Are artificial burrows efficient conservation tools for seabirds? A case study of two sympatric shearwaters on neighbouring islands and guidelines for improvement

Bourgeois, Karen; Dromzée, Sylvain; Vidal, Éric

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.002

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Except for some seabirds and owls (Smith & Belthoff 2001;Bourgeois et al 2015), techniques aimed at cavity-nesting birds breeding in sandstone cavities and burrows involve mainly habitat management (e.g. sandy slope restoration, Moffatt et al 2005;Heneberg 2009;Wang et al 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Artificial nest-sites for burrow-nesting species must meet both these species' requirements and also specific criteria such as resistance to collapse. Most of the research in this field is about burrow-nesting seabird and owl species nesting in artificial nest-sites (Collins & Landry 1977;Priddel & Carlile 1995;Smith & Belthoff 2001;Bolton et al 2004;Sutherland et al 2014;Bourgeois et al 2015). The efforts for the conservation of burrow-dwelling animals mainly address habitat changes like slope management (Moffatt et al 2005;Heneberg 2009Heneberg , 2012Wang et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Natural cavity restoration as an alternative to nest box supplementation

Valera

Václav

Calero-Torralbo

et al. 2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nest box supplementation is widely used to increase nest‐site availability for cavity nesting animals but the analysis of its effects on individuals breeding in natural cavities is often neglected. This study offers a novel restoration technique to revert abandonment of natural breeding sites by a secondary cavity avian bird, the European roller (Coracias garrulus), and other ecologically similar species. We found that, after a program of nest box supplementation with ensuing monitoring, rollers gradually abandon nesting in natural and seminatural cavities in favor of nest boxes because the latter are of higher quality. We examine whether reducing the entrance size of natural and seminatural cavities improves their suitability for rollers. A 6‐year program reduced the diameter of the entrance of sandstone cavities and cavities in bridges. This led to a high occupancy (59%) of manipulated nest‐sites. Manipulated sites were most frequently occupied by rollers and little owls (Athene noctua) (31 and 18% of sites, respectively). Manipulation did not affect clutch size or fledgling success. We suggest that nest‐site diversity and nesting in natural cavities should be preserved to reduce nest box dependence. Our study illustrates the value of nest boxes when used alongside restoration of natural breeding sites and provides insights for the management of natural cavities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural cavity restoration as an alternative to nest box supplementation

Valera

Václav

Calero-Torralbo

et al. 2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, shelters for reptiles are positioned to replace disappearing stone walls and hedges (Grillet et al, 2010), bat boxes to compensate for felled cavity trees or restored buildings (Flaquer, Torre & Ruiz-Jarillo, 2006), and nest-boxes to provide additional breeding places for birds and mammals (Goldingay & Stevens, 2009). Yet despite their extensive use in conservation and offsetting programmes, robust evaluations of the benefit of artificial devices in terms of the population viability of the target species are rare (Wesołowski, 2011, but see Bourgeois, Dromzée, & Vidal, 2015). The success of artificial devices is generally evaluated using single indicators, for example, colonization by the target species, (Aleman & Laurens, 2013; Avilés & Sanchez, 2000; Chapman & Blockley, 2009) or, in the best cases, their impact on some selected demographic parameters, such as breeding success or survival (see e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success of artificial devices is generally evaluated using single indicators, for example, colonization by the target species, (Aleman & Laurens, 2013; Avilés & Sanchez, 2000; Chapman & Blockley, 2009) or, in the best cases, their impact on some selected demographic parameters, such as breeding success or survival (see e.g. Bourgeois et al, 2015; Libois et al, 2012). However, measuring occupation alone does not necessarily demonstrate any benefit for the population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increased microclimatic variation in artificial nests does not create ecological traps for a secondary cavity breeder

Schwartz

Genouville

Besnard

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

14Artificial devices are increasingly used in conservation measures to mitigate the 15 disappearance of natural habitats. However, few studies have demonstrated their benefits for 16 the target species, and they may pose a risk of creating ecological traps. This occurs when 17 lower individual fitness is found in artificial habitats that are more attractive than their natural 18 equivalents. In this study, we tested the ecological trap hypothesis on a dense population of 19 European rollers Coracias garrulus breeding in both natural cavities and nest-boxes. Our 20 initial hypothesis was that the more stressful microclimatic conditions of nest-boxes would 21 lead to reduced fitness of rollers, thus creating an ecological trap. The results showed that 22 nest-boxes were preferred over natural cavities. Despite significantly more extreme 23 microclimatic conditions in nest-boxes, we found similar breeding parameters between 24 artificial and natural nest types. Our results also suggest that rollers selected the nest-boxes 25 which best buffered the temperature, thus avoiding potential ecological traps. Overall our 26 results lead to the conclusion that nest-boxes do not create ecological traps for rollers in this 27 study site. However, other species may be more sensitive to microclimatic variations or less 28 able to avoid the least favourable nest-boxes. These findings could help to inform the 29 placement of nest-boxes in order to reduce extreme temperatures and variation in humidity 30 rates. Future studies could compare nest types for other fitness parameters, such as juvenile 31 body condition or survival. We also recommend the ecological trap hypothesis as a useful 32 framework to evaluate the outcomes of artificial devices used for conservation. 33 3 Keywords 34 European roller; Coracias garrulus; nest box; natural cavities; preference; buffering capacity; 35 temperature; humidity 36 4

show abstract