Wichmann F , Muhlenberg M

Warianty tytułu

PL

Miejsca gniazdowe dziuplakow w pierwotnym lesie tajgowym Mongolii

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Nest sites of nine common hole-nesting bird species were studied in the West Khentey Mountains, NE Mongolia. Among three excavators, the Great Spotfed Woodpecker used more aspens, larger trees, and more living or intact dead trees than the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker or the Willow Tit. Among non-excavators, the Nuthatch used mainly old holes of the Great Spotted Woodpecker, and the Red-throated Flycatcher frequently used those of the Willow Tit. Thus, the nest site characters of these two species resembled those of the original excavators, and their nests were placed higher than those of other non-excavators. The Coal Tit and the Great Tit used mostly branch holes in living trees. With respect to nest site use, the Daurian Redstart behaved as a generalist while the Common Treecreeper specialized in long slits. The nest site selection of excavators might be governed by body size, territory size and their different abilities of excavation. The non-excavators were best differentiated by their preferred hole type, and their tree use and nest site characters were mainly a consequence of the location of such holes. Interspecific competition did not appear to be important in the nest site use of hole-nesting birds in the study area.

PL

Badania prowadzono w górach Khentii (NE Mongolia) w latach 2002-2003. Dziuple uznawano za zajęte, gdy obserwowano ptaki dorosłe przynoszące materiał gniazdowych lub pokarm dla piskląt. Dla każdego gniazda opisywano: gatunek drzewa z dziuplą, jego pierśnicę, kondycję, rodzaj dziupli, grubość i kondycję fragmentu drzewa zawierającego dziuplę oraz wielkość otworu wejściowego. Znaleziono łącznie 257 dziupli 16 gatunków ptaków. Ze względu na wielkość próby w pracy zawarte są dane o dziuplach 9 gatunków ptaków: trzech dziuplaków pierwotnych (samych wykuwających dziuple) — dzięcioła dużego Dendrocopos major, dzięciołka D. minor oraz sikory czarnogłowej Parus palustris, oraz 6 gatunków dziuplaków wtórnych (korzystających z istniejących dziupli) — bogatki P. major, sosnówki P. ater, pleszki chińskiej Phoenicurus auroreus, muchołówki rdzawogardłej Ficedula albicilla, kowalika Sitta europaea, pełzacza leśnego Certhia familiaris. Dokładną charakterystykę miejsc gniazdowych tych gatunków zawierają tabele 1-5. Na podstawie analizy wszystkich branych pod uwagę cech, podjęto próbę stwierdzenia trafności przypisania dziupli do poszczególnych gatunków. Stwierdzono, że dziuple dzięcioła dużego i kowalika były nierozróżnialne, zaś całkowicie różne od pozostałych są dziuple pełzacza. W przypadku pozostałych gatunków biorąc pod uwagę miejsca ich umieszczenia były w pewnym stopniu podobne między gatunkami (Tab. 6). Podobieństwo miejsc umieszczenia dziupli zajmowanych przez poszczególne gatunki może być związane z układami dziuplaki pierwotne-wtórne. Wyróżniono 3 takie grupy gatunków: dzięcioł duży — kowalik, dzięciołek i muchołówka rdzawogardła, sikora czarnogłowa oraz pozostałe gatunki sikor i pleszka. Osobną grupę stanowiły dziuple pełzacza leśnego (Fig. 1). Zebrane wyniki autorzy porównują z publikowanymi danymi zebranymi w Europie, zwracając uwagę na podobieństwa nisz gniazdowych i konkurencję międzygatunkową w tej grupie ptaków.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ornithology; Mongolia; interspecific competition; Willow Tit; Great Spotted Woodpecker; nest site; boreal primeval forest; hole nesting bird; Lesser Spotted Woodpecker; bird; nest site selection; cavity nester

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Ornithologica
• Rocznik: 2005
• Tom: 40
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.1-14,fig.,ref

Twórcy

autor

Bai M -L

• Centre for Nature Conservation, Gottingen University, Von-Siebold Str.2, 37075 Gottingen, Germany

autor

Wichmann F

• Centre for Nature Conservation, Gottingen University, Von-Siebold Str.2, 37075 Gottingen, Germany

autor

Muhlenberg M

• Centre for Nature Conservation, Gottingen University, Von-Siebold Str.2, 37075 Gottingen, Germany

Bibliografia

• Alatalo R., Carlson A., Lundberg A. 1988. Nest cavity size and clutch size of Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca breeding in natural tree-holes. Ornis Scand. 19: 317-319.
• Albano D. J. 1992. Nesting mortality of Carolina Chickadees breeding in natural cavities. Condor 94: 371-382.
• Angelstam P., Mikusiński G. 1994. Woodpecker assemblages in natural and managed boreal and hemiboreal forest — a review. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31:157-172.
• Bai M. L., Wichmann F., Mühlenberg M. 2003. The abundance of tree holes and their utilisation by hole-nesting birds in a primeval boreal forest of Mongolia. Acta Ornithol. 38: 95-102.
• Bednarz J. C., Ripper D., Radley P. M. 2004. Emerging concepts and research directions in the study of cavitynesting birds: keystone ecological processes. Condor 106: 1-4.
• Belthoff J. R., Ritchison G. 1990. Nest-site selection by eastern screech-owls in central Kentucky. Condor 92: 982-990.
• Brawn J. D., Baida R. P. 1988. Population biology of cavity nesters in northern Arizona: do nest sites limit breeding densities? Condor 90: 61-71.
• Carlson A., Sandström U., Olsson O. 1998. Availability and use of natural tree holes by cavity nesting birds in a Swedish deciduous forest. Ardea 86:109-119.
• Christman B. J., Dhondt A. A. 1997. Nest predation in Black-capped Chickadees: how safe are cavity nests? Auk 114: 769-773.
• Conner R. N., Miller Jr. O. K., Akisson C. S. 1976. Woodpecker dependence on trees infected by fungal heart rots. Wilson Bull. 88: 575-581.
• Czeszczewik D. 2004. Breeding success and timing of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca nesting in natural holes and nest-boxes in the Białowieża Forest, Poland. Acta Ornithol. 39: 15-20.
• Czeszczewik D., Walankiewicz W. 2003. Natural nest sites of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca in a primeval forest. Ardea 91: 221-230.
• Czeszczewik D., Walankiewicz W., Mitrus C., Nowakowski W. 1999. Nest-box data of Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca may lead to erroneous generalizations. Vogelwelt 120, Suppl.: 361-365.
• Daily G. C. 1993. Heartwood decay and vertical distribution of Red-naped Sapsucker nest cavities. Wilson Bull. 105: 674-679.
• Dobkin D. S., Rich A. C., Pretare J. A., Pyle, W. H. 1995. Nestsite relationships among cavity-nesting birds of riparian and snowpocket aspen woodlands in the northwestern Great Basin. Condor 97: 694-707.
• Dow H., Fredga S. 1985. Selection of nest sites by a hole-nesting duck, the Goldeneye Bucephala clangula. Ibis 127: 16-30.
• Erskine A. J., McLaren W. D. 1976. Comparative nesting biology of some hole-nesting birds in the Cariboo parklands, British Columbia. Wilson Bull. 88: 611-620.
• Evans M. R., Lank D. B., Boyd W. S., Cooke F. 2002. A comparison of the characteristics and fate of Barrow's Goldeneye and Bufflehead nests in nest boxes and natural cavities. Condor 104: 610-619.
• Glutz von Blotzheim U. N., Bauer K. M. 1993. Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Aula Verlag, Wiesbaden.
• Graves, A. T., Fajvan M. A., Miller G. W. 2000. The effects of thinning intensity on snag and cavity tree abundance in an Appalachian hardwood stand. Can. J. For. Res. 308: 1214-1220.
• Gunn J. S., Hagan J. M. 2000. Woodpecker abundance and tree use in uneven-aged managed, and unmanaged, forest in northern Maine. For. Ecol. Manage. 126:1-12.
• Günther E., Hellmann M. 1995. Die Entwicklung von Höhlen der Buntspechte (Picoides) in naturnahen Laubwäldern des nordöstlichen Harzes (Sachsen-Anhalt). Ornithol. Jahresb. Mus. Heineanum 13: 27-52.
• Hart J. H., Hart D. L. 2001. Heartrot fungi's role in creating picid nesting sites in living aspen. In: Shepperd W. D. (ed.). Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: symposium proceedings. RMRS-P-18, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Grand Junction, Colorado, pp. 207-213.
• Hausner V. H., Yoccoz N. G., Ims R. A. 2003. Selecting indicator traits for monitoring land use impacts: birds in northern coastal birch forests. Ecol. Applications 13: 999-1012.
• Huhta E., Jökimaki J. 2001. Breeding occupancy and success of two hole-nesting passerines: the impact of fragmentation caused by forestry. Ecography 24: 431-440.
• Imbeau L., Mönkkönen M., Desrochers A. 2001. Long-term effects of forestry on birds of the eastern Canadian boreal forests: a comparison with Fennoscandia. Conserv. Biol. 15:1151-1162.
• Imbeau L., Savard J. P. L., Gagnon, R. 1999. Comparing bird assemblages in successional black spruce stands originating from fire and logging. Can. J. Zool. 77: 1850-1860.
• Jackson J. A., Jackson B. J. S. 2004. Ecological relationships between fungi and woodpecker cavity sites. Condor 106: 37-49.
• Jobson J. D. 1992. Applied multivariate data analysis. Vol. II. Categorical and multivariate methods. Springer-Verlag, New York.
• Johnsson K., Nilsson S. G., Tjernberg M. 1993. Characteristics and utilization of old Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius holes by hole-nesting species. Ibis 135: 410-416.
• Koenig W. D. 2003. European Starlings and their effect on native cavity-nesting birds. Conserv. Biol. 17:1134-1140.
• Korol J. J., Hutto R. L. 1984. Factors affecting nest site location in Gila Woodpeckers. Condor 86: 73-78.
• Krištín A., Žilinec M. 1997. Nest box occupancy and breeding success of hole-nesting passerines at various conditions in beech forests. Folia Zool. 46: 229-241.
• Lehmkuhl J. F., Everett R. L., Schellhaas R., Ohlson P., Keenum D., Riesterer H., Spurbeck D. 2003. Cavities in snags along a wildfire chronosequence in eastern Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 67: 219-228.
• Li P., Martin T. E. 1991. Nest-site selection and nesting success of cavity-nesting birds in high elevation forest drainages. Auk 108: 405-418.
• Martin K., Aitken K. E. H., Wiebe К. L. 2004. Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 106: 5-19.
• Martin K., Eadie J. M. 1999. Nest webs: a community-wide approach to the management and conservation of cavitynesting forest birds. For. Ecol. Manage. 115: 243-257.
• Martin T. E., Li P. 1992. Life history traits of open- vs. cavitynesting birds. Ecology 73:579-592.
• Miera C. 1978. Zur Brutbiologie des Zwergschnäppers. Falke 25: 120-127.
• Mikusiński G. 1995. Population trends in black woodpecker in relation to changes and characteristics of European forests. Ecography 18: 363-369.
• Mikusiński G., Angelstam P. 1997. European woodpeckers and anthropogenic habitat change: a review. Vogelwelt 118: 277-283.
• Minot E. O. 1981. Effects of interspecific competition for food in breeding Blue and Great Tits. J. Anim. Ecol. 50: 375-385.
• Mitrus C. 2003. A comparison of the breeding ecology of Collared Flycatchers nesting in boxes and natural cavities. J. Field Ornithol. 74: 293-299.
• Mitrus C., Soćko В. 2004. Natural nest sites of the Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula parva in a primeval forest. Acta Ornithol. 39: 53-57.
• Møller A. P. 1989. Parasites, predators and nest boxes: fact and artifacts in nest box studies of birds? Oikos 56: 421-424.
• Moriarty J. J., McComb W. C. 1983. The long-term effect of timber stand improvement on snag and cavity densities in the central Appalachians. In: Davis J. W., Goodwin G. A., Ockenfels R. A. (eds). Snag habitat management: Proc. Symp. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-99, Flagstaff, Arizona, pp. 40-44.
• Newton I.1994. The role of nest site in limiting the numbers of hole nesting birds: a review. Biol. Conserv. 70: 265-276.
• Nilsson S. G. 1984a. Clutch size and breeding success of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca in natural tree-holes. Ibis 126: 407-410.
• Nilsson S. G. 1984b. The evolution of nest-site selection among hole-nesting birds: the importance of nest predation and competition. Ornis Scand. 15: 167-175.
• Perrins С. M. 1979. British tits. Collins, London.
• Peters W. D., Grubb T. C. Jr. 1983. An experimental analysis of sex-specific foraging in the Downy Woodpecker, Picoides pubescens. Ecology 64:1437-1443.
• Peterson B., Gauthier G. 1985. Nest site use by cavity-nesting birds of the Cariboo Parkland, British Columbia. Wilson Bull. 97: 319-331.
• Pettersson B. 1985. Extinction of an isolated population of the Middle Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos medius (L.) in Sweden and its relation to general theories on extinction. Biol. Conserv. 32: 335-353.
• Pogue D. W., Schnell G. D. 1994. Habitat characterization of secondary cavity-nesting birds in Oklahoma. Wilson Bull. 106: 203-226.
• Purcell K. L., Verner J., Oring L. W. 1997. A comparison of the breeding ecology of birds nesting in boxes and tree cavities. Auk 114: 646-656.
• Rendell W. B., Robertson R. J. 1989. Nest-site characteristics, reproductive success and cavity availability for tree swallows breeding in natural cavities. Condor 91: 875-885.
• Rogacheva H. V., Syroechkovski E. E., Bourski О. V., Moroz A. A., Sheftel В. I. 1991. [Birds of the Central-Siberian Biosphere Reserve. Vol. II. Passerine birds]. In: Institute of Animal Morphology and Ecology (ed.). [Biological resources and biocenoses of the Yenisey taiga]. USSR Academy of Science, Moscow, pp. 32-152.
• Rolstad J., Loken В., Rolstad E. 2000. Habitat selection as a hierarchical spatial process: the Green Woodpecker at the northern edge of its distribution range. Oecologia 124: 116-129.
• Sachslehner L. M. 1995. Reviermerkmale und Brutplatzwahl in einer Naturhöhlen-Population des Halsbandschnäppers Ficedula albicollis im Wienerwald, Österreich. Vogelwelt 116: 245-254.
• Sandström U. 1991. Enhanced predation rates on cavity bird nests at deciduous forest edges — an experimental study. Ornis Fennica 68: 93-98.
• Sandström U. 1992. Cavities in trees: their occurrence, formation and importance for hole-nesting birds in relation to silvicultural practice. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Department of Wildlife Ecology, Report 24, Uppsala.
• Sedgwick J. A. 1997. Sequential cavity use in a cottonwood bottomland. Condor 99: 880-887.
• Smith K. W. 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.
• Stauffer D. F., Best L. B. 1982. Nest-site selection by cavitynesting birds of riparian habitats in Iowa. Wilson Bull. 94: 329-337.
• Stenberg I.1996. Nest site selection in six woodpecker species. Fauna Norvegica Ser. C Cinclus 19: 21-38.
• van Balen J. H., Booy C. J. H., van Franeker J. A., Osieck E. R. 1982. Studies on hole-nesting birds in natural nest sites. 1. Availability and occupation of natural nest sites. Ardea 70: 1-24.
• Walankiewicz W. 1991. Do secondary cavity-nesting birds suffer more from competition for cavities or from predation in a primeval deciduous forest? Nat. Areas J. 11: 203-212.
• Walankiewicz W. 2002. Breeding losses in the Collared Flycatcher Ficedula albicollis caused by nest predators in the Białowieża National Park (Poland). Acta Ornithol. 37: 21-26.
• Wesołowski T. 1989. Nest-sites of hole-nesters in a primaeval temperate forest (Białowieża National Park, Poland). Acta Ornithol. 25: 321-351.
• Wesołowski T. 1995. Value of Białowieża forest for the conservation of White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos in Poland. Biol. Conserv. 71:69-75.
• Wesołowski T. 1996. Natural nest sites of marsh tit (Parus palustris) in a primaeval forest (Białowieża National Park, Poland). Vogelwarte 38: 235-249.
• Wesołowski T. 2002. Anti-predator adaptations in nesting Marsh Tits Parus palustris: the role of nest-site security. Ibis 144: 593-601.
• Wesołowski T., Stańska M. 2001. High ectoparasite loads in hole-nesting birds: a nestbox bias? J. Avian Biol. 32: 281-285.
• Wesołowski T., Tomiałojć L. 1986. The breeding ecology of woodpeckers in a temperate primaeval forest — preliminary data. Acta Ornithol. 22:1-21.
• Wiebe K. L. 2001. Microclimate of tree cavity nests: Is it important for reproductive success in Northern Flickers? Auk 118: 412-421.
• Willner G. R., Gates J. E., Devlin W. J. 1983. Nest box use by cavity-nesting birds. Am. Mid. Nat. 109: 194-201.
• Wübbenhorst J., Südbeck P. 2003. Woodpeckers as indicators for sustainable forestry? First results of a study from Lower Saxony. Nationalpark Berchtesgaden Forschungsbericht 48:179-192.